State v. Powell

A judge is not required to recuse or disqualify themselves if the judge represented a party in a previous, unrelated matter, unless additional facts raise questions about the judge’s impartiality. State v. Pierce, 263 Or App 515, 521-22, 333 P3d 1069 (2014).

Appellant appealed a felony conviction for violating a stalking protective order under ORS 163.750. On appeal, Appellant argued the trial court erred in denying his Motion for Judgement of Acquittal (MJOA) because the evidence was insufficient to prove recklessness and, secondly, Appellant asserted plain error for failing to declare mistrial because the judge represented Appellant as legal counsel in a case eighteen years prior.  The State argued Appellant failed to preserve his claims. A judge is prohibited from acting as judge ‘if the judge has been attorney in the action, suit or proceeding for any party.’ ORS 14.210(1)(d). However, a judge is not required to recuse or disqualify themselves if the judge represented a party in a previous, unrelated matter, unless additional facts raise questions about the judge’s impartiality. State v. Pierce, 263 Or App 515, 521-22, 333 P3d 1069 (2014).The Court found recusal was unnecessary because although the trial judge observed he recognized the Appellant's name, the judge stated he did not recall the prior case, and bore no “ill will” towards Appellant. The Court held “a rational factfinder could readily” find violation of ORS 163.750 because Appellant made repeated visual and physical contact with ex-girlfriend, in violation of the SPO.  AFFIRMED.