Barnes, J.
….
Larkin raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court properly denied his petition to disqualify the LaPorte County Prosecutor’s Office with respect to his pending voluntary manslaughter charge.
….
… At the police station, Larkin agreed to talk to investigators if he was charged with voluntary manslaughter [of his wife] in lieu of murder. Larkin, his attorneys, an investigator, LaPorte County Prosecutor Bob Szilagyi, and Chief Deputy Prosecutor Robert Neary were present during the interview, which was videotaped. During a break in the interview, Larkin had a conversation with his attorneys. However, the recording equipment was not turned off during the break, and Larkin’s conversation with his attorneys was recorded.
Within a week or so, the investigator watched the interview video [and] … gave a copy of the video to Neary. The investigator did not alert Neary that Larkin’s conversation with his attorney was on the video. At some point, Neary made arrangements for court reporter Jami Arnold to transcribe the video. As she was doing so, she discovered Larkin’s conversation with his attorneys, stopped transcribing, and contacted Neary. Neary advised Arnold not to transcribe that portion of the video. Arnold transcribed the other portions of the video and returned the video and transcript to Neary.
… [After defendant learned the conversation was recorded, he moved to dismiss the voluntary manslaughter charge on Sixth Amendment grounds. In the State’s written response to the motion], Neary and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Kristina Armstrong … argued that no new subjects were discussed during Larkin’s conversation with his attorneys and that no evidence was disclosed or derived as a result of the conversation. Consequently, the State argued that Larkin was not prejudiced by the alleged Sixth Amendment violation. The State attached a transcript of the conversation to its response. At a hearing on Larkin’s motion to dismiss, Neary stated that Szilagyi, Armstrong, an intern, and Neary had “all viewed the tape.” [Record citations omitted throughout.] The trial court ordered the Prosecutor’s Office to submit affidavits from any person that viewed the video or read the transcript and detail when they first did so. [In those later affidavits, Neary stated he was the only Prosecutor who viewed that portion of the tape or read a transcript of it; the intern acknowledged reading part of the transcript of it; and Szilagyi and Armstrong denied viewing or reading it.]
….
In September 2014, Larkin filed a motion to disqualify the LaPorte County Prosecutor’s Office from prosecuting the case against him. Larkin pointed out the discrepancy between Armstrong’s affidavit and the [response to motion to dismiss] that she and Neary submitted to the trial court. Larkin requested that a special prosecutor be appointed.
In October 2014, the trial court suppressed the conversation between Larkin and his attorneys, but not the remainder of the interview. [Footnote omitted.] The trial court denied Larkin’s motion to dismiss, finding no prejudice from the recording of the conversation between Larkin and his attorney. The trial court also denied Larkin’s motion to disqualify the LaPorte County Prosecutor’s Office ….
At Larkin’s request, the trial court certified the denial of Larkin’s motion to disqualify the LaPorte County Prosecutor’s Office for interlocutory appeal and stayed the proceedings. … We accepted jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B).
….
Larkin requests that the entire LaPorte County Prosecutor’s Office be disqualified. It is well-settled that once the elected prosecuting attorney is disqualified, his or her whole office is disqualified from representing the State in a particular case. [Citation omitted.] …
It is not, however, necessary to disqualify a prosecutor’s entire staff or to dismiss an indictment because a deputy prosecutor has a conflict of interest. [Citation omitted] …
The State argues that this issue is moot because the elected prosecutor, Szilagyi, was defeated by John Espar in the May 2014 primary election, and Espar was elected the new prosecuting attorney in November 2014. According to the State, Espar had no involvement in the challenged conduct, and a special prosecutor is unnecessary. …
We agree with the State that the appointment of a special prosecutor is moot here because Szilagyi is no longer the prosecutor. The new prosecutor Espar was not involved in listening to Larkin’s confidential conversation with his attorney. Because there is no basis to disqualify Espar, there is no basis to disqualify the entire LaPorte County Prosecutor’s Office as Larkin is requesting. … Larkin’s request to disqualify the entire LaPorte County Prosecutor’s Office is moot. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal of the trial court’s denial of Larkin’s motion to disqualify the Prosecutor’s Office and appoint a special prosecutor. [Footnote omitted.]
… However, if requested by Larkin, the trial court should consider whether disqualification of Neary and/or Armstrong would be appropriate in this situation. [Footnote omitted.] …
….
Dismissed.
Kirsch, J., and Najam, J., concur.