 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Crime Laboratory v. Blenden6/24/1999
Ct. 996, 1000 (1994).
. Conversely, this Court has held that the constitutional concept of separation of powers dictates that it is within the inherent power of this Court to promulgate procedural rules to govern judicial matters. Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71, (Miss.1975). And "statutes which conflict with rules adopted by the Court are void." Stevens v. Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177, 1183 (Miss. 1993). Additionally, Miss. R. Civ. P. 1 cmt, provides that the rules apply equally to the State irrespective of any statute to the contrary. Likewise, a court's inherent power to control actions before is equally applicable to the State. When the State enters the court as a litigant, it places itself on the same basis as any other litigant; subjecting itself to the inherent authority of the court to control actions before it, just as any other litigant. "The Court may invoke this inherent authority through the adjudication of cases, the promulgation of rules, or the development of internal management practices." Tighe v. Crosthwait, 665 So. 2d 1341, 1347 (Miss. 1995). Here the State committed various discovery violations which resulted in the declaration of a mistrial. As a result, the trial court exercised its inherent authority to control matters proceeding before it to impose monetary sanctions on the State.
. Harrison County also claims that there is no authority under Mississippi law for monetary sanctions to be imposed against a county. However, the Mississippi Constitution, art. 14, § 261 (1890), provides that " he expenses of criminal prosecutions shall be borne by the county in which such prosecution shall be begun. . . ."
. Harrison County argues that the judiciary is prohibited from imposing sanctions against the State, or a political subdivision thereof by the holding in Board of Sup'rs of George County v. Bailey, 236 So. 2d 420, 422 (Miss. 1970). Bailey held that " t requires legislative implementation for the determination of what constitutes proper expenses, the amounts thereof or a method of making such determination, and to whom same should be paid." However, Bailey is distinguishable from the case at bar. The trial court in Bailey ordered the State to pay the costs of providing legal counsel to an indigent criminal defendant. Whereas here the trial court is imposing sanctions against the prosecution for the violation of judicial procedures. As discussed supra, when the State, or one of its political subdivisions, enters the judicial arena as a party, the Rules apply equally to the State irrespective of any statute to the contrary. The cost of doing business, whether it be public or private, includes any fines or penalties which result from negligence or from the wilful violation of procedures. See Miss. Code Ann. § 27-7-7 (1991). This assignment of error is without merit.
C.
. Harrison County also claims that it was denied due process in violation of Article 3, Section 14 of the Mississippi Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For authority Harrison County cites to now Chief Justice Prather's, specially Concurring opinion in Mease v. State, 583 So. 2d 1283 (Miss. 1991). In Mease this Court dealt with the issue of whether a trial court could entertain a court appointed attorney's motion for attorney's fees in excess of the statutory maximum. Relying on the holdings in Wilson v. State, 574 So. 2d 1338 (Miss. 1990) and Pruett v. State, 574 So. 2d 1342 (Miss. 1990), this Court reversed for a hearing as to the reasonable expenses incurred by the attorney. In a specially Concurring opinion, in which five other Justices joined, Chief Justice Prather stated that:
"it would be prudent to have the Board of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|