I am a new Municipal Judge for a court that has been ran by the same Judge for over 10 years. The problem I am having is this Judge never had a Prosecutor. Now I am having trouble with our Council understanding why I now have to have a Prosecutor when the past Judge never had one. Can you please help me!!

The State or City is certainly entitled to be represented by its attorney in all criminal prosecutions in your court. I don't think sec. 45.031 (3), C.C.P. was really intended to permit the judge to dispose of cases without the involvement of the city attorney. Canon 6C(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct does not seem to contemplate the judge serving in the role of the prosecutor, though as a practical matter in many municipal and JP courts, "plea bargains" or the acceptance of set fine amounts are negotiated without the county or city attorney even having knowledge of the case (since their involvement is not required under art. 45.019 or 27.14(d), C.C.P.). Unless all of your cases are to be disposed of either by dismissal or pleas of guilty/no contest, I am not sure how the council could believe you can run your court as both judge and prosecutor.

from the question of the day section.....

Does a prosecutor have to be present in JP court or municipal court?
Yes -- if the Counsel for the State is not present, under CCP art. 45.031, the justice or judge has only 3 options:
(1) postpone the trial to a date certain
(2) appoint an attorney pro tem as provided by this code to represent the State; or
(3) proceed to trial.

and, i'm assuming here, but if you choose option #3, proceed to trial, then under art. 45.032, you would have to grant a directed verdict against the state in every case where the state wasn't represented....there goes the "income" from the citations!

Joanne is dead on. If you need help judge please call us at TMCEC 18002523718 Ask for Clay

I absolutely agree; the legislature has made it clear that you need someone representing the state there in the courtroom unless the defendant pleads guilty/no contest.

The AG issued an opinion confirming what we already knew:

The Judge Can't Ask Questions.

This may be stretching a point to absurdity, but wouldn't it be reasonable, in the absence of a prosecuting attorney, to "permit" the State's witness to testify, in pretty much the same manner as the judges now permit a defendant to testify at their trial, without counsel? The A.G. opinion says the court can't "call or examine" witnesses for the State. The opinion doesn't mention whether an officer who presents himself to give testimony can be allowed to testify in narrative form.

By the way, this was "self-inflicted" wound -- the judges wanted this law. Now we have had complaints from judges who don't wnat a prosecutor there all the time, or don't want to wait for their prosecutor to show....can't win for losing here......