Judicial bias; People v Stevens; Failure to preserve evidence

The court held that considering the Stevens factors and the record, defendant did not overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality. Also, she failed to establish that the investigating officer (M) acted in bad faith such that her due-process rights were denied. Finally, she did not “establish that any missing evidence was exculpatory or that it rendered the district court’s bindover determination an abuse of discretion.” She argued “that she was denied a fair trial because the trial judge verbally and nonverbally communicated bias in favor of the prosecution during defense counsel’s cross examination of” M. Considering the Stevens factors, the court concluded “that the trial court’s conduct, both verbal and nonverbal, did not pierce the veil of judicial impartiality.” The court noted that it was “unclear from the record whether the trial court judge rolled his eyes during defense counsel’s cross examination of [M] and that the record does not indicate whether the trial judge’s tone when characterizing defense counsel’s questioning as ‘confusing’ and ‘thanking’ defendant for noting his behavior was derogatory or sarcastic.” But the record did “reflect that defense counsel repeatedly accused [M] of destroying evidence and lying and that [M] became confused during counsel’s questioning.” The record also reflected “that defense counsel and the prosecutor engaged in contentious exchanges while [M] testified, that defense counsel accused the trial court of ‘just endorsing what [the prosecution] says,’ and that counsel challenged the court’s decision regarding the appropriateness of a question. The trial court ruled on objections and provided clarification when necessary and did not improperly inject itself into defense counsel’s questioning of” M. The record did “not indicate that the trial court spoke to defense counsel or defendant in a condescending or sarcastic way, and neither counsel nor defendant stated otherwise during trial.” As to the trial court’s alleged eye rolling, the trial court “denied doing so, but explained that if it did, it was because defense counsel’s questioning was confusing or it occurred during a contentious interaction between the advocates. Considering the limited conduct at issue in the four-day trial, we cannot conclude that the court’s conduct pierced the veil of judicial impartiality and denied defendant a fair and impartial trial. Further, the trial court provided” a curative instruction. Affirmed.