State v. Jacobson

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed Michael Jacobson’s criminal judgment for assault following a bench trial. The court held that the trial judge’s statement that he would be inclined to believe a familiar expert witness created an objective appearance of partiality and constituted disqualification, but that immediate withdrawal was not required because the disqualification did not involve personal bias toward a party or personal knowledge of disputed facts. The court concluded that the parties remitted the disqualification by agreeing to proceed and that Jacobson independently waived the issue by waiting until after judgment to raise it.

Holdings

1. The judge's mere casual or social acquaintance with a disinterested witness did not itself require disqualification, but his admission that he would be inclined to believe the witness when credibility was at issue created an objective appearance of partiality and disqualified him under Canon 3(E).
2. The disqualification did not require the judge's immediate withdrawal because it was not based on personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.
3. Jacobson waived his right to challenge the judge's disqualification by agreeing to proceed after disclosure and, independently, by waiting until after the adverse criminal judgment to seek a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Judge Haskell was disqualified because his stated inclination to believe a prosecution witness created an objective appearance that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
2. Whether the judge's disqualification required immediate withdrawal under North Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(F).
3. Whether the parties remitted or waived the judge's disqualification by agreeing to proceed after disclosure and by failing to object until after entry of the criminal judgment.

Disposition

affirmed