Opinion ID: 1984231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: propriety of writ of mandamus to compel prosecution

Text: The second issue is whether, even if the Court had accepted the late service, petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the Attorney General or the District Attorney to prosecute the individuals named in the complaint. [M]andamus is an extraordinary writ which will only lie to compel official performance of a ministerial act or a mandatory duty where there is a clear legal right in the petitioner, a corresponding duty in the defendant, and want of any other appropriate and adequate remedy. Pennsylvania Dental Ass'n v. Commonwealth Insurance Department, 512 Pa. 217, 227, 516 A.2d 647, 652 (1986). This Court recently stated in Commonwealth v. Stipetich, 539 Pa. 428, 652 A.2d 1294 (1995), that: [D]istrict attorneys, in their investigative and prosecutorial roles, have broad discretion over whether charges should be brought in any given case. A District Attorney has a general and widely recognized power to conduct criminal litigation and prosecutions on behalf of the Commonwealth, and to decide whether and when to continue or discontinue a case. Id. at 430, 652 A.2d at 1295, citing Commonwealth v. DiPasquale, 431 Pa. 536, 540-41, 246 A.2d 430, 432 (1968). A writ of mandamus cannot be used to control the exercise of discretion or judgment by a public official. . . . Pennsylvania Dental Ass'n, supra . Because the decision to prosecute based upon a criminal complaint is discretionary and that discretion is placed in the hands of the duly-elected District Attorney or the Attorney General, Pa.R.Crim.P. 106(a), appellant has no legal right to compel the Attorney General or a District Attorney to prosecute the individuals named in the private criminal complaint. Therefore, mandamus would be inappropriate. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Commonwealth Court dismissing appellant's petition is affirmed. ZAPPALA, J., files a concurring opinion, in which Mr. CAPPY, J., joins. NIX, C.J., and MONTEMURO, Senior Justice, who participates by designation as a senior judge as provided by Rule of Judicial Administration 701(f), concur in the result.