State v. Jacobs, 791 N.W.2d 300

Jacobs charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct; petitioned for writ of prohibition to keep assigned judge from presiding.
State moved to dismiss; separate order denied the motion; petition ultimately denied by the court.
Issue presented: whether the judge's impartiality could be reasonably questioned by the spouse's employment with the county attorney's office.
Court applies Minn. Code Jud. Conduct 2.11 to assess disqualification; spouse's de minimis interest deemed insufficient to cast impartiality into doubt.
Court distinguishes between personal involvement and institutional loyalty of a prosecutor-spouse; spouse’s transfer to civil division does not affect the decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge’s impartiality reasonably questioned due to spouse’s office employment	Jacobs argues impartiality is questionable	State argues spouse’s interest is de minimis; no personal involvement	Not warranted; petition denied

State v. Laughlin, 508 N.W.2d 545 (Minn.App.1993) (set of disqualification standards for judge removal)
State v. Bradford, 618 N.W.2d 782 (Minn.2000) (government prosecutors’ roles and impartiality considerations)
Adair v. State, Dept of Educ., 709 N.W.2d 567 (Mich.2006) (office duties and impartiality in government prosecutions)
State v. Harrell, 546 N.W.2d 118 (Wis.1996) (prosecutor-spouse no financial or reputational interest creating appearance of impropriety)
State v. Dorsey, 701 N.W.2d 238 (Minn.2005) (requires objective examination of potential disqualification)
State v. Vidales, 571 N.W.2d 117 (Neb.App.1997) (distinguishes between personal involvement and perceived conflicts)
Beckman, 683 P.2d 1214 (Colo.App.1984) (Beckman approach used by petitioner; later trend rejected by most jurisdictions)