Court Opinion

ID: 9790425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:52:44.024113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:29.450035
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring in results.
I concur in the results reached by the Court in this case based on application of the rule of stare decisis as established in James v. Rogers, 734 P.2d 1298 (Okl.1987), and State ex rel. Wise v. Clanton, 560 P.2d 588 (Okl.Cr.1977), in that the Petitioner has failed to establish the requisite proof to warrant the issuance of a writ of prohibition.
To ensure the appearance of impartiality is maintained in a judicial proceeding the trial judge should not sua sponte invade the discovery process. We presume in the *527judicial process that legal counsel will comply with pretrial orders of discovery. Upon a proper request being filed, supported by a showing of need, the trial judge is empowered to take necessary action to ensure the rights of each party are preserved and the court’s orders are obeyed. This includes an inspection of litigant case files to ensure exculpatory and other discoverable evidence are properly disclosed. However, the record in this case is void of any allegations of noncompliance with the discovery order and therefore sua sponte action by the trial judge has the potential of eroding the appearance of impartiality.