Court Opinion

ID: 9536262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:56:53.36119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:29.731483
License: Public Domain

NIX, Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion, the preliminary hearing was created for the sole benefit of the defendant. It stood between him and a malicious prosecutor. It gave to the Defendant the right to have a hearing to ascertain whether or not the charge is meritorious or maliciously promulgated for hate, revenge, or malice. The Constitution (Article 2, § 17) provides that:
“No person shall be prosecuted for a felony by information without having had a preliminary examination1 before a magistrate, or having waived such preliminary examination.”
It makes no provision for the State to have a preliminary and I see no need for one, as the State should be satisfied with the facts before they file charges. If defendant waives the preliminary he agrees that it may proceed to District Court upon its merits, and waives the right to question the validity of the charge at the magistrate level, thereby permitting the District Court to acquire jurisdiction where it may be determined upon its merits.
I fail to comprehend any reason or justification for the State to have a preliminary to hear what they should already know before filing a charge against anyone. Therefore, I cannot agree with my learned associates.

. [to ascertain whether or not there is fust cause for the charge.]