Opinion ID: 1166357
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A Contested Dismissal Requires a Hearing.

Text: The majority admits that the entire habeas hearing was concerned primarily with the propriety of the prosecuting attorney's ex parte dismissal of the first criminal proceeding. Unfortunately, the majority never itself addresses the question. This is not surprising since, by its own admission, the majority is invoking its plenary power only to address those recurring questions which must be resolved to prevent future criminal proceedings from being improperly dismissed or reduced by erroneous rulings of the magistrate or district judge  not to address those recurring questions which would have to be resolved so as to safeguard the constitutional rights of Idaho citizens and the integrity of its magistrates. In yet another sense, it is not surprising that the majority fails to address the ex parte dismissals which occurred in Stockwell and in Rufener because, again, it could find no law or policy reasons to support its endorsement of such a practice. A defendant has a right to rely upon the outcome of a preliminary hearing. In fact, the Court in Carey, supra, stated the defendant's right in terms of a guarantee: The Idaho Constitution guarantees an accused's right to a preliminary hearing before a magistrate and, afterwards, to be prosecuted by information or the presentment on indictment of a grand jury. Idaho Const. art. 1, § 8. 91 Idaho at 710. The time and effort of counsel and the magistrate at the preliminary hearing become worthless where, as happened in both of these cases, a disgruntled prosecutor can casually side-door a district judge, and have the determination of the magistrate thrown out without there ever having been a judicial hearing. It is so fundamental as to be self-evident that when a prosecutor's attempted dismissal would undoubtedly be contested by the defendant who has the guarantee of Carey, supra, a district court must not hear the dismissal motion ex parte. A district court, if in doubt, can easily resolve the matter by asking defense counsel if an opportunity to be heard is desired. In the case of State v. Burri, 550 P.2d 507, 513 (1976), the Washington Supreme Court noted its own criminal rule on the subject which states: The court on its own motion in the furtherance of justice, after notice and hearing, may dismiss any criminal prosecution and shall set forth its reasons in a written order. (Emphasis added.) Wash.Cr.R. 8.3(b). Though the Idaho Criminal Rules and the criminal code do not include similar language as to notice and hearing, notice and an opportunity to be heard are fundamental due process rights of the accused when the prosecutor seeks district court dismissal of a magistrate's commitment order in an effort to refile a criminal complaint for a higher offense. In California, in the same situation under the same statute, it has been held that the prosecuting attorney must be given notice and an opportunity to attend proceedings at which a municipal court, on its own motion, is to decide whether a misdemeanor complaint will be dismissed under California Penal Code, section 1385 [Idaho § 19-3504]. The reasons why the prosecutor must be given notice and the opportunity to be heard are: First. It will enable the trial judge to make a more informed decision, which every judge aspires to do, by presenting an opportunity to inform himself of the total picture... . A defendant would be less likely to make untrue representations, if the prosecutor were present... . Second. Even in the absence of a statutory requirement of notice, if the rights of an adverse party are likely to be affected, requirement of a notice of motion is a basic concept to be observed, absent a legal showing of an emergency justifying its dispensation... . In certain cases, just a telephone call to the prosecutor with a reasonable opportunity to appear might be adequate. But some kind of notice is a requisite and the onus thereof is not unreasonable. Third. By the observation of our basic notion that a criminal proceeding is basically adversary in nature, the general respect of the public for courts and the judicial process, we feel, will be promoted. Courts and judicial officers must at all times not only be fair in fact, but also be diligent in preserving the appearance of fairness as well... . Finally, we feel that by requiring that the prosecutor be given notice and opportunity to be present, it will ease some of the unfair and improper pressures sometimes placed upon judges... . People v. Gonzales, 235 Cal. App.2d Supp. 887, 46 Cal. Rptr. 301, 303-304 (1965). The reasons stated above apply with equal, if not greater, force in the case of a defendant whose commitment as found by the magistrate is sought to be dismissed. See also, State v. Fernie, 129 Vt. 605, 285 A.2d 726, 727, (Vermont 1971). In short, on a prosecutor's motion to dismiss, the defendant has a right to notice and the opportunity to be heard. This is the logical conclusion to be drawn from Idaho's tradition of protecting the accused by interposing a detached judicial official between him and the prosecutor. The ex parte dismissals exacted of the district court by overzealous prosecutors in these two cases, and today endorsed by the majority, violate that tradition. On this basis alone, I would find these ex parte dismissals fatally defective.