holding that the concurrent jurisdiction rule was one ground for granting a writ of | ,scertiorari preventing a division of the Circuit Court of Crittenden County from acting on a matter, over which a coordinate division had already exercised jurisdiction
How later courts described this case
- holding that the concurrent jurisdiction rule was one ground for granting a writ of | ,scertiorari preventing a division of the Circuit Court of Crittenden County from acting on a matter, over which a coordinate division had already exercised jurisdiction
- “Superintending jurisdiction is one of three types of jurisdiction held by courts of last resort that also includes appellate and original jurisdiction”
- a judge in a different division in the circuit may act in the absence of the judge handling the case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Donald L. Corbin, Justice, concurring. While I agree with the majority that Division 6 of the Crittenden County Circuit Court lacked authority to intervene in the investigation of the shooting death of DeAunta Farrow where the matter was properly assigned to and on-going in Division 3 of that circuit, I must write separately to highlight two issues that greatly trouble me.
First, while Respondent Honorable Victor L. Hill was without authority to consider a matter pending in another division of his circuit, after listening to both parties at oral argument, I understand to a degree why Judge Hill chose to act. The order that was entered by Division 3 appointing the special prosecutors stated that their commissions would “expire upon completion of the above-stated investigation and/or prosecution or until further order of this Court.” (Emphasis added.) The use of the disjunctive “or” coupled with the fact that the special prosecutors submitted a report finding that there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of Officer Erik Sammis clearly caused confusion as to whether the matter was settled in Division 3. The current confusion could have been avoided, however, if Judge Hill had conferred with the judge in Division 3 or his administrative judge in order to determine the status of the case. In any event, once Judge Hill learned that the matter was on-going in Division 3, he should have exercised his discretion and terminated his actions. While I agree with Judge Hill that judges, such as himself, who travel throughout the circuit have the jurisdiction to hear all types of matters, we simply cannot have judges competing over the same case; otherwise, chaos would reign.
Second, I want to highlight the concluding part of the majority’s opinion that if the parties present concerns to Division 3, but believe that Division 3 is failing to act in an expeditious or proper manner, then a proper party may seek redress by petition to this court. Moreover, I would add that once this matter is closed in Division 3, if a party were to obtain new evidence germane to this case, that party could seek redress in one of the divisions of circuit court assigned to handle criminal matters.
The death of a child is against the natural order of things, and in the case of the shooting of young DeAunta, it is understandable that people want to know that justice is being served. At the same time, the system that dispenses that justice must be allowed to work in an orderly and efficient manner. For the above-stated reasons, I concur.
Brown, J., joins.