Case Name: Lake County Property Owners Association, etc., et al. v. Holovachka, Prosecuting Attorney of Lake County
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1954-06-16
Citations: 233 Ind. 509
Docket Number: No. 29,156
Parties: Lake County Property Owners Association, etc., et al. v. Holovachka, Prosecuting Attorney of Lake County.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 233
Pages: 509–515

Head Matter:
Lake County Property Owners Association, etc., et al. v. Holovachka, Prosecuting Attorney of Lake County.
[No. 29,156.
Filed June 16, 1954.
Petition to Reinstate denied October 4, 1954.]
L. L. Bomberger, Guy M. Slaughter, George B. Hoffman, Jr., and Bomberger, Morthland & Royce, of counsel, all of Hammond, for appellants.
Albert H. Gavit, of Gary, for appellee.

Opinion:
Flanagan, C. J.
Appellants filed their petition in the Lake Criminal Court demanding the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate alleged irregular activities of the regular prosecutor. Their demand was denied. For the purpose of this opinion, the procedure followed need not be detailed.
The Constitution of the State of Indiana provides for prosecuting attorneys under the Judicial Branch of Government. Art. 7, Sec. 11.
Clearly, they are officers of the court. It is the duty of the courts to compel proper conduct on the part of such officers. With that duty necessarily goes the right to perform that function.
No court is ever closed to the voice of the citizenry. Their suggestions and advice are always welcome. But, if orderly society is to remain, decisions on such suggestions and advice must be those of the courts. As the family, the foundation of society, seeks suggestions and advice, but in purely family matters must have the right to finally determine its own internal affairs, so must the judiciary seek suggestions and advice, but have the right to determine its own internal affairs.
It may be properly said, "But this affects the public." So do decisions within a home.
It must be clear that the determination as to whether a judge shall spank his prosecuting attorney must be left to the discretion of the judge. If he fails to do the job as the people want him to do it, they may remove him at the next election. In the meantime, they may petition, but they may not demand.
Appellants have appealed from the action of the trial court in refusing to grant their petition to appoint a special prosecutor. Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal because appellants had no right of action to begin with, and therefore could have no right to appeal.
We agree with appellee.
Appeal dismissed.
Emmert and Gilkison, JJ., concur.
Bobbitt, J., concurs with opinion.
Draper, J., not participating.