{
  "id": 790162,
  "name": "IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 169, JAMES E. MARTIN, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Inquiry Concerning A Judge, No. 169, Martin",
  "decision_date": "1995-05-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 236A94",
  "first_page": "248",
  "last_page": "250",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "340 N.C. 248"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "82 ALR4th 567",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 4261,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.738,
    "sha256": "067bee68d27502261b02e6d2f756d8dc08459fbe1033fd7bc0943fcb5068efb0",
    "simhash": "1:6ca7b0a8bb85744a",
    "word_count": 683
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:34:40.112900+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 169, JAMES E. MARTIN, Respondent"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER OF CENSURE.\nIt is upon two incidents that the Commission bases its recommendation that respondent be censured: (1) the respondent\u2019s initiation of a series of extensive ex parte communications with both law enforcement personnel and court personnel concerning the fifteen-year-old son of a friend who had been taken into custody for the felonious breaking and entering of a Wal-Mart store, informing personnel that the juvenile was \u201ca good kid,\u201d asking for help on behalf of the juvenile, and expressing respondent\u2019s view that the matter was not one for court; and (2) the respondent\u2019s initiation of ex parte communications with a law enforcement officer concerning an automobile accident which resulted in charges being filed against the driver of a car in which the daughter of respondent\u2019s friend was a passenger and respondent\u2019s expression to the officer of his opinion that the matter was civil rather than criminal, and that if the case came before him he would so declare it, and his suggestion to the officer that he reconsider his assessment as to fault.\nIn his answer, the respondent \u201cspecifically denies that his conduct was willful misconduct or that it was prejudicial to the administration of justice.\u201d\nAfter reviewing the record, the recommendation of the Commission, and the briefs of both parties, and after hearing oral argument, this Court concludes that the respondent\u2019s conduct constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute within the meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-376. The Court approves the recommendation of the Commission that the respondent be censured.\nTherefore, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 7A-376, 377, and Rule 3 of the Rules for Supreme Court Review of Recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commission, it is ordered that Judge James E. Martin be, and he is hereby, censured for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.\nDone by order of the Court in Conference this the 4th day of May 1995.\ns/Orr J.\nFor the Court",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Isaac T. Avery, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, Special Counsel for the Judicial Standards Commission.",
      "Maxwell, Freeman & Beason, P.A., by James B. Maxwell, for respondent-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 169, JAMES E. MARTIN, Respondent\nNo. 236A94\n(Filed 5 May 1995)\nJudges, Justices, and Magistrates \u00a7 36 (NCI4th)\u2014 censure of district court judge \u2014 conduct prejudicial to administration of justice\nA district court judge is censured by the Supreme Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute based upon the following conduct: (1) respondent\u2019s initiation of a series of extensive ex parte communications with law enforcement and court personnel concerning the fifteen-year-old son of a friend who had been taken into custody for felonious breaking and entering, informing personnel that the juvenile was \u201ca good kid,\u201d asking for help on behalf of the juvenile, and expressing his view that the matter was not one for the court; and (2) respondent\u2019s initiation of ex parte communications with a law officer concerning an automobile accident which resulted in charges being filed against the driver of a car in which the daughter of respondent\u2019s friend was a passenger and respondent\u2019s expression to the officer of his opinion that the matter was civil rather than criminal, and that if the case came before him he would so declare it, and his suggestion to the officer that he reconsider his assessment as to fault.\nAon Jur 2d, Judges \u00a7 21.\nDisciplinary action against judge for engaging in ex parte communication with attorney, party, or witness. 82 ALR4th 567.\nThis matter is before the Court upon a recommendation by the Judicial Standards Commission (Commission), entered 4 May 1994, that Judge James E. Martin, a Judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, Third and now Three-A Judicial District of the State of North Carolina, be censured for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of Canons 2A, 2B, and 3A(4) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 April 1995.\nIsaac T. Avery, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, Special Counsel for the Judicial Standards Commission.\nMaxwell, Freeman & Beason, P.A., by James B. Maxwell, for respondent-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0248-01",
  "first_page_order": 280,
  "last_page_order": 282
}