In the Matter of The Formal Inquiry Concerning Judge A.P. Fuller.

Decision Date18 May 2011
Docket NumberNo. 25756.,25756.
Citation2011 S.D. 22,798 N.W.2d 408
PartiesIn the Matter of the Formal Inquiry concerning Judge A.P. FULLER.
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Michael J. Schaffer, Schaffer Law Office, Prof., LLC, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorney for Judicial Qualifications Commission.Jack H. Hieb, Zachary W. Peterson of Richardson, Wyly, Wise, Sauck & Hieb, LLP, Aberdeen, South Dakota, and Thomas J. Nicholson of Nicholson & Nicholson, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for Petitioner Judge A.P. Fuller.

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1.] The Judicial Qualifications Commission (Commission) has unanimously recommended to this Court that Judge A.P. “Pete” Fuller be removed or retired as a circuit court judge. Judge Fuller has petitioned for modification or rejection of this recommendation. At oral argument, Judge Fuller's counsel recommended a public censure and reinstatement with conditions attached to it.

[¶ 2.] Upon our independent inquiry, this Court has determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly proves that Judge Fuller engaged in conduct that merits this Court ordering his retirement. We stay this retirement if Judge Fuller consents to numerous conditions including his suspension without pay for six months.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

[¶ 3.] In 1972, South Dakota electors approved the amendment of Article V of the South Dakota Constitution, Judicial Department. The amendment reorganized the article, established a unified judicial system, and made many changes including “the establishment of a judicial qualifications commission.” S.D. Const. art. V, Historical Note; S.D. Const. art. V, § 9.

[¶ 4.] The South Dakota Constitution Article V, § 9 provides:

The Legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of a judicial qualifications commission which have such powers as the Legislature may provide, including the power to investigate complaints against any justice or judge and to conduct confidential hearings concerning the removal or involuntary retirement of a justice or judge. The Supreme Court shall prescribe by rule the means to implement and enforce the powers of the commission. On recommendation of the judicial qualifications commission the Supreme Court, after hearing, may censure, remove or retire a justice or judge for action which constitutes willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, disability that seriously interferes with the performance of the duties or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings a judicial office into disrepute. No justice or judge shall sit in judgment in any hearing involving his own removal or retirement.

Pursuant to this provision, the Legislature in 1973 enacted H.B. 627, “An Act creating a commission on judicial qualifications, prescribing its powers and duties, providing means of implementing its recommendations.” 1973 S.D. Sess. Laws 136. These provisions are codified in SDCL ch. 16–1A.1 This Court prescribed rules to implement and enforce the powers of the Commission which are found in the appendix to SDCL ch. 16–1A.

[¶ 5.] Prior to this case, only one case has been reviewed by this Court under South Dakota Constitution Article V, § 9 and SDCL ch. 16–1A. Matter of Heuermann, 90 S.D. 312, 240 N.W.2d 603 (1976). Two of the issues resolved in Heuermann were the proper standard of proof in proceedings pursuant to SDCL ch. 16–1A and the proper standard of review of the Commission's findings of fact and recommendation. Id. at 315, 240 N.W.2d at 605.

[¶ 6.] As to the appropriate standard of proof in proceedings under SDCL ch. 16–1A this Court held:

We note that it would be inapposite to require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” as this is not a criminal prosecution. Proof by a mere preponderance of the evidence is also inapposite because of the severity of the sanction which can be imposed. We conclude that the proper standard of proof is by “clear and convincing evidence.” Such a standard provides adequate protection for the party subject to charges, but at the same time does not demand so much evidence that the ability of the Commission and this court to effectively oversee the judiciary is impaired.

Id. at 317, 240 N.W.2d at 605.

[¶ 7.] In considering the proper standard of review of the Commission's findings and recommendation, this Court recognized that it “had an obligation to undertake ‘an independent evaluation of the evidence and the recommendation of the Commission.’ Id. at 317, 240 N.W.2d at 606 (quoting In re Hanson, 532 P.2d 303, 308 (Alaska 1975)).

The rationale for requiring an independent evaluation of the evidence and recommendation is that the Act puts the burden of imposing the sanction squarely on the Supreme Court; the Commission has power only to recommend. With the power to impose a punishment comes the concomitant obligation to conduct an independent inquiry into the evidence to determine whether that evidence merits imposition of the sanction recommended.

Thus, in every case brought to this court on a recommendation from the Commission, we must determine whether the evidence clearly and convincingly proves that the petitioner engaged in conduct which, upon our independent inquiry, merits the imposition of the sanction recommended.

Id. (footnote omitted).

[¶ 8.] This Court's decision in Heuermann did not address the weight or deference given to Commission credibility determinations. We agree with the Supreme Court of Washington that when conducting our independent inquiry to determine whether the evidence clearly and convincingly merits the imposition of the recommended sanction, [a]lthough we give considerable weight to the credibility determinations of the Commission and serious consideration to the Commission's recommended sanctions, the ultimate decisions of whether and how to discipline an errant judge falls to the Supreme Court.” In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eiler, 169 Wash.2d 340, 236 P.3d 873, 876 (2010).

[¶ 9.] With these principles in mind we turn to the case before us.

FACTS
I.

[¶ 10.] In May 2010, Glen Brenner, the Pennington County State's Attorney, Steve Allender, the Rapid City Chief of Police, and Don Holloway, the Pennington County Sheriff, filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that Judge Fuller referred to Rapid City police officers as a “bunch of racists” during a police officer's testimony at an April 28, 2010, juvenile proceeding. The complaint alleged 2 that Judge Fuller's comment was inappropriate and violated Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct. SDCL app. 16–2.

[¶ 11.] The Commission forwarded the complaint to Judge Fuller and requested a detailed response. By letter dated June 28, 2010, Judge Fuller simply responded, [t]he allegation is correct.”

[¶ 12.] The Commission elected to investigate the complaint filed against Judge Fuller and issues concerning Judge Fuller's demeanor. Attorney Dave Nelson, then counsel for the Commission, was directed to conduct the investigation. Nelson interviewed a number of individuals including lawyers and court personnel. After Nelson submitted his investigatory report, the Commission voted to institute formal proceedings to “inquire into the charges against the judge.” Rule III(6), Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, SDCL app. 16–1A. A formal complaint, incorporating by reference Nelson's report, was served upon Judge Fuller on September 9, 2010.

[¶ 13.] On September 30, 2010, the Commission held a hearing on its order to show cause why Judge Fuller should not be suspended with compensation, as mandated by the rules of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, during the pendency of these proceedings. Rule III(11), Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, SDCL app. 16–1A. Judge Fuller was present and proceeded without counsel although he understood that he had a right to have counsel present. Following the show-cause hearing the Commission voted unanimously to recommend to this Court that Judge Fuller be suspended with compensation. Ultimately this Court entered an order suspending Judge Fuller with compensation during the pendency of these proceedings.

[¶ 14.] The formal hearing was held December 13, 2010. Prior to the hearing, Commission counsel and Judge Fuller's counsel stipulated that the testimony and exhibits received at the show-cause hearing would be received into evidence at the formal hearing and it would not be necessary to recall those witnesses.

[¶ 15.] Following the hearing, the Commission entered 90 detailed findings of fact and ten conclusions. It unanimously recommended to this Court that “Judge Fuller be removed or retired as a circuit judge” based upon Judge Fuller's “pattern of improper activity and the effect that that improper activity has had on others, including court personnel, attorneys, litigants, and on the judicial system itself.”

II.

[¶ 16.] Judge Fuller was born on February 17, 1943. He received a J.D. from the University of South Dakota School of Law in 1968. Judge Fuller practiced law in Chamberlain, South Dakota for three years. He moved to Lead, South Dakota in 1971 where he practiced law for 32 years. As a lawyer he served on the Commission and was its Chair. He was appointed to the Seventh Circuit bench in March 2003. Judge Fuller was elected to an eight-year term following a contested election in 2006. Until this proceeding Judge Fuller has never been the subject of formal judicial discipline.

[¶ 17.] The evidence in this case reveals a pattern of misconduct that began when Judge Fuller assumed the bench and continued throughout his entire tenure on the bench. While Judge Fuller disputes some of the allegations that led to this proceeding, our focus is on the numerous allegations that he admitted occurred. They are also the most serious.

A.

[¶ 18.] In 2004, Judge Fuller was assigned to the Fall River County judicial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • In the Matter of the Ormal Inquiry Concerning Judge A. P. Fuller
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 18 de maio de 2011
    ......After Nelson submitted his investigatory report, the Commission voted to institute formal proceedings to "inquire into the charges against the judge." Rule III(6), Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, SDCL app. ......
  • State v. Ross
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 25 de julho de 2018
    ...he gestured obscenely at the circuit-court judge. We note that extending one's middle finger "is an obscene or vulgar gesture." In re Fuller , 2011 S.D. 22, ¶ 20 n.3, 798 N.W.2d 408, 413 n.3.[¶ 12.] In Ford , we examined whether a sentencing court could increase an orally pronounced sentenc......
  • State v. Bertram, 28063
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 10 de janeiro de 2018
    ...of evidence. As the State points out, this Court has consistently held that polygraph-test results are not admissible. E.g. , In re Fuller , 2011 S.D. 22, ¶ 25 n.4, 798 N.W.2d 408, 414 n.4 ; Sabag v. Cont'l S.D. , 374 N.W.2d 349, 352 (S.D. 1985) ("In South Dakota criminal cases, polygraph r......
  • St. Pierre v. State ex rel. S.D. Real Estate Comm'n
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 4 de abril de 2012
    ...argument that a complaint in a disciplinary proceeding did not afford “sufficient notice of the specific charges or allegations.” In re Fuller, 2011 S.D. 22, ¶ 32, 798 N.W.2d 408, 415. Like the case we consider today, that respondent contended that “any allegation or evidence not specifical......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • PROMOTING CIVILITY BY ADDRESSING DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT: THE CASE FOR RULE 8.4(g) IN SOUTH DAKOTA.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Law Review Vol. 65 No. 2, June 2020
    • 22 de junho de 2020
    ...the judicial anti-bias provision for making degrading comments about women and Native Americans. In re Formal Inquiry Concerning Fuller, 2011 SD 22, 798 N.W.2d 408. For example, the judge made a sexist comment to a female intern '"that the legal profession was better off before women belong......
  • Bullies on the Bench
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 72-2, February 2012
    • 1 de outubro de 2012
    ...2003) (removing a judge for repeated incidents of intemperance for violating Canons 2(A) and 3(B)(4), among many others); In re Fuller, 798 N.W.2d 408, 413–15, 421–22 (S.D. 2011) (disciplining a trial court judge who was demeaning, disrespectful and rude to lawyers and others in his court, ......
  • Three Likely Causes of Judicial Misbehavior and How these Causes Should Inform Judicial Discipline
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 41-4, December 2013
    • 1 de dezembro de 2013
    ...conduct organizations and courts discipline this type of conduct. 13 Part II also discusses why disciplining 5 Id. 6 In re Fuller, 798 N.W.2d 408, 413 (S.D. 2011). 7 Id. The Supreme Court of South Dakota suspended Judge Fuller from serving on the bench and provided certain conditions that i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT