Court Opinion

ID: 9767255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:14:20.489113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:29.837971
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
concurring specially, with whom Batchelder, J., concurs: The New Hampshire Constitution requires that cases be heard by judges “as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit.” N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 35. Canon 2 of the New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to “avoid” the “appearance of impropriety,” and Canon 3 directs a judge to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding “in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 38, Canon 3 C(1) (Code of Judicial Conduct). If presented with a motion for recusal, I think judges should go to the outer limit of ensuring not only that justice is done, but also that it appears to be done.
In the case at hand, the motion to recuse was not in affidavit form as required by Superior Court Rule 57 when the motion is “grounded upon facts.” Furthermore, no testimony or newspaper clippings were introduced into evidence to support the defendant’s bare allegations that the trial judge was prejudiced against him. The trial judge said he knew nothing about the defendant’s purported opposition to his appointment to the superior court bench, or about any “rump session” of the Senate Judiciary Committee held after the Executive Council confirmed the judge’s nomination, for the purpose of criticizing his lack of trial experience.
On this status of the record, I cannot find an error of law sufficient to reverse the defendant’s conviction, and I therefore concur that the conviction should be affirmed.