In re Interest of J.K., 300 Neb. 510

Background

In Aug. 2015, minors J.K. and J.G. were separately charged after Y.C. reported sexual assault; preliminary hearing on J.K. included testimony from a police detective about Y.C.’s allegations.
At the preliminary hearing the county judge remarked on the unusual fact Y.C. went to an alleged perpetrator’s residence soon after the incident (questioning her credibility).
District court later suppressed J.K.’s August 17 statement and transferred the matter to juvenile court; the same county judge was assigned to juvenile proceedings.
The State moved to recuse the judge based on (1) the on‑record preliminary hearing comment, (2) an alleged off‑the‑record remark that the judge would replicate the district court’s suppression ruling absent new evidence, and (3) the judge’s conduct at the recusal hearing.
The juvenile court denied recusal, declined to join J.K.’s case with J.G.’s (finding differing procedural postures and potential delay), overruled J.K.’s suppression motion, and ultimately dismissed the petition after adjudication; the State appealed and the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the judge’s denial of recusal and denial of joinder.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge should have been disqualified for bias under Neb. Code of Judicial Conduct § 5‑302.11	State: judge’s on‑record credibility remark, alleged off‑record comment about pre‑deciding suppression, and courtroom conduct show bias	J.K.: comments were judicial rulings or mischaracterized; State waived some claims by not timely raising them; judge said he would follow law	Court: no disqualification. Preliminary remark was judicial (not proof of deep‑seated bias); off‑record allegation not proven (affidavit contradicted; judge’s bench statements are not evidence); some grounds waived for untimely presentation
Whether judge violated prohibition on public/nonpublic comments (§ 5‑302.10(A))	State: on‑record and alleged off‑record statements breached comment rules and impaired fairness	J.K.: State didn’t raise § 5‑302.10(A) before the juvenile court, so claim was waived; remarks were within judicial role	Court: claim under § 5‑302.10(A) was waived because State failed to present it to the juvenile court; no relief granted
Whether judge’s taking the role of witness (testifying) at recusal hearing undermined impartiality	State: judge’s bench statements about off‑record conversation showed partiality	J.K.: judge’s bench statements rebutted affidavit and clarified record; judge may call witnesses sparingly	Court: judge’s bench comments are not evidence under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27‑605; even if considered, facts do not show disqualifying bias
Whether the juvenile court abused discretion in denying joinder of J.K. and J.G. under § 29‑2002(2)	State: cases were joinable and court erred by not conducting statutory analysis	J.K.: juvenile code doesn’t authorize joinder of adjudications; procedural postures differed and joinder would cause delay	Court: did not decide statutory scope of joinder in juvenile cases but held denial was not an abuse of discretion given differing procedural postures and delay concerns

Key Cases Cited

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judge’s prior opinions based on proceedings ordinarily do not warrant recusal)
State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304 (review standard for judicial impartiality and disqualification)
In re Interest of Kendra M., 283 Neb. 1014 (appellate review principles cited)
Lombardo v. Sedlacek, 299 Neb. 400 (abuse of discretion standard for inherent power)
State v. Baird, 259 Neb. 245 (judge may not testify in trial; judge assuming witness role is improper)
State v. Sims, 272 Neb. 811 (discussion of judicial testimony prohibition)
Gibilisco v. Gibilisco, 263 Neb. 27 (discretion in declining relief; referenced regarding joinder/delay)