State ex rel. Automotive Emporium, Inc. v. Murchison

• Decision Date: 03 June 1980
• Citation: 611 P.2d 1169,289 Or. 265
• Parties: STATE of Oregon ex rel. AUTOMOTIVE EMPORIUM, INC., Plaintiff-Relator, v. John J. MURCHISON, Judge of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County; and Harl Haas, District Attorney for Multnomah County, State of Oregon, Defendants. STATE of Oregon ex rel. Kenneth O. TROW, Plaintiff-Relator, v. John J. MURCHISON, Judge of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County; and Harl Haas, District Attorney for Multnomah County, State of Oregon, Defendants. SC 26477, SC 26478.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 1169

611 P.2d 1169

289 Or. 265

STATE of Oregon ex rel. AUTOMOTIVE EMPORIUM, INC., Plaintiff-Relator, v. John J. MURCHISON, Judge of the Circuit Court of the State

of Oregon for Multnomah County; and Harl Haas,

District Attorney for Multnomah County,

State of Oregon, Defendants.

STATE of Oregon ex rel. Kenneth O. TROW, Plaintiff-Relator, v. John J. MURCHISON, Judge of the Circuit Court of the State

of Oregon for Multnomah County; and Harl Haas,

District Attorney for Multnomah County,

State of Oregon, Defendants.

SC 26477, SC 26478.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 6, 1980.

Decided June 3, 1980.

Charles J. Merten, Portland, argued the cause for plaintiff-relator. With him on the briefs was Merten & Saltveit, Portland.

James M. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for defendants. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and Walter L. Barrie, Sol. Gen., Salem.

TANZER, Justice.

This is an original mandamus proceeding. Relators are indicted criminal defendants who petition this court to mandate the circuit judge and district attorney to conduct a preliminary hearing or dismiss the charges. Relators claim entitlement to a preliminary hearing, notwithstanding their indictment. The defendants on the writ assert, among other things, that mandamus is not a proper remedy because the relators may appeal if convicted.

The power of this court to issue writs of mandamus is granted by the constitution, Or.Const. Art. VII (Am.), § 2, ¹ and defined by statute, ORS 34.110, which embodies conventional mandamus theory. It states:

" * * * The writ shall not be issued in any case where there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law."

As relators acknowledge, direct appeal in criminal cases is generally regarded as a "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law," State ex rel. Maizels v. Juba, 254 Or. 323, 331-34, 460 P.2d 850, 852 (1969); Henkel v. Bradshaw, 257 Or. 55, 475 P.2d 75 (1970). A denial of a preliminary hearing is a ruling which may be reviewed on direct appeal. ORS 138.020 and 138.040, ² State v. Sanford, 245 Or. 397, 405, 421 P.2d 988 (1966), State v. Walley, 1 Or.App. 189, 460 P.2d 370 (1969); cf. State v. Pfeiffer, 25 Or.App. 45, 548 P.2d 174 (1976); see also Anderson v. Gladden, 234 Or. 614, 627, 383 P.2d 986 (1963). Therefore, in the absence of special circumstances, relators have a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the form of a direct appeal.

The relators contend that direct appeal is not an adequate remedy because they will be prejudiced in two respects if forced to trial without a preliminary hearing: they will be denied (1) pretrial discovery of the testimony of a prosecution witness who has refused to be interviewed, and (2) a pretrial opportunity to determine whether the state has probable cause to require them to answer to the charge. ³ The issue is whether this constitutes such prejudice as renders direct appeal a less than adequate remedy. We conclude that it is not.

As to the first contention, there is no difference relevant to mandamus between this and any other pretrial ruling denying discovery. Any claim of prejudice arising from a denial of discovery is reviewable on direct appeal. State v. Wolfe, 273 Or. 518, 542 P.2d 482 (1975); State v. King, 30 Or.App. 223, 566 P.2d 1204 (1977); State v. Castro, 25 Or.App. 873, 551 P.2d 488 (1976). ⁴ This is to be distinguished from a discovery order which erroneously requires disclosure of privileged communications, State ex rel. N. Pacific Lbr. v. Unis, 282 Or. 457, 579 P.2d 1291 (1978), or which requires disclosure by a party (e. g., the state) which has no post-trial appeal from an adverse judgment, State ex rel. Johnson v. Richardson, 276 Or. 325, 555 P.2d 202 (1976). Those cases are distinguishable in that relators suffered an irretrievable loss of information and tactical advantage which could not be restored to them on direct appeal. Relators here are not prejudiced by the requirement that they defer review of their claim of denial of discovery until direct appeal. Were their assertion correct, every pretrial discovery ruling would be subject to review by mandamus.

Neither is the prospect of suffering the burden of litigation a sufficient injury in itself to justify mandamus. Direct appeal is an adequate remedy unless the relator would suffer a special loss beyond the burden of litigation by being forced to trial. ⁵ Examples of such injury are the obligation to make nonrecoverable interim payments of compensation, State ex rel. Huntington v. Sulmonetti, 276 Or. 967, 557 P.2d 641 (1976), and being required to relitigate when a summary judgment is set aside by the trial court after its authority to do so has expired, State ex rel. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Olsen, 285 Or. 179, 590 P.2d 231 (1979). Here, however, there is no special loss asserted.

Because direct appeal is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy for the review of the ruling challenged by relators, mandamus is inappropriate. The writ is therefore dismissed.

Alternative writ of mandamus dismissed.

PETERSON, Justice, specially concurring.

I concur in the result. I do so because I believe that the question of the constitutionality of present Oregon procedures permitting prosecution by information or indictment can be reached by direct appeal. The relators complain that they are disadvantaged in contrast to defendants who are charged by information, which constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the law. Such a claimed deprivation is sufficient to raise the constitutional questions without a showing that the lack of such hearing may have affected the outcome of the trial and was therefore prejudicial error.

LINDE, J., joins in this opinion.

LENT, Justice, dissenting.

The majority orders dismissal of the alternative writ of mandamus issued by this court pursuant to Article VII (amended), section 2, of the Oregon Constitution. I must dissent because I believe the majority has misconceived the question of law presented by the allegations of the alternative writ as admitted by defendants' demurrer. ¹

The majority states that it is given that direct appeal in a criminal case is "generally regarded" as a plain, adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Since the denial of a preliminary hearing is a ruling which may be "reviewed" on direct appeal according to the majority, it follows that "in the absence of special circumstances" relators have such a plain, adequate and speedy remedy.

The majority then proceeds to miscast the relators' position so as to make it appear that the issue presented is whether mandamus will lie to review an order of the trial court denying discovery. That simply is not the issue. Rather the issue presented by this proceeding is whether, in the circumstances established by the writ and demurrer thereto, if relators are not afforded a post-indictment hearing akin to that commonly known as a "preliminary hearing," the state, acting through the defendants will have denied relators due process and equal protection of the laws. ²

Under the law of this state the district attorney may institute felony proceedings against a defendant in at least two different ways. He may charge the defendant on a district attorney's information filed in circuit court if, after a preliminary hearing before a magistrate, the defendant has been held to answer upon a showing of probable cause that a crime punishable as a felony has been committed and that the defendant committed it. Or.Const., Art. VII (Amend.), § 5(5). On the other hand, the district attorney may take the matter to the grand jury which may return an indictment charging the defendant with a crime when all of the evidence before the grand jury is such as would in the judgment of the grand jury warrant a conviction by a trial jury if the evidence is unexplained or uncontradicted. Or.Const., Art. VII (Amend.), § 5(3); ORS 132.380 and 132.390. More simply put, the district attorney may elect whether the state shall initiate prosecution by way of a preliminary hearing or by way of the grand jury.

In this case the state, through the defendant district attorney, elected to proceed and accuse relators by way of indictment; consequently, relators were not afforded that preliminary hearing which is available to any defendant against whom the district attorney elects to proceed by district attorney's information. The indictment charged relators with the crime of Unauthorized Use of Vehicle, ORS 164.135.

The name of a certain witness appeared on the face of the indictment as having been a witness examined before the grand jury, ORS 132.580, and as being a co-owner of the vehicle. Police reports made available to relators' counsel indicated that this was the witness who would give evidence essential to the prosecution on the element of want of authority to use the vehicle. Counsel's investigator attempted to interview that witness, who refused to talk abut the case.

Relators then moved to dismiss the indictment and, alternatively, should that motion not be allowed, moved for an order allowing relators a "preliminary hearing." Defendant judge of the circuit court denied the motions.

The majority's proposed dismissal of the writ is premised upon the existence of a plain, adequate and speedy remedy by way of appeal if relators are convicted. That assumes that on appeal relators will receive a decision as to whether they have been denied due process and equal protection of the laws by reason of being denied a preliminary hearing because the district attorney exercised his unfettered discretion to proceed against relators by indictment rather than district attorney's information. I daresay they will not get such a decision.

Upon appeal the relators will presumably assign as error the denial of their motions. The appellate court will inquire only as to whether it is error...