Opinion ID: 1277746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State Criminal Complaints

Text: Although federal courts have consistently held that private citizens may not file criminal complaints before the federal magistrates, there is not a uniform rule at the state level regarding a citizen's right to initiate criminal proceedings. For example, some states have a specific rule providing that a citizen may not commence private prosecutions for alleged violations of criminal law, State ex rel. Wild v. Otis, 257 N.W.2d 361 (Minn.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1003, 98 S.Ct. 707, 54 L.Ed.2d 746 (1978) (Rule 2.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure), [7] whereas other states have interpreted a statute or rule as allowing a criminal complaint to be filed by a private citizen, State v. Murphy, 99 Idaho 511, 584 P.2d 1236 (1978) [8] (Idaho Code § 19-501), [9] and State v. Jones, 44 Ohio Misc.2d 35, 541 N.E.2d 1100 (Mun.Ct. 1988) [10] (Ohio Rev.Code § 2935.09). [11] The American Bar Association, in its comment to Standard 3-2.1 [12] of the American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice (Supp.1986), has discouraged the practice of allowing private citizens to initiate criminal proceedings: In a few jurisdictions a private party may institute criminal proceedings without the authorization or approval of the prosecuting attorney. When a check is not provided by the participation of a public prosecutor, however, there is danger of the vindictive use of the criminal law process.... Private prosecution, ... should be distinguished from the process available in some jurisdictions whereby a private citizen may file a complaint if the prosecutor refuses to act. It is often argued that a private citizen should have this right if the prosecutor refuses to proceed. Against this view it is said that efficient prosecution requires the participation of a trained prosecutor at the initial stage of decisions on prosecution. This standard is not intended to discourage the adoption of a system under which a complainant may move for prosecution before a magistrate when a prosecutor has declined to proceed, provided this right is limited to significant criminal conduct and provided that the actual conduct of the case is by a public prosecutor. (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). The number of state courts which have addressed, at any length, the issue of whether a private citizen should be allowed to bring a criminal complaint before a magistrate court without the approval of the prosecuting attorney or law enforcement agency is limited. See Herbert B. Chermside, Jr., Annotation, Power of Private Citizen to Institute Criminal Proceedings Without Authorization or Approval by Prosecuting Attorney, 66 A.L.R.3d 732 (1975). In State ex rel. Wild v. Otis, 257 N.W.2d at 365, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that permitting private citizens to commence and maintain a criminal prosecution would entail grave danger of vindictive use of the processes of the criminal law and could well lead to chaos in the administration of criminal justice. In ruling that a private citizen may not commence and maintain private prosecutions for alleged violations of the criminal law, the court identified potential remedies available to a private citizen when a local prosecutor refuses to approve a complaint. First, the Court pointed out that the citizen can appear before the grand jury and try to persuade it to indict (under Minn.R.Crim.P. 18.04). Next, the Court stated that the citizen could petition the district court, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 388.12 (1968), and the court could appoint a special prosecutor if it deemed that it was necessary. The court further opined that the citizen could petition the governor, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 8.01 (1977), who then might order the attorney general to commence prosecution. [13] Finally, the court stated that another potential remedy would be mandamus, although the court pointed out that the decision to prosecute is discretionary and may be beyond the scope of mandamus. In State v. Rollins, 129 N.H. 684, 533 A.2d 331 (1987), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire recognized that the common law does not preclude institution and prosecution of certain criminal complaints by private citizens. The court observed that any prosecution of a citizen's complaint would be subject to the authority of the attorney general or appropriate county attorney to enter nolle prosequi. However, in reference to the class of criminal actions that citizens may prosecute without the approval of the prosecuting attorney, the court cited State v. Gerry, 68 N.H. 495, 38 A. 272, 273-74 (1896), which stated: By the common law of the colony no one could be subjected to a trial for any criminal offense beyond the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, except upon an indictment returned by a grand jury in cases of felony, or in the case of misdemeanors, on such indictment, or upon an information filed by the attorney general .... In the case of misdemeanors, the requirement of an information filed by a sworn public officer, learned in the law, who has no motive `other than to protect and promote the public interest' ..., and whose duty it is as much to secure the innocent from persecution as to prosecute the guilty, affords a protection against unfounded and malignant charges at least equal to that afforded by the grand jury in the case of felonies. (emphasis added). Thus, it appears that the Gerry court envisioned the role of the prosecuting attorney as including the duty to prevent the initiation of criminal proceedings involving unfounded and malignant charges. Perhaps the best discussion of the reasons to preclude private citizens from filing criminal complaints is found in People v. Municipal Court, 27 Cal.App.3d 193, 103 Cal.Rptr. 645 (1972), a case relied upon by the petitioner. At issue in that case was the authority of a private individual to institute criminal proceedings with approval of a judge or magistrate but without approval or authorization from the district attorney. [14] In People v. Municipal Court , the Court of Appeals first emphasized the role of the district attorney in criminal cases. The court pointed out that article VI, section 20 of the California Constitution requires that [t]he style of all process shall be `The People of the State of California,' and all prosecutions shall be conducted in their name and by their authority.  103 Cal. Rptr. at 650 (emphasis in original). The Court further noted that, under Gov.Code, § 26500, the district attorney is required to attend the courts, and conduct on behalf of the People all prosecutions for public offenses. Id. (emphasis added). The court found that the jurisdiction of the district attorney included the power to control the initiation of criminal proceedings. The court included that [t]he procedure permitting private individuals to institute criminal proceedings without approval of the district attorney ... improperly impairs the discretion of the district attorney[.] [15] 103 Cal.Rptr. at 653. The court in People v. Municipal Court also considered in its analysis the due process rights of those charged, which the court believed are more readily protected by the initiation of criminal complaints by the district attorney rather than by private individuals. The court, quoting Taliaferro v. Locke, 182 Cal.App.2d 752, 6 Cal.Rptr. 813, 816 (1960), stated: `As concerns the enforcement of the criminal law the office of district attorney is charged with grave responsibilities to the public. These responsibilities demand integrity, zeal and conscientious effort in the administration of justice under the criminal law.... Nothing could be more demoralizing to that effort or to efficient administration of the criminal law in our system of justice than requiring a district attorney's office to dissipate its effort on personal grievance, fanciful charges and idle prosecution.' Thus the theme which runs throughout the criminal procedure in this state is that all persons should be protected from having to defend against frivolous prosecutions and that one major safeguard against such prosecutions is the function of the district attorney in screening criminal cases prior to instituting a prosecution. 103 Cal.Rptr. at 654. In summary, the state courts, whose decisions we have reviewed above, have expressed strong concerns that private citizens not be allowed to use the criminal complaint procedure as a retaliatory measure to prosecute personal grievances, and that individuals be protected from having to defend against frivolous or vindictive prosecutions. These courts have recognized that the prosecuting attorney, by initiating all criminal proceedings, can screen private citizen complaints and protect individuals from being prosecuted for unfounded or retaliatory charges.