Court Opinion

ID: 9665847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:58:12.286919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:19.421464
License: Public Domain

LAURA DENVIR STITH, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the principal opinion’s determination that Mr. Smulls has not shown that counsel was ineffective in failing to present gunshot residue evidence or further evidence of mitigating circumstances, or in advising Mr. Smulls not to testify. I also agree that he has not shown an entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on the post-conviction claims as to which no hearing was granted.
I disagree with the principal opinion’s determination whether to grant Mr. Smulls post-conviction relief due to the appearance of impropriety created by the comments of Judge Corrigan at the trial and following this Court’s initial opinion in this case, State v. Smulls, 935 S.W.2d 9 (Mo. banc 1996) (Smulls I). As set out below, whether or not Judge Corrigan was in fact biased, his comments themselves caused an appearance of impropriety. This should have led this Court to order post-conviction relief in Smulls I rather than remanding for a further hearing, for, as Smulls I itself noted, the standard for whether a judge should recuse himself or herself is not whether the judge is shown to be biased in fact, but whether, based on the judge’s conduct or comments:
a reasonable person would have factual grounds to find an appearance of impropriety and doubt the impartiality of the court.
935 S.W.2d at 17.1
Judge Corrigan’s comments have been set out at length above, and no purpose would be served by repeating them here. What can be said is that, assuming that Judge Corrigan’s subjective intent in making the remarks was an innocuous one, his remarks nonetheless provide factual grounds on which a reasonable person could find the appearance of impropriety and doubt the impartiality of the judge. To suggest otherwise simply ignores the fact, as stated in Smulls I, that:
It is not the judge to whom we should afford the benefit of the doubt. The rights and due process based expecta*162tions of the parties are the court’s proper focus.
Smulls I, 935 S.W.2d at 26. It also ignores the wisdom, amply demonstrated by the subsequent history of this very litigation, of strictly adhering to a standard of recusal based solely on the reasonable appearance of impropriety. That is why a “judicial statement — on the record or off— that raises a genuine doubt as to the judge’s willingness to follow the law, provides a basis for recusal or, if the judge refuses to recuse, reversal on appeal.” State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 322 (Mo. banc 1996).
Applying these principles here, no one familiar with the continuing saga of this case could deny that the June 1996 decision in Smulls I, and the subsequent history of this case, have engendered great controversy. Immediately following the initial decision, members of the bar took conflicting positions as to whether the facts created an appearance of impropriety of Judge Corrigan and whether he was being treated fairly by this Court. Over the following three and one-half years, a new hearing was held before Judge O’Brien on the issues presented by Mr. Smulls’ Rule 29.15 hearing, and the judge concluded that Judge Corrigan was not biased and Mr. Smulls was not entitled to post-conviction relief.
On appeal, Smulls v. State, 10 S.W.3d 497 (Mo. banc 2000) (Smulls II), did not reach the issue of Mr. Smulls’ entitlement to post-conviction relief, or even directly address Judge Corrigan’s alleged improper comments at the trial. Smulls II addressed issues raised by the very publicity that surrounded this Court’s decision in Smulls I, to wit, whether allowing Judge O’Brien to preside over the Rule 29.15 hearing itself created an appearance of impropriety because of Judge Corrigan’s public statements castigating members of this Court and stating that he had discussed Smulls I with all the judges of the circuit, including Judge O’Brien, and they had agreed with him that it was wrong.
This Court held in Smulls II that these conversations provided a basis on which “a reasonable person could doubt the impartiality of’ Judge O’Brien. 10 S.W.3d at 504. The ensuing controversy among members of the bar and community confirmed that this was the case. “While Judge O’Brien indicated that he could be impartial, and many in the community said they thought he could be impartial, and that they believed that Judge Corrigan himself was not biased and had not shown bias by his comments, others publicly disagreed. But, whether Judge O’Brien or Judge Corrigan were in fact impartial or believed themselves to be is not the issue. A judge cannot judge his own impartiality and the appearance of impropriety cannot be determined by a show of hands. The standard for recusal is whether the facts give reasonable people grounds for doubting the court’s impartiality.
Now Mr. Smulls’ appeal is before this Court yet a third time, some two years after the decision in Smulls II and five and one-half years after the decision in Smulls I. Yet, most of the principal opinion is again directed not to the issue of Mr. Smulls’ guilt or punishment, but to the issues of (1) the propriety and appearance of propriety of Judge Corrigan; (2) the propriety and appearance of propriety of Judge O’Brien in presiding over a hearing into the propriety of his colleague’s conduct; and (3) the propriety of the rulings of Judge Hartenbach in presiding over the hearing into the propriety of the conduct of Judge O’Brien in presiding over the hearing into the propriety of Judge Corri-gan’s conduct.
The route this case took to get here is more circuitous than the most complex *163tongue-twister. Whatever else this series of events serves to show, it demonstrates the wisdom of the teachings of prior cases that doubts as to the appearance of impropriety should be resolved in favor of recu-sal. Otherwise, as occurred here, the focus will become the conduct and character of the judge, whereas the focus should be fairness of the trial of the defendant.
Due to this loss of focus, both the reputations of various judges and Mr. Smulls’ right to a new trial have unfairly been left in doubt for over five years, and the fairness and impartiality of the Missouri judicial system has been repeatedly called into question. It is to avoid just this type of situation that recusal should be ordered where the facts raise even the appearance of impropriety in the eyes of a reasonable person. This Court should have directed in Smulls I that Mr. Smulls’ Rule 29.15 motion be granted. I would so hold now, and remand so that a new trial can be held. This fact scenario simply should not be permitted to continue.2
For the reasons set out above, I concur in part and dissent in part.

. Accord, State v. Jones, 979 S.W.2d 171, 177-78 (Mo. banc 1998); State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 322 (Mo. banc 1996); State v. Nunley, 923 S.W.2d 911, 918 (Mo. banc 1996); State v. Dodd, 944 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Mo.App. S.D.1997); Graham v. State, 11 S.W.3d 807, 813 (Mo.App. S.D.1999).

. I also disagree with the principal opinion’s statement that in order to disqualify Judge O’Brien, Mr. Smulls was required to show that Judges O’Brien and Corrigan had a "special relationship.” While a special relationship would, of course, give a reasonable person "factual grounds to find an appearance of impropriety and doubt the impartiality of the court,’’ Smulls I, 935 S.W.2d at 17, so, too, would the presence of other facts that reasonably called into question the judge’s impartiality. I believe the principal opinion really intends to espouse a narrower principle: that merely being a member of the same circuit as another judge is not a basis for recusal. To create doubt as to impartiality, there must be some “plus factor,” such as, but not limited to, a special relationship of the judges. With this narrower principle, I fully agree.