STATE v. STAUDINGER, 332 Or. 477 (2001)

THE STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. ROBERT LAWRENCE STAUDINGER, Defendant-Relator.

(CC 99-CR-0893-AB; S.C. S47781)Oregon Supreme Court.Argued and submitted March 2, 2001.
Filed: August 30, 2001

Original proceeding in mandamus.

Laura Graser, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for defendant-relator.

Kaye E. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for plaintiff-adverse party. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Rose Jade, Newport, filed briefs on behalf of amicus curiae Firebare, Inc.

Before CARSON, Chief Justice, and GILLETTE, DURHAM, LEESON, RIGGS, and De MUNIZ, Justices.[*]

[*] Kulongoski, J., resigned on June 14, 2001, and did not participate in the decision of this case.

PER CURIAM

Alternative writ of mandamus dismissed.

Page 478

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.]

Page 479

PER CURIAM

This is an original mandamus proceeding. Relator, a criminal defendant, served subpoenas duces tecum on the State Court Administrator and the Trial Court Administrator for the Deschutes County Circuit Court (“administrators”). The subpoenas sought certain jury composition records, including source lists. The trial court granted administrators’ motion to quash the subpoenas. Relator then petitioned this court for an alternative writ of mandamus, and we issued the writ. For the reasons that follow, we now dismiss that writ.

While the proceeding was pending before this court, the legislature passed Oregon Laws 2001, chapter 779 (House Bill 2335). Sections 14 through 17 of that act set out a procedure and standards that are to govern a trial court’s decision to release source lists and jury lists. The act became effective July 1, 2001. Relator now may request the records that he seeks under the provisions of the act.

The legislature’s intervening enactment makes the extraordinary remedy of mandamus no longer appropriate in this proceeding. See State ex rel Fidanque v. Paulus, 297 Or. 711, 717, 688 P.2d 1303 (1984) (“mandamus `is an extraordinary remedial process which is awarded not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion * * *'” (quoting Buell v. Jefferson County Court, 175 Or. 402, 408, 152 P.2d 578 reh’g den 154 P.2d 188 (1944))). We, therefore, dismiss the alternative writ.