Movants to Quash Multicounty v. Dixon

• Decision Date: 15 April 2008
• Docket Number: No. 104,072.,104,072.
• Parties: MOVANTS TO QUASH MULTICOUNTY GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Bryan DIXON, Respondent.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

184 P.3d 546

2008 OK 36

MOVANTS TO QUASH MULTICOUNTY GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Bryan DIXON, Respondent.

No. 104,072.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 15, 2008.

OPINION ON REHEARING FROM ORDER ASSUMING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

¶ 0 Petitioners filed this original action in the Court of Criminal Appeals seeking a writ to prohibit the district judge from enforcing subpoenas issued by a multicounty grand jury. They assert that a multicounty grand jury lacks jurisdiction to investigate crimes alleged to have occurred in only one county. The Court of Criminal Appeals referred the original action to this Court to determine whether the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and issued an order denying the writ on statutory grounds. On rehearing, Petitioners urge this Court to resolve the constitutional issue of a multicounty grand jury's jurisdiction or return the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeals for its resolution. We grant rehearing for the limited purpose of considering the constitutional issue.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED, REHEARING GRANTED, RELIEF DENIED.

Robert A. Ravitz, Public Defender of Oklahoma County, Andrea Digilio Miller, Assistant Public Defender of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, OK.

W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General, Sandra D. Rinehart, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Joel-lyn McCormick, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK.

COLBERT, J.

¶ 1 On April 21, 2005, the Supreme Court granted the Attorney General's application to form a multicounty grand jury. Petitioners subsequently received subpoenas from the multicounty grand jury and asked the supervising judge to quash the subpoenas. They argued that the subpoenas were part of an investigation into alleged criminal activity occurring in only one county, a fact admitted by the Attorney General. The judge denied Petitioners' request and they filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with the Court of Criminal Appeals. They also requested a stay of the multicounty grand jury proceedings pending the resolution of the issue. The Court of Criminal Appeals issued the stay and referred the matter to this Court for its determination of whether jurisdiction properly lay with the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals.

¶ 2 On January 16, 2007, this Court issued an order assuming original jurisdiction and dissolving the stay. We acknowledged that the multicounty grand jury had completed its work, but held that the matter fell within an exception to the doctrine of mootness as an issue of law capable of recurring yet evading review. Chandler (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Tyree, 2004 OK 16, ¶ 12, 87 P.3d 598, 601. We then declared that a multicounty grand jury has jurisdiction to investigate crimes occurring in a single county based on section 353(A) of title 22, as amended by the Legislature in 2003.

¶ 3 The Attorney General filed a motion asking this Court to either publish the order or issue a formal opinion. Petitioners sought rehearing on the grounds that the order failed to resolve the larger issue of whether the statutes describing the multicounty grand jury's jurisdiction violate the Oklahoma Constitution. Petitioners also asserted that jurisdiction properly lay with the Court of Criminal Appeals, not the Supreme Court. We directed the parties to file briefs and now issue this opinion on rehearing.

¶ 4 This Court endeavors to resolve a number of issues with this opinion. First, we seek to clarify, to the extent possible, the distinction between those matters in which the Supreme Court exercises full supervisory jurisdiction and those in which the Court of Criminal Appeals exercises appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases. Second, we seek to clarify the jurisdiction of the multicounty grand jury. Third, and tangentially, we seek to clarify the Legislature's power to enact statutes to further the provisions of the Constitution. In the hope of achieving those aims, we begin with an analysis of the concurrent and complementary jurisdictions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.

I. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

¶ 5 There is a fine line between the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that of the Court of Criminal Appeals, particularly when the authority of a grand jury is at issue. Jurisdictional conflicts between the two courts have been mercifully few. "This scarcity of conflict is a testament to both the clarity of jurisdictional boundaries between the two Courts and the constant willingness of the members of each Court to observe and comply with their jurisdictional restrictions." Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals, 1978 OK 130, ¶ 1, 595 P.2d 416, 418.

¶ 6 The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases unless that jurisdiction is altered by statute. Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4; State v. Blevins, 1992 OK CR 4, ¶ 2, 825 P.2d 270, 271. The Court of Criminal Appeals also has limited jurisdiction to issue writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. State ex rel. Henry v. Mahler, 1990 OK 3, ¶ 12, 786 P.2d 82, 85; Hurst v. Pitman, 1950 OK CR 10, 90 Okla. Crim. 329, 213 P.2d 877, 878 (syl. no. 1 by the Court). However, it has no general superintending power over the lower courts. Carder, 1978 OK 130, ¶ 12, 595 P.2d at 419.

¶ 7 The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all cases arising in law or in equity, with the single exception of criminal cases. Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4; see also Smith v. Okla. Dep't. of Corr., 2001 OK 95, ¶ 6, 37 P.3d 872, 873. The Supreme Court also has general superintending control over all lower courts, agencies, commissions, and boards created by state law. Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4. The Supreme Court also exercises this general superintending control to resolve any conflict in jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals; those decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and are final.¹ Id; Movants to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas v. Powers, 1992 OK 142, ¶ 2, 839 P.2d 655, 656; Mahler, 1990 OK 3, ¶ 11, 786 P.2d at 85. The Court of Criminal Appeals has no jurisdiction to review decisions of the Supreme Court. Dancy v. Owens, 1927 OK 203, ¶ 0, 126 Okla. 37, 258 P. 879, 880 (syl. no. 4 by the Court).

¶ 8 The Legislature has directed the Supreme Court to determine whether to grant the Attorney General's application to convene a multicounty grand jury. Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 351(A)(3) (Supp.2007). When it grants an application, this Court must issue an order setting forth the grand jury's purpose. Id. Once it issues an order to convene the multicounty grand jury, the Supreme Court retains general jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of the order. The question raised here-whether a multicounty grand jury has the jurisdiction to investigate illegal activity occurring in only one county-calls for a general analysis of constitutional and statutory norms as they apply to the multicounty grand jury's jurisdiction. Such an analysis is clearly within this Court's purview.

¶ 9 This Court has exercised this facet of its jurisdiction in the past to determine the extent of a multicounty grand jury's jurisdiction. In Powers, the Supreme Court considered the multicounty grand jury's authority to investigate illegal activity during campaigns for public office. We held that "the scope of power and authority of a multicounty grand jury convened by an order of this Court is within the jurisdiction of this Court and is a matter of broad public concern." 1992 OK 142, ¶ 2, 839 P.2d at 656. The Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged this approach when the Supreme Court referred a subsequent matter arising from the same grand jury to that Court:

Oklahoma is unusual in that grand jury matters concerning criminal cases fall within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, whereas, all other grand jury matters, including the empaneling and authority of a grand jury, fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Okla. Const. art. VII, § 4. Because of such dual jurisdiction over grand jury matters, it is important that the two courts do not take conflicting positions.

Griffin Tele., Inc. v. Powers, 1993 OK CR 12, ¶ 12, 847 P.2d 812, 815 (emphasis added).

¶ 10 We have deferred to the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals when the determination of the extent of a multicounty grand jury's authority raised issues of criminal procedure uniquely within that Court's expertise. See Smith, 2001 OK 95, ¶¶ 6-7, 37 P.3d at 873. In Woolverton v. Multi-County Grand Jury, the petitioners filed an original action in the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of prohibition regarding a multicounty grand jury's subpoena for fingerprints, palmprints, and blood samples. 1993 OK CR 42, 859 P.2d 1112. Because it called for an analysis of the constitutional limits of a multi-county grand jury's procedural authority to conduct discovery in the form of a bodily search as part of a criminal investigation, we concluded that the action was within the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals and transferred it to that Court.

¶ 11 Unlike Woolverton, the present situation requires a generalized analysis of constitutional and statutory norms and triggers this Court's constitutional supervisory role. Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4. This Court is charged by statute with determining the scope of the multicounty grand jury's authority. Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 351 (Supp.2007). Petitioners' request to return this original action to the Court of Criminal Appeals is denied.

II. JURISDICTION OF THE MULTICOUNTY GRAND JURY

¶ 12 Grand juries are a matter of constitutional law in Oklahoma. Okla Const., art. 2, § 18.² A grand jury can be convened by one of three methods. First, a district judge must convene a grand jury to investigate allegations of criminal acts within a single...