Court Opinion

ID: 9744764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:15:28.398567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:51.482650
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER, specially concurring: I agree with the result reached by the majority of the court. However, I do not agree with the majority’s view that the conduct of the judge can be sanctioned or approved. The nature of the evidence is such that no useful purpose would be served by considering such conduct reversible error and requiring a new trial. There can be little doubt but that one of the essential characteristics of our system of justice requires that a question involving a person’s freedom should be decided by an impartial and unbiased tribunal. Avoidance of the appearance of bias is just as important as avoidance of actual bias. Whether a judge has actually made up his mind that a defendant is guilty before the evidence is presented or whether he only appears to have done so, are in either case contrary to our concepts of a fair trial. In this connection I am reminded of the maxim of frontier justice which declares that “we give horse thieves a fair trial before hanging them.” In the instant case the preparation of the presentence report would be unnecessary and a useless act if the charges against the defendant were not proved. In seeking such a presentence report, I do not see how the inference can be avoided that the trial judge had already arrived or appeared to have arrived at a determination that the defendant was guilty. I agree that there can be little harm attached to a presentence report itself, but, as evidence of prejudgment by the trial judge, its substantial implications can not be ignored. Supporting the claim that the trial judge had decided the defendant’s guilt before the evidence was heard is also the colloquy which took place on the day the revocation petition was heard. The State attempted to amend the petition on the day of the hearing. Defense counsel Mr. Schick objected. The following ensued: “MR. SCHICK: Yes. I do object to it being admitted Your Honor. There has been no arraignment or preliminary hearing on the amended charge. We are here today on a final hearing on the original petition. THE COURT: And sentenceing [sic]. MR. SCHICK: I didn’t know we were here for sentenceing [sic] Your Honor. I know we are here on a hearing to revoke probation. THE COURT: If it turns out to be revoked, there is no reason we can’t have the sentenceing [sic].” After completion of the presentation of evidence at the revocation hearing, the court found the defendant had violated the terms of his probation by committing theft and immediately proceeded to a sentencing hearing over the objections of defense counsel. It was at this juncture that defense counsel discovered that the trial court had ordered a supplemental presentence report to be prepared by the probation officer after the petition had been filed. The trial judge did permit the defendant to make a statement in his own behalf, but did not afford defense counsel aany opportunity to present witnesses relative to the sentence to be imposed. On the basis of the foregoing facts and occurrences it seems to me that at least the appearance of impropriety is demonstrated by the court. I doubt the interests of justice are served by condoning such conduct.