REVISION OF PORTION OF THE RULES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
389 P.3d 326
Okla. Crim. App.2016Background
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals issued an order (2016 OK CR 20) adopting and republishing amendments and new provisions to portions of its Rules to protect personal identifier information and manage sensitive exhibits and sealed materials; revisions take effect October 5, 2016 and apply prospectively.
- Key rule changes: amendment to Rule 2.2 (Form and Contents of Record), addition of Rule 2.6 (Internet), and addition of Rule 2.7 (Procedures for Sealing Record); several forms were also amended.
- Rule 2.2 addresses assembly of appellate records, court reporter duties for exhibits (including color copies or photos), limits on physical exhibits in the record, and special chain-of-custody and transport procedures for exhibits depicting or containing child pornography.
- Rule 2.6 governs online access (OSCN), places responsibility for redaction/limitation of personal identifiers on the filer, prescribes what identifier elements must be truncated (generally only last four digits or month/year/place for DOB), and lists categories of materials that must be withheld from Internet display.
- Rule 2.7 sets procedures and standards for sealing records (compliance with 51 O.S. § 24A.29), how sealed materials are to be packaged, indexed, and transmitted, and limits sealing where reasonable redaction suffices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protection of personal identifier data on Internet | Court/State: adopt bright-line rules limiting visible identifier elements to protect privacy and security | Public/access: full records should remain available absent law; some filings may need full identifiers for official use | Court adopted rules requiring redaction/limitation by filers (generally only last 4 digits or limited DOB) and placed responsibility on filers; clerks not required to review compliance. |
| Handling and transmission of exhibits depicting child pornography | Court/State: such exhibits must be tightly controlled, not reproduced, transported sealed, and accessible only to specified officials | Defense/public: concerns about ensuring appellate review while protecting minors and legal limits on reproduction | Court required sealing, restricted possession and transmission procedures, prohibited copying, and provided chain-of-custody and transport rules to Court clerk. |
| Use of physical exhibits in appellate record | Court/State: permit documentary/photo/electronic exhibits but prohibit dangerous items; require reproduction quality and reporter responsibility | Parties: burden/cost concerns for reproducing exhibits; some exhibits may be impractical to include | Court limited record to documentary/photographic/electronic evidence, prohibited dangerous items, and allocated reproduction cost/responsibility to the introducing party; reporter to file notice if items not provided. |
| Sealing process and limits on sealing public records | Party seeking sealing: request under 51 O.S. § 24A.29 with motion and confidential filing; materials should remain sealed pending ruling | Public interest: sealing should be narrow; prefer redaction when adequate | Court required compliance with statutory sealing rules, set packaging/indexing protocols for sealed material, and held sealing only when necessary; redaction preferred when reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hishaw v. City of Oklahoma City, 822 P.2d 1139 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991) (responsibility to include city ordinances in record when municipality is a party)
- Nichols v. Jackson, 38 P.3d 228 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001) (sealing limited to situations where withholding is necessary and redaction preferred when adequate)