Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds Sheriffs Removal from Office

Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds Sheriffs Removal from Office

 

The Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld a Sheriff’s removal from office for willful misconduct, holding that the State was not required to pursue all alleged acts to justify removal. The Court also held that the proposed jury instructions were properly modified to conform to the evidence, and the evidence presented was sufficient to withstand a directed verdict.

 

Roger Lee Price was elected Sheriff of Pawnee County, Oklahoma, and took office in January of 2005. In 2010, however, Judge Jefferson Sellers requested a grand jury inquiry into Price's conduct.

 

The Grand Jury met in September 2010, and found that Price knowingly, willfully and unlawfully committed misconduct in office through the willful neglect of duty.

 

On September 29, 2010, the Grand Jury filed an "Accusation for Removal" alleging three separate incidents of misconduct. Price was suspended from office pending trial, under Oklahoma law.

 

During a three day trial that commenced on November 1, 2010, the State pursued only two of the three alleged acts of misconduct. The first count accused Price of releasing a female prisoner from jail without bond or judicial authorization on September 11, 2006. In the second count, Price was accused of refusing to book or detain a person who was attempting to surrender on an outstanding warrant on July 25, 2007.

 

At the conclusion of trial, a unanimous jury found Price guilty of both alleged incidents of willful neglect of duty. The trial court then entered a November 10, 2010 final order and judgment, immediately removing Price from office.

 

The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding "that the grand jury's accusation for removal from office which included multiple factually alleged inappropriate acts, did not require the State to pursue and prove every stated inappropriate act in order to prove the accusation of willful misconduct of duty."

 

The Court also held that the trial court properly modified the proposed jury instructions to conform to the evidence presented. Finally, the Court held that "the circumstantial and direct evidence presented, was clearly sufficient to withstand a motion for demurrer and/or directed verdict for the sheriff." See: State v. Price, 280 P.3d 943 (Ok. 2012).

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case

State v. Price