342 S.W.3d 299
Mo.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Michelle Schaefer, Cindy Brandt, and Dale Price were convicted of intoxication-related offenses and later faced new charges after HB 1715 repealed and reenacted § 577.023 on July 3, 2008.
- HB 1715 repealed and reenacted § 577.023 to add enhanced penalties for individuals with multiple prior intoxication-related driving convictions.
- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated petition for declaratory judgment arguing HB 1715 and § 577.023 were unconstitutional under Missouri Constitution Article III, §§ 21 and 23.
- The trial court dismissed the petition, holding the constitutional issues should be litigated in each plaintiff’s criminal case and that they had an adequate remedy at law.
- On appeal, the State defended the statute's constitutionality and urged dismissal, while Brandt’s case remained pending at the time of decision.
- The majority affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, concluding the declaratory judgment action was improper because plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law in their criminal prosecutions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does HB 1715/§577.023 violate Art. III, §§21-23? | Schaefer/Brandt/Price contend the bill violated the title, purpose, and single-subject clauses. | State argues the issues are best resolved in criminal cases or would be moot if later versions apply. | No; issues governed by §516.500; petition properly dismissed. |
| Is the declaratory judgment action appropriate given an adequate remedy at law in criminal cases? | Plaintiffs have a real constitutional claim that should be resolved by declaratory judgment. | Existing or pending criminal proceedings provide an adequate remedy at law; declaratory relief is improper. | Yes, the petition was properly dismissed because an adequate remedy at law exists. |
| Does §516.500 bar Brandt’s challenges as time-barred? | Brandt was potentially timely, as challenges are not barred by §516.500 if pursued in time. | §516.500 applies; Brandt was charged before adjournment and failed to raise timely defenses. | Yes; the challenges are time-barred under §516.500. |
| Should the court sever or strike unconstitutional provisions from HB 1715? | Severance could preserve the bill's valid watercraft provisions while striking the invalid penalty provisions. | The case centers on the petition; severance is not necessary to resolve this dispute. | Not reached; the petition was dismissed on other grounds. |
| Were the constitutional issues properly preserveable in a declaratory action versus criminal proceedings? | Constitutional defenses could be raised via declaratory judgment to avoid piecemeal criminal litigation. | Constitutional defenses should be litigated in the criminal cases themselves. | Disputed material; the court treated the declaratory action as improper and affirmed dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammerschmidt v. Boone County, 877 S.W.2d 98 (Mo. banc 1994) (defines single-subject test and core purpose in relation to amendments)
- C.C. Dillon Co. v. City of Eureka, 12 S.W.3d 322 (Mo. banc 2000) (original purpose and amendment analysis for bills)
- Stroh Brewery Co. v. State, 954 S.W.2d 323 (Mo. banc 1997) (limits on changes to bill subjects during passage)
- Fust v. Attorney General, 947 S.W.2d 424 (Mo. banc 1997) (title underinclusiveness and invalidity of overbroad provisions)
- National Solid Waste Management Ass'n v. Dir. of the Dep't of Natural Resources, 964 S.W.2d 818 (Mo. banc 1998) (underinclusiveness and title-related invalidation principles)
- State ex rel. Daily Record Co. v. Hartmann, 253 S.W.991 (Mo. banc 1923) (voids or invalidates unconstitutional enactments)