Court Opinion

ID: 9860753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:31:43.205174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:36.033588
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Davis, dissenting: I am forced to disagree with what the majority have said about the relationship between the State’s Attorney and the Attorney General and with their conclusion that this case is controlled by People ex rel. Elliott v. Covelli, 415 Ill. 79. The Attorney General relied on his common-law powers to sustain his position in this case. He earnestly maintains that his power to nol-pros is absolute, in the absence of capricious and vexatious repetition; that it is not affected by the consent or lack of consent of the State’s Attorney, and that the exercise of the power is not subject to review. I believe the majority’s decision accepts the logic of the Attorney General in its entirety, but I do not believe this acceptance is justified by law nor commended to us by any practical considerations. The majority reasons syllogistically that the Attorney General was properly in the case by reason of his statutory authority to “consult,” “advise,” and “assist” the State’s Attorney. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, chap. 14, par. 4.) As chief law officer of the State, he has the common-law power to enter a nolle prosequi in a case where he is prosecuting officer and this power is not ordinarly subject to review by either the trial or Appellate courts. (People ex rel. Blliott v. Covelli, 415 Ill. 79.) Therefore, the majority reasons, the Attorney General here could exercise the same broad common-law powers to nol-pros without the consent of the trial court. I believe the majority’s error lies in the failure to distinguish the Attorney General’s common-law role as chief legal advisor to the Crown, and his statutory role of assisting another constitutional officer, the State’s Attorney. To understand this distinction requires a consideration of the development of the doctrine of the common-law powers of the Attorney General. The leading Illinois case on the subject is Fergus v. Russel, 270 Ill. 304. This court there held in a four-to-three decision that the English common law was a part of the law of this State, and that by the constitution the Attorney General was vested with the common-law powers of the chief law officer of the Crown. It should be carefully noted that the question there involved the right of the Attorney General to represent State officers. There was no conflict or overlapping of the Attorney General’s function and that of any other constitutional officer. It was there pointed out that these common-law powers existed “except where the constitution or a constitutional statute may provide otherwise.” In the Covelli case we relied on the doctrine of Fergus v. Russel in considering the common-law right of the Attorney General to enter a nolle prosequi in a case in which he was the statutory prosecuting officer. Again the case involved no conflict with any other constitutional officer with regard to his powers or duties. The Attorney General was there the only one entitled to handle the prosecution. (People ex rel. Elliott v. Covelli, 415 Ill. 79.) There we specifically noted that we were not dealing with a case in which the State’s Attorney was the ordinary public prosecutor. I conceive this to be a vital distinction. We have clearly held that a State’s Attorney can nol-pros only with the consent of the court, and that the court’s discretion in this regard will not be reviewed by mandamus. (People ex rel. Hoyne v. Newcomer, 284 Ill. 315.) We have repeatedly noted that the State’s Attorney is also a constitutional officer, and the one to represent the people in matters affected with a public interest. (People ex rel. Kunstman v. Nagano, 389 Ill. 231.) The office of State’s Attorney was unknown to the English common law but was created by our constitution of 1848. On the other hand the constitution of 1848 did not provide for the election or appointment of an Attorney General, and from 1818 to 1870 every Attorney General of this State was an officer provided for by the legislature and regulated by it. However, in 1870, by the adoption of our present Illinois constitution, the office of Attorney General was created as a division of the executive department, and was given such duties as may be prescribed by law. From this history it is clear that the office of State’s Attorney in Illinois has been carved out of the common-law office of Attorney General and made an independent office. The two offices are separate and distinct, and the State’s Attorney has certain powers and certain duties which can neither be increased nor decreased by the Attorney General. (5 Am. Jur. p. 232.) Among the especial duties of the State’s Attorney is the prosecution of all criminal cases within his county. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, chap. 14, par. 5.) In the exercise of this duty he cannot be supplanted by the Attorney General. (People v. Flynn, 375 Ill. 366.) In attempting to appraise the common-law powers of the Attorney General, the majority has overlooked the fact that we have two constitutional officers with a division of duties, pursuant to legislative enactment. While they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the Attorney General and the State’s Attorney cannot be vested with equal authority in determining the course of criminal prosecutions within a county. The majority finds no conflict between the State’s Attorney and the Attorney General in the case at bar. I do not believe the record entirely bears this out. While the State’s Attorney made no objection to the attempted nolle prosequi of indictment 757, he ignored the attempted nolle prosequi of 755 and made a motion to remand defendant Moody to the sheriff on that indictment even after the filing of the nolle prosequi. If the majority ground their opinion on the common law, logically, they should hold that only the Attorney General has the power to determine if a nolle prosequi should be entered in any case. (See Regina v. Comptroller, 1 Q.B. 909 — C.A., cited by the Attorney General.) But this conclusion totally disregards the independent position of the State’s Attorney under our constitutional enactments. The majority’s willingness to accept the common-law powers of the Attorney General in a totally different constitutional and statutory setting creates a dilemma. But it can be easily resolved by accepting the Attorney General’s common-law powers when he occupies a traditional common-law role, and rejecting them when he occupies a distinct statutory role as one “assisting” the State’s Attorney. In Denham v. Robinson, 72 W. Va. 243, 77 S.E. 970, the Supreme Court of West Virginia was faced with an identical question. There, the prosecuting attorney, with the advice and consent of the Attorney General, had filed a nolle prosequi. It had been denied by the court. Recognizing the argument that the Attorney General had the common-law power to nol-pros, the court there denied the power of the prosecuting attorney and the Attorney General to nol-pros without the consent of the court, saying in language appropriate here: “So far as the Attorney General may undertake to exercise or control the powers and duties of the prosecuting attorneys we think that he is limited by the same rules of practice that control them. * * * We are of the opinion therefore, that the nolle prosequi attempted in this case derived no additional force, because concurred in or assented to by the Attorney General.” I think that the conclusion reached by the West Virginia Court is especially sound here. The rights of the Attorney General, as one assisting the State’s Attorney, arise not under the common law, but by the acts of the legislature, pursuant to the constitution. In such a case, our attention ought to be directed to legislative intention rather than to the English common law. I regard as significant the legislature’s action in tabling the latest proposal of the Attorney General to permit him to conduct local criminal prosecutions. Senate Bill 108, 69th General Assembly; Tabled June 28, 1955. Considering that this case involves a local criminal prosecution instituted and conducted by the State’s Attorney, and that the Attorney General first appeared in the case nine months after indictment and on the day set for trial, I cannot see why this case should not be governed by our decision in People ex rel. Hoyne v. Newcomer, 284 Ill. 315. In that case, at page 325, we said: “If a State’s Attorney has absolute and uncontrolled power to enter a nolle prosequi upon his official responsibility in one case, of course, he has the same power in two, three or four hundred, as in this instance; but we regard it as essential to the due administration of justice and the protection of the people by the enforcement of criminal laws that he should not have such power but the consent and approval of the court should be required.” I believe the same result should obtain here. In the case before us, the trial court and the State’s Attorney were in a much better position to determine the requirements of justice than either the Attorney General or this court. I consider it most unwise to permit either the State’s Attorney, or the Attorney General when he enters the case at the eleventh hour tq assist the State’s Attorney, to have the untrammeled power to dismiss a public prosecution. Even the limited record before us shows that the considerations of justice that motivated the late Judge Daniels to deny the motion to nol-pros arose long before the entry of the Attorney General’s appearance and could best be considered by the trial judge. There is greater danger to the public welfare in permitting the Attorney General’s executive fiat to completely control all criminal prosecutions in this State than would exist if such action was subject to the consent or approval of the court.