In Re Inquiry of a Judge, Hon. Walter K. Steed.

2006 UT 10
This opinion is subject to revision before final
publication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
----oo0oo----
In Re Inquiry of a Judge,
The Honorable Walter K. Steed. No. 20050127
F I L E D
February 24, 2006
---
Utah Judicial Conduct Commission
Attorneys: Colin R. Winchester, Ruth Lybbert, Salt Lake City,
for the Commission
Rodney R. Parker, Salt Lake City, for Judge Steed
---
WILKINS, Associate Chief Justice:
¶1 Judge Walter K. Steed has served as a justice court
judge in the predominately polygamous community of Hildale, Utah,
since his appointment by the town council in 1980. At the time
of his appointment, Judge Steed had one wife to whom he was
legally married, and one to whom he believed himself to be
married according to the traditions of their mutual religious
faith. In 1985, a third wife was added to this “plural marriage”
relationship by the same religious ceremony. Judge Steed and his
wives were all adults at the time their marriage relationships
began. They have lived together as a family, and thirty-two
children have been born as a result of the three wives’ unions
with Judge Steed.
¶2 At the time of his original appointment to the bench,
and at each subsequent time of reappointment by the Hildale town
council, Judge Steed took the legally prescribed oath of office
as a judge, by which he pledged himself to obey and defend the
Utah constitution.

No. 20050127 2
¶3 The constitution of Utah grants to the Legislature the
authority to enact criminal laws by which all citizens are bound.
Pursuant to that authority, it has enacted Utah Code section
76-7-101, which provides in relevant part:
(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when,
knowing he has a husband [sic] or wife or
knowing the other person has a husband or
wife [sic], the person purports to marry
another person or cohabits with another
person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third
degree.
¶4 Judge Steed’s relationship with his three plural wives
for more than twenty years clearly runs afoul of the prohibition
of section 76-7-101. In the case of a sitting judge, it is of
little or no consequence that the judge may believe a criminal
statute is constitutionally defective. A judge ignores the
clearly stated criminal prohibitions of the law at his or her
peril.
¶5 Pursuant to a complaint filed with and investigated by
the Judicial Conduct Commission, we have received the
Commission’s recommendation that Judge Steed be removed from
office. The removal recommendation is founded upon the
Commission’s conclusion that Judge Steed’s behavior violates
canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires a judge
to respect and comply with the law, something the Commission
concludes is belied by Judge Steed’s flaunting of the
prohibitions of the bigamy statute for more than twenty-five
years. This behavior, the facts of which Judge Steed admits, is
seen by the Commission as conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice which brings the judicial office into
disrepute. Moreover, Judge Steed has given every indication that
he intends to continue his “plural marriage” arrangement.
¶6 Judges in this state are expected to abide by all of
the laws applicable to them. Civil disobedience carries
consequences for a judge that may not be applicable to other
citizens. The dignity and respect accorded the judiciary is a
necessary element of the rule of law. When the law is violated
or ignored by those charged by society with the fair and

1 We note that Utah Code section 78-8-107(8)(c) contains a
provision requiring this court to act on judicial discipline
matters within 90 days. Such a statutory regulation of this
court’s internal process is beyond the constitutional authority
given to the Legislature to regulate the composition and
procedures of the Judicial Conduct Commission. Thus, while we
share the Legislature’s apparent view that these matters require
our prompt attention, we view the statutory limit as being
without effect.
3 No. 20050127
impartial enforcement of the law, the stability of our society is
placed at undue risk.1
¶7 We agree with the Commission’s recommendation. Having
reviewed the matter as to both the facts and the law, and after
reviewing the submissions by the parties and hearing oral
arguments, the order of removal proposed by the Judicial Conduct
Commission is adopted.
---
¶8 Justice Durrant, Justice Parrish, and Justice Nehring
concur in Associate Chief Justice Wilkins’ opinion.
¶9 Chief Justice Durham concurs in the result.