Preview:

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Opinion
In re: The Honorable JAMES P. NOECKER, Judge 45th Circuit Court Centreville, MI 49032,

Chief Justice:

Justices:

Clifford W. Taylor

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman

FILED FEBRUARY 1, 2005

No. 124477 _______________________________ BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH KELLY, J. This appeal is from the recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) that respondent 45th Circuit Judge James P. Noecker be removed from office and required to pay the costs of his prosecution. We determine that respondent

should be removed from office but that costs should not be assessed against him. I. Factual Background On March 12, 2003, respondent was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Sturgis, Michigan. The vehicle he was

driving turned from a road into the parking lot of a store, the Klinger Lake Trading Post. According to witnesses,

respondent's vehicle neither accelerated nor decelerated.

Rather, it maintained a speed of approximately three to five miles an hour. The vehicle hit the corner of the

store, causing significant damage to the building and to the inventory in the store. Respondent emerged from the vehicle, entered the

store, and asked if anyone had been injured.

The store's

proprietor, Mrs. Pankey, was upset and repeatedly stated that she wanted someone to find her husband, who was ice fishing on a local lake. Although respondent lacked any

information to assist him in the search for Mr. Pankey beyond the name of the lake, respondent left the scene of the accident. Pankey. No one indicated where on the lake Mr. Pankey was fishing. Respondent believed that he was near a fishing He claimed that he did so to help Mrs.

access, but was unsure where the access was located. Mrs. Pankey testified that respondent did not know what her

husband looked like. Pankey was driving.

He did not know what vehicle Mr. He did not even know the color of the

coat Mr. Pankey was wearing. Respondent testified that, in the course of his

search, he first drove to the lake.

He got out of the car

to look around and saw two objects he presumed were people on the far side of the lake. He then spent several minutes

2


considering whether he could walk across the ice. that it was unsafe, he returned to his vehicle.

Deciding

Respondent said that he then stopped at another point along the lake, walked down to the water's edge, and tried unsuccessfully to find an access point. He saw five or six

people in a cove and again considered whether it was safe to walk out on the ice. Deciding that it was unsafe, he

drove farther around the lake to a gated area known as Camp Fort Hill. Unable to enter, he started back to the store,

but decided instead to drive to his residence. On arriving home, respondent told his wife about the accident, then called Mrs. Pankey. wanted to ask Mrs. Pankey if she He testified that he had heard from her

husband, and, if not, he wanted to know the location of the lake's access point. chance to ask those He testified that he never got a questions, Mrs. because as soon as he

identified hysterically.

himself,

Pankey

began

screaming He

She kept repeating, "You get back here."

told her he would return. Respondent then learned that the state police were en route to his house to speak with him. return to the store. blood pressure. He decided not to

He testified that his wife took his Respondent Rather, he

The systolic reading was 220.

did not call his doctor or the emergency room.

testified, he poured and drank three to five ounces of 3

vodka.

He testified that he knew that the police were But he stated

coming to speak with him about the accident.

that the effect that his consumption of alcohol would have on the officers' investigation of his car accident did not trouble him at the time. When the police arrived at his home, respondent told them that he had consumed three to five ounces of vodka after returning from the search for Mr. Pankey. agreed to take a preliminary breath test. was administered approximately two Respondent

The breath test after the

hours

accident.

The reading was 0.10.1

A state trooper who investigated the accident at the scene, Craig Wheeler, testified that he was concerned that alcohol may have been a factor. testified that there are generally Sergeant Steven Barker three reasons people

leave the scene of an accident:

their license has been

suspended, there is an outstanding arrest warrant for them, or they drank alcohol before the accident. Sergeant respondent's Barker home on accompanied the night of Trooper the Wheeler to He

accident.

testified that respondent appeared to move away from him

This value refers to the amount of alcohol in an individual's system. At the time of the accident, Michigan law made it unlawful for someone to operate a vehicle where "[t]he person has an alcohol content of 0.10 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine." MCL 257.625(1)(b). 4

1

whenever he got close. when he confronted

One of the officers testified that, respondent about an apparent

inconsistency in his statement, respondent commented, "I know you are in a position to fry me." In addition to the

testimony of Trooper Wheeler and Sergeant Barker, several witnesses to the accident testified that it appeared that respondent had been drinking at the time of the accident. Respondent accident intended pushed had to gave conflicting One brake his stories about was how that the he

occurred. depress the

explanation pedal, shoe but

accidentally Another

the

accelerator

when

slipped.

explanation was that, as he approached the building, he intended to brake, but he forgot that his foot was not on the brake pedal. Instead, he depressed the accelerator,

which caused the vehicle to shoot forward and strike the building. II. The including events Proceedings Below after the March 12 accident, to the

occurring

respondent's

conflicting

explanations

media, caused the JTC to issue a formal complaint against respondent. The complaint may be summarized as alleging the

following misconduct: 1. Persistent use of alcohol leading to a variety of violations of the Michigan 5

Constitution, the Michigan Court Rules, and the Canons of Judicial Conduct. 2. Violations of the law and making false statements to the police regarding the events surrounding a motor vehicle accident on March 12, 2003. 3. Making false statements to the JTC. The complaint may be summarized as alleging that

respondent's conduct constituted: 1. Misconduct in office, as defined by Const 1963, art 6,

Download IN RE HON JAMES P NOECKER.pdf

Michigan Law