The stated purpose of this policy is to avoid "a conflict of opinions and decisions between the two courts." See also State ex rel. Henry v. Mahler, supra note 37 at 85-86; State ex rel. Ikard v. Russell, 33 Okla. 141, 124 P. 1092 (1912); Ex parte Buchanan, 113 Okla. 194, 240 P. 699 (1925); Ex parte Meek, 165 Okla. 80, 25 P.2d 54 (1933). In Ex Meek, supra 25 P.2d at 56, we said:
The stated purpose of this policy is to avoid "a conflict of opinions and decisions between the two courts." See also State ex rel. Ikard v. Russell, 33 Okla. 141, 124 P. 1092 (1912); Ex parte Buchanan, 113 Okla. 194, 240 P. 699 (1925) and Ex parte Meek, 165 Okla. 80, 25 P.2d 54 (1933). In Ex parte Meek, supra, we said:
This being so, we intend to adhere to the consistent course heretofore pointed out, and to follow the decisions of the Criminal Court of Appeals in matters relating to criminal law and to the construction of the criminal statutes of this state, even upon constitutional questions. State ex rel. Ikard v. Russell, supra; Ex parte Buchanan, 113 Okla. 194, 240 P. 699; and Ex parte Meek, supra. In the case of Ex parte Meek, supra, we said:
We have followed this policy even though the statutes under which the conviction was obtained were attacked in the Criminal Court of Appeals on the ground that they violated the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma. See Ex parte Buchanan, 113 Okla. 194, 240 P. 699. This court is the supreme judicial court of the state of Oklahoma in all civil matters, passing by as not material to this discussion the relative rank of the State Senate when it is sitting as a court of impeachment.
Petitioner in his brief (page 11) says: "This court may doubt the wisdom or the propriety of its assuming jurisdiction of this case because of its former adherence to the rule of comity between it and the Criminal Court of Appeals, the latest instance of which is the case of Ex parte Buchanan, 113 Okla. 194, 240 P. 699. * * *" The question is not one of propriety, the question is one of authority; the question is not one of comity, the question is one of law.
And see on this point Ex parte Anderson, 33 Okla. 216, 124 P. 980, holding that the same rule applies as to the determination of the constitutionality of a criminal statute. Also see Ex parte, Buchanan, 113 Okla. 194, 240 P. 699; and Ex parte Meek, 165 Okla. 80, 25 P.2d 54, and Ex parte Barnett, 180 Okla. 208, 69 P.2d 643, appeal dismissed Barnett v. Rogers, 302 U.S. 655, 58 S.Ct. 363, 82 L.Ed. 507, rehearing denied 302 U.S. 780, 58 S.Ct. 475, 82 L.Ed. 603. In a fairly late opinion from this court by Jones, Judge, in Hurst v. Pitman, 90 Okla. Cr. 329, 213 P.2d 877, 878, it was held, paragraph two of the syllabus:
See, also, State ex rel. Ikard v. Russell, 33 Okla. 141, 124 P. 1092; Ex parte Buchanan, 113 Okla. 194, 240 P. 699. For the reasons above stated, we assume original jurisdiction to pass upon the question here involved.