STATE ex rel. PRUITT v. STEIDLEY
2015 OK CR 6
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Oklahoma Attorney General (AG) filed two applications seeking extraordinary writs after a Rogers County district judge (Judge Steidley) barred the AG from taking and assuming control of two criminal prosecutions under 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(3).
- The two criminal cases are State v. Cathryn Storey (CF-2013-535) and State v. Ellen Pittser (CF-2014-5); the AG entered appearances asserting authority to initiate or appear and to assume control when the State’s interests are at issue.
- Judge Steidley initially allowed the AG to appear but ruled § 18b(A)(3) permits the AG to assume control only when appearing at the request of the Governor or the Legislature (reading the statute as limited).
- The Court of Criminal Appeals stayed the district-court proceedings and invited responses from the judge, the Rogers County District Attorney (DA), and defense counsel; the DA ultimately argued the AG’s authority is concurrent but not superior except as statutorily provided.
- The central legal question became whether the 1995 amendment to § 18b(A)(3) authorizes the AG to initiate or appear and then, when doing so, to take and assume control of prosecutions without a request from Governor or Legislature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 18b(A)(3) authorizes the AG to initiate/appear in actions implicating state interests without a Governor/Legislature request | AG: The amended § 18b(A)(3) expressly allows the AG to initiate or appear in any action where state interests are at issue | Judge/Defendants: The AG may appear only at the Governor’s or Legislature’s request; statute should be read to retain that limitation | Held: The plain language of the amended § 18b(A)(3) allows the AG to initiate or appear without a request; limitation is not required |
| Whether the AG may take and assume control of a prosecution when appearing under § 18b(A)(3) | AG: When the AG appears under § 18b(A)(3), the AG may, if advisable, take and assume control of prosecution/defense | Judge/Defendants: The AG cannot unilaterally displace a District Attorney absent a request from Governor/Legislature; DA’s role should not be subordinated automatically | Held: When the AG appears pursuant to § 18b(A)(3) and so deems advisable, the AG may take and assume control; any DA role becomes subservient |
| Whether Judge Steidley’s orders prohibiting AG control are unauthorized and subject to prohibition | AG: Orders barring AG’s statutory authority are unauthorized and injure the AG/State with no adequate remedy | Judge/Defendants: The judge has authority to limit AG participation; statute ambiguous | Held: The orders were unauthorized; writ of prohibition granted and matters remanded |
| Effect of potential statutory conflict between § 18b (Title 74) and DA duties (Title 19) | AG: Statutes are reconcilable; § 18b(A)(3) (later amendment) governs where applicable | DA: Authorities are concurrent; Legislature did not authorize AG to usurp DA control | Held: Statutes are not in conflict; amended § 18b(A)(3) controls as to its subject matter |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stice, 288 P.3d 247 (2012) (statutory construction principles and reliance on plain language)
- Lozoya v. State, 932 P.2d 22 (1996) (rules for reconciling statutory provisions and legislative intent)
- Wallace v. State, 935 P.2d 366 (1997) (statutes construed by plain and ordinary meaning)
- Virgin v. State, 792 P.2d 1186 (1990) (use of statutory interpretation tools to give effect to each provision)