“The North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct sets forth instances in which a party's motion for recusal of a judge should be granted.” (See Sood v. Sood (2012) 732 S.E.2d 603, 608.)
“The law imposes on the trial judge the duty of absolute impartiality.” (See Nowell v. Neal (1959) 249 N.C. 516, 520.)
“[A] party has a right to be tried before a judge whose impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned.” (See In re V.T (2007) 181 N.C. App. 607.)
“On motion of any party, a judge should disqualify himself/herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned.” (See Zurosky v. Shaffer (2015) 776 S.E.2d 897.)
"When a party requests such a recusal by the trial court, the party must demonstrate objectively that grounds for disqualification actually exist." (See In re Faircloth (2002) 153 N.C. App. 565, 570, 571 S.E.2d 65, 69; In re V.T (2007) 181 N.C. App. 607.)
"The requesting party has the burden of showing through substantial evidence that the judge has such a personal bias, prejudice or interest that he would be unable to rule impartially." (See id.)
"The `bias, prejudice or interest' which requires a trial judge to be recused from a trial has reference to the personal disposition or mental attitude of the trial judge, either favorable or unfavorable, toward a party to the action before him." (See id.)
“This Court reviews de novo whether a party has met the burden of showing through substantial evidence that the judge has such a personal bias, prejudice or interest that he would be unable to rule impartially.” (See Zurosky v. Shaffer (2015) 776 S.E.2d 897.)
“Where there is sufficient force to the allegations to proceed to find facts, or an objective basis for doubt as to the trial court's impartiality, the trial judge should recuse himself or refer the motion to another judge.” (See id.)
It is well settled that “due process standards require that where the trial judge is so embroiled in a controversy with the defendant that there is a likelihood of bias or an appearance of bias, the judge may be unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of the accused, and should recuse himself from the proceeding.” (See In re Nakell (1991) 104 N.C. App. 638, 647.)
It is also well settled that “Canon 3D provides that [n]othing in this Canon shall preclude a judge from disqualifying himself/herself from participating in any proceeding upon the judge's own initiative. While this provision certainly encourages a judge to recuse himself or herself in cases where his or her impartiality may reasonably be questioned upon their own motion, they are not required to do so in the absence of a motion by a party.” (See In re Key (2007) 643 S.E.2d 452, 456 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
