All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 04-121
WILLIAM L. DAISY, Respondent
This matter is before the Court pursuant to N.C.G.S. .
7A-376 upon a recommendation by the Judicial Standards Commission
entered 18 February 2005 that respondent William L. Daisy, a
Judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division,
Eighteenth Judicial District of the State of North Carolina, be
censured for conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A., and 3A.(3) of
the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct, for conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the
judicial office into disrepute in violation of N.C.G.S. . 7A-376,
and for conduct in violation of respondent's oath of office.
Calendered for argument in the Supreme Court 16 May 2005;
determined on the record without briefs or oral argument pursuant
to Rule 2(c) of the Rules for Supreme Court Review of
Recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commission.
No counsel for Judicial Standards Commission or
respondent.
In a letter dated 14 July 2004, the Judicial Standards
Commission (Commission) notified Judge William L. Daisy
(respondent) that it had ordered a preliminary investigation to
determine whether formal proceedings under Commission Rule 9
should be instituted against him. The investigation involvedallegations that respondent had sexually harassed a judicial
assistant.
On 24 November 2004, Special Counsel for the Commission
filed a complaint alleging in pertinent part:
3. The respondent engaged in [the]
following inappropriate conduct:
a. The respondent hugged, touched
and engaged in physical contact with
Stephanie Miller Wallace, judicial assistant
to the district judges of the Eighteenth
Judicial District, that could reasonably be
interpreted, and was considered by Stephanie
Miller Wallace[,] to be unwanted, uninvited,
and inappropriate conduct.
b. The respondent hugged, touched
and engaged in physical contact with Tarah
Danielle Mayes, a paralegal, that could
reasonably be interpreted, and was considered
by Tarah Danielle Mayes, to be unwanted,
uninvited, and inappropriate conduct.
4. The actions of the respondent
constitute conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the
judicial office into disrepute, in violation
of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376, and are in violation of
Canons 1, 2A and 3A(3) of the North Carolina
Code of Judicial Conduct and the respondent's
oath of office.
On 15 December 2004, the Commission served respondent
with a notice of formal hearing concerning the alleged charges.
The Commission scheduled a hearing for 4 February 2005, at which
respondent waived formal hearing and stipulated to the conduct
alleged in paragraphs 3.a. and 3.b. of the complaint. Respondent
further stipulated that such conduct violated Canons 1, 2A., and
3A.(3) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and was
prejudicial to the administration of justice. On 18 February 2005, the Commission issued its
recommendation, concluding on the basis of clear and convincing
evidence that respondent's conduct constituted:
a. conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A
and 3A(3) of the North Carolina Code of
Judicial Conduct;
b. conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the
judicial office into disrepute in violation
of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376; [and]
c. conduct in violation of the
respondent's oath of office.
The Commission recommended that this Court censure
respondent.
In reviewing the Commission's recommendations pursuant
to N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-376 and 7A-377, this Court acts as a court of
original jurisdiction, rather than in its typical capacity as an
appellate court. See In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147, 250
S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929, 61 L. Ed. 2d
297 (1979). Furthermore, the Commission's recommendations are
not binding on this Court. In re Nowell, 293 N.C. 235, 244, 237
S.E.2d 246, 252 (1977).
The quantum of proof in proceedings before the
Commission is by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 247, 237
S.E.2d at 254. Such proceedings are not meant “to punish the
individual but to maintain the honor and dignity of the judiciary
and the proper administration of justice.” Id. at 241, 237
S.E.2d at 250.
We conclude that respondent's actions constitute
conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A., and 3A.(3) of the NorthCarolina Code of Judicial Conduct. Therefore, pursuant to
N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-376 and 7A-377 and Rule 3 of the Rules for Supreme
Court Review of Recommendations of the Judicial Standards
Commission, it is ordered that respondent, William L. Daisy, be
and he is hereby censured for violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
that brings the judicial office into disrepute, and conduct in
violation of the respondent's oath of office.
By order of the Court in Conference, this 30th day of
June 2005.
_______________________________
Newby, J.
For the Court
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***