Brice Cook v. State of Tennessee

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the post-conviction judge was required to recuse himself because his comments created a reasonable basis to question his impartiality. The court concluded that recusal was required even though the petitioner had not filed a recusal motion. It reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals, vacated the post-conviction court’s judgment, and remanded for a new hearing before a different judge.

Holdings

1. A post-conviction judge must recuse himself when, under the objective standard, a person of ordinary prudence knowing the facts known to the judge would find a reasonable basis to question the judge's impartiality. Judge Coffee's comments and conduct created such a reasonable basis, so Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.11 required his recusal.
2. Cook's failure to file a recusal motion was not dispositive because Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.11 independently obligated the judge to recuse himself under the circumstances, even without a motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the post-conviction judge's comments and conduct created a reasonable basis to question his impartiality under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10, Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.11(A), requiring recusal.
2. Whether Cook's failure to file a written motion for recusal waived or otherwise barred appellate consideration of the recusal issue.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded