## Facts

- George R. Greene served as a North Carolina Superior Court judge.
- During and immediately after a 16 October 1987 criminal session involving an assault-on-a-female prosecution, Greene made remarks to the victim (Myra Sheffield), who was pregnant and had two children with the defendant.
- A representative of Interact, a battered women’s assistance group, was present in court to support Sheffield.
- The Judicial Standards Commission alleged Greene criticized Sheffield for not reconciling with the defendant and implied the assault was justified or deserved.
- The Commission alleged Greene made derogatory remarks about Interact, including calling it a “one-sided man-hating bunch of females.”
- The Commission alleged Greene later told a hallway story implying physical domination of his wife, stating he “laid her on the floor” after she slapped him and had no more problems.
- Greene acknowledged making statements but contended they were not prejudicial, characterizing them as counseling after finding the defendant guilty and as reactions to perceived disruption and attempted influence by Interact and the prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission proceedings denied Greene procedural due process, including whether due process required open access to the Commission’s investigative files.
2. Whether the Commission’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence.
3. Whether the findings supported the legal conclusion that Greene engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected Greene’s due process challenge and held due process did not require open access to the Commission’s investigative files.
- The Court determined the Commission’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence.
- The Court approved the conclusion that Greene’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and brought the judicial office into disrepute.
- The Court approved the recommended sanction of public censure.

## Legal Principles

- In North Carolina judicial discipline matters, due process requires notice of charges and a fair opportunity to be heard at a formal hearing, but it does not require open-file access to the Commission’s investigative materials.
- Misconduct must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; the Supreme Court gives deference to the Commission’s credibility determinations while retaining final authority over factfinding and discipline.
- A judge’s comments that demean a crime victim, appear to justify domestic violence, or disparage victim-assistance advocates may constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and bring the judicial office into disrepute, even if some remarks occur outside the courtroom but are closely connected to the judge’s official role.

## Conclusion

The court held the disciplinary process afforded adequate due process without open investigative-file discovery, found clear and convincing evidence that Greene’s remarks undermined public confidence in judicial impartiality and dignity, and imposed a public censure for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brought the judicial office into disrepute.


In re Greene, 328 N.C. 639 (1991)