Court Opinion

ID: 9504360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:56:18.112036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:58.685965
License: Public Domain

WEAVER J.
(concurring). I agree that Judge Noecker should be removed from the bench and join parts I-VI of the majority opinion. The accident, Judge Noecker’s conduct following the accident, and his attempts to deceive the public and the police with incredible explanations of the accident are clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice and undermine the public’s trust and confidence in the judiciary. Therefore, removal is the appropriate discipline.
I also concur in the result that Judge Noecker should not be assessed costs, but for different reasons. Rather than rely on a lack of notice or standards as the reason not to assess costs, I would not assess costs because it appears to me that this Court has no constitutional authority to assess the judge for the costs of the proceedings. Const 1963, art 6, § 30 provides that “the supreme court may censure, suspend with or without salary, retire or remove a judge . ...” Nothing in this constitutional provision gives this Court any authority *19to discipline the judge by assessing the judge the costs of the Judicial Tenure Commission proceedings against him or her.