Court Opinion

ID: 9786157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:48:56.900474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:20.210746
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge,
dissents.
T1 The Oklahoma Constitution provides for only two types of grand juries: 1) a county grand jury to investigate crimes alleged to have been committed in one county and convened upon the order of the district judge upon his own motion, or ordered by the district judge upon the filing of a petition signed by a qualified number of electors of the county; and 2) a multi-county grand jury to investigate multi-county criminal activities convened by the Oklahoma State Supreme Court upon the filing of a verified application by the Attorney General. Okl. Const. Art. II, § 18; 22 O.S.2001, § 351.1 The majority opinion creates a third kind of grand jury, one in which the Attorney General can go to any district judge of any county and request the convening of a grand jury. To arrive at this conclusion, the majority goes through a grammatical analysis of Article II, § 18 which is at best confusing, and in the least, unnecessary.
¶ 2 The majority opinion spends a good deal of time trying to decide the meaning of the term "said county" as set forth in § 18. Contrary to the opinion of the majority, the ballot title which presented the 1971 amendment to a vote of the people of the State is a useful tool of interpretation.2 Austin, Nich ols & Co., Inc. v. Oklahoma County Bd. of Tax-Roll Corrections, 578 P.2d 1200, 1203 (Okl.1978) (the ballot title is a contemporaneous construction of the constitutional amendment and as such weighs heavily in determining its meaning).
¶ 3 The ballot title substituted the phrase "said county" with the phrase "one county". Pursuant to 34 O.S.1991, $ 9, the legal term "said" as set forth in the body of the proposed constitutional amendment was replaced by the more commonly used term "one" in the ballot title.3 Therefore, using the ballot title as our guide to interpretation, "one county" as used in the ballot title is synonymous with "said county" as used in the text of § 18.
T4 Further support for this proposition can be found in the fact that the people of *923the State of Oklahoma voted in favor of State Question No. 483, on December 7, 1971, on the basis that it provided for a new constitutional amendment authorizing the convening of a grand jury to investigate crime occurring in one county or more than one county, ie. multi-county criminal activities. The electorate did not engage in the grammatical analysis utilized by this Court to determine whether "one county" was supposed to mean only the county in which the grand jury sat or another county. They just voted on the amendment based upon what it plainly said.
¶ 5 As the people of the State of Oklahoma voted, pursuant to the provisions of Article II, Section 18, of the Oklahoma Constitution, a multi-county grand jury, once empaneled and acting as a state-wide grand jury, has the power and authority to investigate and return indictments for all character and grades of crimes in one county or in any and all seventy-seven counties of the State of Oklahoma. Such power and authority clearly authorized the issuance of the subpoenas in this case.4
¶ 6 Further, I dissent to the majority's conclusion that the Attorney General has the authority to convene a multi—coﬁnty grand jury. The Oklahoma State Supreme Court was given sole authority to convene a multi-county grand jury pursuant to 22 O.S.2001, § 351. The Attorney General must file a verified application with the State Supreme Court seeking the convening of a multi-county grand jury. Such application must be approved by the Supreme Court who determines whether or not to issue the order convening the multi-county grand jury.
¶ 7 The majority's interpretation of § 18 is in direct conflict with the provisions of the Multi-County Grand Jury Act, 22 O.S.2001, § 350 et. seq. The Court's responsibility is to interpret statutes and constitutional provisions to give effect to both in consistent interpretation of the applicable provisions. See Lozoya v. State, 932 P.2d 22, 28 (Okl.Cr.1996). "Legislative acts are to be construed so as to reconcile their provisions, rendering them consistent and giving intelligent effect to each." State v. Ramsey, 868 P.2d 709, 711 (Okl.Cr.1993). See also Eason Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission, 535 P.2d 283, 286 (Okl.1975). "Every presumption must be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature, and it is the duty of the courts, whenever possible, to harmonize acts of the Legislature with the Constitution." State v. Pratt, 816 P.2d 1149, 1151 (Okl.Cr.1991).
¶ 8 In Modisett v. Marmaduke, 394 P.24 541, 548-544 (Okl.Cr.1964) this Court was called upon to reconcile two conflicting statutes. Judge Nix stated in part: -
However, your writer has found difficulty in interpreting the law only in such cases where an effort is made to read something into a statute that isn't there; or they try to embrace some act or conduct not clearly included therein. Less confusion would exist in the law if those charged with the 'responsibility of its interpretation would avoid being a self-proclaimed legislator in an effort to expand a statute to encompass that which would suit his convenience or to include an offense to fit his particular fancy. If statutes were construed strictly and in conformity with what they actually say, Legislative intent could be more easily established and perplexity and confusion in the law eliminated.
394 P.2d at 548-544.
¶ 9 In the majority opinion, the Court has attempted to impose personal philosophical beliefs onto the people of the State of Oklahoma, even though the people of the State have spoken otherwise. I find the majority's opinion an attempt to fit a size 12 foot into a size 6 shoe. While I may not personally agree with granting the Attorney General such broad investigative powers, I find the will of the people of the State of Oklahoma, as set forth in Article II, § 18 of the Oklahoma Constitution, to be the final say on the matter. Accordingly, I dissent to the majority opinion.
*924{10 I am authorized to state Judge LILE joins in this separate vote.
APPENDIX A
STATE QUESTION NO. 483 LEGISLATIVE
REFERENDUM NO. 189
Submitted by Senate Joint Resolution No. 23, page 1011, Session Laws 1971. The gist of the proposition is as follows:
Shall a constitutional amendment amending Article II, Section 18, of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma to provide for composition of grand juries: providing that grand juries be convened upon the filing of a petition signed by the qualified electors of a county; establishing numerical signature requirements for the sufficiency of such petitions; allowing the Attorney General to convene and conduct grand juries, upon the filing of a verified application to investigate crimes alleged to have been committed in one county or involving multi-county criminal activities; granting such grand juries power to indict for all character and grades of crimes, be approved by the people?
VOt@-- YES ........lll elle ere kk kk ............................ 142,436
NQ. 222 ull lavra ............................ 74,7836
AMENDMENT ADOPTED
Oklahoma Elections: Statehood to Present Volume I, A Publication of the Oklahoma State Election Board, January 1994, pg. C-518.

. This case is predicated on the State obtaining commercial, business records, i.e., cellular phone logs. See 12 O.S.2001, § 2803(6). Appellee had little, if any, expectation of privacy in the records. See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-46, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979). Instead of addressing the issue of whether Appellee actually had the standing to object to the records, the Court ventures into the arena of constitutional interpretation.

. See Appendix A

. A ballot title is to be prepared according to certain specifications. These include that it shall explain in basic words, which can be easily found in dictionaries of general usage, the effect of the proposition; it shall be written on the eighth-grade reading comprehension level; and # shall not contain any words which have a special meaning for a particular profession or trade not commonly known to the citizens of this state. See 34 O.S.1991, § 9(B)

. While I philosophically agree with the Court's desire to limit the nature and scope of the Multi-County Grand Jury Act, I cannot find a logical, legal basis to do so. The provisions of the Multi-County Grand Jury Act, enacted by the Oklahoma Legislature, are consistent with Article II, § 18. The Court's selective reading of the constitutional provisions and the Multi-County Grand Jury Act creates an inconsistency, and not a reconciliation, in both provisions.