For the third time in a little more than three years, Wake Superior Court Judge Evelyn W. Hill will answer a complaint before the state judicial ethics board that her conduct on the bench was unprofessional.

Hill, who has been censured twice by the state Supreme Court, is accused this time of not hiding her "disdain" for two defense lawyers in front of juries.

In one case, the N.C. Court of Appeals found that Hill's conduct so prejudiced the jury during a 2003 trial that it granted a new trial to the defendant -- a convicted sex offender.

Hill, 57, who earns a salary of $109,279, is the third judge since the N.C. Judicial Standards Commission was created in 1973 to face allegations of misconduct three times. The other two received censures and eventually retired.

Since becoming a judge in 2001, Hill has had numerous complaints against her, including that she jokingly threatened to shove a deputy's genitals through his nose, referred to a black lawyer as "a token," and berated other lawyers.

Hill has never been recommended for the most severe punishment -- removal from office. However, she now faces a charge of willful misconduct based on a pattern of misbehavior, according to the Nov. 22 complaint, which was released Monday.

The N.C. Judicial Standards Commission does not generally reveal what prompted the complaint and can open an inquiry under its own authority. The commission is made up of other judges, lawyers and the general public.

Judges have been removed from office when found responsible for willful misconduct, which is done intentionally or in bad faith, a legal expert says.

"A single event of willful misconduct can support removal from office," said Jim C. Drennan, a court system expert with the Institute of Government at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Hill did not return a message left Monday at her office at the Wake County courthouse, where she is holding court this week. Her lawyer, Joseph E. Zeszotarski Jr., declined to comment Monday.

In November 2003, Hill, through her lawyer, apologized to those involved in the incidents that sparked the complaints. "Judge Hill has served the citizens of this county and state in a distinguished fashion as a Superior Court judge for the past three years," Zeszotarski said in that statement. "She looks forward to continuing her hard work for the court system in our state."

A hearing has not yet been scheduled before the full commission. After a hearing, the commission will make a recommendation to the N.C. Supreme Court, which ultimately decides judicial discipline. The options are removal, censure or no action.

Convictions appealed

Defense lawyers have appealed at least eight defendants' convictions because they say Hill's commentary from the bench denied their clients the right to a fair and impartial trial. Twice defendants have gotten new trials based on complaints about Hill's conduct.

In one case, which is at issue in the pending ethics complaint, Douglas Shane Wright, 32, of Burlington, was convicted in October 2003 of two counts of taking indecent liberties with a child. In August, the state appeals court granted Wright a new trial because of Hill's treatment of his defense lawyer.

Hill complained about Graham lawyer Craig Thompson's habit of saying "OK" while questioning witnesses, according to court records. She threatened to fine him $100 each time he said the word. Hill also called Thompson's behavior "rude, discourteous, uncivil and contemptuous," records say.

The appeals court ruled that Hill's "numerous negative comments to the defense counsel, both in and out of the presence of the jury, created a negative atmosphere at the trial to the prejudice of the defendant."

The complaint also takes issue with Hill's behavior at the July 2004 trial of Daniel Saint Walters Moore Jr., a Cumberland County substitute teacher convicted of engaging in sexual acts with a student.

The complaint cites Hill's "repeated comments and gestures, which when considered in the totality of the circumstances, demonstrated respondent's disdain for defense counsel, Stephen Stokes, and his efforts to represent his client."

The complaint highlights 17 exchanges between Hill and Stokes during the six-day trial. She repeatedly criticized how he questioned witnesses. And twice, Hill gave Stokes the silent treatment in response to questions.

At one point during the trial and in front of the jury, Stokes asked the judge: "May I approach the witness?

"And the purpose would be?" Hill asked.

"Your honor, I'd like to show her her statement and have an opportunity for her to read and refresh her memory as to ..."

Cutting him off, Hill said, "Counsel, you haven't established that she needs to have her memory refreshed."

"Your honor, with all due respect, we would just ask if she remembers ..."

Cutting him off again, Hill replied, "With all due respect, sir, sit down and ask your next question."

Another time with the jury present, after a private conversation at the bench, Hill said, "Mr. Stokes, go back to the table. Mr. Sheriff, if necessary, if Mr. Stokes doesn't want to go back to the table, will you assist him? Thank you."

Stokes asked, "May I be heard?"

"There is nothing to be heard on, Mr. Stokes," Hill responded.

And later, Hill stopped Stokes' questioning of a witness and sent the jury out of the courtroom. She then chastised Stokes for asking a question that would have elicited inadmissable testimony and called his conduct "improper and unethical."

"Mr. Stokes' attitude has been one of contempt, arrogance and rudeness to the court," Hill said.

(News researcher Brooke Cain contributed to this report.)

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.