Court Opinion

ID: 9655954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:27:07.651424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:24.537478
License: Public Domain

JON P. WILCOX, J.
¶ 62. (concurring). I concur with the majority opinion but write separately to emphasize the importance of prosecutorial discretion in our judicial system,- particularly in the present context involving the forfeiture of hunting gear. The majority notes that "[t]he forfeiture statute does not distinguish between 'good' lawbreakers and 'bad' ones." Majority op. at ¶ 60. The failure of our statutes to make such distinctions is a primary justification for prosecutorial discretion, which is grounded in Wis. Stat. § 968.02(1). As the court of appeals has noted, *611"[t]he duty of a district attorney is to administer justice, not obtain convictions. As such, district attorneys are under no obligation or duty to charge in all cases where there appears to be a violation of the law." State v. Jones, 217 Wis. 2d 57, 64, 576 N.W.2d 580 (Ct. App. 1998). A prosecutor's discretion in pursuing a violation of the law, then, is " 'quasi-judicial'". State v. Karpinski, 92 Wis. 2d 599, 607, 285 N.W.2d 729 (1979).
¶ 63. While I believe that the State might have wielded its power more judiciously in the present case, it is not my role to question the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.1 Nevertheless, I observe that the purpose of Wis. Stat. § 968.20(1m)(b) is to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals who may commit future crimes with those weapons. The legislature did not intend to deprive any of the over 500,000 Wisconsin resident sportsmen and sportswomen of their hunting gear.2 If prosecutors injudiciously seek forfeiture of hunting gear under § 968.20(1m)(b), they will under*612mine public support for sensible laws governing dangerous weapons.
¶ 64. Accordingly, I would urge district attorneys to exercise their prosecutorial discretion to pursue criminals that "use" weapons in commission of crime, as the term is ordinarily understood, in accord with the legislature's intent, rather than pursuing forfeiture actions against sportswomen and sportsmen. By exercising prosecutorial discretion in a judicious manner, district attorneys will avoid the danger of overwhelming our court system with charges that are contrary to the legislature's intent. Moreover, such judicious use of the forfeiture statute where hunting gear is involved will reinforce the public's confidence in the judicial system.
¶ 65. I am authorized to state that Justice N. PATRICK CROOKS joins this concurrence.

On the accountability of prosecutors, we have explained, "the district attorney is answerable to the people of the state and not to the courts or the legislature as to the manner in which he or she exercises prosecutorial discretion.” State v. Annala, 168 Wis. 2d 453, 473, 484 N.W.2d 138 (1992). "Political review through the electoral process is sufficient to ensure the proper applications of prosecutorial discretion." Id. Therefore, "[w]e will not impair, without authority or reason, district attorneys' discretionary decisions of whether to initiate forfeiture proceedings or not." Jones v. State, 226 Wis. 2d 565, 585, 594 N.W.2d 738 (1999).

 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, License and Registration Sales Per County, 2000. The Department of Natural Resources issued 483,419 gun deer permits, 171,978 resident archery permits, 128,946 small game permits, 8162 resident class B bear permits, 55,680 water-fowl stamps, 31,911 pheasant stamps, and 63,194 turkey stamps.