Motion to Recuse Judge in Kansas

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Recuse Judge

"A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." (See Garcia v. State (2020) 469 P.3d 105, 1; Supreme Court Rule 601B, Rule 2.11 (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 454).)

“The Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct also requires that [a] judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially. ‘Impartial’ mean absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues that may come before a judge." (See id.)

This includes “when the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” (See State v. Goetz (2013) 308 P.3d 31; State v. Schaeffer (2012) 295 Kan. 872, 876, 286 P.3d 889.)

“Recusal is appropriate when the facts and circumstances of the case create reasonable doubt concerning the judge's impartiality, not in the mind of the judge himself, or even, necessarily, in the mind of the litigant filing the motion, but rather in the mind of a reasonable person with knowledge of all the circumstances.” (See id.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Recuse Judge

“A litigant may argue at least three substantive bases for a judge's recusal:

1. the statutory factors set forth in K.S.A. 20-311d(c);
2. the standards of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct; and
3. the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

(See Garcia v. State (2020) 469 P.3d 105, 1; State v. Moyer (2015) 306 Kan. 342, 370; Supreme Court Rule 601B (2020) Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct.)

“To successfully argue that a judge should have disqualified himself or herself on appeal, an appellant must show the following:

1. that the judge had a duty to recuse himself or herself under the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct; and
2. that a showing of the judge's actual bias or prejudice warrants reversal.”

(See Garcia v. State (2020) 469 P.3d 105, 442; In re Lucas (2000) 269 Kan. 785, 794, 7 P.3d 1186.)

“An appellate court should find that [d]isqualification of a judge is appropriate when the circumstances and facts of the case create reasonable doubt concerning the judge's impartiality, not in the mind of the judge himself, or even, necessarily, in the mind of the litigant filing the motion, but rather in the mind of a reasonable person with knowledge of all the circumstances.” (See id; In re of (2015) 362 P.3d 1124; State v. Schaeffer (2012) 295 Kan. 872, 876, 286 P.3d 889.)

Standard of Review in Deciding a Motion to Recuse Judge

“Appellate courts exercise de novo review over whether a trial court judge's recusal is required.” (See Garcia v. State (2020) 469 P.3d 105, 1; State v. Moyer (2017) 306 Kan. 342, 369, 410 P.3d 71 [addressing recusals based on due process and statutory factors].)

“The interpretation of a Supreme Court rule, like the interpretation of a statute, is a question of law.” (See id; Kansas Judicial Review v. Stout (2008) 287 Kan. 450, 459, 196 P.3d 1162 [addressing the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct].)

“If a party on appeal wishes to challenge a judge's decision not to recuse from a case, the party must demonstrate that the judge had a duty to recuse and that actual bias or prejudice warrants setting aside the conviction or sentence.” (See Taylor v. State, 124,043, at *6 (Kan. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2022); State v. Robinson (2012) 293 Kan. 1002, Syl. ¶ 19, 270 P.3d 1183; State v. Griffen (1987) 241 Kan. 68, Syl. ¶ 4, 734 P.2d 1089.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Recuse Judge

It is well settled that “when a party alleges that a judge was biased, the party must usually show that the bias was personal. Personal bias does not include a judge's views on matters that arise during the course of litigation or attitudes common to the general public. Rather, personal bias includes a hostile feeling, a spirit of ill will, antagonism, or animosity toward one of the litigants or his counsel, or, conversely, undue favoritism toward the opposing party or the opposing party's counsel.” (See Bloom v. Cline (2015) 336 P.3d 921; State v. Foy (1980) 227 Kan. 405, Syl. ¶ 3, 607 P.2d 481; State v. Reed (2006) 282 Kan. 272, Syl. ¶ 3, 144 P.3d 677.)

As such, it is also well settled that “when a party alleges judicial bias, he or she must first show that the trial judge has a duty to recuse. Second, he or she must show actual bias or prejudice that warrants setting aside the decision. ‘Bias’ refers to the judge's mental attitude toward a party to the lawsuit. Bias and prejudice exist if a judge harbors a hostile feeling or spirit of ill will against one of the litigants, or undue friendship or favoritism toward one. The exception to the actual bias requirement is that bias or prejudice will be presumed when, based on objective standards, the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable." (See In re S.G., No. 123, at *11 (Kan. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2022); State v. Reed (2006) 282 Kan. 272, 277, 144 P.3d 677.)