991 N.E.2d 592
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- On Feb. 22, 2012, Indianapolis Animal Care and Control issued Robert Gates three citations for municipal ordinance violations (animal care/treatment, permanent ID, and curbing).
- The City’s complaint sought monetary fines for Gates’ alleged conduct (dog defecating in public, no permanent ID/rabies proof, and hitting the dog).
- Gates timely demanded a jury trial on June 22, 2012; the trial court denied the demand. Gates appealed interlocutorily under App. R. 14(B).
- The sole issue on appeal: whether Gates is entitled to a jury trial under Article I, §20 of the Indiana Constitution.
- The ordinances did not exist in 1852, so the court applied the historical test: was the modern cause more like an 1852 action at law (jury) or equity (bench).
- The court concluded the ordinance enforcement here is quasi-criminal and seeks monetary penalties akin to legal actions, so a jury is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gates is entitled to a jury trial under Art. I, §20 | City: ordinance enforcement is civil; monetary penalties are civil and may be tried to the court | Gates: enforcement is quasi-criminal/ legal in nature and thus entitled to jury like other legal claims | Reversed: Gates entitled to jury — ordinance enforcement here is quasi-criminal and monetary fines are legal in nature |
Key Cases Cited
- Cunningham v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1075 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (speeding infractions are quasi-criminal and defendants entitled to jury trial)
- Midwest Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Stroup, 730 N.E.2d 163 (Ind. 2000) (analysis: determine whether claim is essentially legal or equitable as of 1852)
- Songer v. Civitas Bank, 771 N.E.2d 61 (Ind. 2002) (Article I, §20 preserves jury rights as they existed at common law)
- Lickey v. City of South Bend, 190 N.E. 858 (Ind. 1934) (violation of city ordinances characterized as quasi-criminal)
- Boss v. State, 944 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (ordinance prosecutions are civil for double jeopardy purposes; distinguishable on the jury-rights issue)