This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery causing great bodily harm after allegedly shooting another man during an incident on May 5, 1990. The charges were initially filed under one indictment but were later dismissed and refiled under a new indictment. The Defendant sought to disqualify the presiding judge after the second indictment was issued, arguing that the new case entitled him to renewed procedural rights, including the right to file a peremptory challenge (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, August 22, 1991: The State filed a nolle prosequi, dismissing the original indictment (para 2).
- District Court, August 23, 1991: A second indictment was issued, and the case was reassigned to the same judge. The Defendant filed a peremptory challenge, which the judge struck, citing judicial economy (paras 2-3).
- District Court, Date Unspecified: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery causing great bodily harm but acquitted of tampering with evidence (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the nolle prosequi ended the original case, and the second indictment initiated a new case, thereby entitling him to file a timely peremptory challenge. The Defendant also contended that the trial court's refusal to honor the challenge was improper and that the judge's subsequent actions were void (paras 5-6, 14).
- State: Asserted that the second indictment was merely a continuation of the original case and that the Defendant's peremptory challenge was untimely. The State also argued that the Defendant waived his right to disqualify the judge by agreeing to the continuation of prior rulings and that the Supreme Court's denial of a writ of prohibition validated the trial court's actions (paras 6-7, 14-17).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant entitled to file a peremptory challenge after the second indictment, and was it timely?
- Did the trial court err in refusing to honor the Defendant's peremptory challenge?
- Were the trial court's actions void following the filing of the peremptory challenge?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and sentence, holding that the Defendant's peremptory challenge was timely and that the trial court's actions after the challenge were void (paras 18-19).
Reasons
Per Minzner CJ (Donnelly and Flores JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the nolle prosequi terminated the original case, and the second indictment initiated a new case, granting the Defendant renewed procedural rights, including the right to file a peremptory challenge. The Court rejected the State's argument that the second indictment was a continuation of the first, emphasizing that a nolle prosequi voids the prior indictment and requires a new case to begin with a valid indictment (paras 6-10, 13).
The Court also found that the Defendant's peremptory challenge was timely, as it was filed within the procedural timeframe for the new case. The trial court's refusal to honor the challenge and its subsequent actions were deemed void, as a disqualified judge lacks jurisdiction to act in the case (paras 14, 18).
The Court dismissed the State's argument that the Defendant waived his right to disqualify the judge, noting that the Defendant consistently objected to the judge's involvement and took steps to preserve his procedural rights. The Court further clarified that the Supreme Court's denial of a writ of prohibition did not preclude appellate review of the issue (paras 15-17).
As the trial court's actions were void, the Court did not address the Defendant's remaining issues and remanded the case for reassignment to a different judge and further proceedings (paras 19-20).