Court Opinion

ID: 9745609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 23:13:02.603221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:02.980529
License: Public Domain

*58Dissenting Opinion
Jackson, C. J.
I dissent from the majority opinion for several reasons. This is an original action and the only question involved is whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the order complained of. Obviously the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter such order, and this court properly issued its temporary writ in the alternative, and is now improperly and unlawfully refusing to make the temporary writ permanent.
The relator is not only the de facto Prosecuting Attorney of the 40th Judicial Circuit of Indiana, but is the de jure officer, duly elected, qualified, commissioned and acting as such. His predecessor in office has surrendered the office to relator, and relator had entered upon and was performing the duties of his office until unlawfully restrained by the illegal act of the respondent court.
The motion of the defendant, in the criminal case filed in the respondent court, constituted a collateral attack upon the relator as a public official. In the cáse of an elected official, regularly commissioned and acting in his official capacity, no presumptions questioning his right to the office or his right to serve can be indulged in; consequently the respondent court had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion or to make the order here complained of.
The majority opinion will be precedent for the untenable position that a duly elected public official may be denied the right to pursue the duties of his office if, at any time and in any manner, his qualifications for office are questioned. The repercussions which such precedent may have are evident. Surely the desire of a trial judge to prevent reversible error does not out-weigh the right of a constitutional officer to con*59tinue in the duties of his office without harassment until the question of his right to the office is determined in a proper proceeding instituted for that purpose.
The net result of the majority opinion is that the incumbent Prosecuting Attorney is now prohibited by the order of the respondent court from performing any of the duties of his office in respect to the criminal case there pending in which this motion was originally filed.
The temporary writ heretofore issued should be made permanent.