Turner v. State
| Decision Date | 30 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. S05A2009.,S05A2009. |
| Citation | 626 S.E.2d 86,280 Ga. 174 |
| Parties | TURNER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jimmy Dodd Berry, D. Victor Reynolds, Berry & Reynolds, Marietta, for Appellant.
Penny Alane Penn, Dist. Atty., Cumming, Jack E. Mallard, Asst. Dist. Atty., Marietta, for Appellee.
We granted interlocutory appellate review in this case to determine whether the trial court properly denied appellant Julia Lynn Turner's motion to recuse the trial judge. Finding no error, we affirm.
Turner, the defendant in a pending murder case in Forsyth County, previously was convicted of a separate murder in Cobb County. Judge Jeffery Bagley is the judge presiding over the Forsyth County proceedings. Turner filed a motion to recuse Judge Bagley, which was assigned to Senior Judge Fred Bishop for a hearing pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 25.3. At the hearing, Turner's mother testified that she believed Judge Bagley was biased because he may have obtained extra-judicial knowledge about the Cobb County case in conversations he had with her and because he knew both her and Turner, as well as the victim in the Forsyth County case. Judge Bagley did not testify, instead submitting a written statement disclosing that he had a passing acquaintance with Turner but denying having any social ties or a working relationship with her. He acknowledged that he was more familiar with Turner's mother because she had worked as secretary to the late chief superior court judge who occupied the suite adjacent to his. He stated, however, that the sole sources of his knowledge about the Cobb County proceedings were newspapers and television news shows and that Turner's mother mentioned the Cobb County case to him only in passing. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Bishop denied Turner's motion but issued a certificate of immediate review which this Court granted.
The Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(E) Disqualification (1), states: "Judges shall disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party." The alleged bias of the judge must be
of such a nature and intensity to prevent the defendant from obtaining a trial uninfluenced by the court's prejudgment. To warrant disqualification of a trial judge the affidavit supporting the recusal motion must give fair support to the charge of a bent of mind that may prevent or impede impartiality of judgment.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. State, 247 Ga. 268, 271(4), 275 S.E.2d 67 (1981). To be disqualifying, the alleged bias must Carter v. State, 246 Ga. 328, 329, 271 S.E.2d 475 (1980). See also Butts v. State, 273 Ga. 760(3), 546 S.E.2d 472 (2001). "Any analysis of the necessity for recusal is necessarily fact-bound, requiring an examination of the nature and extent of any business, personal, social or political associations, and an exercise of judgment concerning just how close and how extensive (and how recent) these associations are or have been." Sears v. State, 262 Ga. 805, 806(1), 426 S.E.2d 553 (1993).
Turner first contends that recusal is necessary because Judge Bagley may have had knowledge of the victim and because of his association with Turner and her mother. These allegations, however, are belied by the record. The record is devoid of any evidence that Judge Bagley knew the victim or had any knowledge of the circumstances surrounding his death. The record also clearly establishes that although Judge Bagley and Turner were acquainted, their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Post v. State
...and the judge whose recusal is sought is the only readily available source of relevant information. See, e.g., Turner v. State, 280 Ga. 174, 174, 626 S.E.2d 86 (2006). In these situations, however, the disclosure must be made in a way that is as objective, dispassionate, and non-argumentati......
-
Heidt v. State
...of Judicial Conduct, and the trial court did not err when it denied his motion to disqualify the trial judge. See Turner v. State, 280 Ga. 174, 175–176, 626 S.E.2d 86 (2006). 4. Heidt claims that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue. He contends that he was ......
-
Walker v. State
...preparation was not inadequate simply because it did not result in pursuit of an impermissible strategy. See Stinchcomb , supra, 280 Ga. at 174 (5), 626 S.E.2d 88.In summary, Walker has failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed any reversible error or that he received ineffective......
-
Barnett v. State
...the defendant from obtaining a trial uninfluenced by the court's prejudgment." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Turner v. State , 280 Ga. 174, 175, 626 S.E.2d 86 (2006). And[t]o be disqualifying, the alleged bias must stem from an extra-judicial source and result in an opinion on the me......
-
Legal Ethics - Patrick Emery Longan
...159. 246. 279 Ga. 726, 620 S.E.2d 827 (2005). 247. Id. at 726, 620 S.E.2d at 827. 248. Id. at 726-27, 620 S.E.2d at 827-28. 249. Id. 250. 280 Ga. 174, 626 S.E.2d 86 (2006). 251. Id. at 174-76, 626 S.E.2d at 87-88. 252. Id. at 176, 626 S.E.2d at 88. 253. 279 Ga. 805, 621 S.E.2d 419 (2005). 2......
-
Administrative Law - Martin M. Wilson and Jennifer A. Blackburn
...280 Ga. at 265, 626 S.E.2d at 85. 168. Id. 169. Id. at 265-66, 626 S.E.2d at 85. 170. Id. 171. Id. at 266, 626 S.E.2d at 85. 172. Id., 626 S.E.2d at 86. 173. Id. at 266-67, 626 S.E.2d at 85-86. 174. Ga. S.B. 380, Sec. 1-2, Reg. Sess. (2006) (amending O.C.G.A. Sec. 2-8-10 (2002 & Supp. 2006)......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law - Dennis J. Webb, Jr., Marcia Mccrory Ernst, Victor A. Ellis, Amitabha Bose, and Joseph L. Cooley
...113. Id. at 264, 626 S.E.2d at 84. 114. Id. 115. Id. 116. Id. 117. Id. 118. Id. at 264-65, 626 S.E.2d at 84-85. 119. Id. at 266-67, 626 S.E.2d at 86. 120. 275 Ga. App. 478, 621 S.E.2d 479 (2005), cert. granted. 121. Id. at 478, 621 S.E.2d at 479. 122. Id. 123. Id. 124. Id. at 479, 621 S.E.2......
-
Appellate Practice and Procedure - Roland F. L. Hall
...Practice and Procedure, 57 Mercer L. Rev. 35, 36-37 (2005). 7. Ladzinske, 280 Ga. at 266-67, 626 S.E.2d at 85-86. 8. Id. at 266, 626 S.E.2d at 86. 9. Id. 10. Id. at 267, 626 S.E.2d at 86. 11. 279 Ga. 652, 619 S.E.2d 679 (2005). 12. Id. at 652, 619 S.E.2d at 680. 13. Id. at 652-53, 619 S.E.2......