City of Church Hill v. Roger Elliott
E2016-01915-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Roger Elliott received a municipal "Misdemeanor Citation" for "improper passing" in Church Hill; the citation lacked a numeric ordinance reference.
- Municipal Court (bench) found Elliott guilty on March 16, 2016; handwritten fines of $124 appear on the citation.
- Elliott timely appealed to the Hawkins County Circuit Court for a trial de novo.
- The circuit court found Elliott guilty of violating state statute Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-118 (a Class C misdemeanor) and imposed a $25 fine.
- The Court of Appeals concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the circuit court adjudicated a state criminal statute and transferred the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed whether the municipal court (and thus the de novo proceeding) could properly result in a criminal conviction under the state statute versus a civil municipal ordinance violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Elliott) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal citation permitted trial on state criminal statute § 55-8-118 | § 55-8-118 allows passing on any paved part to pass right of left-turning vehicle; citation insufficiently referenced statute but Elliott argues statute permits his conduct | City argued circuit court correctly found violation of the state statute | Court held municipal court lacked jurisdiction to try the state criminal statute; circuit court erred by finding violation of § 55-8-118 |
| Nature of municipal ordinance violations (civil vs criminal) | Elliott implied proceedings were civil (municipal) | City treated the offense as criminal under state law | Court held violations of municipal ordinances are civil; incorporation of state statute into ordinance remains civil unless municipal judge has authority to try misdemeanors |
| Proper appellate path when municipal court acts within its civil jurisdiction | N/A (procedural) | City maintained circuit court judgment was proper | Court explained appeals from municipal-ordinance convictions (civil) go to circuit court then to Court of Appeals; appeals from criminal convictions go to Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Sufficiency of citation to give notice | Elliott argued citation and proceedings were adequate | Amicus and City argued citation can be sufficient | Court held citation is sufficient if it gives reasonable notice of the ordinance alleged but recommended including both offense description and ordinance number as best practice |
Key Cases Cited
- Guidi v. City of Memphis, 263 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. 1953) (citation sufficiency: accused must receive reasonable notice of ordinance alleged)
- City of Chattanooga v. Myers, 787 S.W.2d 921 (Tenn. 1990) (municipal ordinance violations treated as civil for procedure/appeal)
- City of Chattanooga v. Davis, 54 S.W.3d 248 (Tenn. 2001) (municipal ordinance violations considered civil)
- City of White House v. Whitley, 979 S.W.2d 262 (Tenn. 1998) (municipal judges must be popularly elected to eight-year terms to have authority over state criminal law)
- Moore v. State, 19 S.W.2d 233 (Tenn. 1929) (Legislature may establish municipal courts and determine their jurisdiction)
- Ludwick v. Doe, 914 S.W.2d 522 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (discussed by appellant re: safe use of paved parts of roadway to pass on right)
Conclusion: The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the circuit court's criminal finding (violation of § 55-8-118), holding the municipal court’s jurisdiction was limited to civil enforcement of its ordinances; the case was remanded for a new trial on whether Elliott violated a Church Hill municipal ordinance.