Motion to Recuse Judge in Arkansas

Background

“Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 1.2 states as follows: A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” (City of Rockport v. City of Malvern (2010) 374 S.W.3d 660, 665-66 quoting Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 1.2.)

“Judges must refrain from presiding over cases in which they might be interested and must avoid all appearances of bias.” (Nash v. Hendricks (2007) 369 Ark. 60, 67 citing Dolphin v. Wilson (1997) 328 Ark. 1, 942 S.W.2d 815.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“The party seeking recusal must demonstrate bias.” (Kimbrough v. Kimbrough (2003) 83 Ark. App. 179, 185 citing Searcy v. Davenport (2003) 352 Ark. 307, 100 S.W.3d 711.)

“Further, unless there is an objective showing of bias, there must be a communication of bias in order to require recusal for implied bias.” (Id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Recusal matters lie within the discretion of the judge, as already stated in this opinion. Any motion to recuse must first be directed to the circuit court and, if denied, may be an issue on appeal.” (Stilley v. Perry (2008) 372 Ark. 259, 262.)

The Court’s Decision

The Arkansas Supreme Court “has noted that, unless there is an objective showing of bias, there must be a communication of bias in order to require recusal for implied bias, and the mere fact that a judge has ruled against a party is not sufficient to demonstrate bias.” (City of Rockport v. City of Malvern (2010) 374 S.W.3d 660, 666 citing Searcy v. Davenport (2003) 352 Ark. 307, 100 S.W.3d 711.)

“There is a duty not to recuse where no prejudice exists.” (Massongill v. County of Scott (1999) 337 Ark. 281, 287 citing U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Hill (1994) 315 Ark. 685, 870 S.W.2d 383.)