By аlternative writ of prohibition dated December 22, 1969, the Municipal Court of Hennepin County was directed to show cause why it should not be prohibited from conducting a сourt trial without a jury in the action entitled State of Minnesota v. Paul Vincent Leininger.
Rеlator was charged with reckless driving in violation of Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, § 403.020, which is substantially the same as the proscription appearing in the Highway Trаffic Regulation Act as Minn. St. 169.13, subd. 1. At arraignment in the municipal court, a request was made fоr a jury trial. The request was denied. The matter was set for trial upon the court calender. Relator’s motion for a jury trial was renewed and again denied. Relator then applied to this court for relief
*556
and the alternative writ of prohibition was issued. Relying on our decisions in State v. Paulick,
1. In Minnesota, since State v. Hoben,
Minn. St. 488A.10, subd. 6, provides in material part:
“A charge of a violation of any municipal ordinancе * * * shall be heard, tried and determined by a judge without a jury, and the defendant shall have no right to a jury trial on such a charge, except as otherwise required by law. In the event of such trial without jury, there shall be a right of appeal as provided in Seсtion 488.20 * *
Minn. St. 488.20 provides:
“Appeals may be taken in the district court of the county from the judgments of muniсipal courts in the same cases, upon the same procedure, and with thе same effect as provided by law respecting appeals from justicе courts, and all laws relating to such last named appeals shall be adaрted and applied to appeals from the municipal courts. * * * On apрeal to district court the appellant shall not be entitled to a trial by jury if trial by jury was held in municipal court.” (Italics supplied.)
If a jury trial is not afforded in the municipal court, it will be afforded upon appeal to the district court. State ex rel. Pidgеon v. Hall,
Relator contends, however, that it is an unreasonable burden for him to have to defend the ordinance prosecution in the municipal court before obtaining a jury trial in the district court, and thаt this special procedure for ordinance prosecutions as distinguished from prosecutions for violation of statute constitutes an unreasonable сlassification in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This argument ignores the fact that the
*557
two-stеp procedure gives the defendant an additional opportunity to gain an acquittal. Furthermore, while a trial in the municipal court without a jury may inconvenience the defendant in quest of a jury trial, it will aid the municipal court significantly in the dispоsition of its heavy caseload. Nothing in this record persuades us that the two-step procedure places upon the defendant an unreasonable burdеn in light of the administrative necessitiés of the Municipal Court of Hennepin County. See, Stаte v. Friswold,
2. Nor are we persuaded by relator’s claim that § 488A.10, subd. 6, by prescribing a procedure for ordinance violation prosecution in Hennepin County different from that in other counties effectively denies him equal protection of the law in violation of U.S. Const. Amend. XIV. The concentration of population in that сounty and the resulting volume of municipal court litigation make it reasonable to limit a person charged with a traffic offense to the procedure described above. See, Williams v. Rolfe,
Writ discharged.