Johnson v. District of Columbia
271 A.2d 563
D.C.
1970
Check Treatment

*1 fаirly to consider sired” embrace neighbor- factor as number and

such a existing licenses.

hood effect of completely to assume unrealistic require that Board

Congress intended to exercising

ignore such historical facts judgment. The test is whether

its judgment fide exercising a bona

Board sphere. pre- will not

within its limited

sume, in the of clear evidence to absence ‍‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‍improper- that the Board was

ly assigned motivated to exercise Foundа- it. United States v. Chemical Inc.,

tion, Washington, (1926);

Ed. 131 Vir- Udall v. Co., Maryland

ginia Coach

App.D.C. 769 (1968), norm, Washington

cert. denied sub Metro-

politan Area Transit Com. v. 620, 21

The decision of the Board is reversed and

the case remanded for further

ings petitioner’s application consistent opinion.

So ordered. C., Hornbostel, D. Washington,

Peter A. Latto, Washington, with whom Lawrence J. C., brief, D. was on the Counsel, Nedrich, Corp. Asst. Thomas R. Pair, Corp. Acting whom B. Hubert Appellant, JOHNSON, Walker Fred filed, and time the brief was at the Counsel Barton, Counsel, Corp. Asst. Richard W. COLUMBIA, Appellee. brief, appellee. DISTRICT OF were on FICKLING, GALLAGHER, and Before Judges. Argued July PER CURIAM: ren- from a appeal is an This in the

dered Juve- nile Court. of an alleged father

Appellant, child, contends first pre-trial motion denying his erred in deposition. We complainant’s to take *2 Turner, pro These available procedures are not that such ruled v. Ketcham, the financial initiated for ceedings are paternity proceedings. In in There is child. (unreported of D.C.App., Original Nо. benefit 2716 anyone’s reform 26, attempt are not now affect order, 1964). We June behavior, any liberty is of ruling. Under question that persuaded to proceedings. of these Court Reform the District Columbia 1970, feel that the Pub.L. Act of We Procedure Criminal Winship 473, in both which motivated the (§ 11-946), 84 Court 111 ‍‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‍Stat. No. paternity proceed in are may be and Gault 487, disсovery proceedings ings. after paternity proceedings in parties 1, February Affirmed. that Additionally, appellant argues mistakenly applied proof standаrd of of the evidence (dissent- Judge beyond a rea- proof called for should have ing) : that in Dis Recognizing doubt. sonable Turner, trict of Columbia v. D.C.Mun. predicate my disagrеement App., (1959), A.2d we held 154 925 way in read is the which I In appli reasonable doubt was not 358, standard Winship, 397 U.S. 90 S.Ct. 1068 paternity appellant proceedings, cable to 1, (1970), and In rе 87 387 U.S. S.Ct. 358, urges Winship, me, logically 1428 To those cases 1068, (1970), 90 25 over S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 368 paternity procedures extend to presently turns disagree. our decision. conducted under 16-2341 seq.1

In both and In re 527 L.Ed.2d 18 appel trial counsel in ju (1967), Court was concerned apply the judge trial requested lant essentially venile were reasonable beyond a proof Dеspite in criminal nature. relying on trial judge, doubt. The in proceedings are conducted court,2 apply refused decisions of Ju proce of the venile and hаve some Court appellant found expressly that standard trappings process,* dural criminal question in child father of the essentially they are District civil nature. stаndard.3 * trappings expressly These removed In Columbia v. District of Reform supra Bragg Columbia citing D.C.Mun.App., Act of Columbia, Procedure Criminal Pub.L.No.91-358, did, however, which is (1953), 84 Stat. A.2d February sufficiency effective speak uncor- testimony “clear and in terms of roborated type proceeding 1. That has been com- signifi- convincing.” This observation рletely changed (§ under 16- Sec. light Supreme Court’s cant subsequent seq.) 2341 et of the District of Columbia Woodby Im- decision Reform Procedure Criminal 276, 285, migration Service, 1970, Pub.L.No.91-358, Act оf 84 Stat. (1966), cited trappings existing All crim- removed, inal character na- and the relating 90 S.Ct. 1068 expressly ture of the civil. deportation standard provision Act, however, bе- February, comes effective in judge “slightly more” of 3.The trial was appellant 2. Hawkins v. District the father. view that was App., (1964) ; expressed 203 A.2d 116 Jackson He his evaluation D.C.App., slightest testimony amounting v. District of A. to “a (1964) ; pros- tipping 2d District of Columbia in favor of the scales” Turner, ecution. of criminal trappings I also argues Appellant now because, ‍‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‍m paternity proceedings appli- in these requires decision security pay- giving to guarantee lieu of the reasonable doubt cation mеnts, placed “on recognizes He paternity proceeding. condition that court on and the District *3 made”, may re- in default and “the only juvenile with a Winship dealt and defendant ap- probation commit the However, voke proceeding. year a for no more one at jail” to than observes, relied pellant Tо as- time. D.C.Code 16-2350. rejecting supra, § heavily on In sume, does, as the that incarcera- to as label-of- what it referred “the ‘civil’ tion a would not be to been attаched convenience which has is, submit, I proceedings unreal. Sub- a lesser juvenile proceedings” justify to inability may sequent pay or be refusal to proof. at 87 S.Ct. but, ail, the immediate going j cause of to any at- rejected That at 1455. fine, it is involving criminal case a tempt “justify preponderance to stand- underlying adjudication fаctual is which ground juvenile ard related on the primary causative factor loss of designed proceedings punish, not to but liberty. child.” In Winship, to save the at at Apрellant also The District accurately observes: labels and “[Cjivil limited such commitment is good intentions not themselves obviate contempt general Court’s Juvenile thе need for criminal due safe- 11-1581. under D.C.Code § guards courts” where the de- however, section, punishment to limits $200 may fendant suffer a liberty if the course, a trial months or both. Of or six аgainst verdict is him. contempt committed before for at at if contemner afforded the court must be Therefore, it seems disposi me in our provision. But to chargеd under tion issue, by cannot governed be sense trial in a formal no strict or basic social or purpose proceedi support is one who defaults ngs4 any mоre than by a label used aas from paternity ordered description.5 shorthand must look D.C. v. District Stevens the nature of the proceedings and the con Indeed, Mun.Apр., A.2d 147 sequences arising from its commencement only issue revocation on and determination. the court abused its discretion. Columbia, supra. Stevens correctly рoints Appellant pater- out that apparent thus would nity “prosecu- a proceedings begun as hearings given new facts found on upon

tion information.” D.C.Code mere, paternity hearing by and necessary may “accused” 16-2342. If § by “slightest”, preponderance brought the court.” “be arrested before may the evidence. bе de- he trial, 16-2345. § prived liberty up year to one his may jail the “accused” committed facts found the evi- of bond. D.C.Code 16-2346. lieu dence and which would been so howevеr, Presumably, Reform Act the Bail found under the stricter standard. V, 1969), (Supp. U.S.C. course, governs realize commitment seq., I setting of bail. Of Cf. alimony or U.S.App. in a case where may Hoffman occur pro- a divorce applying arises from support order D.C. proceedings from other civil proceeding. ceeding that Act to an or еxtradiction note v. District Harrison Mun.App., 95 A.2d unques- where the point preserved which the for review. Therefore, tionably applies. Moreover, seem judge exрressly would since the trial possibility that the incarcera- found in of appellant favor on the reason- exclusively standard, tion necessarily is not able doubt I nо occasion to determinative factor. consider applicability of harmless con- stitutional Chapman error standard. See it, understand As I California, suprа, holdings in Winship, led 705 (1967). Accordingly, Ed.2d included the nature reverse with instructions enter proceedings beginning, from their liberty potential dur- status status afterward, effect adjudication the form of *4 Court,

“stigma”. spoke

stigma resulting finding of violations paternity proceed-

of a criminal law. STATES, Appellant, UNITED ing illegal critical act birth of sexual intercourse resulted in out of wedlock. that determina- Whether Larry LEE, Appellee. Thomas tion is viewed a violation of an unused it criminal statute or not unquestionably can ‍‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‍broad stigmatic and seriоus rami- District of Columbia Court of for the adjudicated fications father. We Sept. 15, Submitted recognized have earlier consequences “definitely of criminal ovеrtone.” Dis- trict (1959). would, therefore, hold as to the case, the trial

asked apply the stricter required and stated that if the daw so accused,

it would find for the the deсision supra, requires entry of a find-

ing his favor. To the extent that our conflict, decisions are I view

them by Winship. as overruled this, noted,

As the proceedings in place

took before the decision of the Su-

preme in Winship. correctly

trial judge applied then exist- ‍‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‍Since, however, application law.

stricter standard relates to flaw serious

in,6 of,7 or the integrity fact-finding

process, applied I believe must be Ellis,

case. also In (D. F.2d

C.Cir., 1970), applying to earlier Russell, Walker, Robert 7. Linkletter v. 14 L.Ed.2d 601