Court Opinion

ID: 9532048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:17:28.56741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:39.697447
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, J.,
dissenting.
We may assume that the circuit court issued the writ of mandamus on the First Amendment ground stated in Maizels’ petition for the writ. On appeal the state does not contend that the prohibition against prior restraint is inapplicable in the present case, but argues only that mandamus is not the proper remedy to raise the constitutional question.①
The majority opinion uses this same reasoning, although not accepting the state’s argument that mandamus will lie only if there is a “clear rule of law” defining the petitioner’s rights.
*337•The majority reasons .that .mandamus is not the proper remedy in the present case because it would result in an interlocutory appeal, and that even though Maizels’ freedom of expression was inhibited to some extent, “the First Amendment aspect of the ease, when weighed against the other considerations discussed here, is not sufficiently important to justify the use of mandamus in a manner that amounts to an interlocutory appeal.”
This strikes me as a rather novel treatment of First Amendment rights. Ordinarily freedom of expression is protected unless there is some transcendent social interest (frequently expressed in terms of “a clear and present danger”) . which needs to be served even at the cost of inhibiting free expression. The majority treats the procedural inconvenience sometimes (but not always) associated with interlocutory appeals as an evil of such magnitude that we are justified in inhibiting freedom of expression to avoid it. I regard that as a clear distortion of constitutional principle.
*338There is a more egregious error in the majority’s reasoning. That error is in treating Maizels’ assertion of his right of free expression without prior restraint as if it were an incident to the criminal charge of disseminating obscene material. The issue of Maizels’ guilt and the issue of the alleged violation of his constitutional rights are two distinct issues. Maizels has the right to litigate the constitutional issue separately. If the constitutional issue is treated as an appendage to the criminal prosecution, then, of course, an appeal on that issue before the issue of guilt is adjudicated assumes the form of an interlocutory appeal. It does not assume that form if the constitutional issue is treated separately, as it should be.
We have previously recognized the appropriateness of mandamus as a remedy to raise a constitutional issue separately from other issues in a ease. In State ex rel Ricco v. Biggs, 198 Or 413, 425, 255 P2d 1055 (1953), we said:
“The question before us for decision on the merits involves constitutional questions affecting the rights of plaintiff. If she is correct in her contentions, then she is entitled to the immediate protection of her constitutional rights without the contingency and expense of an appeal to the Supreme Court after conviction. Straub v. State of Oregon et al., 121 Or 451, 255 P 897.”
The majority opinion states that “[t]he sole First Amendment effect of the use of mandamus would have been to hasten by three or four months the time at which * * * [Maizels] could eventually resume showing the film.” If Maizels had sought a writ of mandamus from this court rather than from the circuit court, it would have been possible for him to get immediate relief. Under Rule 49 of our Rules of Pro*339cednre we may issue writs of original jurisdiction immediately upon application.② But even if there is a substantial delay in issuing the writ, whether in this court or in the circuit court, the petitioner is entitled to seek relief through the writ if that procedure provides a speedier remedy than that provided through the usual course of litigation and appeal.③
The inhibition imposed by the state upon a citizen’s rightful freedom of expression should be limited to the shortest possible period of time. The delay in lifting the restraint may render untimely the message which the film or other media purports to convey. Mandamus should be available to avoid such delay.
Goodwin and Benecke, JJ., join in this dissent.

 “All applications for writs of original jurisdiction must be served upon the adverse party together with a typewritten or printed memorandum of the points involved and authorities relied upon. In addition to such matters as may be required by statute, every petition shall state the reasons why such application was not made to the circuit court. Such application and memorandum, accompanied by eight copies thereof, shall be filed with the court. Except in cases in which the court shall assume jurisdiction upon presentation of the application, the adverse party may, within five days from date of service thereof, serve and file a memorandum brief together with eight copies in opposition to the application for the writ. The application will then be considered by the court without oral argument unless otherwise ordered. If the court assumes original jurisdiction, briefs, which may be typewritten in conformity with Sections 2 and 4 of Rule 11, must be filed within such time as shall be fixed by the court. The original brief with proof of service endorsed thereon, together with 25 copies, shall be delivered to the Clerk.” Supreme Court of Oregon Rules of Procedure, Rule 49 (August 1, 1967).

 “It has been pointed out that the extraordinary writs, particularly mandamus, provide considerable flexibility in solving difficult cases arising from application of the final judgment rule. When the circumstances of the case justify it, the equivalent of an appeal may be had prior to final judgment through the use of mandamus.” Comment, The Writ of Mandamus — Obtaining Judicial Review of the “Non-Appealable” Interlocutory Order, 6 Kan L Rev 78 at 88 (1957). ‘