AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The defendant, a long-serving police officer and deputy sheriff, was charged with sexual abuse of his wife’s minor granddaughters. The district attorney for the Fifth Judicial District, citing a conflict of interest, appointed another district attorney as a special prosecutor. After a mistrial and the original special prosecutor's inability to continue due to illness and conflict, a second special prosecutor was appointed by the first special prosecutor to handle the retrial, which resulted in the defendant's conviction. The defendant challenged the authority of the second special prosecutor's appointment and the jurisdiction of the district court over the retrial.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the second special prosecutor lacked authority to prosecute because the first special prosecutor, being appointed for a specific case, did not have the authority to appoint another special prosecutor. Contended that this lack of authority meant the district court lacked jurisdiction for the criminal prosecution.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Responded with affidavits from the involved district attorneys, asserting that the transfer of the case to the second special prosecutor was appropriate and within their authority. They argued that the appointment did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction and emphasized the qualifications and statutory duties of the district attorneys involved.

Legal Issues

• Whether a person appointed as a special prosecutor has the authority to appoint another attorney to act as a special prosecutor.
• Whether the district court had jurisdiction over the case being retried under the circumstances of the special prosecutor's appointment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment and sentence and remanded the matter for further proceedings, holding that the first special prosecutor lacked the authority to appoint a second special prosecutor, which in turn meant the district court lacked jurisdiction over the retrial.

Reasons

• Per SUTIN, J. (WECHSLER and VIGIL, JJ., concurring): The court found that the district attorney of the judicial district where the case originated was the only person with authority to appoint a special prosecutor. The appointment of the second special prosecutor by the first special prosecutor was deemed unlawful, as it exceeded the limited authority granted to special prosecutors, which is to act only in the specific case or matter for which they were appointed. The court concluded that this lack of lawful authority to prosecute by the second special prosecutor meant the district court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant’s retrial. The court's decision was based on statutory interpretation of the relevant law governing the appointment of special prosecutors, emphasizing that the authority to appoint a special prosecutor does not extend to the ability to appoint subsequent special prosecutors (paras 1, 10-16).