State v. Ovalle

“[ORS 14.210(1)(c)] provides: ‘A judge shall not act as judge if the judge is related to any party, or to the attorney for any party, or to the partner or office associate of any such attorney, by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree.’”

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for criminal offenses against his minor stepdaughter. Defendant then appealed his convictions; three of which were reversed, and two of which were affirmed and remanded for resentencing. During resentencing, Defendant moved to disqualify the judge for cause pursuant to ORS 14.210(1)(c), arguing that a change in circumstances gave rise to a conflicting relationship for the presiding judge. “That provision provides: ‘A judge shall not act as judge if the judge is related to any party, or to the attorney for any party, or to the partner or office associate of any such attorney, by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree.’” Despite appearing to acknowledge the change in circumstance, the judge summarily denied Defendant’s motion stating that the motion was unavailable to Defendant as a matter of law because he had already previously made substantive rulings on the case. The judge then resentenced Defendant. On his second appeal, Defendant assigned error to the judge denial of his disqualification motion. The Court rejected the State’s arguments that Defendant’s motion was procedurally barred by ORS 14.260(3) due to the judge’s previous substantive rulings on the case, and that Defendant failed to preserve his argument in the court below. The Court stated “every party is entitled to a fair trial before an impartial judge and that ‘sound public policy’ is interested in preserving the integrity and good credit of every court.” As such, The Court held that the sentencing judge erred in summarily dismissing Defendant’s motion without addressing the merits of Defendant’s conflict claims, and that the best way to do so would be to hold a hearing on the motion. Reversed and Remanded.