State v. Tippecanoe County Court
| Decision Date | 02 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 981S230,981S230 |
| Citation | 432 N.E.2d 1377 |
| Parties | State of Indiana on the Relation of John H. Meyers, Prosecuting Attorney For the 23rd Judicial Circuit. STATE of Indiana v. The TIPPECANOE COUNTY COURT and the Honorable David Redman as Special Judge Thereof. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
William E. Emerick, Chief Deputy Pros. Atty., for relator.
This is an original action brought by relator following our denial of a temporary writ of mandate and prohibition on August 19, 1981. The issue raised by relator is whether the entire office of the prosecuting attorney in one county should be disqualified because the elected prosecuting attorney was previously a defense attorney for the accused in two prior cases.
The record in this case shows that defendant, Kenneth Paul Smith, was charged with theft and with being an habitual offender in the Tippecanoe County Court on February 19, 1981. The court found that the prosecuting attorney, John H. Meyers, had previously been employed as a public defender and had represented defendant on an appeal from a second-degree burglary conviction in 1974, and on a charge of theft in 1977. This latter charge resulted in a plea agreement with a sentence of one year in the Indiana Reformatory. The court then found that the prosecutor was disqualified because of his previous representation of the defendant and that his entire staff was therefore disqualified. The court appointed a special prosecutor for defendant's case. The prosecuting attorney filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court mandating the trial court to withdraw its order disqualifying the elected prosecutor and appointing the special prosecutor. We now grant the petition of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Association to appear and file brief amicus curiae and have considered their excellent brief in our determination of this case. We hereby set out our reasons why this Court voted to deny the writ.
The precise issue raised here has not been previously decided in this state and deserves a careful two-step analysis. First, we must decide whether the prosecuting attorney was properly disqualified under the facts of this case. It is axiomatic that the conduct of all attorneys in this state, whether employed in the public or private sector, is governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. The precepts of professional ethics forbid the participation of a lawyer in the prosecution of a criminal case if by reason of his professional relation with the accused, he has acquired a knowledge of facts upon which the prosecution is predicated or which are closely interwoven therewith. Canons 4, 5, and 6, Indiana Code of Professional Responsibility. Walker v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 401 N.E.2d 795; Branan v. State, (1974) 161 Ind.App. 443, 316 N.E.2d 406; Wilson v. State, (1861) 16 Ind. 392.
The test, stated alternatively in many jurisdictions, is that a lawyer must be disqualified if it is shown that the controversy involved in the pending case is substantially related to a matter in which the lawyer previously represented another client. Osborn v. District Court, (1980) Colo., 619 P.2d 41; State v. Jones, (1980) 180 Conn. 443, 429 A.2d 936; Schloetter v. Railoc of Indiana, Inc., (7th Cir. 1976) 546 F.2d 706. This test must be applied to the facts of each case to determine whether the issues in the prior and present cases are essentially the same or are closely interwoven therewith.
In this case, it appears that nothing in Meyers's representation of the accused in the two prior theft cases would have any relation to the present theft case. However, the habitual offender charge is based upon the same two prior theft cases in which Meyers was involved. Therefore, there is a substantial relationship involved. Although it is true, that the fact of the defendant's prior convictions are a matter of public record, we cannot say without speculation that the prosecutor's knowledge of those prior cases will not actually result in prejudice to defendant. The public trust in the integrity of the judicial process requires us to resolve any serious doubt in favor of disqualification. The trial court properly held that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pennington
...to a person participating in the prosecution. State v. Latigue; People v. Stevens, 642 P.2d 39 (Colo.Ct.App.1981); State v. Tippecanoe County Court, 432 N.E.2d 1377 (Ind.1982); State v. Ross, 829 S.W.2d 948 (Mo.1992) (en banc); Fitzsimmons v. State, 116 Neb. 440, 218 N.W. 83 (1928); People ......
-
Young v. State
... ... 465 A.2d 1149 ... Clarence Leo YOUNG ... STATE of Maryland ... No. 153 ... Court of Appeals of Maryland ... Sept. 29, 1983 ... [465 A.2d 1150] Gary W ... The issue before us is whether all of the prosecutors in a county State's Attorney's office are disqualified from prosecuting a defendant in a criminal case where ... See State v. Tippecanoe County Court, Ind., 432 N.E.2d 1377 (1982) (although recusal of entire prosecutorial staff is not ... ...
-
Nicholas v. Sammons
...v. State, 131 Ga.App. 662, 206 S.E.2d 848 (1974); People v. Rhymer, 32 Ill.App.3d 431, 336 N.E.2d 203 (1975); State v. Tippecanoe County Court, 432 N.E.2d 1377 (Ind.1982); People v. Doyle, 159 Mich.App. 632, 406 N.W.2d 893 (1987); State v. Croka, 646 S.W.2d 389 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Chamb......
-
Lowery v. State
...case, the prosecutor and his entire staff may be disqualified to act and a special prosecutor appointed. State ex rel. Meyer v. Tippecanoe County Court (1982), Ind., 432 N.E.2d 1377; Shuttleworth v. State (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d At the post-conviction hearing, the prosecutor, John Meye......