370 N.C. 595
N.C.2018Background
- On April 2, 2015, Deputy Commissioner William H. Shipley was involved in a traffic collision while attempting a left turn in Raleigh; neither driver accepted EMS.
- Deputy Sheriff administered field sobriety tests; officer concluded Shipley was appreciably impaired.
- Breath tests at the detention center reported a .08 alcohol concentration; Shipley was cited for driving while impaired and failing to yield. Charges were later dismissed after the prosecutor’s witness was not produced at district court.
- Shipley voluntarily reported the incident to the Judicial Standards Commission, cooperated with its investigation, completed an alcohol-education program, and entered into a stipulated disposition.
- The Commission found Shipley violated Canons 1 and 2A of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and recommended a public reprimand; Shipley did not contest the Commission’s findings and agreed to the recommended disposition.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo, adopted the Commission’s findings as supported by clear and convincing evidence, and ordered a public reprimand on April 6, 2018.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shipley’s conduct violated Canons 1 and 2A (judicial integrity and compliance with law) | Commission: driving under the influence and causing a collision shows failure to observe appropriate standards and to comply with the law, undermining public confidence | Shipley: disputed some factual assertions (denied failing to yield and .08 reading) but accepted stipulated disposition and remedial steps | Court: Adopted Commission’s findings; conduct violated Canons 1 and 2A and was prejudicial to administration of justice |
| Whether the violations amount to conduct bringing the judicial office into disrepute under N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b) | Commission: misconduct met threshold for conduct prejudicial to administration of justice | Shipley: mitigation (cooperation, education, good record) but did not contest ultimate conclusion | Court: Agreed violations amounted to conduct prejudicial to administration of justice |
| Appropriate discipline for the misconduct | Commission: public reprimand given isolated nature, cooperation, remediation, and exemplary record | Shipley: accepted public reprimand to preserve integrity of judiciary | Court: Affirmed Commission’s recommendation and publicly reprimanded Shipley |
| Standard of review for Commission recommendation | Commission: N/A (Commission recommended discipline) | Shipley: N/A | Court: Acts in original jurisdiction, reviews findings for clear and convincing evidence and may adopt or make its own findings (adopted Commission’s findings) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mack, 369 N.C. 236, 794 S.E.2d 266 (order) (describing Supreme Court’s role in reviewing Commission recommendations and standard of review)
- In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. 418, 722 S.E.2d 496 (order) (explaining scope of review and that Court may adopt Commission findings or make independent findings)