In re Interest of J.K.
300 Neb. 510
| Neb. | 2018Background
- In August 2015, minors J.K. and J.G. were separately charged after Y.C. alleged sexual assaults; preliminary hearing for J.K. included testimony from a Blair police detective about Y.C.’s account.
- At the preliminary hearing the county judge (later sitting as juvenile judge) made on-the-record comments questioning why the alleged victim would return to the defendants’ residence soon after the incident.
- District court later suppressed J.K.’s August 17 statement and transferred the matter to juvenile court; the same county judge was assigned to the juvenile proceedings.
- The State moved to recuse the judge based on (1) the prior on-the-record credibility comment and (2) alleged off-the-record statements indicating how he would rule; the judge heard the motion and overruled recusal after calling defense counsel to testify and disputing parts of the State’s affidavit.
- The juvenile court denied the State’s motion to join J.K.’s and J.G.’s cases (citing differing procedural postures) and, after adjudication, dismissed the petition against J.K. for failure to prove the allegations.
- The State filed exceptions to the juvenile court’s rulings on recusal and joinder; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed and overruled the State’s exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge should have been recused for bias under Neb. Code of Judicial Conduct §5-302.11 | Judge’s on- and off-the-record statements showed partiality and that he pre-judged suppression issues | Comments were judicial rulings or mischaracterized; no deep-seated antagonism; State waived some bases | Denied; no objective reasonable person would question impartiality; State failed to prove bias |
| Whether judge violated §5-302.10(A) by public or nonpublic comments affecting fairness | On-the-record credibility remark and off-the-record comments impermissibly affected outcome | State did not raise §5-302.10(A) below; claim waived | Waived; not presented timely to juvenile court |
| Whether judge’s statements at recusal hearing (and calling defense counsel) warranted disqualification | Court’s conduct during the recusal hearing demonstrated bias | Trial court statements are not admissible evidence; judge must not be treated as witness; State didn’t present corroborating testimony | Denied; judge’s in-court statements not considered evidentiary and record shows no reliance on extraneous material |
| Whether the juvenile court abused discretion by denying joinder of J.K. and J.G. | Cases were joinable under criminal joinder statute; denial was improper | Joinder would cause undue delay because cases were at different procedural stages; juvenile code may not permit joinder | Denied; even if court had joinder power, denial was not an abuse of discretion due to differing postures and potential delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings and opinions formed during proceedings generally do not constitute bias requiring recusal)
- State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304 (Neb. 2017) (standard for recusal when judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned)
- Lombardo v. Sedlacek, 299 Neb. 400 (Neb. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion standard for inherent powers review)
- Gibilisco v. Gibilisco, 263 Neb. 27 (Neb. 2001) (principle on waiver and timeliness of objections)
- State v. Baird, 259 Neb. 245 (Neb. 2000) (judge may not testify in case being heard; judge’s statements are not evidence)