State v. Severine

49 N.W. 1056, 2 S.D. 238, 1891 S.D. LEXIS 25
South Dakota Supreme Court·Decided October 20, 1891·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Bennett, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Minnehaha county of a violation of what is commonly known as the “Prohibition Law.” After a verdict of guilty was returned by the jury, the plaintiff in error filed a motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground that no legal information had [239] been filed against him upon which his trial was based. The motion was overruled, and from the order overruling it the case is brought to this court by writ of error. The main question raised by the motion in arrest of judgment is, can an attorney employed by a citizen or an organization of citizens, as provided in Section 20 of the prohibition act, institute a criminal proceeding by information against an alleged violator of that law? The information upon which the plaintiff in error was tried and convicted was filed and signed by one W. A. Wilkes as 1 ‘an assistant state’s attorney ” It is conceded that he was an attorney residing in Minnehaha county, and was employed by a committee of citizens to assist the state’s attorney in the prosecution of alleged violators of the prohibition law. So far as the record shows, the state’s attorney of that county took no part in the institution or prosecution of the information; but it is contended that Section 20 of that enactment makes a a specific provision for some attorney to take the place of the state’s attorney. That section provides that ‘ ‘any citizen or organization may employ an attorney to assist the state’s attorney to perform his duties under this act, and such attorney shall be recognized by the state’s attorney and the court as associate counsel in the proceeding, and no procedure shall be dismissed, over the objection of such associate counsel, until the reason of the state’s attorney for such dismissal, together with the objections thereto of such associate counsel, shall have been filed in writing, argued by counsel, and fully considered by the court. ” This section of the law is the only provision in it, or of any other of our statutes, -that provides for any aid or assistance to the state’s attorney in the proscution of any violators of the law. An analysis of it will show that there was no intention of the legislature to take from the state’s attorney the burden of the prosecution of public offenses.

1. It says who may employ an attorney to assist the state’s attorney in the performance of his duties under this particular law. Usually this employment, when found necessary, would be left to the state’s attorney himself, or to the inherent power resting in the court. That no favor or bias may be shown the [240] alleged offender by either state’s attorney or court, if any such could be presumed, the law makes it incumbent upon either or both to recognize the employment of any attorney by a citizen or organization that might feel an interest in any prosecution, under the law. When so employed and recognized, this attorney is to assist the state officer in his duties under the act. These are clearly defined in Section 12. He is to diligently prosecute any and all persons who violate any of its provisions, and, if such state’s attorney should refuse or neglect to do so, Section 30 of the enactment fixes a penalty for such refusal or neglect which is declared to be a misdemeanor punishable by fine and forfeiture of office.

2. The evident intent of this provision was to give to any citizen or association of citizens the right and privilege of employing such legal advice and assistance to the state’s attorney as would at all times, and under every circumstance, insure a vigorous and hearty prosecution of all offenders. It is well known that the prosecution of offenses under this law is usually attended by much difficulty, owing,- perhaps, to a sentiment in some localities against the policy of it; and, in order to get the evidence and facts surrounding the prosecution, much time and attention is required on the part of a public prosecutor. Oftentimes a guilty offender is allowed to escape, not from the inattention or inability of the state to prosecute, as much as from a want of time to fully meet the emergency of the case. This fact was no doubt known to the legislature, and it intended to allow those who were active supporters of, conscientious believers in the spirit of, the law, and zealous in its enforcement, to furnish equally eminent legal advice and assistence whenever an emergency might arise which in their judgment required it; but it was not the intention to supplant or relieve the state’s attorney, in any case, of his duties.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Severine, 49 N.W. 1056, 2 S.D. 238, 1891 S.D. LEXIS 25 (S.D. 1891).

49 N.W. 1056 (State v. Severine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Fravin
153 N.W. 296 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1915)