In re Disqualification of Knece - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF KNECE.
THE STATE OF OHIO v. STARKEY.
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Knece (1997), 81 Ohio St.3d 1212.]
Judges -- Affidavit of disqualification -- Disqualification not required when judge
was previously the elected prosecuting attorney at the time defendant was
indicted, convicted, and sentenced -- No violation of Canon 4(E)(1)(b).
(No. 97-AP-057 -- Decided May 2, 1997.)
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Pickaway County
Court of Common Pleas case No. 94-CR-249.

MOYER, C.J. This affidavit of disqualification is filed by James R.
Kingsley, counsel for defendant Charlie Starkey, seeking the disqualification of
Judge P. Randall Knece from presiding over a probation violation proceeding
regarding defendant.

Affiant contends that Judge Knece should be disqualified from the
underlying matter because he was the elected prosecuting attorney at the time the
defendant was indicted, convicted, and sentenced and because his former deputy is
representing the state in this proceeding. Because of this relationship and the fact
that the Pickaway County Prosecuting Attorney's Office is a small office, affiant
asserts that Judge Knece's continued participation in this action creates an
appearance of impropriety that mandates the judge's disqualification from this
matter.

Canon 4(E)(1)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, formerly Canon
3(C)(1)(b), amended effective May 1, 1997, states, in part: "A judge should
disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality
might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where * * *
[t]he judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy [or] a lawyer with

whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a
lawyer concerning the matter * * *." The commentary to the Code amplifies this
provision as it applies to government lawyers, including prosecutors, by stating:
"A lawyer in a government agency does not ordinarily have an association with
other lawyers employed by that agency * * *; a judge formerly employed by a
government agency, however, should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding
if the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of such
association."

Affiant is correct in asserting that Judge Knece was associated with the
state's attorney in this case by virtue of the fact that the judge was the elected
prosecuting attorney in a small office at the time that the defendant was prosecuted
by one of his deputies. However, while affiant speculates that Judge Knece must
have had some exposure to the underlying case as a result of this association,
Judge Knece specifically denies any participation in the defendant's prosecution
and states that he does not recall discussing this case with his former assistants.
Accordingly, I cannot conclude that his disqualification is mandated by Canon
4(E)(1)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the record does not demonstrate
the existence of an interest on the part of Judge Knece in the underlying case that
clearly and adversely impacts on the ability of the defendant to have a fair hearing
before the judge.

For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found to be not well
taken and is denied. The matter shall proceed before Judge Knece.

2