2013 WL 2619259
Ct. Jud. Disc. Pa2013Background
- Judicial Conduct Board filed a complaint against Magisterial District Judge Kelly S. Ballentine on February 22, 2013.
- Respondent dismissed three traffic citations and later pled guilty to three counts of Tampering with Public Records or Information, misdemeanors of the second degree, under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4911(a)(1).
- Board charged violations including Rule 2A, Rule 13A.1, Article V, § 18(d)(1) (disrepute and prejudicing administration of justice), and § 17(b) (derivative violation).
- Parties submitted stipulations of fact; the court accepted them as the basis for disposition.
- Sanctions hearing occurred May 17, 2013; the court suspended Respondent without pay to May 31, 2013, then placed her on probation through December 31, 2014, with specified repayment and reporting conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Ballentine violate Rule 2A? | Ballentine dismissed tickets; appearance of impropriety. | Conduct occurred in decision-making; some flexibility in interpretation. | Yes; Ballentine violated Rule 2A. |
| Did Ballentine violate Rule 13A.1? | Conduct violated by engaging in prohibited activity by law. | Guilty plea and stipulated facts establish the violation. | Yes; Rule 13A.1 violated. |
| Does the behavior warrant protection against disrepute and prejudicing the administration of justice? | Dismissal of charges constitutes conduct bringing judiciary into disrepute and prejudicing administration of justice. | Sanctions appropriate given mitigating circumstances. | Yes; violations of Article V, § 18(d)(1) established (disrepute and prejudice). |
| Is Ballentine's conduct a derivative violation of Article V, § 17(b) due to Rule 2A and Rule 13A.2 violations? | Violations trigger § 17(b) derivative consequences. | Derivative exposure acknowledged; but extent of sanction debated. | Yes; automatic, derivative violation of § 17(b) found. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cicchetti, 697 A.2d 297 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1997) (Canon 2 scope and integrity/impartiality interpretation)
- In re Harrington, 877 A.2d 570 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2005) (conduct not in decision-making process can still violate Rule 2A)
- In re Joyce and Terrick, 712 A.2d 834 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1998) (distinguishing district justices vs. judges for §17(b) analysis)
- In re Braig, 527 Pa. 248, 590 A.2d 284 (1991) (misbehavior in office; removal/forfeiture procedures; Article V, §18 discussion)
- Braig v. State Employees Retirement Board, 138 Pa. Commw. 124, 587 A.2d 371 (1991) (related removal/misbehavior framework)