Case Name: STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. Steven S. SUTTLE, District Attorney, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY and the Honorable Ray L. Jones, Jr., District Judge, Respondent
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1990-05-15
Citations: 795 P.2d 525
Docket Number: No. P-90-0244
Parties: STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. Steven S. SUTTLE, District Attorney, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY and the Honorable Ray L. Jones, Jr., District Judge, Respondent.
Judges: LUMPKIN, J., concurs in result.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 795
Pages: 525–527

Head Matter:
STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. Steven S. SUTTLE, District Attorney, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY and the Honorable Ray L. Jones, Jr., District Judge, Respondent.
No. P-90-0244.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
May 15, 1990.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING WRIT OF PROHIBITION
On March 8, 1990, petitioner, Steven S. Suttle, District Attorney for the Third Judicial District, State of Oklahoma and for Jackson County, filed a pleading with this Court asking for extraordinary relief. The state requested that this Court grant a writ prohibiting the Jackson County District Court from examining the State's file in State of Oklahoma v. George Wayne Loftis, Case No. CRF-89-223, Jackson County. On February 27, 1990, the district court sua sponte ordered the district attorney to furnish its entire file for inspection by the court as to what, if any, exculpatory information it contains. On March 15, 1990, we stayed the proceedings and ordered a response from the District Court of Jackson County which it timely filed.
The petitioner contends that the district court abused its discretion by so ordering the inspection of the file because the defendant would not have a right to examine the file himself. Whether the defendant would have a right to examine the prosecution's file is not dispositive of this matter as petitioner has failed to show any authority that states the court cannot order an inspection of the file on its own as is required by Rule 10.6(A), Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S.Supp. 1989, Ch. 18 App. Furthermore, defense counsel's motion for discovery of all evidence favorable to the defendant was sustained by the trial court. While the proper procedure would be for defense counsel to file a motion requesting such a review of the State's file, in this case, we do not find that the trial court abused his discretion.
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the writ of prohibition be denied in as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion on the part of the Jackson County District Court.
IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT that the order of this Court staying any further proceedings in State of Oklahoma v. George Wayne Loftis, Case No. CRF-89-223, is lifted, vacated and set aside as of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ed Parks ED PARKS Presiding Judge
/s/ James F. Lane JAMES F. LANE Vice Presiding Judge
/s/ Tom Brett TOM BRETT Judge
/s/ Charles A. Johnson CHARLES A. JOHNSON Judge
LUMPKIN, J., concurs in result.