State v. Haugen

The Court is permitted to issue a writ of mandamus when a judge of a lower court has not followed the statutorily required procedures. Once the judge sufficiently complies with the writ, the Court may dismiss the writ.

Gary Haugen’s conviction for aggravated murder and his death sentence were affirmed by the Supreme Court. Previously, the Court had issued a writ of mandamus, after finding that Judge Guimond had not followed statutory procedures before allowing Haugen to represent himself. The Oregon Capital Resource Center (OCRC) filed a request to enforce the writ. The Court determined that Guimond already complied with the writ, and therefore affirmed the dismissal. OCRC argued that Simrin and Goody, Haugen’s discharged counsel, were required to have a part in the death warrant proceedings. The Court found that the writ did not require participation by Simrin and Goody, since they were no longer Haugen’s counsel. OCRC also argued that the writ required the admission of an affidavit from a neuropsychologist who had evaluated Haugen. However, the Court determined that this particular affidavit was not required and expert testimony provided at the hearing was sufficient. While acknowledging the severity of these proceedings, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the writ, as Guimond had complied with its terms and found that no further enforcement was necessary or appropriate. Affirmed.