Opinion

Gouty v. Gouty

  • 74 Ohio St. 3d 1250
  • 657 N.E.2d 1353
  • 1993 Ohio LEXIS 2789
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Oct 27, 1993
Status
Published
Author
Moyer
On the bench
Moyer
Cited by
12 cases
Authority
More cited than 80.5%

judge’s expression of a conditional opinion of the facts or the law “is not sufficient to counter the presumption of the judge’s ability to render a fair decision based upon the evidence later presented at trial”

How later courts described this case

  • judge’s expression of a conditional opinion of the facts or the law “is not sufficient to counter the presumption of the judge’s ability to render a fair decision based upon the evidence later presented at trial”
  • judge not disqualified where she made pretrial statements about possible spousal award and attorney fees

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Moyer, C.J.

This affidavit of disqualification was filed by defendant Carl D. Gouty seeking the disqualification of Judge Yvette McGee Brown from further proceedings in the above-captioned case.

As grounds for disqualification, affiant cites statements made by the judge at a pretrial relative to the possible award of spousal support and attorney fees if the facts and arguments presented at the pretrial are substantiated by the evidence at trial.

In response, the judge states that her preliminary assessment was made based on pretrial statements and arguments of counsel, and that she advised counsel and the parties in open court that her assessment was conditioned upon the facts being substantiated at trial.

*1251 A judge rarely hears preliminary aspects of a case without forming conditional opinions of the facts or law. These conditional opinions often assist the parties and their counsel in identifying and narrowing the issues in controversy and facilitate the settlement of cases prior to trial. However, the formation of these conditional opinions is not sufficient to counter the presumption of the judge’s ability to render a fair decision based upon the evidence later presented at trial. See State v. Cox (1911), 21 Ohio Dec. 299 , 310. For this reason, affiant’s claim of bias and prejudice is found not well taken, the affidavit of disqualification is denied, and the cause shall continue before Judge Brown.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.