Gude v. State
289 Ga. 46
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Gude was indicted for murder and related offenses in Georgia.
- The State moved to recuse Judge Marvin Arrington; motion referred to the Chief Judge for assignment of another judge.
- Judge Kimberly Adams was appointed to hear the recusal motion; Gude moved Adams to recuse herself.
- Gude alleged Adams had prior prosecutor work in the same DA’s office and owed gratitude to Paul Howard; Howard filed the recusal motion.
- Adams denied recusal, and the order did not sua sponte address potential impartiality concerns; the matter proceeded.
- The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Adams’s denial under the right-for-any-reason standard, while noting a sua sponte duty to recuse when grounds exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Adams should have recused under USCR 25.3. | Gude: Adams’s prior DA role and ties raise bias risk. | Gude’s allegations insufficient to require recusal. | No recusal required under presented facts. |
| Whether the motion to recuse was properly denied based on alleged bias or impartiality. | Gude asserts impartiality might be questioned given sources of potential bias. | Arguments insufficient to show impartiality could be reasonably questioned. | Judge Adams did not err in denying recusal on these allegations. |
| Whether prior employment in the DA's office creates an automatic disqualification. | Yes, prior DA involvement creates appearance of partiality. | Not automatic; requires personal involvement or supervisory role. | Not automatic; recusal not required absent personal involvement/supervisory role. |
| Whether campaign contributions or political ties mandate recusal. | Bd. Adams benefited from DA’s support; potential bias. | Campaign contributions alone do not mandatorily require recusal. | Contributions alone did not compel recusal. |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. State, 246 Ga. 386 (1980) (judge must recuse if previously involved or supervisory in the matter)
- Patterson v. Butler, 187 Ga. App. 740 (1988) (no recusal for ordinary campaign contributions)
- Caperton v. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009) (extreme campaign contribution facts may violate due process)
- People v. Julien, 47 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2002) (recusal not required absent personal involvement or supervisory role)
- Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 541 U.S. 913 (2004) (friendship does not imply recusal where official action is at issue)
- Birt v. State, 256 Ga. 483 (1986) (impartiality may be questioned; standard broadened)
- Phillips v. State, 267 Ga. App. 733 (2004) (trial court has sua sponte recusal duty when grounds exist)