Hay v. Bright
This text of 575 S.E.2d 505 (Hay v. Bright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellant Samuel Hay III, a private citizen, filed a petition for mandamus relief that would compel appellee Fredric Bright, the District Attorney of the Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit, to prosecute Tommy [155]*155Craig for alleged perjury committed during a bond validation hearing. The superior court denied appellant’s mandamus petition, and he appeals.
This Court has repeatedly held that:
A citizen does not have a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another and, hence, lacks standing to contest the prosecuting authority’s policies when the citizen is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.
It follows that appellant lacked standing to seek mandamus relief that would compel appellee to prosecute Craig. Therefore, the trial court properly denied appellant’s petition.
Judgment affirmed.
Bartlett v. Caldwell, 265 Ga. 52 (452 SE2d 744) (1995), quoting Scanlon v. State Bar of Ga., 264 Ga. 251, 253 (443 SE2d 830) (1994).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
575 S.E.2d 505, 276 Ga. 154, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 163, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hay-v-bright-ga-2003.