Moore v. State
313 Ga. App. 519
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Moore appeals denial of motion to recuse Judge Robert J. James from presiding over his motion to suppress evidence and statements.
- Moore is indicted for trafficking cocaine and possession of marijuana; he alleges Judge James harbored bias against suppression motions.
- Judge James denied the recusal motion without a hearing, finding it untimely and legally insufficient.
- Uniform Superior Court Rule 25.1 requires timely affidavits; 25.3 requires preliminary assessment and possible reassignment if warranted.
- Defense affidavit relies on Open Records Act requests and a listserv inquiry; content described as hearsay and lacking specificity.
- Court holds the affidavit fails the required specificity and extrajudicial-bias standard; remedy is appeal, not recusal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the affidavit | Moore asserts bias with time/place specifics. | Affidavit is legally insufficient and conclusory. | Affidavit insufficient; denial affirmed. |
| Timeliness of recusal motion | Timeliness should be evaluated; policy indicates bias well before filing. | Timeliness rejected based on insufficiency. | Timeliness not reached due to legally insufficient affidavit. |
| Need for referral/hearing on recusal | Motion should be heard by another judge. | No hearing required if affidavit deficient. | No abuse; no referral necessary given insufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaughn v. State, 247 Ga.App. 368 (Ga. App. 2000) (recusal timeliness and sufficiency framework)
- Wellons v. State, 266 Ga. 77 (Ga. 1995) (hearsay and specificity concerns in affidavits)
- Rice v. Cannon, 283 Ga.App. 438 (Ga. App. 2007) (evidentiary sufficiency in affidavits)
- Hill v. Clayton County Bd. of Commrs., 283 Ga. App. 15 (Ga. App. 2006) (standards for bias and recusal)
- Smith v. State, 250 Ga. 438 (Ga. 1983) (precedent on trial court discretion in recusal)
- Gude v. State, 289 Ga. 46 (Ga. 2011) (Canon 3(E) and recusal standards)
- Simprop Acquisition Co. v. The L. Simpson Charitable Remainder Unitrust, 305 Ga.App. 564 (Ga. App. 2010) (procedural framework for recusal motions)