State v. BrewsterState v. Brewster
The State of Louisiana (“State“) seeks review of a judgment of the court of appeal sua sponte declaring
UNDERLYING FACTS
In separate proceedings, defendants were charged with various misdemeanor offenses in the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany. Pursuant to
Defendants separately appealed to the district court, which affirmed the convictions and sentences. Defendants then applied to the court of appeal for supervisory writs. On its own motion, the court of appeal consolidated the two cases and ordered the parties to brief the issue of the cоnstitutionality of
The State sought review of this judgment in this court.
DISCUSSION
Pretermitting the merits of the case, we find the court of appeal erred in reaching the issue of constitutionality on its own motion, withоut the issue being raised by the parties. In Board of Commissioners v. Connick, 94-3161 (La.3/9/95), 654 So.2d 1073, we explained:
As a general rule, courts should not reach the question of a statute‘s constitutionality when its unconstitutionality has not been placed at issue by one of the litigants. See Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co. Inc., et al., 94-CA-1238, 646 So.2d 859 (La.1994). Unless a statute as drawn is clearly unconstitutional on its face, it is preferred that the parties to a dispute uncover any constitutional defects in a statute through the dialectic of our adversarial system; for a court sua sponte to declare a statute unconstitutional is a derogation of the strong presumption of constitutionality accorded legislative enactments. See State v. Cinel, 94-KA-0942, 646 So.2d 309, 313 (La.1994) (citations omitted) (“[w]henever it is possible, [Louisiana] courts have the duty to interpret statutes in a mаnner consistent with” our state and federal constitutions).
See also State v. Neisler, 93-1942, n. 9 (La.2/28/94), 633 So.2d 1224 (constitutionality of a statute delegating judicial functions to appointed magistrаte commissioners was not raised by any of the parties to the proceeding and could not be considered).
The sole excеption to this general rule is that a court can reach the constitutional question on its own motion when its jurisdiction is affected. State v. Hudson, 253 La. 992, 221 So.2d 484 (1969); State v. Gatlin, 241 La. 321, 129 So.2d 4 (1961). This excеption has typically been applied in cases where a legislative enactment interferes with or curtails the plenary power
In its оpinion, the court of appeal observed that it could recognize the want of the commissioner‘s subject matter jurisdiction on its own motion. “Jurisdiction” is defined in
Courts have the jurisdiction and powers over criminal proceedings that are conferred upon them by the constitution and statutes of this state, except as their statutory jurisdiction and powers are restricted, enlarged, or modified by the provisions of this Code.
It is not disputed that the commissioner acted within the scope of the authority granted to him by a statute of this state,
Thus, we find the court of appeal erred in reaching the constitutionality of
Ordinarily, we would remand the case to the court of appeal to resolve the other issues presented in the appeal. However, we note that defеndants have now raised the question of the statute‘s constitutionality. In the interests of justice, we will remand the case to the district court to аllow defendants to specifically plead the unconstitutionality of the statute and to allow the parties to fully litigate the issue. See Summerell v. Phillips, 258 La. 587, 247 So.2d 542 (1971).
DECREE
For thе reasons assigned, the writ is granted and the judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside. This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CALOGERO, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
LEMMON, J., would grant and docket.
CALOGERO, Chief Justice, dissents from the action of the court and would docket this matter as an appeal.
Commissioner Gleason presided in these two criminal matters. The district court separately affirmed the conviсtions and sentences. On writs to the court of appeal, the First Circuit consolidated the cases and asked the parties to brief the issue of the constitutionality of
Now, this court‘s majority vacates the court of appeal judgment and remands the cases to the district court for further proceedings (because the court of appeal reached the issue of constitutionality оn its own motion without the issue having been raised by the parties). Surely, upon remand the defense attorneys in these cases will attack the constitutionality of the statute, armed as they are, now, with a favorable opinion from the court of appeal. Thus, what we effeсtively do is hold for another day the validity of the now-vacated opinion of the court of appeal, which has found
Deciding not to resolve an issue now that will surely return to this court seems