for maintaining or discontinuing criminal prosecutions is vested almost exclusively in the district and county attorneys, and not in the trial judges. Accordingly, a Texas trial court has no authority to dismiss a case, either on the defendant’s motion or on the court’s own motion, unless the prosecutor consents or the dismissal is otherwise authorized by constitution, statute, or common law.”) (footnotes omitted). “While a trial court is thus authorized to dismiss an accusation, it may not do so in a manner ‘impermissibly interfer[ing] with the State’s right to prosecute.... ’ State v. Aldridge, 259 Ga.App. 673, 674(1), 577 S.E.2d 863 (2003).” State v. Carr, 287 Ga.App. 691, 692, 652 S.E.2d 597, 598 (2007). In District of Columbia v. Cruz, 828 A.2d 181, 183 (D.C.2003), the tr (<HOLDING>). “Countervailing the principle of the
holding that against her will in the rape statute means without her consent and that the fact that the victim was under the age of consent was sufficient to establish that element holding consent not voluntary where police threatened to arrest defendants girlfriend if he refused to sign consent form holding that the trial court was not authorized to dismiss misdemeanor charges without the states consent on the basis that the state had refused to consent to fishers waiver of a jury trial holding that a search exceeded the scope of the initial oral consent and was not validated by a subsequent written consent an allegedly consensual seizure must stand or fall on the basis of the consent preexisting the seizure holding that the fact that defendant granted consent to police to search some items and then refused to give consent to additional searches cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion