Allen v. District Court of Washington County

/s/ Parks Ed PARKS,

ED Judge

Presiding

/s/ Lane James F. LANE,

JAMES F. Judge

Vice Presiding

/s/ Brett Tom BRETT,

TOM

Judge Lumpkin Gary

/s/ L. LUMPKIN,

GARY L.

Judge

/s/ A. Johnson Charles JOHNSON, A.

CHARLES

Judge ALLEN, Petitioner, Lee

Steven OF

DISTRICT COURT WASHINGTON Oklahoma,

COUNTY, and the Myrna Lansdown, Special

Honorable

Judge, Respondents.

No. 0-90-0825. Appeals of

Court of Criminal Oklahoma.

Dec.

As Jan. Corrected WRIT

ORDER DENYING OF AND MANDAMUS LIFTING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS The Petitioner has filed Petition for requesting Writ of Mandamus Washing- Court direct the District County grant ton Petitioner’s No. in Case CRF-90-239. Peti- an order appeals tioner the Dis- denying granting trict Court requested by the part discovery Petitioner prior examination. The granted District Court cited the the Peace Justices of in article Stafford (Okl.Cr.1979), authority as for de- § nying requests Petitioner’s as be- Superi- Court of Common Pleas and ing premature; Benson, and by Court were created statute. See support P.2d 908 for the O.S.1961, seq. and seq. et § § examining magistrate’s lack of to An creating examination of the statutes the production of material. Court of Common Pleas reveals the forma- The District requests Court denied two jurisdiction of a limited court with the However, evidence. the at that assigned general judges having jurisdiction exculpatory time were found to be evi- powers. O.S.1961, 651, 654, e.g. See §§ subject and a continuing dence obli- (the Court of Common Pleas had limit- gation prosecution on the of jurisdiction ed but statutes separately vest- provide as that evidence becomes known. ed the judges of the Court of Common presented appeal require general jurisdiction issues on Pleas with the powers of analysis judges Courts.) of development an the historical of the District of In addition, system provisions our court under the of since statehood to ensure 20 O.S. 1961 651 proper application power the constitutional of our current § stat- county incorporated by courts utes and caselaw. was refer- An examination of the ence to jurisdiction development caselaw this area tracks the Common power Pleas. The of judges interpretation procedural of of stat- of the County Court and Justices of utes have existed since 1910 and jurisdiction Peace was the same as legal fictions which have evolved they the courts to assigned. were attempt adapt changes in the courts’ reorganization jurisdiction. and This Upon Question passage No. anomaly, interpret ap- failed and 448 each of the statutory constitutional and ply existing statutory provisions as we courts were consolidated into the District system, transitioned into a unified court Courts under sys- our current unified court jurisprudence confusing has rendered our Judges tem. District and Associate Dis- statutory procedure bent the and Judges general jurisdiction trict became present breaking point. judges of the District Courts. We ceased courts; and, jurisdiction to have limited properly apply order to the statutory except Special Judges appointed for the during which were not amended Constitution, pursuant to Oklahoma article reorganization, court it is to un- 7, 8(h), judges District Courts § pre-1969 dichotomy juris- derstand the longer were no limited of their diction examine the fictions jurisdiction. These constitutional amend- judges the courts created January ments became effective subsequent to 1969. statutory Our scheme is based on the Question adoption Prior to the of State premise “complaint” “preliminary 448, Legislative No. Referendum No. 164 information” presented to an “ex- July Oklahoma amining magistrate” will conduct the who system comprised aof combination of to determine if examination statutory courts of both defendant should held to answer the general jurisdiction. limited and The trial charge granted and if should be the State courts established Oklahoma Consti- permission to file a formal information in tution, article were the District § e.g., the District Court. Christian v. See Courts, Courts, County Courts of the Jus- (1930). 292 P. 876 Okl.Cr. Municipal of the Peace A tice Courts. specifically provision pro- “magistrate” article The term defined in § “County having pow- vided Courts shall also have “an officer jurisdiction examining for the exercise and er issue a warrant arrest of a public committing magistrates person charged all with a offense”. specific power cases”. This same was The constitutional references to “exam- charges were “exam- committing magistrates” felony boundover an ining and passage judicial magistrate”. begins reor- repealed upon ining Section 301 However, ganization. the definition Sec- by stating “[ejvery felony must be chapter since its tion 161 remained the same prosecuted indictment or information The does not passage in 1910. caselaw superior the district court or court”. defini- distinguish Section 161 between Therefore, charging the formal information “examining and felony a defendant with a offense is role of committing magistrate” when the statutory until filed under our framework magistrate preliminary examination magistrate” autho- “examining after the is discussed. by endorsing it to be filed the com- rizes in This preliminary plaint accordance with Section 264. The statutes on examination instrument, unal charging styled and commitment have also remained whether com- 1910, except for 1961 amend tered plaint, preliminary since information informa- ex preliminary ment to Section tion, nothing in is more than substance pursuant 22 O.S. amination ex- preliminary complaint allows the 1981, through 276 an examination 251 is §§ amining magistrate examina- to conduct an contemporaneous the ini with occurs person charged if the tion to determine any unreason appearance tial and without answer. should be held to v. able continuance. See Walters Williams, 661, P.2d 474 665 very The Justice of the Peace was Raines, (Okl.Cr. 147 Jennings 353 P.2d v. jurisdiction. This limited 1960), Kittrell, 472 P.2d In Re 318 State, pointed limitation out v. West (Okl.Cr.1957). preliminary examina (1923), 217 P. 24 Okl.Cr. 1067 tion is limited of Section felony when this Court stated cases “[i]n imposes jurisdictional limitations 264 justice jurisdiction peace judges the com on the courts and where discharge either to the accused else hold scope of plaint was filed and restricts the felony charged him answer or some findings that examining magistrate to felony (which dis committed, “any public offense been committed) to have within close accused to believe and that there is sufficient cause county”. limits of the the territorial limited This guilty the defendant thereof”. Supreme Court of Oklahoma in v. Collier recognized inquiry has been (1894), 37 Territory, P. 819 Okl. recently as in Matricia this Court constitution, reviewing after our statutes State, (Okl.Cr.1986). P.2d v. Act, stated, Organic “[cjonstruing all Wyatt v. Okl.Cr. jus we together, of the statutes hold that (1940), determined P.2d Court peace power try tices of the have no juris- acquire did that the district court excepting action determine actually had the defendant diction unless they by specific enactment such as are This hearing or waived same. preliminary try While given and determine”. jurisdictional limitations was due recognize judges we the District requirement the courts and juris the same basic not under findings magistrate make Section apply infirmity, we continue to dictional filed an could be information jurisdiction, limited to our Therefore, concept of district court. in 22 present statutory scheme set forth and bindover preliminary examination seq., inter- felony must be trial in a case stand mag examining District Court who acts orga- the context of the court preted within at the examination. See istrate statutory the time scheme at nization and Gorelick, (Okl.Cr. v. State enactment. (Okl.Cr. 1987); Hicks, 738 P.2d 155 Moss v. Benson, (Okl. 1987); v. 661 P.2d Pro 4 of Title 22 is entitled Chapter Kile, Cr.1983); must ceedings After Commitment and Cr.1952). we It this context that is within after a defendant applying read as

H67 right now must address the issue upon the foregoing, Based it is nec pre-trial discovery in a felony criminal case. essary proper jus administration of procedures tice to set forth meaningful continually This Court confronted pre-trial discovery for each a crimi appeal relating issues to compli nal case. While this previously Court has ance with pre-trial discovery within the upon relied the American Bar Association framework procedure. of our criminal This Standards for Criminal Justice presents case pressing need to fill the pre-trial discovery establishing ap gaps currently exist within our statu propriate scope discovery, tory e.g. framework. As we See arity held Inver Zumwalt, (Okl.Cr. 1987); Moore v. 97 Okl.Cr. 262 P.2d P.2d 731 (1953) 730 State, (Okl.Cr. that every fundamental Curtis v. 518 P.2d 1288 “[i]t court has things inherent to do all 1974); State, Wing v. that reasonably are for the ad Cr.1971); and Stevenson v. 486 P.2d justice ministration of within the of we also look to other jurisdiction”. its Layman See also v. authorities, including the Model Penal 444, (Okl.Cr.1960). Code, guidance. adopt We do not those regard pre-trial discovery, With to Jus procedures by recommended reference but Marshall, tice writing for the court War determining draw from proce them the 475, v. Oregon, dius U.S. 93 S.Ct. dure adopted. be should follow (1973), 37 L.Ed.2d stated ing pre-trial discovery procedure expe “But we do that in the hold absence of a dite the trial criminal help cases and will strong showing state interests to the pressing problem pre-trial alleviate the contrary, discovery a two-way must be disclosure. may street. The not insist trials We upon entry find the of the bindover run as a “search for truth” so far as O.S.1981, 264, order to 22 concerned, defense witnesses while empowered upon District Court is to act maintaining ‘poker game’ secrecy for its any pretrial motions, including own witnesses”. discovery. Although assigned District Supreme The United States Court has judge Court issue a order at applied concept open discovery any stage proceedings following of the cases, protections provided criminal with bindover, appropriate the most time is at to his rights, a defendant as time, arraignment. the formal At that require a defendant to certain disclose setting should enter a written order pre-trial information. See Williams inspection copying forth discovery, re- Florida, U.S. S.Ct. quirements a for each time for (1970), Illinois, L.Ed.2d Taylor compliance. All issues to dis- 484 U.S. 108 S.Ct. 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (10) covery completed least at ten (1988). In stated Williams “We however, conclude, days prior trial. apparently every has issue, other considered shall be disclose against the privilege self-incrimination following: by requirement is not violated that the defense, Upon request give notice of an alibi defense prosecuting shall disclose to de- disclose alibi his witnesses”. U.S. fense all of the material counsel at by at 1896-97. The Court S.Ct. prosecutor’s pos- information within way analogy concluded that is no including session or control but limit- pretrial require different to disclosure than ed to: grant during continuance trial allow (a) the names and addresses of wit- government an opportunity investi- nesses, oral, together their relevant merely gate. timing. It is a matter of statement, written or or sum- recorded upheld Taylor pre-trial the Court dis- same; maries of covery by judge requiring trial (b) any written recorded statements provide the defense to a list of witnesses any trial. and the oral statements substance by bearing upon a code- condition his by made the accused or made mental fendant; alleg- state at time the offense committed, edly together with the wit- (c) any reports or made statements fact, if nesses statement of that particular experts connection with statement redacted court to case, physical or including results of preclude privileged disclosure of commu- mental examinations and scientific nication. tests, experiments, comparisons; A statement filed under subdivision books, documents, (d) papers, pho- (c) 1.(a)(b) not admissible buildings, or tographs, tangible objects, trial. obtained as a Information result attorney in- prosecuting which the places under this statement filed subdivi- hearing or trial or tends to use in evidence at sion is admissible belong to which were obtained from or testimony refute of a except to wit- accused; identity ness whose this subdivision re- (e) prior convic- any record of quires to be disclosed. defendant, any code- or of tions Upon prosecuting attorney’s re- fendant; and court, quest after the set time (f) rap or FBI sheet/records OSBI any shall him access at defendant allow any by the on witness listed check any reasonable times and reasonable possible as a witness who or the Defense inspect, copy, photograph, to or manner testify at trial. will upon any made have reasonable tests dis- prosecuting attorney shall book, document, paper, photograph, or any material or close to defense counsel object tangible is within defen- prosecutors pos- within information possession dant's or control which: negate or control which tends to session (a) the intends to offer in the offense guilt of the accused as to evidence, except the extent to charged or which would tend to reduce any communication of defen- contains punishment of the accused. dant; or prosecuting attorney’s The obli- 3. (b) report a or statement to a to under this extend gations standard or physical or mental examination scien- posses- and information in the experiment material or made tific test connec- prose- particular prepared by of members of the tion with the case sion or control anticipated testimony to ei- any staff and of others who cutor’s person a whom defendant intends or, report with reference regularly ther witness, a provided report to call as case, particular reported have to the court to or statement redacted prosecutor’s office. privileged preclude disclosure of commu- shall be to disclose The Defense nication. following: subsequently If the defendant ascertains (a) wit- The names and addresses of 1. possession has control of that he or such oral, nesses, together with their relevant matter, promptly he shall so inform the statement, sum- or recorded written prosecuting attorney. The fact same; maries of defendant, subdivision, under in- this (b) any wit- the name and address of a matter in dicated an intent to offer defendant, ness, than the who person to as a evidence or call a witness defendant was be called to show that the in not admissible in evidence trial. speci- present place at the time and obtained as a result dis- Information indictment], in the fied information [or under subdivision is ad- closure this to together with the witnesses statement except in evidence at trial missible fact; the matter disclosed. Provided refute (c) the names and addresses of further, that the trial shall ensure call, other the defendant will witness not violate all orders do himself, testimony relating right against than defendant’s self-incrimina- disease, defect, tion. any mental mental

H69 empowered court shall be order and apply pending all cases order the district courts of the following State of sanctions for noncom- Oklahoma. plianee: seq. specific the purpose as to If prosecuting attorney fails to preliminary such, As examination. comply discovery order, with the provisions do not allow to inter court motion defendant or on pret them in such manner as to approve own grant appropriate its motion shall discovery prior examination. relief, may include one or more See Bookman v. following: requiring prosecuting Cr.1983); Stafford attorney comply, granting the defen- (Okl.Cr.1979). Therefore, Application continuance, dant additional time or a ofWrit Mandamus must DENIED. relieving making the defendant from IT IS SO ORDERED. required by disclosure /s/ Ed Parks rules, prohibiting prosecuting these PARKS, ED attorney specified from introducing evi- Presiding Judge specified witnesses, dence or calling /s/ James F. Lane dismissing charges. LANE, JAMES F. If comply defendant fails to Vice Presiding Judge order, part/ concurring court motion dissenting part. prosecuting on its own /s/ Tom Brett relief, shall grant appropriate motion BRETT, TOM include one or more of Judge following: requiring the defendant Judge Join in Lane’s comply, granting the prosecuting attor- in concurring part/ ney continuance, pro- additional time or a part. dissenting hibiting introducing the defendant from Gary Lumpkin /s/ L. specified calling or specified LUMPKIN, GARY L. witnesses, granting and a mistrial based Judge. necessity on manifest due the acts of /s/ A. Charles Johnson

the defendant. JOHNSON, A. CHARLES prohibiting 3. The sanctions Judge. introducing specified either LANE, Vice-Presiding Judge, concurs calling specified evidence or witness part/dissents part: persons required relates to items or be I majority’s concur with the statement discovery disclosed the court’s order procedural that state the current of our party against and whom the sanction permit discovery prior law does not sought comply is has failed to with the However, examination. I feel good why show cause compelled to dissent to the rest of the comply. party failed to Order. discovery point question I would first out order shall not include properly is what discoverable is not be- discovery legal product work of either matter, fore us. In the instant the trial attorney legal which is deemed to include acting magistrate, judge, ruled that she records, portions research those require could State to make certain correspondence, reports, or memoranda prior to over disclosures a bind order. opinions, theories, only which are only us. That that order conclusions of the or the attor- Questions of what is discoverable are not ney’s legal staff. raised. discovery procedures These criminal Order, majori- In the first procedure ensure our trial ty procedure relies historic determin- process justice by providing to seek ing pre-arraignment discovery appropri- the State access to ignores then authorized and historical pre-trial discovery pro- ate material. These precedence ef- discovery issues and in discovery cedures effective as of the date of this fect creates a criminal code. “code”, majority sets items forth by the defendant that have in discoverable part already approved been most However, for the first time in Court. history, judicial requires

Oklahoma many

defendant to disclose items that here-

tofore have not been discoverable im- designates sanctions to be

posed party fails to if either follow

rules I that this is a mat- set out. believe by the legislative

ter addressed government, judi-

branch our not the

ciary. expressions, ap- I

Contrary to the above

plaud majority philosophy. in their It my personal discovery view that more I

criminal cases is desirable. believe that

mandating permitting more preliminary examina- even before cases to be will cause more settled thus, However, economy. promote judicial

I do that we have the not believe changes

to make the to reach the legisla- goal.

desired I would commend the problems.

ture to address these DAVIS, Appellant,

Pam DICKERSON, Appellee,

Joe Inc., Mercury,

Dickerson Ford-Lincoln

corporation, Thomason Lumber Com Inc.,

pany, corporation, Earl J. Idabel, Farley, appellant. Kenneth R. Hayes, Defendants. Bow, McClendon, appel- Jim Broken

72,100. lee. Oklahoma, Appeals of OPINION No. 3. Division GARRETT, Judge: Presiding

Oct. 1990. Nov. Rehearing Denied brings appeal (Appellant) Pam Davis sustained Certiorari Denied Jan. from the court’s judgment summary filed

the motion for (Appellee), individually, and Joe Dickerson as a defendant the case. dismissed him Appellant a 1981 Lincoln purchased Car Dickerson Ford-Lincoln- Town

Case Details

Case Name: Allen v. District Court of Washington County

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date Published: Jan 9, 1991

Citation: 803 P.2d 1164

Docket Number: 0-90-0825

Court Abbreviation: Okla. Crim. App.