Finger Wag

A district court judge’s DWI conviction drew a censure from the North Carolina Supreme Court notwithstanding the facts that he was driving during court hours with his minor child in the car and called the state trooper a “f*cking assh*le”

In the case at hand, the [Judicial Standards] Commission was extremely troubled by Respondent’s behavior surrounding Respondent’s arrest on September 25, 2023, given that [(]1) notwithstanding Respondent was scheduled for an administrative day, the event occurred on an otherwise regular work day during regular court hours, (2) Respondent was picking up his minor child from school at the time, (3) Respondent had his minor child in the car with him while he was extremely intoxicated, (4) Respondent utilized his judicial title in an attempt to avoid criminal prosecution, and (5) Respondent was otherwise uncooperative, exhibiting behavior unbecoming of a judge in his interactions with law enforcement while at the scene.

However, the Commission also acknowledged that Respondent has conducted himself in an exemplary manner since his arrest by (1) self-reporting his conduct to various entities, including the Commission, (2) immediately submitting himself to inpatient rehabilitation, (3) accepting criminal responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty to DWI on April 4, 2024, (4) accepting responsibility for his judicial misconduct on November 8, 2024, at his Commission hearing and fully cooperating with the Commission’s investigation, and (5) based on reports from himself and others, taking the steps necessary to maintain his sobriety.

The court on sanction

We conclude that the facts of this case are more closely akin to LeBarre although more egregious than the misconduct in LeBarre. Here, respondent was driving while intoxicated—with his minor child in the car—and he was involved in an accident which endangered the safety of his child and another driver. Additionally, respondent had an extremely high blood alcohol level and was driving while intoxicated during normal work hours. Because of these aggravating factors, we requested additional briefing from the parties to consider whether censure was, in fact, the appropriate recommendation. Neither the Commission nor respondent provided additional briefing.

The Court concludes that the Commission’s findings of fact establish that respondent did, in fact, willfully engage in misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Although respondent’s behavior on the day of the incident here was more troubling and severe than the behavior leading to the censure issued in LeBarre, we appreciate that respondent self-reported the incident to the Commission, immediately underwent treatment for alcohol abuse, and cooperated with the Commission’s investigation. Respondent recognizes that his conduct warrants disciplinary consequences and agreed to the recommended action. Weighing the severity and extent of respondent’s misconduct against his acknowledgement and cooperation, we conclude that the Commission’s recommendation of censure is appropriate and supported by the Commission’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Although we have ultimately decided to accept  the Commission’s recommendation of censure, we emphasize that, under these facts, censure is the minimum acceptable consequence for respondent’s conduct.

Justice BERGER (reluctantly) concurring

District court judges function where the law meets the average citizen— domestic cases, traffic offenses, relatively minor violations of criminal law. They are not shielded from public view like monks in the judicial monastery but are the real faces of justice in their communities. With this comes somewhat of an obvious truth: a judge who cannot govern his own conduct has no claim to govern anyone else’s.

I would not write separately if respondent had done the appropriate thing and resigned, or if this were the run of the mill Level V DWI that respondent here sees every day: a .08 alcohol concentration where the defendant was polite and cooperative. But it was not. This was a Level I DWI where a sitting judge was involved in an accident, blew a .23 on the Intox EC/IR II before refusing his second sample, had his minor child in the vehicle, attempted to use his judicial position to influence the state trooper, was belligerent to the state trooper, and then called the state trooper “a fucking asshole.”

Certainly, judges have faults and make mistakes just like anyone else. They are regular people who, on occasion, may drink too much, have heated disagreements with spouses or coworkers, and show emotion when mishaps occur. These behaviors are not atypical, even for judges, and there is some measure of grace that should be available for screw ups and lapses of judgment. People are people, and judges do not cease being human simply because they put on a robe. But the consequence here should be more than mere finger wagging.

If this Court’s “guidepost in determining the appropriate sanctions is the impact of the conduct on public confidence in our judicial system and ensuring the honor and integrity of judges who serve the people of this state,” In re Foster, 385 N.C. 675, 690–91 (2024), then we have fallen short.

Because the tradition of this Court is for unanimity in Judicial Standards cases, I reluctantly concur.

(Mike Frisch)