Judicial DWI Misconduct and Censure Standards Under Canons 1 & 2A and N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b)

Introduction

In re Kimble (No. 321A24) is a 2025 decision of the Supreme Court of North Carolina addressing whether District Court Judge Jason P. Kimble should be censured for driving while intoxicated (DWI) with a minor passenger, invoking his office to avoid arrest, using profanity toward law enforcement, and otherwise acting in a manner unbecoming a judge. The Judicial Standards Commission (the “Commission”) found violations of Canons 1 and 2A of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute” under N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b). The Court considered stipulated facts, adopted the Commission’s findings by clear and convincing evidence, applied established precedent on judicial discipline, and formally imposed a censure.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court unanimously adopted the Commission’s undisputed findings: on September 25, 2023, Judge Kimble, while intoxicated with a blood-alcohol reading above .22, collided with another vehicle, endangered his 13-year-old daughter as a passenger, refused initial field tests, invoked his judicial title to seek leniency, used profane language toward the trooper, and resisted arrest. He pled guilty to DWI with aggravating factors, served treatment, self-reported, and cooperated thereafter. The Commission recommended censure by analogy to In re LeBarre. The Supreme Court agreed that censure was appropriate, emphasizing that under these aggravating circumstances—high BAC, a minor in the car, use of office to influence law enforcement—censure is the minimum acceptable discipline to preserve public confidence and judicial integrity.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Crutchfield (1975): Established that the primary purpose of judicial discipline is to maintain the public’s confidence in the judiciary and the honor and integrity of judges.
In re Edens (1976): Defined “willful misconduct in office” as intentional wrongdoing by a judge operating in bad faith or knowingly misusing judicial power.
In re Nowell (1977): Clarified that bad faith includes conduct “beyond legitimate exercise of authority,” regardless of motive, and that misusing judicial office suffices.
In re LeBarre (2017): Upheld censure for a judge found intoxicated in a running car, refusing to cooperate, using vulgarity, and attempting to avoid consequences—analogous misbehavior despite an otherwise unblemished record.
In re Shipley (2018): Distinguished from LeBarre where a public reprimand sufficed for a Deputy Commissioner whose DWI was dismissed and who did not resist or use his title.
In re Foster (2024): Reiterated the Supreme Court’s authority under N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b) to impose public reprimand, censure, suspension, or removal for judicial misconduct.

Legal Reasoning

The Court first determined that the Commission’s stipulated facts were supported by clear and convincing evidence and adopted them. Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b) and Canons 1 (judicial integrity) and 2A (respect for law and impartiality), Judge Kimble’s actions—driving intoxicated with a minor in his vehicle, resisting field sobriety procedures, invoking his office, and using profanity toward the trooper—constituted willful misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Court then surveyed analogous disciplinary decisions and concluded that censure, rather than mere reprimand or suspension, was the appropriate sanction. Although respondent’s self-reporting, treatment, plea of guilty, and cooperation demonstrated remediation, the aggravating factors rendered censure the minimum required to maintain public trust.

Impact

This opinion clarifies the application of censure for judges whose off-duty misconduct materially undermines public confidence. In future disciplinary proceedings, the Court will weigh aggravating factors—such as a high BAC, presence of a minor, attempts to misuse judicial office, and disrespect toward law enforcement—against mitigating steps taken post-incident. The decision reinforces that judges remain subject to the same legal standards as citizens and that invocation of office to influence law enforcement aggravates sanction.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Willful Misconduct in Office: Intentional, knowing misuse of judicial power or office, done in bad faith; more than negligence or mistake.
Canon 1: A judge must uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and personally observe high standards of conduct.
Canon 2A: A judge must respect and comply with the law and conduct oneself to promote public confidence in judicial impartiality.
Censure vs. Reprimand: A censure is a formal public rebuke indicating significant misconduct, whereas a reprimand is a lesser public admonition for minor infractions.
Judicial Standards Commission Proceedings: A specialized, non-criminal, non-civil hearing body that investigates and sanctions judicial misconduct, with findings subject to Supreme Court review.

Conclusion

In re Kimble establishes that judges who drive while intoxicated—particularly with a minor in the vehicle—resist lawful sobriety testing, invoke their office for personal advantage, and use abusive language toward officers will face censure under N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b) and Canons 1 and 2A. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to integrity: even exemplary judges lose the privilege of public office when they breach public trust. This precedent will guide future disciplinary assessments, ensuring that judicial misconduct is met with sanctions proportionate to its impact on the administration of justice and public confidence.