Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Martin

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Martin

1980 OK CR 31, 611 P.2d 253, 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1362, 1980 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 157

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 5, 1980

DocketNo. 0-80-268

StatusPublished

This text of 1980 OK CR 31 (Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Martin, 1980 OK CR 31, 611 P.2d 253, 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1362, 1980 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 157 (Okla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND/OR MANDAMUS

On April 24, 1980, the Petitioner filed in this Court its Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for alternative Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus and Brief in support thereof. The Petitioner seeks to prohibit the Respondent judge from closing any further sanity hearings to the public under the authority of 43A O.S. Supp.1979, § 54.1H, where criminal charges are pending against the subject of the hearing. Additionally, a Writ of Mandamus is sought mandating the Respondent to provide the public and the press with immediate access to a complete transcript of the closed sanity hearing held April 10,1980, in the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma, in a case styled State of Oklahoma v. Steven Keith Hatch and Glen Burton Ake, No. CRF-79-302, 303, 304, and 305. Petitioner further asks that we require the trial judge to open all court files in Canadian County Case No. PMH-80-8.

We do not attempt to pass on the question of whether the Respondent acted correctly or incorrectly in holding a closed sanity hearing. We would observe that neither of the parties to the litigation, the State of Oklahoma nor the defendant Ake, requested a closed sanity hearing or objected to the court’s closure order. Subsequently, the Petitioner was allowed to appear and object to the closed proceedings.

Pursuant to Rule 1.25, 22 O.S. Supp.1979, Ch. 18, App., Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, we will entertain ap[254]*254plications only in aid of our appellate jurisdiction when the action arises out of criminal matters within the jurisdiction of this State. 20 O.S.1971, §§ 40, 41; Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals, Okl., 595 P.2d 416 (1978); Johns v. Hess, Okl.Cr., 546 P.2d 652 (1976); and Jerry v. Pardon and Parole Board, Okl.Cr., 546 P.2d 650 (1976). This matter not being in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, coupled with the fact that the Petitioner is not a party to the litigation in Case No. CRF-79-302 compels us to deny the relief requested.

NOW THEREFORE, after considering the pleadings and brief filed herein, and being fully advised in the premises, and recognizing that the Court of Criminal Appeals is a court of special and limited jurisdiction, and further recognizing that this Court has no general superintending control over inferior courts and can issue writs of prohibition and mandamus only in the exercise or aid of our appellate jurisdiction (See Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals, supra) this Court finds that the Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus should not issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR SIGNATURES, AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT, this 5th day of May, 1980.

/s/ TOM R. CORNISH, Presiding Judge

/s/ TOM BRETT, Judge

/s/ HEZ J. BUSSEY, Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND/OR MANDAMUS

On April 24, 1980, the Petitioner filed in this Court its Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for alternative Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus and Brief in support thereof. The Petitioner seeks to prohibit the Respondent judge from closing any further sanity hearings to the public under the authority of 43A O.S. Supp.1979, § 54.1H, where criminal charges are pending against the subject of the hearing. Additionally, a Writ of Mandamus is sought mandating the Respondent to provide the public and the press with immediate access to a complete transcript of the closed sanity hearing held April 10,1980, in the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma, in a case styled State of Oklahoma v. Steven Keith Hatch and Glen Burton Ake, No. CRF-79-302, 303, 304, and 305. Petitioner further asks that we require the trial judge to open all court files in Canadian County Case No. PMH-80-8.

We do not attempt to pass on the question of whether the Respondent acted correctly or incorrectly in holding a closed sanity hearing. We would observe that neither of the parties to the litigation, the State of Oklahoma nor the defendant Ake, requested a closed sanity hearing or objected to the court’s closure order. Subsequently, the Petitioner was allowed to appear and object to the closed proceedings.

Pursuant to Rule 1.25, 22 O.S. Supp.1979, Ch. 18, App., Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, we will entertain ap[254]*254plications only in aid of our appellate jurisdiction when the action arises out of criminal matters within the jurisdiction of this State. 20 O.S.1971, §§ 40, 41; Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals, Okl., 595 P.2d 416 (1978); Johns v. Hess, Okl.Cr., 546 P.2d 652 (1976); and Jerry v. Pardon and Parole Board, Okl.Cr., 546 P.2d 650 (1976). This matter not being in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, coupled with the fact that the Petitioner is not a party to the litigation in Case No. CRF-79-302 compels us to deny the relief requested.

NOW THEREFORE, after considering the pleadings and brief filed herein, and being fully advised in the premises, and recognizing that the Court of Criminal Appeals is a court of special and limited jurisdiction, and further recognizing that this Court has no general superintending control over inferior courts and can issue writs of prohibition and mandamus only in the exercise or aid of our appellate jurisdiction (See Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals, supra) this Court finds that the Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus should not issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR SIGNATURES, AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT, this 5th day of May, 1980.

/s/ TOM R. CORNISH, Presiding Judge

/s/ TOM BRETT, Judge

/s/ HEZ J. BUSSEY, Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1980 OK CR 31, 611 P.2d 253, 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1362, 1980 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oklahoma-publishing-co-v-martin-oklacrimapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack