State v. Price
2012 OK 51
| Okla. | 2012Background
- Price, the Pawnee County Sheriff, was removed after a grand jury accusation alleging wilful neglect of duty based on two acts; one act occurred Sept. 11, 2006 releasing a prisoner without bond or judicial authorization; another act occurred July 25, 2007, refusing to book a suspect who surrendered with an arrest warrant.
- The grand jury issued an accusation listing three acts, but only two were pursued at trial; the third act was dropped by the State.
- The trial court suspended Price from office in 2010 and the jury, after a November 2010 trial, found wilful neglect of duty on both acts, leading to removal under 22 O.S. 1181-1197.
- Price challenged (1) severing and eliminating one act from the accusation, (2) modifying jury instructions, and (3) denying a demurrer/directed verdict.
- This Court held there was no error in proving two acts, the instructions were properly tailored to the evidence, and the demurrer was properly denied.
- The opinion reiterates that removal proceedings are civil in flavor, not strict criminal indictments, and that the grand jury accusation need not mirror a criminal indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May State prove two acts to support removal when a third acts exists | Price argues all acts must be proven | State argues severance/partial proof is allowed | Yes; only two acts needed |
| Whether trial court properly modified jury instructions | Price claims bad intent required | State contends instructions must fit evidence | Properly modified to reflect lack of bad intent |
| Whether demurrer to evidence was properly denied | Evidence insufficient to prove willful neglect | Evidence sufficient, including circumstantial and direct proof | Denied; evidence supports removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. State, 215 P. 934 (Okla. 1923) (removal uses civil-type proceedings; acts done knowingly constituting neglect)
- State ex rel. Grand Jury v. Pate, 572 P.2d 226 (Okla. 1977) (accusation in writing is like an indictment; removal is not punishment but relief)
- Phillips v. State, 181 P. 713 (Okla. 1919) (willful neglect requires conscious wrong or evil purpose in some contexts)
- Estes v. ConocoPhillips Co., 184 P.3d 518 (Okla. 2008) (wilful does not have a uniform meaning; context matters; civil vs. criminal context differ)
- Hutcheson v. State, 318 P.2d 885 (Okla. 1957) (illustrates historical treatment of wilful neglect across statutes)
- Maben v. Rosser, 103 P.674 (Okla. 1909) (removal is not criminal punishment; speedy relief from faithless officers)
- Shields v. State, 89 P.2d 756 (Okla. 1939) (discusses concept of conscious wrong or evil purpose)
- Russell v. Henderson, 603 P.2d 1132 (Okla. 1979) (removal accusations may include multiple acts; focus on factual basis)