Opinion ID: 1150202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the statute of limitations question

Text: The Judge relies upon 12 O.S. 1971, § 95 as grounds for refusal to answer the question concerning his prior relationship with a lawyer. He apparently relies upon the fourth subdivision of § 95, which relates to an action upon a statute for penalty or forfeiture, except where the statute imposing it prescribes a different limitation. Title 22, O.S. 1971, § 1181.1, however, provides: All elective officers in the State of Oklahoma, including elective officers of the State and elective officers in each County, City, Town or School District of the State of Oklahoma, but excluding any elective officers liable to impeachment, shall be subject to removal from office in such manner and for such causes as now provided by law, or as may be provided by law passed subsequent to this Act, and any such officer or officers may be removed or ousted from office for any act or acts of commission or omission or neglect which may be committed, done or omitted during the term in which such ouster or removal proceedings may be filed, and any such officer or officers, may be removed or ousted from office for any act or acts of commission, omission or neglect committed, done or omitted during a previous or preceding term in such office.  (emphasis added) Because there exists a statute imposing a different limitation for penalty or forfeiture we find the limitations argument to be wholly without merit. Additionally, the question put to the Judge concerning his relationship prior to his ascending the bench was simply an attempt to lay a predicate to prove facts allegedly occurring during the time he occupied his official position; not for the purpose of proof of previous misconduct. The Judge's refusal to answer the propounded question was ill-advised.