Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-AL

Did Canon 2A prohibit a trial judge from dismissing a criminal case with payment of costs under Act No. 81-353?

Short answer The Commission said dismissal in the manner prescribed by Act No. 81-353 did not violate Canon 2A.
Bar
JUDICIAL-AL
Issued
March 1, 1982
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1982. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A judge asked about a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss or nol pros a driving-under-the-influence case on appeal de novo, possibly after plea bargaining. The question focused on dismissal upon payment of costs as allowed by Act No. 81-353.

The Commission concluded that dismissing a criminal case in the manner prescribed by that Act would not violate Canon 2A of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1982, after the Alabama Supreme Court’s 1975 adoption of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Subsequent amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Canons and linked opinion before relying on its conclusions.

Common questions

Q: What procedure did the opinion address?

A: Dismissal conditioned on the docket fee and other costs under Act No. 81-353.

Q: Did the Commission find a Canon 2A violation?

A: No. It said dismissal in the Act’s prescribed manner would not violate Canon 2A.

Background and rules framework

The question identifies Canon 2 and Act No. 81-353; the answer expressly resolves the Canon 2A issue for a dismissal under the Act.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

  • Canon 2
  • Canon 2A

Statutes:

  • Act No. 81-353

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

82-132
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
March 1, 1982
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether a trial judge may grant a prosecuting attorney’s motion to dismiss or nol pros a driving under the influence case. Your specific question arises in the context of an appeal de novo from a lower court where the prosecuting attorney’s motion may be based on plea bargaining. It appears from your request that you are particularly interested in whether the dismissal of a criminal case upon payment of costs violates Canon 2 in light of Act No. 81-353, which specifically allows for dismissal conditioned upon payment of the docket fee and other costs accruing in the proceeding. It is the opinion of the Commission that the dismissal of a criminal case in the manner prescribed by Act No. 81-353 would not violate Canon 2A of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1982. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace