Page:Walls v. State (2000).pdf/1

Rh Charles A. "Jack" WALLS, III v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 99-1267

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered June 29, 2000

[Petition for rehearing denied September 7, 2000.]


 * 1) J—Where the trial judge made public comments to the news media both on the day of the first sentencing and on the day those sentences were reversed by the supreme court; and where, on the day of sentencing, he held an ex parte meeting with the victims and their families and gave each family the gift of a book, the supreme court determined that there had been violations of the code of judicial conduct by the judge's initiating ex parte communications with the victims and their families without the presence of defense counsel and by publicly commenting on a pending proceeding when the comments might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome.
 * 2) J—Reversal and remand due to error by the trial judge do not automatically require recusal of the trial judge who erred; a judge has a duty to sit on a case unless there is a valid reason to disqualify.
 * 3) J—The supreme court does not presume bias on the part of a trial judge but rather presumes impartiality.
 * 4) J—the decision to recuse lies within the discretion of the judge, and to decide whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the supreme court reviews the record to see if prejudice or bias was exhibited.
 * 5) J—The trial judge's comments to the media that he was not influenced by the murders committed by one of defendant's victims and that the terms fixed in the first sentence were within the sentencing guidelines, while inappropriate and ethically suspect under the Judicial Code, fell more into the category of disagreement with the supreme court's decision to reverse rather than bias, and the record gave no suggestion of prejudice on the part of the judge towards appellant after the supreme court's reversal; in fact, at the resentencing hearing, the judge permitted appellant's counsel to proffer videotapes of the televised newscasts for the record, although the proffer was not timely and occurred after sentencing, and he further