In re: Judge James T. Hill ( 2015 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 186A15
FILED 6 NOVEMBER 2015
IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 14-169 & 14-192
JAMES T. HILL, Respondent
This matter is before the Court pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-376 and -377 upon
a recommendation by the Judicial Standards Commission entered 6 May 2015 that
Respondent James T. Hill, a Judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court
Division, Judicial District 14, State of North Carolina, be publicly reprimanded for
conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 3A(1), 3A(3), and 3A(4) of the North Carolina
Code of Judicial Conduct and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
that brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376. This
matter was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 2 September 2015, but
determined on the record without briefs or oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of
the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 2(c) of the Rules for
Supreme Court Review of Recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commission.
No counsel for Judicial Standards Commission or Respondent.
ORDER
By the recommendation of the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission
(Commission), the issue before this Court is whether James T. Hill (Respondent), a
Judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, Judicial District 14,
IN RE HILL
Order of the Court
should be publicly reprimanded for conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 3A(1), 3A(3),
and 3A(4) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and conduct prejudicial to
the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation
of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376. Respondent does not contest the facts or oppose the
Commission’s recommendation that he be publicly reprimanded.
On 2 February 2015, the Commission’s Counsel filed a statement of charges
alleging that Respondent had engaged in inappropriate conduct while presiding over
divorce proceedings in the matter of Morrison v. Morrison, Durham County File No.
14-CVD-0047, by
exhibiting a failure to remain patient, dignified, and
courteous to the parties appearing before him; making
inappropriate comments to the parties before him;
misstating the law when threatening future contempt
proceedings; improperly exercising his contempt powers
thereby denying multiple parties their fundamental rights
of due process; and failing to maintain order and decorum
in the proceedings before him.
Respondent filed a motion on 5 February 2015 to extend time to file an answer,
which the Commission granted on the same day, thereby allowing Respondent until
30 March 2015 to file his response. Opposing counsel did not object to the motion.
On 24 March 2015, the Commission notified Respondent that a hearing would take
place on 10 April 2015. On 10 April 2015, Respondent and the Commission Counsel
filed joint evidentiary and disciplinary stipulations under Commission Rule 22.
-2-
IN RE HILL
Order of the Court
On 6 May 2015, the Commission made its recommendation, which contained
the following stipulated findings of fact:
STIPULATED EVIDENTIARY FACTS
1. The investigative panel of the Commission
alleged that, in the matter of Durham County File No. 14-
CVD-47, Morrison v. Morrison, Respondent engaged in
conduct inappropriate to his judicial office by:
a. exhibiting a failure to remain patient, dignified,
and courteous to the parties appearing before
him;
b. making inappropriate comments to the parties
before him;
c. misstating the law when threatening future
contempt proceedings;
d. improperly exercising his contempt powers
thereby denying multiple parties their
fundamental rights of due process.
2. Respondent presided over a contentious
multi-day custody hearing in Morrison v. Morrison, which
concluded on 7 August 2014[.] Durham County routinely
records each of its domestic court sessions with audio and
visual equipment. The recording in Durham County File
No. 14-CVD-47 shows, after hearing all the evidence and
before announcing a decision, Respondent[ ]was not
patient, dignified, nor courteous with the parties before
him. In a raised voice and sharp tone, Respondent
proceeded to lecture both Mr. and Mrs. Morrison. During
this soliloquy, Respondent made several inappropriate
comments including repeatedly and loudly chastising the
parties that they were acting like idiots. Respondent
admitted during his 22 December 2014 interview with
Commission staff, that he “said all of those things.”
3. When Respondent addressed the parties on 7
August 2014, he threatened them with contempt if either
party violated the Court's order. “And I better not hear
either of you saying anything negative about the other
-3-
IN RE HILL
Order of the Court
party or y’all gonna get a little trip to the Durham County
Bed and Breakfast for contempt of court. And there is no
appeal, you stay until I say you get out.”
4. Respondent's frequent references to the local
jail facility as the “Durham County Bed and Breakfast”
were inappropriate for court. Respondent's statement that
there is no appeal and the parties would not be released
until Respondent said so, is a misstatement of the law. A
person found in criminal or civil contempt may appeal in
the manner provided for appeals in other criminal or civil
actions. See N.C.G.S. § 5A-17 and § 5A-24 (italics omitted).
During his interview with Commission staff, Respondent
admitted, “that was not accurate and I should not have said
that.” Respondent has acknowledged that he misstated the
law when he threatened the parties with future contempt
stating that there would be no appeal, but was attempting
to warn the parties that future conduct could be punished
by the contempt powers of the Court and Respondent
wanted the parties to be aware of the consequences of
future conduct.
5. Respondent, when addressing Ms. Morrison's
contemptuous behavior following a heated verbal exchange
[between Ms. Morrison and Respondent]1, failed to respect
and comply with Chapter 5A of the N.C. General Statutes.
Respondent has indicated his intention was to hold Ms.
Morrison in direct criminal contempt, though he used a
civil commitment form that was available in the courtroom.
However, Respondent failed to follow proper procedure for
either civil or criminal contempt. In the mishandling of his
contempt powers, Respondent did not afford Ms.
[Morrison] the full right to be heard according to the law,
which resulted in a substantial violation to Ms. Morrison’s
due process rights.
6. Respondent also failed to respect and comply
1Here, the video recording of the hearing shows that Respondent and Ms. Morrison
engaged in a verbal exchange.
-4-
IN RE HILL
Order of the Court
with the applicable law when handling the disruptive
behavior of Ms. Morrison's family members in court on
August 7, 2014. Again, Respondent did not follow proper
procedure for either civil or criminal contempt when he
filed Commitment Orders for Civil Contempt for both
Gloria Woods and Sherrod Smith.
7. The effects from Respondent's misconduct in
this matter have been exacerbated by the video footage
capturing the events of this hearing. Because Respondent's
comments and Ms. Morrison's outburst were captured on
video, this incident was highly publicized with media
coverage both locally and nationwide. In addition to the
facts as set forth in this Stipulation, Respondent agrees the
Durham County court video recording of this matter will
also be included in the evidentiary record for these Judicial
Standards inquiries.
8. Respondent has a good reputation in his
community. In the most recent Judicial Performance
Evaluation, Respondent received an overall performance
rating of 4.19. Of the 120 Judges evaluated, the average
was 3.56. The actions identified by the Commission as
misconduct by Respondent appear to be isolated and do not
form any sort of recurring pattern of misconduct.
Respondent has been fully cooperative with the
Commission’s investigation, voluntarily providing
information about the underlying legal matter and fully
and openly admitting error.
9. Respondent, as a trial judge in a custody
action, is to be guided by the principal [sic] of the “best
interest of the child.” Respondent acknowledges that
during his “soliloquy” that he made several inappropriate
comments including repeatedly telling the parties that
they were acting like idiots. The comments by Respondent,
though inappropriate, were an attempt by Respondent to
make the parties aware the most important person
involved in the hearing was the minor child. Respondent's
comments, though inappropriate, were an attempt by
Respondent to act in the best interest of the minor child.
-5-
IN RE HILL
Order of the Court
10. Respondent agreed to stipulations of fact and
disposition to bring closure to this matter and because of
his concern for protecting the integrity of the court system.
While Respondent believed he was acting within the scope
of his discretion and that he was acting to preserve the
integrity of the Court, with the benefit of hindsight, he now
admits and understands his error and that in fact his
actions, even if unintentional and not motivated by malice
or ill-intent, did constitute conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into
disrepute although he did not intend for that to happen.
Respondent believed he was punishing Ms. Morrison and
her family for direct criminal contempt which may be
summarily implemented pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 5A-13.
Respondent now understands every person held in
contempt under this statute is entitled to both notice and
an opportunity to respond. In all future dealings,
Respondent will make every effort to ensure that every
person legally interested in a contempt proceeding receives
their opportunity to be heard according to the law.
11. Respondent was represented by counsel in
these proceedings and entitled to go forward with the
hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on 10 April 2015. However,
after having discussed the matter with his counsel and
reflected upon the circumstances that have brought us to
this juncture, Respondent agreed to accept a
recommendation of public reprimand from the Commission
and to acknowledge that the conduct set out in the
stipulation establishes by clear and convincing evidence
that this conduct is in violation of the North Carolina Code
of Judicial Conduct and is prejudicial to the administration
of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in
violation of [N.C.]G.S. § 7A-376[(b)].
12. Respondent acknowledges the ultimate
jurisdiction for the discipline of judges is vested with the
NC Supreme Court pursuant to Chapter 7A, Article 30 of
the North Carolina General Statutes, which may either
accept, reject, or modify any disciplinary recommendation
-6-
IN RE HILL
Order of the Court
from the Commission. (citations to Commission Exhibits
omitted).
The Commission adopted stipulations that addressed certain procedural issues
and established the Commission's jurisdiction over the hearing. In addition to
findings of fact, the Commission made the following conclusions of law based on clear
and convincing evidence:
1. In his adjudication of the matter of Durham
County File No. 14-C VD-47, Morrison v. Morrison,
Respondent exhibited a failure to remain patient, dignified,
and courteous to the parties appearing before him; made
inappropriate comments to the parties before him;
misstated the law when threatening future contempt
proceedings; and acted in violation of Chapter 5A of the
North Carolina General Statutes, effectively denying those
he held in contempt of their due process rights.
2. Respondent’s actions, as described in
stipulated Findings of Fact One (1) through Seven (7),
constitute violations of Canon 1, Canon 2A, Canon 3A(1),
Canon 3A(3), and Canon 3A(4) of the North Carolina Code
of Judicial Conduct. Respondent’s actions constitute
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that
brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of
N.C.G.S. [§ 7A- 376].
3. Respondent’s conduct, as described in
stipulated Findings of Fact Eight (8) through Twelve (12),
is recognized by the Commission as evidence of his
cooperation with the Commission in its investigation, his
recognition and acknowledgement that his actions were
inappropriate and his promise to avoid similar
inappropriate conduct in the future.
When reviewing a recommendation from the Commission, the Supreme Court
“acts as a court of original jurisdiction, rather than in its typical capacity as an
-7-
IN RE HILL
Order of the Court
appellate court.” In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. 418, 428, 722 S.E.2d 496, 503 (2012)
(order) (quoting In re Badgett, 362 N.C. 202, 207, 657 S.E.2d. 346, 349 (2008) (order)).
We have discretion to “adopt the Commission’s findings of fact if they are supported
by clear and convincing evidence, or [we] may make [our] own findings.” Id. at 428,
722 S.E.2d at 503 (alterations in original) (quoting In re Badgett, 362 N.C. at 206, 657
S.E.2d at 349). The scope of our review is to “first determine if the Commission’s
findings of fact are adequately supported by clear and convincing evidence, and in
turn, whether those findings support its conclusions of law.” Id. at 429, 722 S.E.2d
at 503 (quoting In re Badgett, 362 N.C. at 207, 657 S.E.2d at 349).
After careful review, this Court concludes that the Commission’s findings of fact
are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence in the record. In addition, we
conclude that the Commission’s findings of fact support its conclusions of law. We
therefore accept the Commission’s findings and adopt them as our own. Based upon those
findings and conclusions and the recommendation of the Commission, we conclude and
adjudge that Respondent should be publicly reprimanded.
Therefore, pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-376(b) and -377(a5), it is ordered that
Respondent James T. Hill be PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED for conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of
N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b) and that violates Canons 1, 2A, 3A(1), 3A(3), and 3A(4) of the
North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct.
By order of the Court in Conference, this the 5th day of November, 2015.
-8-
IN RE HILL
Order of the Court
s/Ervin, J.
For the Court
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North
Carolina, this the 5th day of November, 2015.
CHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER
Clerk of the Supreme Court
s/M.C. Hackney
Assistant Clerk
-9-