McClain, Matter of, 84S00-9311-JD-1224

• Citation: 662 N.E.2d 935
• Decision Date: 21 March 1996
• Docket Number: No. 84S00-9311-JD-1224,84S00-9311-JD-1224
• Parties: In the Matter of William C. McCLAIN, Judge of the Vigo County Court.
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 935

662 N.E.2d 935

In the Matter of William C. McCLAIN, Judge of the Vigo County Court.

No. 84S00-9311-JD-1224.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 21, 1996.

Ronald E. Elberger, Scott A. Weathers, Bose, McKinney & Evans, Indianapolis, for the respondent.

Meg W. Babcock, Charles M. Kidd, Indiana Comm'n on Judicial Qualifications, Indianapolis, for the Commission.

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION

PER CURIAM.

Background

At issue in this case is whether William C. McClain, the elected judge of the Vigo County Court, has engaged in conduct for which he may be disciplined as a judge and if so, what sanction is appropriate.

The Indiana Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding by virtue of its responsibility for the discipline of attorneys and judges. Ind. Const. art. 7, § 4. Our state Constitution also creates a judicial qualifications commission ("Commission"). Ind. Const. art. 7, § 9. The Commission is responsible for the receipt and investigation of all complaints of misconduct lodged against the judges and justices of this state. Ind. Const. art. 7, § 11; Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 25(I)(B). The Court has also created rules and procedures to govern the judicial disciplinary process. Admis.Disc.R. 25.

In this case, the Commission's investigation of alleged judicial misconduct led to the filing of formal charges against McClain ("Respondent"). Admis.Disc.R. 25(VIII)(G). The Commission's statement of charges alleged that Respondent engaged in a pattern of harassment and abuse of office directed toward a female court employee and her family and boyfriend. Respondent was charged with willful misconduct in office, ¹ willful misconduct unrelated to the judicial office that brings such office into disrepute, ² and with violations of Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. ³

Upon recommendation by the Commission, Respondent was suspended from the performance of his judicial duties with pay, pending the disposition of the charges. Admis.Disc.R. 25(V)(E). Respondent denied any misconduct. By rule, the Court then appointed a panel of Masters to take evidence in a hearing and to report thereon to the Court. Admis.Disc.R. 25(VIII)(I). In this case, three distinguished trial judges were appointed as Masters. The Court wishes to express its gratitude for the diligent and thoughtful work of the Masters in this case.

A hearing was held over several days and evidence was taken. The Respondent was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. After the hearing and following their deliberations, the Masters filed a report to the Court as anticipated by the applicable rules. Adm.Disc.R. 25(VIII)(N). The report contained forty-eight findings of fact ("Findings"), nine findings on matters of credibility ("Credibility Findings"), and four conclusions ("Conclusions"). The Court adopts all the Masters' findings but not all their conclusions.

The harassment of the female court employee and her family charged by the Commission took the form of anonymous phone calls and vulgar unsigned letters, one of which was accompanied by a used condom. The Commission charged that Respondent was responsible for and was involved in the harassment.

The Masters concluded the Commission failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in judicial misconduct. As provided in our rules, the Commission took a different view and filed objections to the Masters' report with its own recommendation. Adm.Disc.R. 25(VIII)(O). The Commission asserts it proved its case, and recommends that Respondent be removed from the bench. The Respondent replied to these objections and to the recommendation of the Commission. Adm.Disc.R. 25(VIII)(P). At that point, this Court began its own review of the case.

We note at the outset that our standard of review of the Masters' report is de novo. In re Drury, 602 N.E.2d 1000, 1002 (Ind.1992). "The recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law are not binding upon the Supreme Court." Admis.Disc.R. 25(VIII)(N)(1); see also Admis.Disc.R. 25(VIII)(P)(3). At the hearing before the Masters, the Commission has the burden of proving misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Admis.Disc.R. 25(VIII)(L)(1). We have held that in our de novo review, the same standard of proof applies. Drury, 602 N.E.2d at 1002.

After a thorough review of the record and findings, we conclude clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Respondent had a participatory role in the sending of the letter which contained the condom and in the pattern of harassment directed toward a court employee and her family. These actions constitute willful misconduct and violate the ethical standards Respondent was obligated to uphold.

Analysis

At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was the judge of the Vigo County Court. Finding 2. In August 1990, an individual named Laura Hauser wrote to Respondent inquiring as to possible employment. Finding 3. After meeting with Hauser for lunch, Respondent made suggestions about how to revise her resume. Finding 4. Hauser then submitted her resume to Respondent. Finding 5. Ultimately, Hauser was hired as a secretary for the local community corrections program operated out of the courthouse offices. Findings 9, 10. Hauser worked in the office across the hall from Respondent. Finding 10.

At around the same time Hauser was hired, an individual named Tom McQueary was employed as the assistant director of the community corrections program. Finding 11. During the ensuing months, the director of the program, Respondent, McQueary, and Hauser would go to lunch together from time to time. Findings 11, 12.

Respondent often gave gifts to the courthouse staff. Finding 15. He included Hauser in this gift-giving. On different occasions he gave her a makeup compact, four T-shirts, a beach souvenir, a black garter, a bumper sticker, a coupon book, an inexpensive tennis bracelet, and flowers. Finding 16. On two separate occasions, Respondent also gave Hauser gifts of money. In both instances, the gifts were cash in the amount of one hundred dollars. Finding 21. One of these gifts took the form of a one hundred dollar tip given by Respondent to Hauser while she was working part-time at a second job as a waitress. Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 248-49. There was no evidence of similar large monetary gifts from Respondent to other court staff.

Respondent asked Hauser to have dinner with him in Indianapolis, an invitation which was declined by Hauser. Finding 26. Respondent also commented to Hauser that she would fit in well with his family. Finding 27. Hauser testified at the hearing that she began to feel intimidated by Respondent and the Masters make no finding to the contrary. Transcript, Vol. I, p. 253.

We find that Respondent, in giving Hauser two gifts of one hundred dollars each, asking her to have dinner at a location over fifty miles away, and in telling her she would fit in well with his family, clearly and convincingly exhibited an interest in Hauser that went beyond mere employer-employee relationship.

Throughout the relevant time period, Hauser was living in Terre Haute and dating a man named Jeff Reeder, who is now her husband. Transcript, Vol. I, p. 267; Finding 24. On one occasion during this general time period in which the gift-giving and dinner invitation were going on, Hauser observed Respondent in his truck near her apartment. Finding 23. Specifically, the Masters found Respondent was observed "in his truck at 11th and Maple in Terre Haute, near her apartment." Finding 23. According to Hauser, she and Reeder followed McClain for some time. Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 268, 269. This story is corroborated by the sworn statements of Reeder. Reeder dep., pp. 65-67.

The Honorable Michael H. Eldred, judge of the Vigo Superior Court, gave testimony we find relevant to this incident. According to Judge Eldred, the Respondent stopped into Judge Eldred's chambers during this time period and stated that something odd had happened to him. According to Judge Eldred, Respondent told him that on the previous weekend, he had received an anonymous phone call stating that there was "some trouble" in the general area of Maple and 11th, that he drove to the area, that he saw Laura Hauser coming out of her house with her boyfriend, and that he then left and filed a police report. Transcript, Vol. II, pp. 60-62.

The Honorable Dexter Bolin, Jr., judge of the Vigo Circuit Court, also testified at the hearing. He too expressly recalled talking to the Respondent about the incident. According to Judge Bolin, Respondent came into his chambers and related that he had received an anonymous phone call advising him of trouble around 10th and Maple, that he went up there and drove around, that he spotted Laura Hauser and Jeff Reeder coming out of an apartment, and that he then left the area and filled out a police report. Transcript, Vol. III, pp. 8-9.

Respondent testified at the hearing that it was his position the incident at 11th and Maple never occurred. Transcript, Vol. III, p. 270. Respondent denies ever having received an anonymous call triggering him to travel to 11th and Maple. McClain dep., pp. 31-32, 34-35; Transcript, Vol. III, p. 268. Respondent also denies telling anyone about such an anonymous phone call and denies filling out a police report. Transcript, Vol. III, pp. 268-70.

Respondent has suggested that Judges Eldred and Bolin heard of the incident from another individual named Brad Kesler, who was for a brief period of time the director of the corrections center. Transcript, Vol. III, pp. 270-71; Respondent's Brief, pp. 52-53, 58. The suggestion is that perhaps the judges are confused about who told them about the incident.

However, Judge Bolin expressly stated that it was Respondent who came into his chambers and related the tale about an anonymous call and seeing Hauser and Reeder near 11th and Maple. Transcript, Vol. III, pp. 8-9. He affirmed his recollection...