Rogers v. Wilkins, 21243
| Citation | 275 S.C. 28,267 S.E.2d 86 |
| Decision Date | 28 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 21243,21243 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | Beverly W. ROGERS, Respondent, v. Chilton M. WILKINS, Appellant. Chilton M. WILKINS, Appellant, v. Beverly W. ROGERS, Respondent. Chilton M. WILKINS, Appellant, v. Beverly W. ROGERS, Respondent. |
Chilton M. Wilkins, pro se.
F. Lee Prickett, Jr., St. Matthews, for respondent.
This appeal is from an order denying appellant Chilton M. Wilkins' motion that the trial judge disqualify himself from further participation in these proceedings. 1 We affirm.
The denial of a motion that the presiding judge disqualify himself is, in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary, generally treated as an interlocutory decision not directly appealable. See 4 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error, § 88, 46 Am.Jur.2d Judges, § 222. This Court has never met the issue of the appealability of such an order.
There is no statutory remedy provided by our Code of Laws for the direct appeal of this order. Nor does appellant seek relief by way of petition for writ of mandamus. 2 See annotation, 45 A.L.R.2d 937. Although respondent did not raise the issue we view this decision as interlocutory and, accordingly, hold such orders hereafter reviewable only on appeal from final judgment.
The foregoing notwithstanding, we have reviewed the record and conclude the appeal has no merit.
Appellant contends the trial judge is required to step down by Canon 3(C)(1) (d)(i) of our Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides:
(C) Disqualification.
(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
(d) he or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; . . . .
Rule 33, Supreme Court Rules of Practice.
Appellant brought a Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the trial judge herein and other members of the South Carolina judiciary and bar in federal district court. The case was dismissed as to Judge Eltzroth and the decision affirmed on appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Wilkins v. Rogers, 581 F.2d 399 (4th Cir.1978). Appellant argues that independent proceedings, standing alone, disqualifies the trial judge from participating in these combined actions. We hold it does not.
Canon 3 strictly prohibits a judge from presiding over matters in which he or she, his or her spouse or close kin is a party. But Judge Eltzroth is not a party to the instant proceedings, nor does the record show anyone related to him is a party. Furthermore, there is an absence of independent evidence of bias or prejudice as a result of the § 1983 action. Since this record is totally void of such evidence, it was not error to deny the motion on this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lowenstein
...physically attacked him outside the jury's presence.7 Cases like Olsen v. Wainwright, 565 F.2d 906 (CA 5, 1978), Rogers v. Wilkins, 275 S.C. 28, 267 S.E.2d 86 (1980), and Chamberlain v. State, 453 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), have held that actual prejudice must be shown to require the jud......
-
Matthews v. Evatt
...law provides an appropriate vehicle to obtain recusal of a judge if the facts and circumstances so warrant. See Rogers v. Wilkins, 275 S.C. 28, 267 S.E.2d 86, 87-88 (1980) (motion to recuse must be made during proceeding and show actual judicial prejudice pursuant to S.C.App.Ct. R. 501, Cod......
-
Terry v. State
...Commonwealth v. Leventhal (1974), 364 Mass. 718, 307 N.E.2d 839; State v. Meyer (1980), 45 Or.App. 375, 608 P.2d 582; Rogers v. Wilkins (1980), 275 S.C. 28, 267 S.E.2d 86. This is not to say, of course, that a judge need never recuse when faced with a lawsuit from a litigant. But absent som......
-
Roper v. Dynamique Concepts, Inc.
...allege bias; a party seeking disqualification of a judge must show some evidence of bias or prejudice. Id.; see also Rogers v. Wilkins, 275 S.C. 28, 267 S.E.2d 86 (1980). In the instant case, the trial judge concluded that his objectivity in rendering a decision was not affected by inadvert......