Greening v. Dishongh

711 S.W.2d 475, 289 Ark. 315, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1960

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: June 23, 1986
• Docket: 86-25
• Status: Published

Opinions

Steele Hays, Justice.

Raymelle Greening, appellant, is charged in the Little Rock Municipal Court with the criminal offenses of failure to produce a driver’s license, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and two counts of battery in the third degree. Following the testimony of two officers of the Little Rock Police Department on direct examination, the defense requested their prior written statements pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2011.3 (Repl. 1977). The state maintained the statements should not be divulged because they were made in connection with investigations of the Internal Affairs Division. The court, after hearing protracted arguments, denied the request for these statements but granted a motion for a recess to allow Ms. Greening to obtain a ruling from the circuit court on a petition for a writ of mandamus. The circuit court held the provisions of § 43-2011.3 were discretionary and that appeal rather than mandamus was the proper remedy. Ms. Greening has appealed the denial of mandamus. We affirm the circuit court.

Appellant’s argument is simply that § 43-2011.3 is mandatory and therefore, mandamus should be granted to direct the municipal judge to order the state to produce the statements. She does not address the propriety of this remedy, only the merits of her claim, contending that if she relies on appeal for recourse she may be convicted.

The state asserts that the initial question on appeal is whether mandamus is the proper remedy. The state is correct and we agree mandamus will not lie in this case.

There is no contention the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction, only that its ruling was erroneous. The writ will not be granted for such an action. Appellant’s argument that appeal is inadequate in a criminal case because she may be convicted does not support the inadequacy of appeal. The remedy is by appeal. If a litigant who is dissatisfied during trial with an evidentiary ruling, however erroneous, could interrupt the trial for an extended period, in this case over a year, while he seeks relief by mandamus, the expeditious handling of cases would clearly become impossible. We said as much in Burney v. Hargraves, 264 Ark. 680, 573 S.W.2d 912 (1978).

If the writ were used to stay the proceeding in the trial court whenever counsel thought a ruling to be erroneous, much of our time would be occupied in the piecemeal settlement of questions that should be presented by appeal, and the trial courts would be unduly hampered in the disposition of their cases.

In State v. Glenn and Hamilton, 267 Ark. 501, 592 S.W.2d 116 (1980), the circuit judge interrupted a bench trial to permit the state to take an interlocutory appeal to. determine whether evidence offered by the state should have been suppressed. We said:

A criminal trial cannot be suspended for weeks or months to allow an appeal from an interlocutory ruling upon the admissibility of evidence.

Appellant has presented no other argument to show the inadequacy of appeal, and presents nothing more than the possibility of error on the part of the trial court for which mandamus will not lie.

Affirmed.

Purtle, J., dissents.