STATE v. STAEHLE (2022)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

Writ granted. The district judge's self-recusal order refers to prior recusals “due to close relationships with the victims” but is not specific in the instant matter. Rather, the district judge indicates she could “continue to be fair and impartial.” Accordingly, the court of appeal is reversed and the ruling of the trial court is reinstated.

The district judge indicated she could “continue to be fair and impartial,” yet issued a self-recusal order referring to prior recusals “due to close relationships with the victims” but was not specific regarding victims in the instant matter. I would remand this matter to the district court for the purpose of a hearing for clarification and further elaboration by the district judge seeking to be recused.

I dissent from the grant of this application and would deny the writ. In my view, effectively ordering Judge Lemmon to continue to preside over this matter—despite her self-recusal and her statement therein that her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned”—undermines public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice.

Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons. Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons. Griffin, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer.