 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Pruitt3/28/2001
e hold that, absent compelling circumstances not present here, once the State engages in a prosecution in a court of competent jurisdiction, it should be prohibited from pursuing that prosecution to its ultimate conclusion in any forum other than one it initially chose. This will serve not only to further the goal of preserving the judicial authority of the Justice of the Peace Court and the Court of Common Pleas implicit in Guthman, but also to deter the State from engaging in a practice that is so readily subject to abuse that it undermines the public's confidence in the fundamental fairness of the judicial process.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we find that the Superior Court judge acted properly and within the bounds of his discretion when he dismissed the charges against Pruitt under Rule 48(b). Although we may initially attribute the delay experienced by Pruitt to a clerical error in the Justice of the Peace Court, the facts clearly support the Superior Court judge's conclusion. We agree that when the State entered the nolle prosequis on the traffic charges, the State manipulated the judicial process with the intent to remedy the error in the office of the Justice of the Peace to the substantial prejudice of the defendant. The fair and efficient administration of criminal justice cannot be adequately provided for when the Attorney General may unilaterally and arbitrarily remove a case to a court with concurrent jurisdiction in a manner that subverts the authority of the lower court to the defendant's prejudice. We conclude that the substantial interest the public maintains in the speedy, fair and orderly administration of justice is inconsistent with this practice. The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|