Court Opinion

ID: 6659929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:00:59.829154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:07.434746
License: Public Domain

Letton, J.,
dissenting in part.
I am unable to concur in tliat portion of the opinion holding it was reversible error to permit other counsel to assist the county attorney.
We held in Rickley v. State, 65 Neb. 841, that the county attorney has complete control of criminal prosecutions, and that he may exclude other counsel if he so desires, even if the complainant desires to employ such counsel. Of course, this is subject to the direction and control of the court. When the county attorney allows private counsel to appear with him and assist him in the trial without objection, it is clear that he desires his assistance, otherwise he could summarily dismiss him from the case, and when the fact that such counsel is employed and his assistance is desired by the county attorney is known and expressly permitted by the court, as the record shows, the defendant cannot complain.
The statutory provisions (Comp. St. 1911, ch. 7, sec. 16) are intended to limit the liability of the several counties to pay for assistance to the county attorney, and are not intended to deprive him of assistance which he believes to be necessary, and which is furnished with the consent of the court without expense to the county. It is true counsel paid by private persons are apt to err by excess of zeal, but this is entirely within the control of the official prosecutor, and he has the undoubted right to refuse to allow counsel to appear further if they go beyond the limits proper to an official prosecutor.
I think the opinion on this point is opposed to our former decisions and is against the weight of authority. See note to State v. Bartlett, 24 L. R. A. n. s. 564 (105 Me. 212).