Court Opinion

ID: 9664532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:20:50.977635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:07.058248
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result achieved by the majority but wish to state my reasons separately. I would deny the motion to disqualify Special Justice Chenoweth because the *411error, if any, was non prejudicial in view of the fact that the final vote was at least 4-2. Moreover, recusal is a personal matter to be decided by each individual justice or judge in the absence of any so-called per se disqualification or statutory prohibition. The Constitution is silent on the subject and the majority has a right to decide such questions even though they might be mistaken in their opinion. This motion is out of time because it was filed only after an adverse opinion had been rendered.
In my view the Constitutional system never envisioned the appointment of less than two special justices. Section 110 and K.R.S. 26A.015(3)(a) Section 110(5)(b) relates only to courts other than the Supreme Court. The procedure of 1989 is a well-meant attempt to address a situation mistakenly thought to be a problem; as such it must fail because it is in conflict with the Constitution. See SCR 1.020 which has long set out the rule to be followed when the Court is equally divided.