Leftwich v. Court of Criminal Appeals
2011 OK 80
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Leftwich sought an extraordinary writ to prohibit or mandamus the Court of Criminal Appeals’ interpretation of Art. V, §22 of the Oklahoma Constitution in its June 9, 2011 order in PR-2011-319.
- The Supreme Court heard argument, with all sides agreeing the CC A order was truncated/erroneous in part and that a portion stating the Speech and Debate Clause includes an express exception for felonies should not be enforced as misstatement of law.
- The Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction, directing no relief beyond addressing the petition in the posture presented and noting no jurisdiction to review the CC A’s order in this setting.
- A stay of district court proceedings in CF-2010-8067 was issued and subsequently dissolved; the stay related to the underlying criminal matter was terminated.
- The case centers on 26 O.S.2001 §16-108 and whether a legislator’s activities could constitute a criminal act given definitions of 'candidate' and 'withdrawing' under related election/campaign statutes.
- The Court resolved that, on the presented record, the charges could not stand as a matter of law, and thus broader constitutional questions about the Speech and Debate Clause need not be reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should assume original jurisdiction. | Leftwich seeks supervisory control. | CC A order should stand; no jurisdiction to review in this posture. | Declined to assume original jurisdiction. |
| Whether the CC A misinterpreted the Speech and Debate Clause. | The clause protections are broader than the CC A stated. | The agreement of counsel does not bind the court; the issue is unresolved here. | Court did not address the broader constitutional scope on the merits. |
| Whether charges under 26 O.S.2001 §16-108 may stand against Leftwich. | Statutory definitions and context may render the charge valid. | Statutory language does not reach Leftwich's conduct given the record and definitions. | Charges may not stand as a matter of law. |
| Whether this proceeding should yield an advisory constitutional opinion. | A broader ruling on Speech and Debate is warranted. | Not necessary given the non-constitutional grounds for resolution. | No advisory constitutional ruling; resolution on non-constitutional grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nix, 295 P.2d 286 (Okla. 1956) (speech and debate privilege; immunity for legislative acts)
- Brock v. Thompson, 948 P.2d 279 (Okla. 1997) (legislators immune from inquiry into legislative acts)
- Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1951) (legislative privilege; immunity from prosecution for legislative acts)
- In re M.B., 145 P.3d 1040 (Okla. 2006) (superintending control over inferior courts; original jurisdiction context)
- White v. Lim, 224 P.3d 679 (Okla. 2009) (statutory interpretation and related principles)
- State ex rel. Ikard v. Russell, 124 P.1092 (Okla. 1912) (early Oklahoma jurisdictional principles)
- Fun Country Development Auth., 566 P.2d 1167 (Okla. 1977) (advisory opinions and statutory interpretation authority)
- City of Shawnee v. Taylor, 132 P.2d 950 (Okla. 1943) (advisory opinions and jurisdictional considerations)