Judge Residing Out of District is “de facto” Judge, Authorized to Preside Over Trial.

State v. Irby, Minn.Ct.App., 9/4/2012.  A jury convicted Mr. Irby of second degree assault, first degree burglary and prohibited possession of a firearm.  The trial court permitted the state to impeach Mr. Irby with two prior felony convictions.  During the jury charge, the trial court locked the courtroom doors, first giving those already in attendance the chance to scurry out.  Last, it turned out that during the trial the judge was not actually living in the judicial district, something for which the judicial standards board suspended her.

The state constitution requires that a judge of a district be a resident of that district at the time of selection and during her continuance in office.  The constitution also says that the office “shall become vacant” the minute the judge ceases to be an inhabitant of the district.  Seems straight forward enough, but the court of appeals cuts the judge some slack by concluding that she was a de facto judge.  That is, she was functioning as a judge even though her authority to do so was “procedurally defective.  This seems a likely candidate for review by the supreme court.

As to the impeachment issue, the court of appeals concludes that the trial court did not abuse her discretion is ruling that the impeachment could occur. 

As to locking the court room doors during the jury charge, the supreme court recently addressed this practice and found it okay.  State v. Brown, 815 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 2012).  See here.