Opinion ID: 2450792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Decisional Law Supporting the Use of the Common Law Writ to Correct Interlocutory Judgments

Text: There is ample precedent in our case law supporting the right of the appellate courts to entertain the common law writ to review interlocutory judgments in criminal action even though the trial judge has not acted illegally or in excess of his jurisdiction. Thus, in State v. Dougherty, 483 S.W.2d 90 (Tenn. 1972), where the trial judge arbitrarily ignored the statutory and case law of this state, the writ was granted. Involved was an order to the District Attorney General to disclose materials and information, including statements, reports of experts, the results of tests, etc. In granting the writ, the Court made this significant comment: [I]t is apparent the State has no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy. In the event [defendants] should be convicted the question would be moot and in the event [they] were acquitted the State has no right of appeal. (Emphasis supplied). 483 S.W.2d at 92. State v. Gant, 537 S.W.2d 711 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975), is precisely in point. The trial judge suppressed evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search, thus effectively terminating the prosecution and leaving the state without a remedy. Relying upon Dougherty , the Court of Criminal Appeals granted the writ, reversed the trial judge and remanded. The Court said: We think the learned veteran trial judge was without legal authority to suppress the evidence and to hold that the search ... violated the prisoner's rights under the ... United States Constitution. (Emphasis supplied). 537 S.W.2d at 713. In Gant the Court obviously equated the phrase without legal authority with the statutory phrases exceeding the jurisdiction conferred and acting illegally. In my view, the opinion would have been more soundly based had it been founded upon the plain and patent error of the trial judge coupled with the absence of an appellate remedy. Phrasing it another way, the state had lost a right not subject to recapture. Also in point is State v. Wert, 550 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1977), where the trial judge suppressed evidence obtained by a warrantless search. The then Presiding Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals wrote for the Court. The opening sentence: We granted the state's petition to determine whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion in suppressing the evidence... . (Emphasis supplied). 550 S.W.2d at 1. Gant was decided by Judges Mitchell, Walker and Russell; Wert by Judges Walker, Duncan and Tatum. Thus, these veteran judges determined that the common law writ was appropriate to review an interlocutory order. Finally, by dictum, in Hale v. State, 548 S.W.2d 878 (Tenn. 1977), we held: Counsel could have protected his client's right to a proper preliminary hearing by filing a petition for common law certiorari and supersedeas with one of the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and, if necessary, with a member of this Court. [6] This dictum was prompted by the fact that a preliminary hearing is a critical stage in the prosecution of a criminal action and... is mandated by statute, and because it is a pretrial type of arraignment where certain rights may be sacrificed or lost.  Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970); McKeldin v. State, 516 S.W.2d 82 (Tenn. 1974).