Hasay, In re
| Decision Date | 03 November 2001 |
| Citation | 686 A.2d 809,546 Pa. 481 |
| Parties | In re John Edward HASAY, District Justice in and for Magistrate District |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Basil G. Russin, Forty Fort, Al Flora, Jr., Wilkes Barre, for J.E. Hasay.
Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO and NEWMAN, JJ.
This is the first appeal from the Court of Judicial Discipline since its creation by constitutional amendment in 1993 and the establishment of the court as a functioning body. The Judicial Conduct Board, created by the same constitutional amendment, is charged with investigation and prosecution of complaints against judicial officers. This is an appeal by the board, appellant, from the dismissal of charges against district justice John Edward Hasay, appellee, following a trial. 1 The board seeks review of two discovery orders by the court as well as the court's dismissal of each of two counts of misconduct lodged against the magistrate. Given the novelty of the issues, we find it necessary to examine the new constitutional provisions in some depth in order to conduct a proper review of the claims presented by the board.
Two constitutional provisions provide fundamental guidance to this court in appeals from the Court of Judicial Discipline:
(2) On appeal [by a judge or justice of the peace from a final adverse order of discipline of the court], the Supreme Court ... shall review the record of the proceedings of the court as follows: on the law, the scope of review is plenary; on the facts, the scope of review is clearly erroneous; and as to sanctions, the scope of review is whether the sanctions imposed were lawful. The Supreme Court ... may revise or reject an order of the court upon a determination that the order did not sustain this standard of review; otherwise the Supreme Court ... shall affirm the order of the court.
(3) An order of the court which dismisses a complaint against a judge or justice of the peace may be appealed by the board to the Supreme Court, but the appeal shall be limited to questions of law. ...
Pa. Const. Art. V, § 18(c)(2) and (3) (emphasis added). It is therefore evident, as a preliminary matter, that the scope of review in this appeal is limited to questions of law. An appeal by a judicial officer challenging an adverse order of discipline is clearly distinguished from an appeal by the Judicial Conduct Board challenging the dismissal of a complaint; this, of course, is the latter. In an appeal by a judicial officer from an order imposing discipline, the standard of review for factual questions is the clearly erroneous standard. Pa. Const. Art. V, § 18(c)(2). In an appeal by the board from the dismissal of a complaint, there is no standard of review for factual questions, because issues of fact are beyond the scope of our review, 2 which "shall be limited to questions of law." Pa. Const. Art. V, § 18(c)(3).
The first two issues raised by the board are challenges to discovery orders, and, as such, do not raise factual questions but are clearly legal questions. Our scope of review is plenary as to these issues.
At the request of appellee prior to trial, the court ordered the board to disclose the identity of the complainant. In addition, the court ordered the board to provide the minutes of the board meeting affecting the investigation of appellee. The board argues that the information was not discoverable because it was confidential, it was not relevant or material, and the discovery order was premised on an erroneous interpretation of the constitution.
Three provisions in the constitution bear on these issues:
(a)(7) The board shall receive and investigate complaints regarding judicial conduct filed by individuals or initiated by the board; issue subpoenas to compel testimony under oath of witnesses, including the subject of the investigation, and to compel the production of documents, books, accounts and other records relevant to the investigation; determine whether there is probable cause to file formal charges against a justice, judge or justice of the peace for conduct proscribed by this section; and present the case in support of the charges before the Court of Judicial Discipline.
(8) Complaints filed with the board or initiated by the board shall not be public information. Statements, testimony, documents, records or other information or evidence acquired by the board in the conduct of an investigation shall not be public information. A justice, judge or justice of the peace who is the subject of a complaint filed with the board or initiated by the board, or of an investigation conducted by the board, shall be apprised of the nature and content of the complaint and afforded an opportunity to respond fully to the complaint prior to any probable cause determination by the board. All proceedings of the board shall be confidential except when the subject of the investigation waives confidentiality....
....
(b)(5) Upon the filing of formal charges with the court by the board, the court shall promptly schedule a hearing or hearings to determine whether a sanction should be imposed against a justice, judge or justice of the peace pursuant to the provisions of this section. The court shall be a court of record, with all the attendant duties and powers appropriate to its function. Formal charges filed with the court shall be a matter of public record. All hearings conducted by the court shall be public proceedings, conducted pursuant to the rules adopted by the court and in accordance with the principles of due process and the law of evidence. Parties appearing before the court shall have a right to discovery pursuant to the rules adopted by the court and shall have the right to subpoena witnesses and to compel the production of documents, books, accounts and other records as relevant. The subject of the charges shall be presumed innocent in any proceeding before the court, and the board shall have the burden of proving the charges by clear and convincing evidence. All decisions of the court shall be in writing and shall contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. A decision of the court may order removal from office, suspension, censure or other discipline as authorized by this section and as warranted by the record.
Pa. Const. Art. V, § 18(a)(7) and (8), and § 18(b)(5).
In construing the above constitutional provisions and ordering the board to disclose the identity of the complainant, the court reasoned as follows. It focused on the language of Pa. Const. Art. V, § 18(a)(8): The court's interpretation of the language is that it does not vest the board with discretion when a subject waives confidentiality. Slip op. at 3, May 10, 1995. The court contrasted the provision giving the board discretionary power to release information when it finds no probable cause to file formal charges. The constitution states:
In acting to dismiss a complaint for lack of probable cause to file formal charges, the board may, at its discretion, issue a statement or report to the complainant or to the subject of the complaint, which may contain the identity of the complainant, the identity of the subject of the complaint, the contents and nature of the complaint, the actions taken in the conduct of the investigation and the results and conclusions of the investigation.
Pa. Const. Art. V, § 18(a)(8). This use of specifically discretionary language in the situation where the board dismisses a complaint for lack of probable cause was understood by the court to reinforce its reading of the earlier wording it interpreted as mandating disclosure when a subject waives confidentiality and the board has not dismissed the complaint. The court viewed the confidentiality provisions as existing to protect only the interests of the judicial officer who is the subject of an investigation. "The people of the Commonwealth, in approving the language of the constitutional amendment to require Board proceedings to remain confidential except when a judicial officer waives that right, did not intend to protect the confidentiality of any other persons involved in a proceeding against a judicial officer." Slip op. at 4, May 10, 1995. Accordingly, it ordered disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
The board counters with the argument that the court's ruling confused the concepts of confidentiality and discoverability, and that the ruling was based on erroneous interpretation of the applicable constitutional provisions.
First, according to the board, the court erroneously construed the following sentences of Pa. Const. Art. V, § 18(a)(8). The section provides:
(8) Complaints filed with the board or initiated by the board shall not be public information. Statements, testimony, documents, records or other information or evidence acquired by the board in the conduct of an investigation shall not be public information.... All proceedings of the board shall be confidential except when the subject of the investigation waives confidentiality.
The court applied the waiver provision of the last quoted sentence to the confidentiality created in the first two sentences. The board argues that such an interpretation ignores the plain meaning of the constitution. The board suggests that the intent of the drafters was to protect a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yancy v. Shatzer
...will not act as a bar when the challenged event is `capable of repetition, yet evading review.'"). Pennsylvania: In re Hasay, 546 Pa. 481, 491, 686 A.2d 809, 814 (1996) ("[T]his matter is technically moot. It is nonetheless justiciable as an exception to the mootness doctrine because it is ......
-
In re Lokuta
...including: * * * * (3) that the Board violated the proceedings governing it. C.J.D.R.P. No. 411(D)(3). Id. at 1028-29. In In re Hasay, 546 Pa. 481, 686 A.2d 809 (1996), the Supreme Court affirmed our holding that the Court of Judicial Discipline — contrary to what the Board was asserting — ......
-
In re Bruno
...and each and every adjudicator is bound by the Constitution and particularly by the mandates of due process”); accord In re Hasay, 546 Pa. 481, 686 A.2d 809, 815 (1996) (disciplinary matter is civil proceeding but, in light of severity of potential sanctions, recognize that jurist is “cloth......
-
In re Lokuta
...diligence." Lokuta I, at 1127. As this is a factual finding, we may only reverse if it is clearly11 A.3d 441erroneous. See In re Hasay, 546 Pa. 481, 686 A.2d 809, 812 (1996) (citing Pa. Const. art. V, § 18(c)(2)) ("In an appeal by a judicial officer from an order imposing discipline, the st......