Opinion No. (2011)
Background
- §56.265, RSMo 2000, requires a non-chartered county prosecutor to receive the same pay increases as associate circuit judges when the increases are provided by a preexisting formula.
- Phelps County Commissioners refused the prosecutor’s pay increase, alleging midterm unconstitutionality; county is assumed non-chartered, third-class.
- Constitutional provision Art. VII, §13 prohibits midterm increases except in limited exceptions.
- §56.265 lacks a dollar formula but ties prosecutor salary to associate circuit judge salary.
- Judicial salaries are set by the Missouri Citizens' Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials, while prosecutors generally cannot participate on the Commission; Art. XIII, §3 is a controlling, more specific provision over Art. VII, §13.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §56.265 require midterm increases for prosecutors in non-chartered counties? | Phelps County // prosecutors must be paid equal to judges under §56.265. | County may resist midterm increases unless exceptions apply. | Yes; increases required under the statute’s formula. |
| Do Art. VII, §13 and its exceptions permit midterm increases for prosecutors when tied to a preexisting formula? | Formula preexists; increases align with constitutional policy. | Midterm increases generally prohibited unless exceptions apply. | Yes, where a preexisting formula governs the increase. |
| Does Art. XIII, §3 control over Art. VII, §13 in setting prosecutor salaries? | Art. XIII, §3 controls due to its specificity. | Art. VII, §13 governs general compensation; conflicts resolved in favor of Art. XIII. | Art. XIII, §3 controls; prosecutor salaries linked to judges via Commission structure. |
| Can prosecutors be considered “state officials” for purposes of salary control by the Commission? | Prosecutors lack statewide control and are county officers; thus not subject to Commission’s direct salary control. | Prosecutors not directly controlled by the Commission; no direct midterm power. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laclede County v. Douglass, 43 S.W.3d 826 (Mo. banc 2001) (midterm increase exceptions to Art. VII, §13)
- Maxwell v. Daviess County, 190 S.W.3d 606 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (exception for formula-based increases)
- Weinstock v. Holden, 995 S.W.2d 411 (Mo. banc 1999) (Art. XIII controls over conflicting provisions)
- State ex rel. Scobee v. Meriwether, 200 S.W.2d 340 (Mo. banc 1947) (exception framework for midterm increases)
- State ex rel. Webb v. Pigg, 249 S.W.2d 435 (Mo. banc 1952) (definition of officer for constitutional purposes)
- Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys v. Barton County, 311 S.W.3d 737 (Mo. banc 2010) (prosecutors as county officers; salary linkage to judicial salaries)
- Ehlmann v. Nixon, 323 S.W.3d 787 (Mo. banc 2010) (statutes presumed constitutional; need clear constitutional violation)
- Turner v. School Dist. of Clayton, 318 S.W.3d 660 (Mo. banc 2010) (statutory construction when language clear)
- Weinstock v. Holden (Appendix G), 995 S.W.2d 411 (Mo. banc 1999) (listing of salary authorities)