Opinion ID: 854069
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prosecution by an Unlicensed Attorney

Text: Lisa Pratt Benson was admitted by the trial court pro hac vice and participated in the prosecution team led by Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney John Meyers. Benson had represented to the trial court that she was a member in good standing of the bars of Louisiana and Texas. In fact, she was at the time on inactive status in Louisiana and not admitted in Texas. When this circumstance came to light after the trial, Anderson moved to set aside the verdict based on Benson's participation in the prosecution team, contending that it violated his federal and state constitutional rights. If Anderson's claim amounts to an attack on Benson's authority as a de facto prosecutor it requires a showing of prejudice to reverse Anderson's conviction. Cox v. State, 493 N.E.2d 151, 160 (Ind.1986). Anderson argues, however, that because the trial court admitted Benson on fraudulent representations about the status of her license in Louisiana and Texas, she was a usurper [1] of the office of prosecuting attorney and therefore could not assume de facto authority. From this premise Anderson concludes he need not show prejudice from Benson's participation. However, Benson was acting under the authority of Meyers, her supervisor, and accordingly was not a usurper in the first place. An appointmentor other grant of authoritygives the appointee at least colorable title to office. An appointee is not a usurper. Snurr v. State, 105 Ind. 125, 132, 4 N.E. 445, 449 (1886). See also State v. Sutherlin, 165 Ind. 339, 350, 75 N.E. 642, 646 (1905) (where jury commissioner was appointed by court, although wrongful or illegal, he acted under color of right or authority and was not a mere usurper). Accordingly, as the trial court found, Benson was a de facto official. The lack of authority of a de facto prosecutor must result in harm to the defendant in order to constitute reversible error. Cox v. State, 493 N.E.2d 151, 160 (Ind.1986). Anderson directs us to no evidence of wrongdoing [2] by Benson during the trial or any other source of prejudice that would support a reversal of his conviction. In the absence of evidence of prejudice to the defendant, we find no basis for reversing Anderson's conviction based on Benson's participation. Id. at 160 (Ind.1986); Kindred v. State, 674 N.E.2d 570, 574 n. 5 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied (no reversible error where prosecutor improperly participated in defendant's proceedings, but no prejudice resulted to defendant). In a final effort to plug the gap in his argument, Anderson points to Butler v. State, 668 N.E.2d 266 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) which held that where an Illinois attorney represented a criminal defendant in an Indiana court without permission of the court, the attorney's conduct was a per se violation of the defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I § 13 of the Indiana Constitution. The court reasoned that an attorney who is not admitted is, by definition, incompetent. Prejudice to the defendant was presumed and a new trial was ordered. Id. at 268. Anderson asks that we apply the same presumption of prejudice and find that a fair trial necessarily includes prosecution by a properly licensed prosecuting attorney regardless of any harmful effect. We find no authority or reason for expanding Butler to require reversal based on a conviction by an unlicensed prosecutor. This has no Sixth Amendment or Article I § 13 implications. Nor does Butler `s reasoning apply where the unlicensed attorney is merely a participant on a team under the direction of a properly qualified lawyer, in this case Meyers.