Court Opinion

ID: 9578897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:49:32.058463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:32.032809
License: Public Domain

Gunter, Justice,
dissenting.
This is an appeal from an order signed by the judges of the Superior Courts, Augusta Judicial Circuit, which directed the district attorney to furnish the judges with a list of cases pending in his office. Such an order is appealable. Darden v. Ravan, 232 Ga. 756 (208 SE2d 846) (1974). The issue here is whether the judges have the power to issue such an order to the district attorney.
On June 26,1974, the judges delivered to the office of the district attorney a letter which requested that they be provided with a list of all pending cases made since *269January 1,1972. The letter requested that the list include the name of each accused person, the charge or charges, and the date the indictment was returned or the date the case was otherwise made if the accused was not indicted. The letter stated that the information was necessary to permit scheduling of the court’s business. The letter was not answered by the district attorney, and on September 18, 1974, a follow-up letter was delivered to the district attorney. It was not answered either. On October 18, 1974, the judges served upon the district attorney an order to show cause why he should not be compelled to provide the requested information. A hearing was held on October 23, and after that hearing, the judges issued the order from which this appeal has been taken. The order directed the district attorney to furnish "for the organization and the functioning of the court a list of all cases pending in his office made since January 1, 1972, setting forth the person’s name, charge or charges, the date indictment was returned or the date the case was made absent indictment.”
The district attorney argues that the order issued by the judges violates the principle of separation of powers between and among the three Departments of our government. Our Constitution provides: "The legislative, judicial and executive powers shall forever remain separate and distinct, and no person discharging the duties of one, shall, at the same time, exercise the functions of either of the others, except as herein provided.” Code Ann. § 2-123. In answering this argument, the judges argue that the district attorney is a member of the judicial branch of the government and, alternatively, that the order was within the inherent power of the judiciary. They make no effort to rely on any express constitutional or statutory grant of power.
In contending that the district attorney is a member of the judicial branch of the government, the judges rely primarily on Fortson v. Weeks, 232 Ga. 472, 478 (208 SE2d 68) (1974). There, this court stated: "District Attorneys are generally considered to be quasi-judicial officers.” This statement was made in the context of an equal protection discussion where the only question before the court was whether district attorneys are sufficiently *270distinguishable from other executive officers to permit the legislature to regulate district attorneys in a manner different from other executive officers. This court did not, and could not, hold that district attorneys are members of the judicial branch of the government. The prosecution of the violation of criminal laws is plainly an executive function. Our Constitution provides: "It shall be the duty of the district attorney to represent the State in all cases in the superior court of his circuit...” Code Ann. § 2-4602.
The need to keep the prosecutorial function separate from the judicial function is obvious if we are to have an impartial judiciary. In a criminal case the district attorney represents a party to the litigation, the state, and as a lawyer for a litigant he is an officer of the court. However, he is no more in the judicial branch of the government than any other lawyer representing a litigant.
The proposition that district attorneys are in the executive branch of the government is supported by authority from many jurisdictions. The leading case in the federal courts is United States v. Cox, 342 F2d 167 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. den. 381 U. S. 935 (1965). There, the court held that a trial judge lacked the power to order an attorney for the United States to sign an indictment returned by a grand jury. His signature was necessary for the prosecution of the case. The court stated: "Although as a member of the bar, the attorney for the United States is an officer of the court, he is nevertheless an executive official of the Government, and it is as an officer of the executive department that he exercises a discretion as to whether or not there shall be a prosecution in a particular case. It follows, as an incident of the constitutional separation of powers, that the courts are not to interfere with the free exercise of the discretionary powers of the attorneys of the United States in their control over criminal prosecutions.”
Under this line of reasoning it has been held that a trial judge may not investigate a crime and recommend prosecution (In Re Metzenbaum, 26 Ohio Misc. 47 (265 NE2d 345) (1970)); may not compel a prosecutor to investigate and prosecute alleged crimes (Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller, 477 F2d 375 *271(1973)); may not determine which charges will be brought to trial (People v. Potts, 45 Mich. App. 584 (207 NW2d 170) (1973)); and may not appoint a special prosecutor where a district attorney has declined to prosecute (People v. Municipal Court for the Ventura Judicial District of Ventura County, 27 Cal. App. 3d 193 (103 Cal. Rptr. 645) (1972)). For other cases holding that district attorneys are members of the executive branch, and that trial courts have no supervisory control or authority to interfere with specific prosecutorial decisions, see United States v. Shaw, 226 A2d 366 (D. C. App. 1967); People v. Henry, 20 Ill. App. 3d 73 (312 NE2d 719) (1974).
I would therefore hold that a district attorney is, though an officer of the court in each pending case in which the state is a party, a member of the executive branch of the government.
I now come to the inherent power of the judiciary to properly operate the judicial system. The doctrine of inherent power necessarily flows from the separation of powers’ principle. "Courts have recognized that the exercise and scope of inherent judicial power are closely related to the principles underlying the separation of powers in our constitutional system. Unless it is to be a subordinate branch of government, a status contrary to the provisions of most state constitutions, the judiciary must possess either the express or implied power to preserve its integrity and perform its duties.” 57 Cornell L. Rev. 986.
In this case I am faced with the problem of balancing two principles of governmental organization, both of which are derived from the fundamental concept of the separation of powers. The first and overriding principle is that no one branch of the government shall be subordinate to either of the other two. The second principle is that each branch must have the means to perform its role as a coordinate branch of the government.
In applying these two principles in this case, it should first be noted that the judges have ordered only a list of cases, purportedly to be used in organizing the business of the court, and have not assumed any general supervisory control or interfered with any specific prosecutorial decision of the district attorney. In short, *272the first and overriding principle must prevail unless it can be demonstrated that the judges cannot properly perform their functions as an independent, coordinate branch of the government without the information they seek from the district attorney. In the language of one Georgia case, the question is whether the information sought from the district attorney is "necessary to the orderly and efficient exercise of jurisdiction.” DeKrasner v. Boykin, 54 Ga. App. 29 (186 SE 701) (1936).
I am unable to conclude that the judges need the information sought from the district attorney for the orderly and efficient operation of the court; the information, of the nature sought here, necessary for the efficient and proper operation of the court should be available to the judges from court records.
A criminal case is not a "case in court” until it has been filed with the clerk of court. Code Ann. § 24-2714-5(6) provides that the clerk of court shall keep: "A trial docket of criminal cases, showing the names of the parties, their attorneys, and the character of each case in the order in which they were returned to court.” Code § 27-1301 provides: "The cases on the criminal docket shall be called in the order in which they stand on the docket, unless the defendant be in jail, or otherwise in the sound discretion of the court.” I think that these statutory provisions mean that when an indictment or accusation is "returned to court,” it must be entered on the trial docket of criminal cases, and it is from this trial docket that the presiding judge must conduct the business of the court in an orderly and efficient manner.
I would therefore hold that the order in this case was not necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary against a member of the executive branch of the government; nor was it necessary for the efficient, proper and orderly operation of the court; and it violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers. It follows that I would reverse the judgment as having been erroneously entered.
The majority opinion poses several problems for me. The first is the inference that the constitutional provision (Code Ann. § 2-4602) which says that it shall be the duty of the district attorney to perform such other services as *273shall be required of him by law would enable the General Assembly to enact a statute requiring the district attorney to perform legislative or judicial functions. Such a statute if enacted by the General Assembly would, in my opinion, be unconstitutional as violative of the separation of powers’ principle. Section 2-4602, having reference to the duties of the district attorney, merely means to me that he can be required by statute to perform such other services that are executive department functions as distinguished from legislative or judicial functions.
Second, the final paragraph of the majority opinion concludes that "the functions of district attorneys are not exclusively executive.” My view is that they are and must be exclusively executive; otherwise, the separation of powers’ principle is violated.
Third, the final paragraph of the majority opinion asserts that "the presiding judge may call upon the district attorney to furnish the information requested here.” This is to evade the issue presented in this case by the appellant. No one questions that a judge may ask a district attorney to provide such information; the issue is whether a member of the judicial branch can order a member of the executive branch to respond with such information, and if, pursuant to such an order, the member of the executive branch refuses to respond, can he be held in contempt by the judiciary for such wilful failure. I, of course, think that there should be cooperation between a trial judge and the district attorney with respect to the handling of criminal cases filed in court. But when a district attorney is ordered to provide information to the trial judge that he does not want to furnish and is not required to furnish, he, as a member of the executive branch, cannot be compelled by the judiciary to furnish it.
Fourth, the majority opinion says: "As we read the order it requires information where formal charges have been entered by indictment, accusation or warrant for arrest.” Certainly, a warrant pending in the district attorney’s office for the arrest of a person on a criminal charge is not a "case pending in court.” The enforcement of the criminal laws and the prosecution of violations of the criminal laws are solely an executive function. And the judiciary is, in my opinion, precluded from meddling with *274or interfering with that exclusive executive function.
I conclude that the judges were without power to enter the order entered in this case, and if the district attorney wilfully refused to comply with the order, I do not think he could be held in contempt by the judiciary. The constitutional principle of separation of powers has, to me, a meaningful and pragmatic purpose.
I respectfully dissent.