State v. Van Huizen, 392 P.3d 933

At 16, Cooper Van Huizen participated in an aggravated robbery; State charged him under the Serious Youth Offender Act and juvenile court held a bindover hearing to transfer him to district court.
The juvenile judge who conducted the bindover was married to the Chief Criminal Deputy of the Weber County Attorney’s Office (the office prosecuting the case); the judge did not disclose that relationship on the record.
The juvenile court found probable cause and bound Van Huizen over, concluding he had shown only half of his burden under the Act (his interests favored juvenile court but not the public’s).
Van Huizen did not timely appeal the bindover; he later pleaded guilty in district court and was sentenced. While incarcerated he moved to reinstate his appeal time (Manning motion); the district court granted it and he appealed the bindover order.
On appeal Van Huizen argued the juvenile judge should have recused under the Utah Code of Judicial Conduct and that the undisclosed spousal relationship created a due-process risk of bias. The court addressed the Code first and resolved the case on that basis.

Issue	Van Huizen's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile judge was required to recuse under the Utah Code of Judicial Conduct because she was married to the Chief Criminal Deputy prosecuting the case	The marriage created an appearance of partiality; judge had duty to disclose or disqualify and failure to do so deprived him of the opportunity to move to disqualify	The Chief Criminal Deputy is not the sort of "officer" contemplated by the rule or, even if related, any interest is de minimis and does not require recusal	The judge’s marriage to the Chief Criminal Deputy—who was in the chain of command over the prosecutor—created a reasonable appearance of partiality; nondisclosure required vacatur of the bindover and a new hearing before a different judge
Whether Van Huizen must show prejudice (actual bias) to obtain relief for the undisclosed appearance of partiality	No prejudice showing required where judge failed to disclose, party had no opportunity to invoke Rule 29, and judge alone made discretionary bindover determinations (no jury insulation)	Prejudice is required on appeal (harmless-error analysis), per prior Utah precedent	Where the conflict was undisclosed and the defendant had no opportunity to seek disqualification, and the bindover was a discretionary bench determination (no jury), no showing of prejudice was required; vacate and remand for new bindover before a different judge

State v. Alonzo, 973 P.2d 975 (Utah 1998) (discusses when failure to recuse requires prejudice showing on appeal)
State v. Gardner, 789 P.2d 273 (Utah 1989) (applies harmless-error/prejudice review to recusal failures when movant had opportunity to seek disqualification)
Regional Sales Agency, Inc. v. Reichert, 830 P.2d 252 (Utah 1992) (appearance of impropriety that was undisclosed warranted vacatur without prejudice analysis)
State v. Neeley, 748 P.2d 1091 (Utah 1988) (procedural requirement to use recusal mechanisms and implication for prejudice inquiry)
Smith v. Beckman, 683 P.2d 1214 (Colo. App. 1984) (held marriage to prosecutor required disqualification; treated spousal relationship as dispositive)
In re Jacobs, 791 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (declined automatic disqualification for judge married to prosecutor where spouse not personally involved and office large)
Velardo v. Ovitt, 933 A.2d 227 (Vt. 2007) (discusses remedies for undisclosed judicial conflicts and adopts a nuanced approach to harmlessness in ethics violations)