Court Opinion

ID: 9600162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:24:48.267599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:35.724155
License: Public Domain

Sweeney, J.
(dissenting) — The majority opinion fairly and accurately sets out the facts material to the disposition of this case. I disagree with its application of the law and therefore respectfully dissent.
*378The appearance of fairness doctrine provides that a "judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested observer would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” State v. Ladenburg, 67 Wn. App. 749, 754-55, 840 P.2d 228 (1992); State v. Brenner, 53 Wn. App. 367, 374, 768 P.2d 509, review denied, 112 Wn.2d 1020 (1989). The doctrine seeks to prevent " 'the evil of a biased or potentially interested judge or quasi-judicial decisionmaker.’ ” Ladenburg, at 753 (quoting State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596, 619, 826 P.2d 172 (1992)).
A prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer. Ladenburg, at 751. To the extent that a prosecutor acts in a quasi-judicial capacity in determining the charges to file against a defendant, the appearance of fairness doctrine may apply. Laden-burg, at 754. Once, however, prosecution is undertaken and the adversary proceeding commences, the appearance of fairness doctrine does not apply to the prosecutor. Laden-burg, at 754 (once prosecution is undertaken prosecutor’s office is a party to the criminal case, not a decisionmaker).
Here, Shelly Upton and the deputy prosecutor became friends in January 1991. They worked out together at a local gym approximately 4 days a week and had some social contacts. The deputy prosecutor was assigned to Noel Perez’s case in April 1991. At the time she made the decision to file rape and child molestation charges against him, she was aware of the hostile custody dispute, and the hostility between Mr. Perez and the Embree family. She knew Ms. Upton was M.’s blood relative and that Ms. Upton had strong family ties to M., Mr. Embree, and M.’s grandmother, Mary Embree.
Given the facts of this case, I believe that a "reasonably prudent and disinterested observer” could well find the deputy prosecutor’s decision to file the rape and molestation charges against Mr. Perez was based not solely on the evidence, but at least in part on her friendship with M.’s family member. The appearance of fairness doctrine was therefore violated.
*379Although not material for purposes of determining whether the appearance of fairness doctrine was violated, Ladenburg, at 754, my position is supported by events which occurred after Mr. Perez’s prosecution was undertaken. Soon after the charges were filed, the deputy prosecutor recommended that M.’s grandmother be appointed M.’s caregiver during the course of the trial. Prior to and during the course of the trial, the deputy prosecutor discussed the court proceedings with Ms. Upton. Once the trial began, Ms. Upton attended regularly and was present when M. testified. The record further indicates that there were social occasions when the prosecutor saw the victim and her family.
I think the interest in protecting the appearance of fairness and impartiality in the judicial process requires that Mr. Perez be granted a new trial.
Reconsideration denied April 20, 1995.
Review denied at 127 Wn.2d 1014 (1995).