Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 36175 JOHN H. BRADBURY, Petitioner, v. IDAHO JUDICIAL COUNCIL, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Boise, July 2009 Term 2009 Opinion No. 114 Filed: September 10, 2009 Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

Petition for review of determination by the Idaho Judicial Council. Clements, Brown & McNichols, P.A., Lewiston; Runft & Steele Law Offices, PLLC, Boise; and M. Karl Shurtliff, Boise; for petitioner. Michael E. McNichols argued. The Roark Law Firm, Hailey, for respondent. R. Keith Roark argued.

J. JONES, Justice District Judge John H. Bradbury (Petitioner) asks the Court to review a determination of the Idaho Judicial Council (Council) that he does not "actually reside" in Idaho County as required by Idaho Code sections 1-803 and 1-809. The Council recommended that Judge

Bradbury be suspended from serving as a district judge until such time he actually resides in Idaho County and that he pay the costs incurred by the Council in this proceeding. Based upon our independent review of the facts in the record, the Court finds that Petitioner is not in compliance with such residency requirement and orders that he take action to comply with the law. I. BACKGROUND SETTING Petitioner was elected in 2002 for a district judge position with resident chambers in Idaho County. He took office in January 2003. Idaho Code section 1-809 requires that district judges actually reside at the place designated as their resident chambers. On December 20, 2002,

Petitioner purchased a house in Grangeville, Idaho County, and on October 16, 2003, he changed his voter registration to Idaho County. On May 2, 2006, the Council notified Petitioner that it was conducting an inquiry into whether he was actually residing in Idaho County. Petitioner responded by letter on May 4, 2006, stating that he owned a fully furnished home in Grangeville, that he had a homeowners exemption on that home, and that he was registered to vote and did vote in Idaho County. He also stated that he had a fully furnished home in Lewiston and that the home at which he stayed depended upon where his work was. By letter dated April 17, 2007, the Council informed Petitioner that, based upon his response, the Council was closing the file. The Council noted in its subsequent findings that Petitioner had not informed the Council "that he spent practically none of his nights in Grangeville, or, that in the prior six (6) months he had spent fewer than ten (10) evenings in Grangeville." On September 12, 2007, the Council sent Petitioner a letter stating that it had received additional information and was re-opening the inquiry into whether he was actually residing in Idaho County. On October 31, 2007, Robert G. Hamlin, the Executive Director of the Council, interviewed Petitioner regarding the issue of whether he actually resided in Idaho County. That interview was recorded and transcribed by a court reporter. During that interview, Petitioner stated, "And my Constitutional duty is to do my job, and I think it trumps whatever the statutory obligation might be." He continued, "And I want to do my job. And I want to comply with the law. But I cant do both, as much as I want to." When asked, "So do youyou spend most of your time in Lewiston?" Petitioner answered, "Yeah, I do." Hamlin followed up by asking, "How many dayslet me rephrase that, how many evenings a week do you spend in Grangeville?" Petitioner answered, "Practically none." He said that he got most of his personal mail in Lewiston and had registered his vehicles in Nez Perce County. He told Hamlin he spent most of his weekends at his ranch in Clearwater County where he is building a house. He also stated, "I can tell you that I would live in Grangeville if I could do my work and live in Grangeville." On January 22, 2008, the Council sent Petitioner a letter stating that it did not appear that he actually resided in Idaho County. The letter noted Petitioners contention that he could not do his job efficiently if he lived in Grangeville, but stated that if the statute requires that he actually reside in Idaho County he must do so. The Council concluded by stating that unless he could

2

show within fourteen days that he actually resided in Idaho County, the Council would proceed with formal charges. Petitioner did not attempt to do so, and on July 22, 2008, the Council commenced formal proceedings. The notice of formal proceedings alleged four counts: Counts One and Three alleged violations of Canons 1(A) and 2(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct for failing to actually reside in Idaho County, and Counts Two and Four alleged violations of the same canons regarding travel expense vouchers. The Council held an evidentiary hearing on December 17, 2008, at which Petitioner, the Idaho County Deputy Clerk, and Hamlin testified. Petitioner testified that he only stays overnight in Grangeville when he has a trial there and absent a trial he spends less than one night per week in Grangeville.1 He testified that during 2008, he had spent several nights in Grangeville because his workload there had increased. He also acknowledged his prior statements, "And my Constitutional duty is to do my job, and I think it trumps whatever the statutory obligation might be . . . and I want to do my job, and I want to comply with the law, but I cant do both as much as I want to." At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council issued written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations. It concluded that Petitioner did not actually reside in Idaho County in violation of Idaho Code sections 1-803 and 1-809, and that his failure to do so was a willful violation of Canons 1(A) and 2(A) pursuant to Idaho Code section 1-2103. It made no

1

When questioned about the amount of time he actually resides in Idaho County, Bradbury testified as follows: Q. But as a practical matter, you are spending less than one night per week in Grangeville unless theres a trial? A. Thats true. .... Q. Which, again, is less than one night per week in Grangeville, Idaho? A. Its less than one night a week up until this year where Ive had at least one night a week and sometimes two, because Ive had more trials. .... Q. In fact, you told Mr. Hamlin that in the six months preceding that interview, that is the six months prior to the 31st of October, 2007, you had spent less than ten evenings in Grangeville. .... A. I dont know if thats what I said or not. I wouldnt say that I didnt say it. Its consistent with my experience. I dont deny that. .... Q. And you spend practically none of you nights there [in Idaho County]. A. Not this year. This year Ive spent several nights there because Ive had more cases there. The workload has increased.

3

findings regarding Counts Two and Four regarding travel vouchers.

It recommended that

Petitioner be immediately suspended until he begins actually residing in Idaho County, that if he does move to Idaho County he be required to submit monthly affidavits certifying where he actually resides, and that he pay the costs of counsel hired by the Council. On March 27, 2009, Petitioner filed a verified petition in this Court seeking review of the Councils determination. II. PROCEDURES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The Idaho Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction over claims of judicial misconduct. Idaho Const. Art. V,

Download bradbury2-20opn.pdf

Idaho Law