Court Opinion

ID: 9563719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:45:29.711043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:02.510509
License: Public Domain

POWELL, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in paragraph 1 of the syllabus by reason of the special circumstances recited in the opinion. Ordinarily, I think the ruling of one judge becomes the law of the case in that court and one judge of a particular court should not ordinarily review or disturb the rulings of another judge in the same or coordinate court of the same case. 21 C.J.S. Courts § 195, p. 340; State ex rel. L. J. Mueller Furnace Co. v. Buckner, 207 Mo.App. 48, 229 S.W. 392; United States v. Davis, D.C., 3 F.Supp. 97.
I think that it should be emphasized that the commission issued grand juror Ernest Murrell as a deputy sheriff of Seminole County by Sheriff W. M. Nicholson could not by any interpretation be classed as a *727“courtesy commission,” or a “courtesy card”.
What is a courtesy card commission? That question has been answered in Allen v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 143, 105 P.2d 450, 454, where this court condemned such commissions. It is a card, as said in the Allen case, that the sheriffs of Oklahoma issue in an effort to appease the politically faithful who helped them get elected to office, and should read:
“Sheriffs Office,
“- County,
“State of Oklahoma. No.-
“Know All Men By These Presents:
“That I,- Sheriff, repose special confidence in the Honesty, Integrity and Good Citizenship of-.
■“Any courtesy extended will be appreciated.
“Given under my hand this-day of-, 19 — .
“(Signed) - “Sheriff.”
Allen v. State, supra. See also Murphy v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 333, 245 P.2d 741, where ■courtesy card involved.
The evidence in the within case discloses that Sheriff Nicholson issued about 500 courtesy cards, but according to his testimony, he issued only seven cards similar to the one issued to Ernest Murrell, which card is quoted in full in Judge BRETT’S opinion herein. It purports to appoint Murrell a deputy sheriff and authorizes him to serve process and enforce all the laws of the State of Oklahoma and the United States of America, in Seminole County.
Sheriff Nicholson himself considered Murrell a deputy. He said the commission issued to Mr. Murrell was the same as the commissions issued his salaried deputies, and he said that Murrell was sworn in along with the salaried deputies.
I think the case of Carr v. State, 65 Okl.Cr. 201, 84 P.2d 42, is conclusive of the further questions interposed by reason of the failure of Murrell to file a bond or to get his appointment approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Murrell was one of Sheriff Nicholson’s deputies and if he had while purportedly acting under authority of the commission killed some person no doubt the sheriff would have had to answer in a civil suit, as conceivably might be true where a “courtesy card” deputy would be involved unless the card was clearly worded as suggested in Allen v. State, supra.
While the effect of Judge BRETT’S opinion is to uphold Judge Commons in abating further prosecution under the indictment returned by the grand jury, still this does not mean that the evidence turned up and the effort expended must go for naught in any case not barred by the statute of limitations, because in this State prosecutions may be by information as well as by indictment, and until jeopardy attaches one method does not bar the other, after the grand jury has been discharged. See Pierro v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 425, 247 P.2d 291, and cases cited.