Court Opinion

ID: 9679838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:10:33.568926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:21.959909
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, dissenting. In writing my dissent, I accept the facts set out in the majority opinion — even the trial judge’s statement that he was offended by the juror’s regret regarding Darra Barritt’s guilty verdict and the jury’s recommendation in sentencing. Nor do I question the State’s expressed belief and presumption that the judge was impartial in this case. My concern is one of law. This court’s Administrative Order No. 4 requires a complete record of all proceedings and reads as follows: Unless waived on the record by the parties, it shall be the duty of any circuit court to require that a verbatim record be made of all proceedings pertaining to any contested matter before it. See also Robinson v. State, 353 Ark. 372, 108 S.W.3d 622 (2003). There is no question that the instant case involves a seriously contested matter, namely Barritt’s sentencing. Regardless of whether the judge was offended by the juror’s seeking the judge out in an attempt to obtain a reduction in Barritt’s sentence from that recommended by the jury, the judge had a duty to make a verbatim record on the issue, and he failed to do so. Clearly, a judge is presumed to be impartial; however, it is just as clear that a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s professional and personal conduct.1 Here, when the judge first learned that the juror wanted to visit with the judge regarding Barritt’s case and sentence, the judge should have informed the juror that this matter must be on the record, and then advised the parties and respective counsel of the need for a record. Obviously, without such a disclosure, the parties and counsel had no opportunity to voice an objection or waive making a record of the matter. In Robinson, supra, we announced to the bench and the bar that this court will strictly construe and apply Administrative Order No. 4. For the reasons above, I would reverse and remand for resentencing and appoint a different judge to preside over the case.   The appearance of impropriety is particularly of concern because in this case, the judge reduced Barritt’s sentence.