State of Oklahoma v. Stephen McLaughlin

Jay, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with three counts of Lewd Molestation in Case No. CF-95-209 and with ten counts of Lewd Molestation.

¶8 Section 258 of Title 22 was amended in 1994 to require the magistrate to "cut-off" the preliminary hearing once a showing of probable cause is made. The pertinent portion of Section 258 reads:

Sixth. A preliminary magistrate shall have the authority to limit the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing to
that which is relevant to the issues of: (1) whether the crime was committed, and (2) whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime. Once a showing of probable cause is made the magistrate shall terminate the preliminary hearing and enter a bindover order; provided, however, that the preliminary hearing shall be terminated only if the state made available for inspection law enforcement reports within the prosecuting attorney's knowledge or possession at the time to the defendant five (5) working days prior to the date of the preliminary
hearing. In the alternative, upon agreement of the state and the defendant, the court may terminate the preliminary hearing once a showing of probable cause is made.

22 O.S.Supp.1994, § 258(6) (emphasis added). Prior to the 1994 amendment, a preliminary hearing magistrate was required to hear defense witnesses whose evidence was material and relevant upon the issues to be heard. 22 O.S.1991, §§ 257-259; See Wyrick v. District Court of Mayes County, 839 P.2d 1376, 1377 (Okl.Cr. 1992); Parmenter v. State, 377 P.2d 842 (Okl.Cr. 1963).

¶9 The language of 22 O.S.Supp.1994, § 258(6) is clear and reflects that the "automatic cut-off provision" applies only if the State meets a certain condition precedent — a preliminary hearing shall be terminated "only if the state made available for inspection law enforcement reports" five days prior to the preliminary hearing. A statute must be held to mean what it plainly expresses and no room is left for construction and interpretation where the language employed is clear and unambiguous. Jones v. State, 542 P.2d 1316, 1333 (Okl.Cr. 1975); King v. State, 270 P.2d 370, 372 (Okl.Cr. 1954).

¶10 There is no ambiguity in 22 O.S.Supp.1994, § 258(6). When the legislature amended the preliminary examination provisions in 1994, it took away a valuable benefit from the defendant — the ability to call witnesses at preliminary hearing. The legislature took away the defendant's unquestioned ability to call witnesses at the preliminary hearing, conditionally upon the State's disclosure of all law enforcement reports five days prior to the preliminary hearing.

¶14 THEREFORE IT IS THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that Delaware County District Court Case Nos. CF-95-205 and CF-95-251 should be, and are hereby, REMANDED to the examining magistrate for further preliminary hearing in conformity with this decision.