*1 Johnson, J. Beulah C. JOHNSON Victor Error, Plaintiffs JOHNSON, in Error. Defendant
Joseph E.
No. 35937.
Supreme of Oklahoma. Court
Jan.
4X5 Pierce, Mock, Duncan, Couch & Hen- drickson, Ames, Bynum, Black, Daugherty, Rogers, Ashabranner City, & Oklahoma plaintiff error, Beulah J. Johnson. Weiss, by Suits & Suits, Fred E. James Grigsby, E. City, petitioner, Oklahoma Johnson, Victor H. Executor Estate Joseph E. Johnson. BALLAINE, HORACE Special- D. Justice.
This outgrowth case is an of the recent Corn, disclosure that Nelson S. Court, former member of this guilty own taking admission been bribes in certain early cases since some time office, his first term of which commenced question in 1935. The called are now on to decide effect Corn’s participation, during years when corruption was undiscovered, in decisions of this allegation Court in which there is no or evidence that corruptly. he acted I11 short, is whether decision during which he cast the period aside, should now be set only whether those decisions in there corruptly is evidence he acted should be set aside. opinion sought
The be vacated here was handed down October Okl., reported Johnson, as Johnson adopted 279 P.2d The Justices, among vote of five whom Corn. The decision reversed years, later In directed. had voted and ordered court trial the order only agreement to vote apparent, it is probate as admitted instrument certain already in majority was where a in cases Johnson, deceased. G. Dexter will of the last *3 disregarded and opinion was the mandate, favor of the estate the Upon of issuance any in attorney desired as the the Corn voted distributed was G. of Dexter Johnson so. requested to do was case where he the terms with in accordance County Court that in certain stated Corn also as probate admitted to instrument case decision in this (arising after the the There Testament. Will and his Last for large bribes n matter 1954) received he had when August until rested given October, that he had opinions and favorable opinion of the petition a vacate justices of part bribe two former of Johnson, H. Victor was filed Court, has been of whom now this one E. Joseph of the Estate of Executor has impeached, of whom error, the other and original defendant the Johnson, resigned and from both from his office H. opinion Victor In this is now dead. Petitioner, Bar. to as referred will be Johnson original Johnson, and Beulah J. Upon matters disclosure of the above successor error and plaintiffs an created Oklahoma Bar Association C. brother, Victor deceased of her interest this investigating (to which committee in er- plaintiff original Johnson, other subpoena and gave powers Court of broad Respondent. ror, to as be referred will compulsory for witnesses) attendance of purpose determining of whether further opinion former petition to vacate The corruption The existed on this Court. dis- upon the recent generally is based Committee was assisted a committee relating the dis- happenings and closures laymen appointed by Each the Governor. These others. honesty Corn and of Justice justice individual of this Court waived matters, contained which are some of any immunity might had he have and testi- to and some referred hereafter fied before of us the committee. Those recite and judicially notice of which we special justices who are this feel case clarity, fairness and sake of here for the that in fairness all now on justices are as follows': this it Court should be after said that to this first elected S. was Nelson hearings in exhaustive which all evidence continuously until Court in 1934 and served any which present citizen desired to then January He became of 1959. heard, and in complete property which supernumerary resignation his justice until financial records of all tax returns At time entered a July of 1964. that he concerned examined, were the committee charge plea nolo a federal contendere to completely justices exonerated all the now filing returns and was false income tax on this Court suspicion from wrong- plea. upon such On December sentenced doing. reported The Bar committee that 9, 1964, sentence, serving he while made present each of justices honest setting out a statement under oath had guilty been of no wrongdoing. The dishonesty. From this state- details of his Governor’s citizens’ committee said us, ment, and from other evidence before “not one suspicion” iota of cast been appears during first term of office upon them. See the reports final of these City an Oklahoma made with committees contained in 36 Okla.B.A.J., at attorney payment in return pages 601 and 704 (1965). expenses as the campaign he would vote All attorney “as man” recitations are matters directed a sixth above already votes record and where were five need there there is little opinion. attorney dwell an on further here. is suffi- favor of The details gave say campaign cient to that the fund him members this Court created appalled by money time were as him from time to after Corn revelations of * ** place dishonesty had taken as was the S. Corn and (the Oklahoma large. attorney) set forth in said state- ments until about the date of first petition In his to vacate statement. originally this Petitioner requested appointment of a referee, [******] power subpoena, Respondent hear “7. Petitioner agree evidence.
with
(cid:127)
(cid:127)
that if the issue
paragraph
set forth in
However,
was taken
action
hereof
decided
Respondent,
in favor of
request
pro-
to this
the Petition to Vacate should
dis-
ceeding apparently decided that
first
However,
missed.
Petitioner
Re-
upon the
decision of
Court
wanted a
*4
spondent disagree
consequences
as
purely
question
the
legal
of whether or not
of the decision of said issue in
of
favor
void as a matter
decision here involved was
Petitioner,
subject
the
and
to the Court’s
any wrong-
law
of
(regardless
of
whether
approval
question
that
postponed.
is
doing
not
procurement
in its
existed or did
stipulation
“8.
foregoing
The
exist) either because:
is sub-
mitted to the Court as
a
the basis for
had,
a)
participating in this
on
decision
Petitioner’s Petition
to
case,
and become dis-
forfeited his office
Vacate herein.
It
is submitted without
qualified
by taking
hold
office
to
future
prejudice
any
to
grounds
other
the
cases,
because
bribes in other
or
may
vacation of said
or
judgment which
in
b)
participate
to
Corn was
develop
could
hereafter,
Respondent
and
continuing
by
this case
reason of his
shall
any
be entitled
assert
to
and all
agreement
at-
with the Oklahoma
against
subsequent
defenses
any
effort
torney
by
having
his
taken
reason of
to
judgment.”
vacate said
him.1
bribes from
parties
make
the
To
certain that
intended
procure
upon
a
this
To
decision
stipulate
to
wrongdoing
that there
no
was
stipulation,
the
entered into a
of
kind in this
we
them
asked
pertinent
which, so far
this
parts of
as
upon
argument
oral
stipulation
whether the
concerned,
case is
are as follows:
“bribery”
there was no
this
including wrongdoing
all
each
kinds and
to
“1.
issue of the Petition
The sole
replied affirmatively.
side
herein,
subject
filed
Vacate
is
Paragraph 8
reservations set forth in
proceed
We
then
decide the issue
a
whether
S. Corn
member of
N.
was
by
issue,
stipulation.
tendered
The
Supreme
Court of Oklahoma
secretly
we
view
is: Where a
participate
1954 and entitled
agrees to take bribes from an
individual
et al.
decision in
case of
vs.
Johnson
consistently,
does
them
take
but
fact
Johnson, reported
For
in
“4. negative. Neither Petitioner nor Our answer is In reach- Respondent public generally nor the knew ing guided this conclusion have been alleged 'arrangement’ only by statutes, between N. not our con- views of jority required Supreme contends if Corn ei Petitioner Court as by ther his or dis forfeited office become 3 of Section VII of Okla Article qualified, be then decision void homa Constitution. cause it was concurred a ma cases, To provisions and decided sustain contention Corn auto-
stitutional
matically
harm
as to the
forfeited his office when he took
also
our views
but
other-
his first bribe in
our decision
and that he was
which would ensue were
thereafter,
ineligible to
office
hold
Peti-
wise.
O.S.1961, 382,
upon
tioner
relies
§
apparent
holding
that if our
were
reads:
every
the affirmative
decision from
January
cast the
in which Corn
executive,
county,
“Every'
legislative,
would have to be set
aside.
officer,
municipal, judicial
or other
There are more than one thousand such
any person assuming
or
to act as such
‘
Rights
cases.
kind have been
officer,
corruptly accepts
requests
or
settled
in such cases.
decisions
gift
gratuity,
promise
or
or a
to make
Marriages
upon the
have been contracted
gift,
promise
or a
to do an act beneficial
granted,
basis
divorces
titles have been
officer,
to such
or that
shall be
judgments paid.
transferred and
now
To
given
any particular manner,
go
reopen every
back
such case
any question,
side
cause
possible
requiring
new
new
decision
proceeding,
which is or
law
arguments
hearings
cast
new
would
brought before him in
official
*5
upon
unjust
intolerable and
burdens
all the
capacity,
or as a consideration for
parties.
long thought
Titles
status
speech, work or
in connection
service
put
open
at rest
be
doubt.
would
to
thrown
therewith,
capacity
or that
in
he
such
It would indeed create a “shambles” as
shall
particular
make
or
nomination
Respondent contends. And this would be so
appointment,
office,
shall forfeit
be
in
case in which
cast
disqualified
any public
forever
to hold
though
corruption
vote even
no
office,
appointment
trust or
under
occurred in such case.
State,
punished by
laws of this
and be
imprisonment
penitentiary
in the State
To us this result seems unthinkable and
exceeding
years,
by
not
ten
or
fine not
contrary
elementary principles
to the most
exceeding five thousand dollars and
justice.
just
think
We
it more
that those
imprisonment
jail
exceeding
one
corruption
cases in which no
can be found
year.”
stand,
should be allowed to
at the same time
giving
right
any person
full
believes
to
It will
provides
be noted that this statute
corruptly
such
that
decision has been
that
officers who violate its terms
obtained,
petition
this Court for
hear-
office,
shall forfeit
disqualified
their
be
which,
ing,
shown,
corruption
if
can be
punished”
hold
office and “be
fine
may
the decision
set aside.
be
imprisonment
or both.
Petitioner
contends
wording
that under this
for-
not, however,
doWe
rest our
disqualification
feiture
provisions
decision
alone. In
considerations
play automatically
statute come into
our
the statutes or constitutional
upon a violation of the statute without the
provisions
relied on
Petitioner do not
necessity
argues,
of conviction. He
there-
provide
an
automatic forfeiture of
fore,
that Corn forfeited his office and
judicial
office in the absence of
determina
became
to hold further office
grounds
tion that
exist
do
therefor nor
bribe,
at the time he took his first
even
they provide
disqualification
hear a
offense,
absence of a conviction for such
case in
prejudice,
the absence
wrong
doing
though
and even
or
his crime
known
interest
was
heard.
one but
giver.
himself and his bribe
year
ably
testimony
2. The
1038 is assumed.- Corn’s state-
made in
but in other
ment to the Federal authorities
that
it
said was
1936.
attorney
prob-
with the
hand, argues
Respondent,
provisions
on the other
stitutional
holding
that where
impeachment
the statute is a criminal
and that
is constitutionally provided" as
penalties provided therein
occur
none
method of
officers,
removal
named
may
imposed
be
a conviction in a
Legislature
until
may not constitutionally
proceeding
provide
criminal
is had.
for removal
other means. See
g. Conroy Hallowell,
e.
94 Neb.
purposes
case it
For the
of this
is not
N.W. 895 (1913) and 43
Public
Am.Jur.
necessary
that we decide whether
statute
Officers
§
requires
proceeding,
conviction
a criminal
We do not
question here,
reach such
guilt
proved beyond
where
would
be
have to
however, since,
said,
as we have
we think
doubt,
a reasonable
forfeiture of
plain
it
O.S.1961,
that 21
requires
disqualification
§
office
to hold office
adjudication
a formal
guilt
least
in a
may
would occur.
be that under
well
proceeding
process
afforded,
where due
wording
adjudica-
formal
statute a
may
require
even
conviction in a
guilt
proceeding
tion of
where
a civil
criminal proceeding.
proceeding
Since no
safeguards
officer was
afforded
of either
had,
character was ever
there was
required by
process,
due
would be all that
no forfeiture of
disqualification
office or
required
would be
remove him from
to hold future office under the
office,
statute.
and that conviction
a criminal
proceeding
necessary only to
would be
Petitioners’
relating
quo
warranto
impose
“punishments”
fine and
special
and other
proceedings are not
hand,
imprisonment.
may
On
the other
point here.
In none of such cases is there
Respondent
be
is correct
also well
holding
guilty
that a
automatically
officer
prescribed
penalties
none of the
forfeited his office without a hearing, and
imposed
occur
until a
statute
far
so
can
determine there are no
*6
proceeding
has
conviction
a criminal
such
reported
anywhere.
question
been had. We leave such
We turn
question
next to the
of whether
necessity
determination
therefor
when the
disqualified
Corn was
participating
from
arises.
in decisions of this
(even though
Court
plain
any
that in
We think it
event
disqualified
office)
he was not
to hold
requires
statute
least a
formal
of
because
having
prior
his
taken bribes in
adjudication
guilt
of the officer’s
in some
corrupt
cases and
continuing
because
his
of
regular proceeding
allegations
with formal
agreement
City attorney.
with the Oklahoma
misdeeds,
proof
of his
due
thereof
full
and
urged
disqualification
It
that his
opportunity
willing
to defend.
are not
We
arises
II
reason of
6 of
Section
Article
Legislature
to hold that
intended so
Constitution,
our
provides:
which
result,
adjudicative pro
drastic a
without
ceedings
adequate
protect
of some
“The courts
justice
kind
to
State shall
speedy
legitimate
open
every
the officer’s
and
person,
interests.
be
to
every
remedy
certain
afforded for
be
Respondent
that
such
also contends
person,
injury
wrong
every
to
applicable
justice
statute is not
ato
of the
property,
reputation;
right
or
Supreme
any
Court in
event since under
sale,
justice
administered without
shall be
Sections 1 and 2
of Article VIII
our
denial, delay
prejudice.”
or
Constitution,
Supreme
of the
Court
Justices
subject
impeachment and,
argued
It is
to
if Corn held
under
that even
only
legally,
guilty
Section 2 of
if
such
it is
officers
office
and even
he was
article
impeachment”
wrongdoing
continuing
“not
of no
liable to
who “shall
in this
subject
City attorney
be
agreement
to
in such
with
removal from office
the Oklahoma
manner and
that under the
corrupt
for such
was of so
a nature
causes as
be
provided by
quoted
body
provision
above
law.” There is a
Constitutional
disqualified
law other
case
construing
participate
similar con- was
states
cases,
judgment
but
sit in
their
him to
disqualification
such
whatever,
that
alone,
that such fact
not believe
him we do
but
although
known
existed
is sufficient to
light,
come to
having now
attorney.
and the Oklahoma
every
justify
setting
case
aside
the Constitutional
so read
do not
We
deciding vote in the
he cast a
remedy shall
provides
that
It
provision.
corrupt bargain
that his
absence
evidence
every wrong
provided for
be
decision,
believe
influenced
nor do we
such
be
justice shall
right and
injury and that
6 Article II of our Consti-
that Section
denial, delay
sale,
“without
administered
requires any
tution
such result.
provi-
that such
prejudice”. We believe
suggested
has also
if we
It
been
each individual
apply separately to
sions
partici-
partic-
held that Corn was
in a
rendered
If a decision is
case.
pate
while his
sale, denial, prejudice
decision
ular
without
case
of the
remained in effect
the harshness
kind, then,
though
even
wrongdoing of
tempered by adopting
might
result
be
participated in
be
the decision
cases,
prevalent
pertaining
rule
the cases
corrupt
we
in other
who has been
adopting
provision
defacto officers.
have
The result
requirements of the
think the
the decisions
parties
such
would be to make
have
rule
been met.
In
prima
stipulated
resolution
which he cast the
(for
purpose of the
party
void,
if
facie
but sustainable
deciding)
are now
we
judgment could
receiving
the benefit of
wrongdoing in this case.
there was no
pre-
prove
party
obtaining
herein
that the
that under the issues
follows-
wrongdoing.
think
guilty
of no
We
the Constitutional
sented
(cid:127)
unjust
place
such
would be
unwise to
provision
not violated.
upon
claiming
benefits
burden
those
Constitu-
It is true that under the above
said,
judgments.
we have
there
As
provision
tional
have held that where a
judgments
such
are more than one thousand
judge-is apparently prejudiced against a
twenty-six years.
dating back
far as
party
been
or his conduct has
such.
Many participants in such cases are now
party
try
'before
is afraid to
his case
years
In
intervening
deceased.
him,
judge,
application,
will
scattered, papers
have
have been
required
disqualify
in that
lost,
particulars of
and even
recall the
*7
is that
case. The
in these
reasoning
many
in
the case would
cases be difficult.
required
try
one should be
to
a case
no
justice will be better served
We believe
who,
judge
a
because of
before
by adhering
the
rules and
to
estbalished
circumstances, he has reason to believe
limiting
judgments
the-
to
vacation of our
give
will not
him a fair trial. To force
those
at least some
cases where there is
a trial
the
under such circum-
the
influenced
wrongdoing
evidence that
would,
course,
stances
undermine confi-
decision.
process.
judicial
dence
the
here that we have
cases,
But
It
be said
these
and cases of like
should
power to
tenor,
cry
jurisdiction
no
of our
or
ruling sought
are a far
from the
doubt
corruption
any
sought
grant
here.
relief
case where
ruling
Here
that because
can be
influenced a decision
corrupt bargain
entered
shown to have
into a
with
equitable
attorney every
this
have inherent
the Oklahoma
Court. We
case
protect
judg
power
integrity
of our
which he cast
to
the
while
vote
power to
agreement
power
this
such
ments and
includes the
continued
now be
must
aside,
inquiries
judg
conduct
to
though
set
had
as whether
agreement
even
by corrupt
ment
bearing
has been obtained
means.
regardless
on his
Products
fairly
Refining
Root
Co. v. Universal Oil
whether the case was
decided.
Co., Cir.,
only limita
3
F.2d
169
514. The
litigants
be true that
if
known of
power
tion
is that in the investi-
bargain
our
Corn’s
would not have wanted
commenced,
RILL,
rights
Norman,
gation,
Oklahoma,
once it is
and Honorable
ALLEN,
must
Sapulpa,
of the
to be affected
be safe-
SAMUEL T.
Oklahoma,
ordinarily
guarded by
practices
appointed Special
observed were
in their
Justices
adversai'y proceedings.
stead.
Universal Oil
Company
Refining
Root
Com-
Products
v.
MERRILL, Special
MAURICE
1176,
pany,
575,
L.Ed.
66 S.Ct.
U.S.
Justice
(Concurring Specially in
result).
generally
1447. See also
Restatement
Law, Judgments,
Section
In
decision that
(1961)
21 O.S.
§
automatically
does not terminate
the tenure
It should be noted that
decision here
our
of an officer
prohibitions,
who violates its
goes no further
than the narrow issue
reasoning supportive
and in the
thereof in
by
stipulation. All that
submitted
An,
court,
fully.
I concur
hold,
hold,
mean
is that
not
or
to
Corn did
entirely
problem
different
is raised
automatically
office, automati-
forfeit his
petitioner’s
Two,
invocation of Article
Sec-
cally
office,
hold
or
become
tion
eloquent
Six of our Constitution. This
automatically
disqualified to
become
sit
paraphrase
promise
exacted
corrupt
arising
after his
England
King
barons
from
City Attorney.
with the Oklahoma
John
Chapter
Charta,
Magna
40 of
“To no one
is,
be, open
This Court
and will
sell,
will we
to no
will we
refuse or de-
any litigant who can come forward with
lay, right
justice”, conveys me,
an
evidence that
decision was obtained
proposition,
original
scope
a broader
and a
by corruption
kind.
commanding imperative
my
more
than
Neither do we mean to indicate whether
it,
confirmed,
reading'
brethren find in
I
facts
in the absence of the
think, by
interpretation
the course of
fol-
sufficient,
stipulation,
are
with
expounding
lowed
this court in
the con-
evidence,
or without
further
set
provision.
stitutional
questioned decision aside.
past,
In the
this court has
accorded
present petition
Under the
sweeping recognition
high
aim and
herein,
Nothing
must be dismissed.
how-
unequivocal imperative
provi
of this
ever,
prohibiting
to be taken as
its
provision
sion.
It has declared the
refiling.
“sufficient,
“self-executing”, and
ab
statute,
disqualify judge
sence of
on ac-.
IRWIN,
PIODGES,
J.,
J.,
C.
V. C.
prejudice”.
count
bias or
State
ex rel.
BERRY, JJ.,
LAVENDER and
and LEE
Brown,
422
particular case,
brought
to do so
to bear in the
what
have declined
cases when
45,
facts,
Boxley Wright,
litigant, knowing the
would
voluntarily.
v.
84 Old.
feel safe
the-rulings
306;
entrusting
ex rel.
Free
cause to
Garrett v.
Mr.
202 P.
State
291,
296;
man,
ex rel.
Corn?
confidence could the
229 P.
State
What
102 Okl.
966;
594,
public
integrity
judgment
Bird, 179 Okl.
67 P.2d
have
Wilcox v.
Politically
Sullivan,
reached
vote?
Larecy v.
207 Okl.
his decisive
State ex rel.
monetarily
subjected
128,
applied
been
and
himself to an-
has
be
423
Ellis,
;
Indemnity
sanguinary
argument
Mut.
Co. v.
so
under)
urged they
Postal
must
570,
(judgment
be.
In
place,
482
the first
large
140 Tex.
169 S.W.2d
share of the
attorneys’
firm
decisions in
fixing
fees for
of which
which Mr.
Corn cast the
Justice
;
judge’s
void)
represent
held
fifth vote
merely compliance
son was member
Wil
with
Co.,
liams
135 S.W.
custom once
v. Sinclair-Prairie Oil
followed
let
court to
(entry
judgment
judgment
(Tex.Civ.App.)
2d 211
of
be
entered on the vote of
five
case, apparent members,
formerly
judge
express
counsel
without
participation
the
ap
ly
justices,
of
other
question
overlooked until after
on
the
four
no
when
peal,
void);
of the
held
Lee v. British-American
correctness of the decision was raised
Co.,
272,
Mortgage
Tex.Civ.App.
115
51
S.
one. There is no reason to consider
interested,
formerly
(trial judge
suspect.
these
Only
W. 320
decisions
if a judgment
raised,
judg
objection
of
counsel
carried
Mr.
fifth
Corn’s
void).
vote, against
dissent,
ment held
truly
was that vote
decisive, calling
application
prin-
the
of
cases,
In all
these
others which
ciple
disqualification.
of
way,
In this
might
cited,
disqualifying
be
factors
area of the shambles would be reduced sub-
insignificant
compared
were
with the
stantially.
enormity
by the record before us.
revealed
In the
place,
second
ap-
the “shambles”
If ever there could be conduct creative of
proach,
emphasis upon
with its
protec-
part
public,
“.doubt on the
tion of
innocently
those
trusting
legiti-
would tend to lessen its faith and trust
macy of
face,
decisions fair on the
essential-
courts”,
integrity
Boxley
of the
v.
ly
appeal
an
principle underlying
Wright, suprá, and “to weaken the con-
safeguards
rule which
acting
those
integrity
fidence of the
reliance
apparently
authoritative
court”,
Freeman,
State ex rel.
v.
Garrett
putative public
acts of
em-
officers and
supra, the conduct before us is of that char-
ployees.
always
has been the rule that
acter.
principle
the de
protects only
facto
those
Nothing
encourage
can more
those dis
change position
sup-
believing
posed
justice
make
a matter of
posedly
jure
de
character
.officer
that,
and sale than to hold
if
maintain
employee.
Carroll,
State v.
38 Conn.
secrecy
corrupt agree
with sufficient
449;
Keeler,
680,
Herkimer v.
109 Iowa
81
ment,
they may get
judgments
secure
178; Heyland Wayne Independent
N.W.
v.
against attack, except upon proof that there
Dist.,
1310,
278;
Sch.
Iowa
N.W.2d
corrupt
motivation in the
de Carpenter
Clark,
63,
v.
217 Mich.
185 N.W.
justice,
cision.
In the interest
in
868;
Cosgrove
Perkins;
ex
State
v.
rel.
tegrity, of
confidence in the due ad
106,
650; Alleger
Mo.
40 S.W.
v. School
justice,
ministration of
be
should
the law
16,
S.W.2d 660;
(Mo.App.)
Dist. No.
obligations
no man
deaf
so
of a
Mayor
Jersey City,
Oliver v.
etc. of
63 N.J.
put
as to
at the
command
709,
412;
634,
Vestry
L.
44 A.
48 L.R.A.
permitted
another should be
to effectuate
Mathews,
St. Luke’s Church
v.
Desaus.
judgments outlasting the revelation of his Eq.
519;
578,
(S.C.)
Manning
6 Am.Dec.
infamy. We cannot be more deaf to the call
Harlan,
704;
(Tex.Civ.App.) 122 S.W.2d
probity
of concern for
than administrative
City Denton, (Tex.Civ.App.)
Gambill v.
adjudicators
permitted
to be.
Berk
Cf.
389;
County
215 S.W.2d
v. DeLa
Tooele
.
Employees’ Association,
shire
etc. v. Na Mare,
90 Utah
In