Prosecutors report: 164 audit referrals in 2024; 20 convictions and restitution ordered

Michelle Atchley presented the Legislative Audit Office’s annual summary of matters referred to prosecuting attorneys and the attorney general for calendar year 2024.

The report lists 164 matters referred, with 39 under review at the time of the report, 28 matters in which criminal charges were filed, three dismissals, five pending cases and 20 convictions. Of the convictions reported, sentencing outcomes included incarceration for four defendants (with probation on release for some), probation in 12 cases and suspended imposition of sentence in four cases. The report shows ordered fines and court costs totaling more than $18,000, restitution ordered totaling just under $789,000, and audit costs of more than $52,000 in assessed audit costs.

The committee heard from Bob McMahon, prosecutor coordinator for the Prosecutor’s Association, and representatives of local prosecuting offices about how referrals are screened. Prosecutors emphasized the difference between audit findings and prosecutorial standards: audit findings document potential problems, while prosecutors must determine probable cause and the presence of criminal intent to pursue charges. That difference, they said, explains why a substantial share of referrals do not result in criminal prosecution.

"You start looking at who's the person that committed the scribe, and sometimes we can't determine who that person is," one prosecutor said while explaining why some audit referrals do not yield charges. Committee members asked for more granular summaries that indicate whether restitution was obtained when charges were not filed and for a standardized response template so the committee can better track outcomes.

Prosecutors and the committee also discussed operational needs, including manpower and funding for victim-witness coordinators; Bob McMahon said his association will again seek legislative support to make those positions state employees. Committee members suggested staff develop clearer top-line summaries for future reports (for example, amounts associated with matters where charges were not filed and whether taxpayers were made whole).

The chair moved to file the disposition report; the motion was seconded and the committee filed the report by voice vote. Members requested follow-up materials and suggested staff coordination with prosecutors to provide more consistent summaries in future reports.