Title: Ex parte Janet King. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CRIMINAL (In re: Ex parte State (In re: State of Alabama v. Janet King))
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1071540
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: January 9, 2009

REL: 01/09/09
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2008-2009
_________________________
1071540
_________________________
Ex parte Janet King
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re:  Ex parte State (In re: State of Alabama
v.
 Janet King))
(Jefferson Circuit Court, CC-06-4787, CC-06-4788, and 
CC-06-4789; Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-07-0693)
WOODALL, Justice.
Janet King, a certified registered-nurse practitioner,
was indicted for two alleged violations of § 26-23A-7, Ala.
1071540
2
Code 1975, which is part of "The Woman's Right to Know Act."
The State filed a motion in limine, requesting an order
barring King from introducing at trial any evidence relating
to her "collaborative practice" with a medical doctor.  See §§
34-21-80 to -93, Ala. Code 1975.  The State argued that such
evidence was not relevant and that it would confuse the jury.
After hearing arguments, the trial court denied the State's
motion in limine.
The State filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking
the Court of Criminal Appeals to direct the trial court to
vacate its order denying the State's motion in limine and to
enter an order granting it.  The Court of Criminal Appeals
granted the State's petition, ordering the trial court to
grant the State's motion and to exclude evidence regarding
King's collaborative practice with a medical doctor.  State v.
King, [Ms. CR-07-0693, July 25, 2008] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala.
Crim. App. 2008).  King now petitions this Court for a writ of
mandamus directing the Court of Criminal  Appeals to vacate
its order.  See Rule 21(c)(1), Ala. R. App. P.  We grant
King's petition and issue the writ.
1071540
3
The threshold issue in this case is whether the State is
entitled to seek mandamus review of the pretrial denial of its
motion in limine in a criminal case.  According to King, the
order of the Court of Criminal Appeals is without precedent in
"any other court at any other time in the history of our
Republic."  King's petition, at 5.  As the State concedes,
"there seem to be no published opinions addressing [this]
specific scenario."  State's brief, at 14.   Although there
may be no prior decisions directly on point, it is clear to
this Court that the State is not entitled to seek mandamus
review of a pretrial denial of its motion in limine in a
criminal case.
"In Alabama, the State has a limited right to appeal" in
a criminal case.  State v. A.R.C., 873 So. 2d 261, 266 (Ala.
Crim. App. 2003). 
"The State's power to appeal from an adverse ruling
in a criminal case is governed by § 12-12-70(c),
Ala. Code 1975 (providing that an appeal may be
taken from a judgment declaring an ordinance or
statute invalid); § 12-22-91, Ala. Code 1975
(providing that an appeal may be taken from a
judgment 
holding an indictment or information
unconstitutional); and by Rule 15.7, Ala. R. Crim.
P. (providing that appeals may be taken from certain
pre-trial orders)." 
1071540
4
Ex parte Sullivan, 779 So. 2d 1157, 1160 n.2 (Ala. 2000).  The
parties agree that the order denying the State's motion in
limine was not appealable.  
"The Court of Criminal Appeals has authority to issue such
remedial and original writs as are necessary to give it a
general superintendence and control of the circuit courts in
criminal matters, over which it has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction."  Ex parte Nice, 407 So. 2d 874, 876 (Ala.
1981).  However, "[m]andamus cannot be used as a substitute
for appeal, when no appeal is authorized by law or court rule
...."  Nice, 407 So. 2d at 879 (emphasis omitted).  Instead,
mandamus "is appropriate in exceptional circumstances which
amount to judicial usurpation of power."  Nice, 407 So. 2d at
878 (emphasis omitted).  Moreover, "mandamus can be used to
prevent a gross disruption in the administration of criminal
justice."  Nice, 407 So. 2d at 879 (emphasis omitted).  Thus,
when the trial court has acted without lawful authority, the
State has been afforded mandamus relief.  See, e.g., State v.
Blane, 985 So. 2d 384 (Ala. 2007) (directing circuit court to
vacate order expunging criminal record); D.B.Y. v. State, 910
So. 2d 820 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)(directing trial court to
1071540
5
reinstate juvenile's probation and direct that juvenile
undergo sexual-offender risk assessment before being released
from probation).
King argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals, by
granting the State's petition for a writ of mandamus, "has
granted to the State ... the ability to file what amounts to
an interlocutory appeal under the guise of mandamus relief."
King's petition, at 4.  On the other hand, the State argues
that it was entitled to the writ of mandamus, because,
according to the State, the trial court's denial of its motion
in limine "presents a gross disruption in the administration
of criminal justice that justified the appellate court's
exercise of its supervisory authority."  State's brief, at 15.
We agree with King.
It is beyond cavil that the trial court acts within its
lawful 
authority 
in 
deciding 
issues 
concerning 
the
admissibility of evidence.  Indeed, "[w]e review issues
concerning the admission of evidence [only] to determine
whether the trial court exceeded its discretion."  Ex parte
Key, 890 So. 2d 1056, 1059 (Ala. 2003).  Obviously, "simply
because an order may have been erroneous does not mean that an
1071540
6
inferior court lacked the power to enter it."  Nice, 407 So.
2d at 878.  Consequently, "circumstances involving alleged
errors of judgment, or errors in the exercise of judicial
discretion, 
[do] 
not 
constitute 
grounds 
for 
invoking
supervisory mandamus."  Nice, 407 So. 2d at 882.  
According to the State, if the trial court allows the jury
to consider the evidence at issue, there will be "a gross
disruption in the administration of criminal justice."
State's brief, at 15.  Although the trial court denied the
State's motion in limine, "'"the material against which the
objection has been made has not yet been heard by the jury and
may never be heard by them."'" Parks v. State, 587 So. 2d
1012, 1015 (Ala. 1991)(quoting White v. State, 527 So. 2d
1349, 1350 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988), quoting in turn Brooks v.
State, 443 So. 2d 1301, 1303 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)).  If the
trial court allows the jury to consider the evidence the State
seeks to keep out, it will be acting within its lawful
authority, and the State will have no right of appellate
review.  Such an outcome would reflect the ordinary and proper
administration of criminal justice, not a disruption thereof.
1071540
7
For the foregoing reasons, we grant King's petition and
issue a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Criminal
Appeals to vacate its order granting the State's petition for
a writ of mandamus.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Cobb, C.J., and See, Lyons, Stuart, and Parker, JJ.,
concur.
Bolin, J., recuses himself.