*1 provide general for the welfare in- its sys- by providing
habitants for an interim transportation public
tem of until time permanent
as a solution
public transportation can found. We opinion
are also of the the above
grant power is sufficient to authorize governing body expend the City
public uninterrupted funds in for providing
public transportation. plaintiff’s petition re- for a writ
straining City performing the from question
contract in is dismissed. No costs
awarded.
CROCKETT, J., CALLISTER, C. HEN- ELLETT,
RIOD JJ., concur.
Randy DIMMITT, Appellant, Plaintiff and
v. CITY,
The CITY COURT OF SALT LAKE Respondent. Defendant and
No. 11137.
Supreme Utah.
Aug. 12, 1968. Boyce, City, exceptions Ronald N. Lake Salt fоr be noted certain appellant. vided for. Sec. 55-10-77 of juris- Court Act of 19653 sets out the Atty., Holmgren, City Homer Lake Salt diction of the court as follows: Atty., City Paul G. Lake Grant. Asst. Salt Except law, otherwise City, respondent. Salt Lake fоr *2 the original court shall have exclusive jurisdiction proceedings: CROCKETT, Chief Justice: (1) Concerning any child who has May 2, 1967, Randy Dimmitt, age On any federal, state, violated or local law * * * 17, traffic was issued a citation Salt municipal ordinance, City police op- Lake charging him with emphasized Inasmuch as the clause makes erating a motor vehicle without a valid it clear exceptions that there operator’s license, rеgis- without a valid juvenile jurisdiction court’s “otherwise if certificate, inoperative tration with an provided by law,” inquiry is light. muffler and a tail After defective whether it is fact “otherwise entering plea guilty not in the that law” court doеs not court, he filed in the district this action jurisdiction have exclusive of traffic viola- court restrain the court from tions. ceeding ground juris- on the that it had no diction, urging unquestionable that the court has It that at time over him that quoted above en- 55-10-77 was offenses From acted provided by because he is minor.1 it was “otherwise law” a rejection ap- petition, plaintiff of his that courts have over peals. these traffic offenses. Sec. U. C.A. states: It is true that our Act Court Juvenile The shall have generally indicates that offenders original jurisdiction arising all cases courts, be dealt with in the under or reason of violation of should not be accused of сrime nor treated ** any of the ordinances criminals, as proceedings shall be equitable question: informal and the We revert the critical interest child.2 But it is also which uses the lan- 55-10-77 same Act, Lindh, 1. The Juvenile Court Sec. 55-10-64 In Interest Utah (3), U.C.A.1953, any defines child as 359 P.2d and authorities cited person years age. less than therein. seq. 2. See through 123, 55-10-63 et and Sec. 55- 3.Codified as Secs. 55-10-63 10-105, U.C.A.1953; (1967 Supp.). see statement U.C.A.1953 guage, original jurisdiction” “exclusive exception the second "and in cases in- giving volving traffic violations.” not It does children, deprive the city juris- illogical interpret seem this as intend- diction in traffic It ing cases? is obvious that traffic violations could also both courts cannot have “exclusive handled in other courts.
jurisdiction” is, therefore, over them. It The court has no concern with the wis- appropriate to look to other sections of statute, dom or soundness of a or the act which upon bear problem. it, to justify except reasons as it aid provision proper in the interpretation thereof. Act which deals with charging a child the latter following connection have with an 55-10-105(4): offense is suggested been why legis- as reasons thought lature that traffic violations should child No shall be with crime be treated as different from other offenses
nor be convicted except and also be handled in other An courts. provided in section 55-10-86 in cases important one of these tremendous involving violations. increase in traffic and in violations in recent it It makes desirable that argued, plausibility, not without *3 efficient, there expeditious the be the most above and section that indicates children possible. uniform treatment Minors charged be must and convicted of in crime juvenile the age court for traffic violations.. be at least driv- of before 16J4 However, pointed it is also that out there ing. doing they In exercising so are the good are support reasons to a construc- privileges adults, of and in of the interest - tion that it was intended that the uniformity equality of law enforcement and court did not have exclusive jurisdiction, they of treatment be as treated but that children charged any be could in point bearing adults. Another on this jurisdiction having court traffic viola- over proportion high that a of traf- just quoted tions. (4) subsection the fic violations regarded can be as in the conjunctive “and” is and denotes rules, nature violating errors of in traffic exceptions in two classes of casеs. The manifesting rather than as basic anti- first relates by to acts which if done an social attitudes to of stigma which the adult felonies, would be which can crime should attach. with the Consistent handled provided other courts as foregoing is the that fact even when traf- Immediately following 55-10-86. and fic offenses are handled the apparently closely thought related in special courts provisions there are for their em- (All costs awаrded. No conformity Affirmed. in closer treatment
different added.) phasis courts.4 in other handling their with TUCKETT, J., concurs. would and given a court is Where the as normally jurisdiction have in the ELLETT, (concurring Justice 16, there would city under court Seс. 78-4— result). unequivocal declara a clear and to be have of judgment affirming the concur deprive that intent legislative tion of reasons court. The the district jurisdiction and confer court of following: do are the prompt me to so As juvenile court.5 jurisdiction on U.C.A.19S3, reads: above discussion 78-4— from the will be seen statutes, on arguable city it court shall have proceeded arising may be all cases one hand that children only in thе the violation against for traffic violations reason of under or ** hand, as the other any where on ordinances entirely construc has reasonable enacted in there is an This was law pro they of the statutеs that force effect ever since. been in having against ceeded passed Act was When cases of traffic violation. juvenile courts unequivocal In the absence of clear 55-10-77, which so far given was lеgislative courts indication “Except as otherwise material reads: deprived jurisdiction, we are in provided by law, ex- shall have ” original jurisdiction ruling clusive accord of the district jurisdic courts have concurrent At thаt time ordinances violations tion with the cases where for, were otherwise and so children are with traffic viola given jurisdic- courts were not tion over them. tions. courts, all of which sections in the writ the Juvenile Court Act Undеr opinion only respect er’s add the conflict with violations are the ones petition Sec. 78-14-16. to which a need not be filed despite proceedings, 5. This is true the fact 55-10- to initiate *4 above) (see ; 83(3) 3 footnоte usual Juvenile Court Act also different from the enactment, delinquencies, law was a later because such viola treatment juvenile’s may against of a statute not favor nullification tions he used 55-10-105(3), record, is clеar. See intent to do so and unless the Sec. Comm., Department Pac. R.R. v. Pub. Serv. of Pub Union Co. with the filed State 469; 55-10-105(5) ; Safety, Am.Jur. Utah 134 P.2d 50 Sec. 55- 103 lic provides to other 540. for removal 10-79 enough to up matter clear seems deemed a except conviction of a crime point. problem
this The ticklish arises involving violations; cases * * * 55-10-79, language reason (1967 quoted Supp.), U.C.A.1953 These two give statutes seem to to the dissenting opinion of Callister. Justicе of traffic of- says That section in cases of fenses; but both since sections their quasi-criminal proceeding, a criminal or provisions terms limited of Sec. where it is ascertained that a quoted above, 55-10-77 thesе two sections involved, the case shall to be transferred only cannot refer to ordinances but court. county to state law and ordinances. legislature already Since the given had I am convinced thus that thе courts try which can involved,
where ordinances were traffic offense under a ordinance interpretation reasonable placed to be on and with this limitation quasi-criminal words criminal or concur the rеsult. ceedings supra, in Sec. is to proceedings limit them to under state law CALLISTER, (dissenting). Justice county and ordinances. simplest terms, its Reduced to issue 55-10-100(9), (1967 U.C.A.1953 before this court determine provides: Supp.), conflicting applies, two statutes when In cases of violations traffic laws purports grant each to a different ordinances, may, the court in addi- original jurisdiction.1 disposition, other restrain pre- approaching problem thus child pеriods from for driving sented, be borne principles certain necessary, time as the court deems interpretation relating mind possession take driv- of the child’s * a application of statutes. er’s license. light be сonsidered in the statute should supra, 55-10-105(2), so far as ma- purpose; and also background its terial reads: aspects connection other bearing adjudication by An have a on law which purpose intent and a сhild is within its order that its section not be fulfilled.2 under 55-10-77 shall Jackson, 55-10-77, U.C.A.1953, Howe v. amended Utah 1. See Sec. (1966). ; 78-4-16, 1 U.C.A.1953. 965 *5 clearly flict,' specific precedence Act of 1965 is the more takes The Juvenile general.3 legislative over thе rule is that of a intention other indicative conflict, initially ap- a statute is all in case of the later offenders controlling in- pear court. This the earlier enactment.4 before the mandatory by the Since Cоurt Act is a subse- tent is manifested 55-10-79, quently comprehensive legislative langauge in enacted character offender, U.C.A.1953, scheme deal with the 1965, as amended portion logical Legis- is that the provides: which inference lature prior intended curtail ex- criminal a during pendency of If clusive proceeding another quasi-criminal courts. hearing, including preliminary person it shall be ascertained that twenty-one age years HENRIOD,
charged is under
Justice:
age
eighteen
and was less than
simply
I
not
do
dissent or concur.
I
ob-
committing
alleged
at
the time
repre-
serve that the
decision
this case
offense, that
shall
the case
transfer
sents
cаse
logic
no
law.
I
sub-
cannot
cotirt,
all the
together
opinion
scribe to the
conclusion of
documents,
transcripts
papers,
two courts have exclusive
testimony connected therewith.
which is concurrent.
I
subscribe to
cannot
[Emphasis added.]
the concurrence in the
result
seems
say
two other
There are
rules of construc-
one court has exclusive
foregoing
geographical
in one
that substantiate the
con-
area
other
16, U.C.A.1953,
area,
concurring
clusion. Sec.
court in a different
while
78-4—
offenders,
general
dealing with all
with the trial
statute
court that both of the lesser
U.C.A.1953,
jurisdiction.
as amend-
courts have concurrent
while Sec.
With
specific
lachrymosal eyes
of-
suggest
ed
deals
class of
this case
nothing.
are in con-
stands for
two statutes
fenders. Where
Examiners,
Express
3. Bateman v. Board of
7 Utah
4. Pacific
Intermountain
Co. v.
Commission,
221, 233,
(1958).
Tax