Opinion
No. 244, 2002
Submitted: June 27, 2002
Decided: July 10, 2002
Mandamus dismissed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS No. 244, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: June 27, 2002 Decided: July 10, 2002
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.
CAROLYN BERGER, Justice.
ORDER
This 10th day of July 2002, upon consideration of the State's petition for a writ of mandamus and the response thereto filed by the Office of the Public Defender, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The State seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directed to a judge of the Superior Court. The State requests that the Superior Court judge be directed to vacate an order entered in State v. Duane Hardy, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 0104019960, which held that the prosecutor in that case could not use criminal history and motor vehicle information contained in the Delaware Justice Information System (DELJIS) during jury voir dire and selection. The Superior Court held that the Jury Selection and Service Act, DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, ch. 45, and the jury selection plan adopted by the Superior Court pursuant to DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10 Del. C. § 4507 precluded the State's use of such information during the jury selection process.
(2) This Court, in its sound discretion, may issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus if the petitioner can establish: (i) a clear right to the performance of a duty by the trial court; (ii) no other adequate legal remedy is available; and (iii) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty. In the absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to act, this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or dictate the control of its docket. Thus, the petitioner must be able to demonstrate a "clear and indisputable" entitlement to the writ.
In re State, 616 A.2d 292, 293 (Del. 1992).
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
In re State, 603 A.2d 814, 815 (Del. 1992).
(3) Given these standards, we find it manifest that the State's petition fails on its face to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus. Although the State asserts that the use of DELJIS information during jury selection is "a long-standing practice in this State," the State offers nothing to demonstrate that it has a "clear and indisputable" right in this regard. Moreover, the State concedes that the "a variety of practices has developed among the several Superior Court judges about prosecutors' use of DELJIS information," which further undermines the State's position that its entitlement to a writ in this case is clear and indisputable. Accordingly, because the State has failed to demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a duty, the petition for a writ of mandamus must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.