Opinion ID: 2433485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Judge Recusal

Text: Nicklasson asserts that the trial judge harbored bias both against him and in favor of the state and that the trial judge's refusal to recuse himself violated his right to due process. His claim is based on the trial court's rulings, statements and actions in judicial proceedings directly related to Nicklasson's case. Usually, questions concerning a judge's qualification to hear a case are not constitutional questions; they are, instead, questions answered by common law, statute or the code of judicial conduct. Bracy v. Gramley, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 117 S.Ct. 1793, 1797, 138 L.Ed.2d 97 (1997). In Missouri, recusal of a judge is necessary if a reasonable person would find an appearance of impropriety ... and doubt the impartiality of the court. State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 321 (Mo. banc 1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 149, 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997). A disqualifying bias and prejudice is one with an extrajudicial source that results in the judge forming an opinion on the merits based on something other than what the judge has learned from participation in the case. State v. Hunter, 840 S.W.2d 850, 866 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 926, 113 S.Ct. 3047, 125 L.Ed.2d 732 (1993). Nicklasson finds bias in the trial court's decisions: not to allow attorney participation in death-qualification voir dire; refusing to excuse for cause a venireperson who did not ultimately serve on the jury; to refer to some of the defense expert testimony as junk science (outside the presence of the jury); to express criticism of a member of the defense team; to comment that one defense witness's testimony was refreshing and to state during the questioning of another defense witness let's get on to something that's going to assist this jury in making a decision after overruling an objection by the state; and to ridicule penalty-phase witnesses. We have reviewed each of these assertions and conclude, noting that several are not supported by the record, that none rises to the level of bias or prejudice toward either party arising from an extrajudicial source. Further, none of Nicklasson's claims remotely support a contention that the trial court's conduct in this case affected the jury in its fact determinations or sentence recommendation. The point is denied.