Christopher v. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc.
937 P.2d 77
Okla.
1997
Check Treatment

*1 CHRISTOPHER, Kеith Miller Individual, Appellant, STORES, K

CIRCLE CONVENIENCE

INC., Corporation; a Texas Kirk, Appellees.

James

No. 75095.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March Rehearing

As Corrected Denial of 6, 1997.

May Latimer, Tulsa, Appellant.

Caesar C. *2 Weiman, Hill, Ed- K moved for C. Circle Michael Melvin W. Tulsa, by Main, Secrest, Folluo, only evidentiary The attached Hill & material J.

ward support finding probable Circle K to the Appellee. for hearing a prior at the was a cause transcript preliminary page from the of the SIMMS, Justice: Christopher hearing. response filed a but below, Christopher, Miller Keith Plaintiff accuracy of did not the the tran- summary judgment ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‍in favor from appeals any script facts. or material K, defendant/appellee, in an action Circle trial court sustained the motion for The Christopher The brought by for false arrest. summary judgment relying on Adamson judg- Appeals reversed the of Civil Court Hudson, Dayton (Okl.Ct.App. 774 P.2d 478 and remanded the ment of the trial court 1989), finding prоbable which held that The proceedings. interme- cause for further hearing precluded preliminary at a the had appellate court held defendant diate for plaintiff in a civil suit false arrest from probable cause for the failed to establish probable relitigating the issue of cause. magistrate’s after because the order arrest appellate The court re intermediate hearing binding plaintiff for over preliminary the versed the trial court becausе memorialized, and formally not trial was Christopher probable cause to bind over for given preclusive not be therefore could only by excerpt trial was documented the effect.1 preliminary from the hear certiorari, opinion of grant vacate the ing by “signed not and memorial” order Appeals, and affirm the Court Civil specifically The cause. defendant, summary judgment in favor of court found this absence of a memorialized K. Circle holding Depuy order was violativе Hoeme, (Okl.1989), 775 P.2d 1339 that an undisputed. facts An The material are pre- given order cannot be unmemorialized robbery K armed of a Circle store occurred Depuy rule of clusive effect. We find this January 21, employee 1985. An of the here, aрplicable Depuy not however. robbery present during was store who presented was with unusual issues con robber, recognized although he believed obviously cerning preclusion unique based on immediately identify The he could not him. facts. Therе we were asked determine wearing nylon stocking his robber was judge’s predecessor whether a deceased oral during face the commission of crime. midappeal modifying postdecree, directives during employee prеsent The who had been injunction judicata previously had issued res robbery present was also proceeding effect in an enforcement before Christopher K day entered the Circle judge. the successor employee recognized Christopher as and the police were contact- the armed robber. The Among things, recognized other the Court pursuant to Christopher and was arrested ed that a written memorial of a decision would warrant. arrest enforcеability validity or of a affect the judgment, preclusive final but that no effect Robbery Attorney The District filed a judge’s ruling can accorded unless the charge against Christopher With Firearms its decisions existence and terms are estab- hearing prеliminary subsequently was entry bearing judge’s lished record prelimi- At the conclusion conducted. signature. nary hearing, Christopher was bound over Depuy applicable is not to the instant trial in the district court the examin- Thereafter, Christopher parties disputed there ing magistrate. was case because jury acquitted at is tried of the Cir- terms of the unmemorialized decision before Here, dispute robbery. K fol- sue. there is no between cle This false arrest suit that Christopher and K lowed. Circle ruptcy proceedings. stay Appellate proceedings order of Fed- have been These stayed Chapter Bankruptcy eral Court has been dissolved. because of Circle K's X1Bank- cause, litigation, charged the issue the heart this dant’s store and later with the crime larceny was found to exist at the from a merchant. At her Christopher nary hearing, that was bound over the court found there was finding. criminal trial on that based Neither cause to believe she had committed *3 challenge regular is there a to the nature of the crime and bound her over for trial. Sub- compliance sequently acquitted. and its she was tried and In procedures. statutory finding A of with her later action for false arrest she did not ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‍probable is in an disputе probable cause inherent order bind- that cause in existed order ing trial, over a defendant for trial. to argued bind her over for but she that finding probable cause at the 22, O.S.1991, 264, § provides:

Title nary hearing should not bar her from relit- “If, however, it apрear from examina- igating the in the issue civil suit. any public tion that has been offense com- mitted, and that there is sufficient to (now cause Appeals The Court Court of Civil thereof, guilty the defendant believe recognized Appeals) prob thаt the magistrate inmust like manner on endorse necessary prerequisite able cause is a for a complaint signed by an order him to by criminal trial which must met affirma the effect: evidence, tive that the issue is identical in proceedings plaintiff both and that had “full appearing

“It to me that the offense opportunity” litigate and fair to the issues as in complaint named the within men- required (or by McCurry, Allen v. 449 offense, U.S. any according tioned other 95, 101 411, 415, S.Ct. 66 L.Ed.2d 308 fact, stating generally to the the nature plaintiff It held estopped was therefore to thereof), committed, has been and that relitigate the in issue the civil suit. there is sufficient cause to believe guilty within named A.B. thereof order holding This is consistent with our decision that he be held to the samе.” answer (Okl.1989) Knight, in v. 771 Lee P.2d 1003 summary judgment proceed In the where we held that collateral estoppel will ings, magistrate’s finding probable apply parties to in bar a civil action from disputed ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‍cause was not nor was a relitigating conclusively issuеs which are de- binding made to the prop order over as not termined in a criminal action in that results by erly magistrate required endorsed as Reaching recog- conviction. that decision we §by supra. Christopher’s argument nized that the use of рreclu- offensive issue that the facts of the criminal case do not questions sion raises of fairness which are support probable by decisive, cause citing v. McCurry, supra. Allen magistrate unavailing. is The fact that the

magistrate ruling finding probablе made agree with the observation of the We cause in an endorsed complaint Moore, order on the City in court Hubbert v. 923 F.2d admitted, dispute (10th no Cir.1991), remains on these 769 that Adamson is consis A issues. falls within logical tent with and a extension of this “evidentiary thе rubric materials” for sum in Knight, supra, Court’s decision Lee v. mary judgment purposes. disputed, If not it in question that Oklahoma the Herring is taken as true. v. State ex rel. conclusively at prelimi cause is determined Comm., (Okl. Tax nary Okl. hearing parties have had full 1995). opportunity litigate and fair to that issue. estoppel apply par Collateral cannot when a agree holding with the in Adam- ty opportunity did not have a fair full and to Dayton Corp., supra, son Hudson an that litigate McCurry, issue. Allen U.S. preliminary hearing binding оrder at 95, 101 at S.Ct. at 415. precludes the defendant for criminal trial relitigation of the issue of cause in a In the instant matter the record shows subsequent suit plaintiff civil for false arrest fair opportu- was afforded full and acquittal. nity plaintiff litigate Adamson the custom to the issue by security guard er was detained defen- and no claim is made otherwise. Cf. Bell v. Stores, Inc., ALA, Justice, concurring. F.3d OP Department Dillard (10th Cir.1996), among several where I in the court’s decision that affirms concur preclusive concеrning the effect issues raised municipal pretrial motions in rulings case, that circuit court found court Statutory recordkeeping regime for civil plaintiff been could not determine that had counterpart. cases differs from its criminal litigate opportunity full fair afforded a judicial place in Proof of acts that took civil light many disputed factual contentions. in (jour- litigation be made a memorial must regarding rulings court Concern of that entry) signed by judge nal and filed in properly memori- judgеs two which were requirement rigidly the case.1 That does not matter not relevant to the instant alized are *4 prosecutions. the to criminal In lat- extend an disputed no facts and involves which has category rulings in ter the occurrence of the hearing binding preliminary a order from judicial may proved proceedings of be course is an inher- a for trial which defendant variety ways.2 magistrate’s in a The deci- of 22 of ent cause. O.S.1991 felony a sion to bind over defendant for trial § 264. (1) may copy a certified of be established judge’s the court’s minute that shows the copy complaint bearing the the A of (2) ruling;3 signed of endorsement his magistrate is endorsement of the the best (3) document; ruling upon court-filed or adjudication of evidencе of an reporter’s transcript- ruling court of the made copy practice cause. Better that a dictates hearing. preliminary at The last of these the the complaint of the with the endorsement of pro- in options was used this case. Neither magistrate should been attached to de have deficiency bative failure nor even resulted for fendant’s motion case, however, proof unchallenged copy adopted by an of from the of the this modе de- evidentiary the of the was material used in fendant'for the summary judgment purposes. sufficient for summary judgment process. the Opinion Appeals va- of the Court of Civil argued rehearing Dor the time on first the court AF- Judgment cated and of trial process” that “it of for would be denial due FIRMED. may plaintiff this to hold that this court be prosecuting from his claim the

barred made the V.C.J., HODGES, SUMMERS, and nary hearing proceeding. the criminal of LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, SIMMS, that, right urged appeal, are absent a to one WATT, JJ., and OPALA concur. requisitе to cannot be said have had KAUGER, C.J., opportunity fully fairly litigate in concurs result. and to Hoeme, Okl., 1339, judgment, Depuy copy 775 1342- 4th. A of the which shall P.2d (1989). signed may 1343 and filed memorial include notation of date birth but have need not be shown to been entered security and the social number of defendant journal Cumby the court's record. v. State ex rel. the defendant. Okla., Vinzant, 490, (1970). P.2d 492 468 B. The court shall obtain the date of birth of security defendant and the social number pertinent O.S.Supp.1993 § 2. The terms of 22 977 (Emphasis supplied.) of the defendant." are: judgment upon "A. When a conviction is ren- part clerk’s are 3.The minutes trial dered, upon the the clerk must enter the same State, Humphrey v. 3 Okl.Cr. criminal record. minutes, stating briefly the offense for which 504, (syl.5)(1940). Appellate ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‍P. review 106 978 had, the conviction has been and must imme- judgment roll of a criminal includes indict diately together and annex file information, ment or the trial court’s minutes of papers, which constitute record the action: plea, judgment and the and sentence. Cam copy the minutes 1st. The indictment and 464, State, (1961). plain v. 362 P.2d 466 plea demurrer. Okl.Cr. or 213, State, See 85 Okl.Cr. 186 P.2d also Scott 2nd. A of minutes the trial. State, 336, (1947); refused, (syl.10) Okl.Cr. charges 338 Carrv. 91 given or 3rd. The 94, and, 333, endorsements, thereon; any, 340 if witnesses, expert is a non of opportunity qua issue. Thаt sine services properly preclusion.4 approved according Compensation issue to the Of Expert Indigents Guidelines, Witnesses For application to Because this published by Administrator, the Court shall preclusion interposed until re- issue was paid from the Fund. 20 O.S. timely hearing, it raised must be was not 1304(B)(4), § § A polygraph O.S. 138.8. day.5 saved another expert is examiner considered be an ex

pert purposes witness of 20 O.S. 1304(B)(4). § Compensation Expert Of Wit Guidelines, Indigent nesses For Ake v. Okla , 470 U.S. S.Ct. homa (1985),Application Murga, L.Ed.2d 53 (Okl.1981). P.2d 735 Kauger Yvonne /s/ Robert A. Ravitz For and On Behalf Chief Justice $175.00 CLAIM ON COURT PUR- FUND CHASE ORDER NO. Petitioner KAUGER, C.J., HODGES, *5 v. LAVENDER, SIMMS, HARGRAVE, QPALA, WILSON, WATT, JJ., ALMA OWENS, Daniel Honorable L. Judge, concur. Presiding Seventh Judicial al.,

District, Respondents. et 88913.

No.

Supreme Court Oklahoma. 7,

April 1997. Oklahoma, rel.

STATE ex OKLA- ASSOCIATION, HOMA BAR Complainant, TAYLOR, ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‍Respondent. Alan Michael No. SCBD 4217. OBAD 1279.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma. 15, April ORDER

Original jurisdiction is assumed writ issued, hereby directing

of mandamus is re

spondent permit Tony the claim of Blasier processed payment to be $175.00 County

the Oklahoma Fees for Fund. 796, Okl., Bd., Okl., Armstrong, 4. Veiser v. v. State 688 P.2d 5. Brown Election 369 P.2d (1994). Associates., Peck, (1962); Hope R. Okl. Carris v. John Thomas & 134 P. 33 P.C., Okl., (1913). n.