State v. Jacobs
802 N.W.2d 748
| Minn. | 2011Background
- William Allan Jacobs was charged with two counts of criminal sexual conduct and moved to remove the first judge assigned to the case.
- Jacobs peremptorily removed the first judge under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 14(4), and the case was reassigned to Judge Daniel C. Moreno.
- Jacobs moved to remove Judge Moreno for cause, asserting appearance of partiality because Moreno’s spouse is an assistant Hennepin County Attorney.
- Jacobs did not allege the spouse personally participated in the case; he argued the spouse’s prosecution role created appearance of partiality.
- The Fourth District Chief Judge denied the motion; Jacobs sought a writ of prohibition, which the court of appeals denied.
- The Supreme Court reviews de novo whether the judge is disqualified; the analysis considers specific Rule 2.11 provisions and whether impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does spousal affiliation trigger disqualification under Rule 2.11(A)(2) (b)? | Jacobs: spouse acting as lawyer in the proceeding requires disqualification. | Moreno: spouse did not act in the proceeding and has no personal involvement. | No disqualification under Rule 2.11(A)(2)(b). |
| Does spousal affiliation create disqualification under Rule 2.11(A)(2)(c) for more than de minimis interest? | Jacobs: spouse’s position could substantially affect the proceeding. | Moreno: spouse has no financial or reputational interest in the outcome. | No disqualification under Rule 2.11(A)(2)(c). |
| Whether the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, requiring disqualification under Rule 2.11 when none of the specific provisions apply. | Jacobs asserts appearance of partiality due to spousal affiliation. | Moreno: objective surrounding facts do not create a reasonable question about impartiality. | Moreno was not required to disqualify; no reasonable appearance of partiality. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dorsey, 701 N.W.2d 238 (Minn. 2005) (standard for de novo review of disqualification questions)
- State v. Burrell, 743 N.W.2d 596 (Minn. 2008) (appearance of partiality analyzed; objective test applied)
- McClelland v. McClelland, 359 N.W.2d 7 (Minn. 1984) (appearance of impropriety should not require stepping down without basis)
- Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 861 F.2d 1307 (2d Cir. 1988) (appearance-of-impropriety standard; objective inquiry)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 541 U.S. 913 (S. Ct. 2004) (recusal inquiry informed by informed, reasonable observer)
- Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301 (S. Ct. 2000) (perspective of reasonable observer in recusal analysis)
- In re Wilkins, 780 N.E.2d 842 (Ind. 2003) (objective, informed observer standard for appearance of impropriety)
- Logan, 236 Kan. 79, 689 P.2d 778 (Kan. 1984) (appearance of impartiality considerations)
- Harrell, 546 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. 1996) (prosecutor’s duty and appearance considerations)
- Carr, 826 N.E.2d 295 (Ohio 2005) (government attorney spouse not involved may permit proceedings)
- Beckman, 683 P.2d 1214 (Colo. App. 1984) (marital proximity may create appearance concerns despite lack of involvement)