Appellants have shown no gross abuse of discretion, and the trial court was correct to deny the petition for mandamus in this case. See Dubose v. Hodges, 280 Ga. 152, 152 ( 625 SE2d 745) (2006) (mandamus will not lie to compel special prosecutor to represent a criminal case to a grand jury); State v. Wooten, 273 Ga. 529, 531 ( 543 SE2d 721) (2001) ("[i]n the district attorney's role as administrator of justice, he or she has broad discretion in making decisions prior to trial about who to prosecute"); State v. Hanson, 249 Ga. 739, 742-743 ( 295 SE2d 297) (1982) ("[f]rom the beginning of our criminal justice system prosecutors have exercised the power of prosecutorial discretion in deciding which defendants to prosecute"); Bartlett v. Caldwell, 265 Ga. 52, 52 ( 452 SE2d 744) (1995) (decision whether to issue arrest warrant lies in sound discretion of magistrate, and mandamus will not issue to compel performance of discretionary act absent gross abuse of discretion).Stubbs v. Carpenter, 271 Ga. 327 ( 519 SE2d 451) (1999).
`A citizen does not have a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another, and hence, lacks standing to contest the prosecuting authority's policies when the citizen is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.'Bartlett v. Caldwell, 265 Ga. 52 ( 452 S.E.2d 744) (1995), quoting Scanlon v. State Bar or Georgia, 264 Ga. 251, 253 ( 443 S.E.2d 830) (1994). It follows that appellant lacked standing to seek mandamus relief that would compel appellee to prosecute Craig.
See also, Grimsley v. State, 233 Ga. App. 781, 782 (1998) ("[T]he decision of whether to prosecute and what charges to file are decisions that rest in the prosecutor's discretion.") (citation omitted); Shire v. State, 225 Ga. App. 306, 308(1) (1997) ("From the beginning of our criminal justice system prosecutors have exercised the power of prosecutorial discretion in deciding which defendants to prosecute.") (citations and punctuation omitted). See also, Bartlett v. Caldwell, 265 Ga. 52 ( 452 S.E.2d 744) (1995) (a private citizen does not have a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another). Given the state's interest in criminal prosecution, the State argues that dismissal of the accusation was improper under State v. Colquitt, 147 Ga. App. 627 ( 249 S.E.2d 680) (1978).
We need not apply a rule of strict construction to determine that Cardinale's attempt to invoke OCGA § 50–14–6 fails because, as a private citizen, he lacks standing to initiate a criminal prosecution. See Bartlett v. Caldwell, 265 Ga. 52, 452 S.E.2d 744 (1995); Roberts v. State, 280 Ga.App. 672, 674, 634 S.E.2d 790 (2006). As such, the portion of the complaint seeking to impose criminal liability on the individual defendants was properly dismissed.