## Facts

- The Missouri Attorney General filed an original quo warranto action in the Missouri Supreme Court to remove Stanley Wallach, the elected prosecuting attorney of St. Louis County.
- The state alleged Wallach willfully and habitually failed to perform prosecutorial duties by not pursuing reported violations of liquor-control laws and, more generally, gambling and lottery laws.
- Missouri’s liquor-control scheme involved state liquor-control officials and inspectors who reported suspected violations to local prosecutors, including by forwarding written transcripts or reports.
- Wallach’s office received these reports and screened them; some matters were prosecuted and others were not, including based on judgments about evidentiary sufficiency and prosecutability.
- Enforcement practices included coordination among state inspectors, the sheriff’s office, and the prosecutor’s office; when an inspector observed a violation, a deputy sheriff could be called to make an arrest.
- The state contended Wallach improperly treated liquor-control officials’ reports as controlling and failed to pursue both criminal charges and available injunctive abatement remedies.
- Evidence showed Wallach brought a substantial number of liquor-law prosecutions, including prosecutions initiated after the quo warranto filing.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence proved willful, intentional, or habitual neglect of duty by the prosecuting attorney—through failure to prosecute reported liquor-law violations and to pursue related injunction remedies—sufficient to justify ouster in quo warranto.
2. Whether cooperative enforcement arrangements with other officials amounted to an unlawful diminution or abdication of the prosecutor’s statutory responsibilities.
3. Whether post-filing prosecutions were irrelevant to forfeiture or could be considered in assessing whether there was ongoing willful neglect warranting ouster.

## Decision

- The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed the information in quo warranto.
- The court refused to oust Wallach and he remained in office.
- The court concluded the record did not establish a willful or habitual failure to perform prosecutorial duties.
- The court treated the challenged enforcement choices as largely within prosecutorial discretion absent clear proof of flagrant neglect or corruption.

## Legal Principles

- Ouster of an elected official by quo warranto requires clear proof of serious misconduct, such as willful, intentional, or habitual neglect of official duty; errors in judgment or disputed enforcement policy are insufficient.
- A prosecuting attorney exercises discretion in deciding whether to file and pursue prosecutions, including when information is supplied by other enforcement officials.
- Cooperation and coordination among law-enforcement actors do not, without more, show unlawful delegation or abandonment of the prosecutor’s independent charging responsibility.
- In determining whether forfeiture is shown, a court may consider the official’s course of conduct as a whole when evaluating whether alleged nonperformance reflects continuing willful neglect.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Attorney General failed to prove the degree of willful or habitual neglect required to remove an elected prosecutor, and it dismissed the quo warranto proceeding, leaving prosecutorial enforcement judgments largely to discretion absent clear evidence of deliberate nonperformance.


State ex rel. McKittrick v. Wallach, 182 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1944)