This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-02-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Neither are we persuaded by the petitioner's position that the special prosecutor's Manifestation of non-opposition to the demurrer needed to be submitted to, and approved by, her superiors.[68] The petitioner's argument assumes that the special prosecutor lacked the necessary authority from her superiors when she filed her non-opposition to the demurrers to evidence. This starting assumption, in our view, is incorrect. The correct premise and presumption, since the special prosecutor is a State delegate, is that she had all incidental and necessary powers to prosecute the case in the State's behalf so that her actions as a State delegate bound the State. We do not believe that the State can have an unbridled discretion to disown the acts of its delegates at will unless it can clearly establish that its agent had been grossly negligent[69] or was guilty of collusion with the accused or other interested party,[70] resulting in the State's deprivation of its due process rights as client-principal. | |||||