State v. Borrego
105 So. 3d 616
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- State moved to disqualify Judge Hirsch in two felony cases involving fingerprint evidence; affidavits from prosecutor Ko and prosecutor Gilbert alleged preexisting bias and guidance to disqualify; Judge Hirsch allegedly disclosed writings on fingerprint reliability and invited disqualification motions; the judge denied the motion to disqualify; petition for writ of prohibition sought to overturn denial and vacate rulings; the petition relied on Judge Hirsch's conduct and statements rather than his writings alone; appellate review affirmed the necessity to grant disqualification where the judge solicits and promises to grant a motion to disqualify.
- Affidavits alleged that Judge Hirsch told prosecutors to file a motion to disqualify due to his preconceived opinions on fingerprint evidence and that he would grant it; he invited the motions and suggested sua sponte recusal in such cases.
- Record showed the State based its challenge on direct statements by the judge to affiants and identified others present; hearsay was acknowledged as permissible in disqualification motions; the State argued the judge’s preconceptions undermined impartiality.
- The review concluded the trial court was required to grant the disqualification motions and vacated the judge’s rulings; petition granted as to prohibition relief.
- Writ of prohibition sought immediate review of denial of disqualification; court held the judge’s conduct necessitated disqualification and vacated rulings accordingly.
- Record noted the writings themselves were not the basis, only the judge’s statements and offers to recuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disqualification was required based on judge’s invitations and assurances to grant a motion | State asserts bias from judge’s invitations; would grant if filed | Hirsch argues writings not disqualifying; denial justified | Disqualification required; motions should have been granted. |
| Whether the test for legally sufficient disqualification is met by the affidavits | Affidavits show well-grounded fear of bias | Affidavits insufficient to show impartiality concern | Yes; affidavits establish a legally sufficient basis. |
| Whether hearsay can support disqualification | Hearsay within sworn affidavits acceptable | Hearsay should be scrutinized | Hearsay may form basis for disqualification. |
| Whether ex parte communications invalidate the ruling outcome | Ex parte conversations with judge undermine fairness | Ex parte aspect not dispositive | Not dispositive; still requires disqualification based on statements and assurances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983) (impartiality and cautious engagement by judiciary; due process fairness)
- Mickle v. Rowe, 131 So. 331 (Fla.1930) (related authority on impartial adjudication)
- Stevens v. Americana Healthcare Corp. of Naples, 919 So.2d 713 (Fla.2d DCA 2006) (disqualification where judge invites motions and promises to grant)
- Deloach v. State, 911 So.2d 888 (Fla.1st DCA 2005) (judge’s offer to recuse should be honored)
- Cobo v. Pepper, 779 So.2d 599 (Fla.3d DCA 2001) (spontaneous commitment to recuse evidences bias; should not officiate further)
- Pistorino v. Ferguson, 386 So.2d 65 (Fla.3d DCA 1980) (core due process principle: impartial judge; decline to officiate when bias evident)
- Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So.2d 311 (Fla.2d DCA 1999) (hearsay permitted in disqualification motions; sworn filings suffice)