In the Matter of the Honorable J. Steven Cox, Judge of the Franklin Circuit Court

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded former Franklin Circuit Court Judge J. Steven Cox and permanently banned him from judicial service. The Court held that Cox violated judicial-conduct rules by engaging in and relying on ex parte communications with a criminal defendant in State v. Guilfoyle and by independently investigating facts relevant to the case. The participating justices disagreed on whether his categorical rejection of fixed-plea agreements constituted an ethical violation, but unanimously agreed on the sanction.

Holdings

1. Judge Cox violated Judicial Conduct Rules 2.9(A) and 2.9(C), as well as Rules 1.2, 2.2, and 2.6, by visiting the criminal defendant without notice, discussing substantive health and mental-condition matters with the defendant and the defendant's parents, failing promptly to notify the parties and provide an opportunity to respond, and relying on the resulting information in ruling on pending motions.
2. The disciplinary proceeding was not moot because Judge Cox could seek reinstatement and could subsequently serve as a senior judge or judge pro tempore.
3. The maximum sanction available under the circumstances was warranted: a public reprimand and permanent ban from serving as a judicial officer.
4. The Court did not decide whether Judge Cox's de facto policy of rejecting fixed-sentence plea agreements violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Chief Justice Rush would have found a violation, but the other participating Justices declined to reach the issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Judge Cox violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in unnotified ex parte communication with a criminal defendant and the defendant's parents concerning substantive matters in a pending case.
2. Whether Judge Cox independently investigated facts and relied on information obtained through the ex parte communication when ruling on motions concerning the defendant's competency and mental condition.
3. Whether Judge Cox's retirement from judicial and legal practice rendered the disciplinary proceeding moot.
4. Whether Judge Cox's categorical rejection of fixed-sentence plea agreements violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Disposition

other