2012 Ohio 6343
Ohio2012Background
- Prim filed an affidavit of disqualification under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge David T. Matia in CR-97-357925.
- Prim alleges Matia has personal knowledge of material facts and may be called as a witness at hearings on Prim's motion for relief from judgment.
- Matia denied any personal knowledge outside the court record and stated he would not be a witness in Prim's case.
- Prim was convicted in 1998 of aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder, unlawful possession of a dangerous ordnance, and having a weapon while under disability; postconviction relief was denied and resentencing issues arose.
- In 2010, Matia entered a judgment that Prim had already served sentences for certain counts and was without jurisdiction to resentence; he noted Prim was present with counsel and informed of the right to appeal.
- Prim filed a motion for relief from judgment in October 2012 challenging the 2010 entry, alleging a conspiracy to generate a false judgment; the motion remains pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit warrants disqualification for witness-type bias | Prim argues Matia may be a material witness. | Matia contends he is not a material witness and has no disqualifying bias. | No basis to disqualify; not established as a material witness. |
| Whether mere speculation of witness ability suffices to disqualify | Prim asserts possible testimony requires recusal. | Matia asserts speculation is insufficient without unavailable evidence from others. | Speculation alone does not require disqualification. |
| Whether the right to relief from judgment affects disqualification | Prim's pending relief-from-judgment motion implies potential material testimony. | Disqualification is not warranted based on current record; relief from judgment does not compel recusal. | Disqualification denied; proceeding before Matia may continue. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disqualification of Hedric, 127 Ohio St.3d 1227 (Ohio 2009) (disqualification rules for possible witness do not require recusal)
- In re Disqualification of Stuard, 113 Ohio St.3d 1236 (Ohio 2006) (judge not recused when testimony would be cumulative or immaterial)
- In re Disqualification of Gorman, 74 Ohio St.3d 1251 (Ohio 1993) (mere likelihood of witness status insufficient for bias finding)
- In re Disqualification of Flanagan, 127 Ohio St.3d 1236 (Ohio 2009) (significant likelihood judge may be called to testify warrants disqualification)
- In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241 (Ohio 2003) (disqualification as extraordinary remedy; presumptions of impartiality)