“A prosecutor, as the chief law enforcement officer of a county, is granted the broad discretion to decide whether to prosecute [a defendant] or what charges to file [against a defendant].” People v Williams (Anterio), 244 Mich App 249, 253-254 (2001) (trial court erroneously dismissed domestic assault charges after the victim refused to testify against the defendant where it “characterize[d] the offense as a private crime and . . . suggest[ed] that the victim ha[d] a legal right of any kind to decide whether [the] defendant [was] prosecuted[, which] is clearly inconsistent with the concept of public prosecutions of criminal offenses[,] . . . [because] [p]ut simply, in criminal cases, the prosecutor alone possesses the authority to determine whether to prosecute the accused[]”).
Note: “[D]espite the victim’s failure to appear on the trial date, the prosecutor arguably had a viable basis to proceed by showing that the victim was an unavailable witness [under MRE 804(a)(5)].” Williams (Anterio), 244 Mich App at 254.
See also People v Morrow, 214 Mich App 158, 159, 164-165 (1995) (trial court exceeded its authority when it dismissed the prosecution’s case sua sponte where the sole complaining witness recanted her preliminary examination testimony).
However, in limited circumstances, the trial court has authority over the “discharge of the prosecutor’s duties . . . [where] those activities or decisions by the prosecutor . . . are unconstitutional, illegal, or ultra vires.” Morrow, 214 Mich App at 161, 165 (finding that “the prosecutor’s decision to proceed with the case even after the sole complaining witness recanted her testimony was [not] unconstitutional, illegal, or ultra vires[]”).