*1 54(b) Rule issue was not joined Bryant case, I think we erred there in accepting pro- merits case. rule ceeding
STATE of Arkansas v. Aaron R. WEBB, et al. CR 95-308 Court of Arkansas
Supreme delivered Opinion January on Denial of Opinion delivered [Supplemental Rehearing February 1996.*] concurs. *Glaze, J.,
Winston Gen., Miller, Clint Bryant, Att’y by: Deputy Att’y Gen., Sr. Advocate for Appellate appellant. Morris, & Tom C. III Morris
George, Capehart, Spivey by: Godo, and Brent Reeves, and & Samuel Capehart Dossey by: M. Reeves, for appellees. The Benton Circuit County Newbern, David Justice.
Court issued a writ of to the prohibition Bentonville Rogers Courts. The writ Municipal those courts prohibits from trying various charges misdemeanors levied citations statutory by issued officers to by Shadrick W. police Edward Kaczo- Clardy, rowski, Schmeichel, Aaron R. Webb, Painter, Nathan Jane Billie W. Keene. The State the order the writ. appeals issuing We reverse the order and dismiss case.
Each of the appellees arrested for a misde- statutory meanor to have been committed in Benton County not within either the of Bentonville or the munici- municipality each of pality in Rogers, located Benton County. Each of the was ordered in citation to either by appear or Bentonville Rogers Court. Municipal consideration Upon of each of the reasons the Trial given Court and argued in favor of writ, appeal we conclude its issuance was unwarranted.
1. Venue A writ of issue if venue is prohibition may improp-
83 Co., Court v. Circuit Inc. laid. Prairie See Implement erly (1992); 200, 299 S.W.2d Ark. 844 311 Prairie County, Griffin case now In the (1988). State, S.W.2d 208, 297 Ark. v. be venue would effect, in held, us Trial Court before court with any in respect laid improperly served occurred outside municipality to have offense alleged in crim- is an often litigated venue issue the court. Proper The issue is at issue. of venue cases, when a change inal except to as be referred here, it might understandably involved although be trial with the where may because it deals one of venue issue of territorial an had, is more characterized properly jurisdiction. that an
If the
of a
instrument were
charging
allegation
court,
the territorial
offense occurred outside
Waddle v.
the court would
void.
then
rendered
judgment
539,
(1993);
Williams
Sargent,
Reutzel,
RESTATEMENT
(1895);
60 Ark.
The law this is that criminal committed, in the crime was held which the provided accused, that venue at the request changed, may the “indictment is another district which judicial 10; found.” Ark. Const. art. Waddle v. supra. Sargent, § These a circuit court to a criminal case authorities limit trying *4 the in the crime committed unless the accused which county case, which, the trial be in moved another any requests county be a court. must of the district served the part judicial by
While our circuit courts are thus limited to trying counties, accusations crimes in or of which occurred the judicial districts, limited, in sit, which our courts are not municipal they statute, either or crimes which our Constitution by trying the occurred in the cities in which sit. To our they contrary, Constitution and Code both authorize assert municipal limited in the subject-matter jurisdiction throughout county it 16-17-704(a)(2) sits. Arkansas Code Ann. (Repl. § 1994) “The court shall provides: municipal original juris diction, coextensive with the wherein the court is situated the . . . misdemeanors committed over matters: over following . within the . . .”
84 Const, 7,
Arkansas art. 43, provides: § courts for towns and cities Corporation may invested with with concurrent of the jurisdiction justices matters, in civil and criminal and the General peace invest such of them as it deem Assembly may expedi- may ent with of criminal offenses not jurisdiction punish- any able death or in the with imprisonment penitentiary, indictment, as law, and, without until provided by may the General shall otherwise shall Assembly provide, they have the now law. jurisdiction provided by The General first conferred Assembly county-wide jurisdic- tion 1915, in courts Act 87 of which was municipal § in challenged State promptly Woodruff, S.W. (1915), in of violation the Arkansas Constitu- being tion. We held as follows:
No limitation is found in the Constitution upon of the vest power Legislature jurisdiction municipal courts, established, when limits beyond geographical of the Nor it can be said that there municipalities. exists or sound reason policy restricting jurisdiction to such The limits. authorities cited on geographical briefs of counsel do not sustain the contention that there is such an inherent limitation upon power municipal courts. Unless forbids, law organic Legislature extend may the territorial jurisdiction limits beyond municipalities. found in the Constitu- authority tion is to vest jurisdiction courts “concurrent municipal with the of the jurisdiction justices criminal peace matters,” civil tois concurrent with the say, which it is within the jurisdiction power Legislature to confer justices The Constitution upon peace. does its terms restrict the express justices to the peace territorial limits of the township serve, elected to therefore the courts finds no such restriction in the Consti- *5 tution. theAt time of the of the Constitution adoption of 1874, courts in cities the of first class corporation exer- cised the same under jurisdiction statutes then in force as did of justices the . .. which thus peace extended the territorial limits county, to the criminal jurisdiction of the peace. as exercised the that justices same 261, Court v. Springdale, Sexson Municipal of to issued pre- of (1993), a writ prohibition 849 S.W.2d is situated Court, which trial the Springdale Municipal vent in occurred to have of offense an County, Washington lies in Benton County. which of that part Springdale venue or to as one of issue be referred the Whether deal or Code in our Constitution territorial nothing jurisdiction, must misdemeanor charges in which with the directly ing territo sits. The the court it to the tried limits city courts extends throughout of rial municipal jurisdiction sit. counties which they
2. protection Equal is that the writ of A reason for given upholding prohibition court to hear the case of an offense to allow municipal it is cre- in which situated occurred outside the limits of to of is denied its right two one which ates classes persons, laws. protection equal issue such
The State contends a
constitutional
general
courts
whether
prescription
municipal
is not a
violates the
to
laws
protection
proper
right
equal
issue
be raised on
because the
could
subject
prohibition
in a
dismiss on that basis
after
moving
objecting
appeal
in circuit court. With the
trial de novo
possible exception
limited to cases in which a
issue,
venue
writs of
prohibition
in excess of its
court
act without
trial
purports
298 Ark.
The of Mr. Webb and the other is argument appellees follows brief: stated as in their to be order considered a candidate for municipal judge, be
one must “an elector of the subdivision judicial 16-17-209(a) wherein the sits.” Code Ann. § 1994). is, That one who a is not resident Ben- (Repl. tonville, for not abe candidate in the elec- example, may tion for of the Bentonville Court. Addi- judge Municipal Bentonville, one who not reside in does tionally, not vote election of Bentonville’s example, may The result of this is that judge. persons system court are effec- residing city having municipal denied and due of law tively process under both the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. would seem be to that these argument appellees would somehow be if be were to tried in a court prejudiced they could not elect. That is they answered help easily out that the pointing courts in criminal cases is based on the in which crimes are committed and not territory residence voting who commit the privileges persons crimes.
There be a might legitimate equal protection argument raised, be it has not been made here. The be argument might that one class is of the residents of the composed who are enfranchised elect the the other is municipal judge; composed of the other residents of the who not so enfranchised. Misdemeanors committed of a outside part lying in our city may, system, court not adjudicated by elected the residents of the where the crime allegedly occurred. It that citizens have a argued elect right who tries the person cases which arise in the territory reside. Such a class of is not con- persons obviously in this case and is not templated Two of the present. are residents of Bentonville, and one a resident of another state.
Such an made, if would be argument, faced with the hurdle Tuscaloosa, (1978), U.S. 60 Holt Civil Club City of Alabama that an held Court States Supreme the United including regulations, cities impose police law permitting *7 did limits three miles city beyond court municipal jurisdiction, to laws accorded the of protection not violate equal right area. in the three-mile citizens the residing of the to challenge county-wide beneath Lying brief, is the mentioned in the courts, and appellees’ municipal some corrup- forum and of shopping perhaps improper specter a court in which in the of the selecting municipal tion process limits outside might to have occurred city misdemeanor alleged State, in v. tried. That the be allegation supra, Griffin In State, (1988). S.W.2d 858 206, 297 Ark. 760 in Pschier v. near were committed cases it that the offenses those was alleged cited to one but the defendants were inexplicably municipality some distance in a court a away serving city appear municipal the offense was committed. from the where place the because, the time We were unable to reach issue by in a been the of de novo trials us, cases reached had they subjects circuit court did where apply. us,
In case now before none of who parties into a that he or she was hailed writ being sought court the nearest to the where the offense which was not State, occurred. The referring dissenting opinion Justice case, Hickman in concedes that there good may Griffin for reasons to a permit system improper objecting constitu forum but that none of them amounts to a shopping, basis a lacks tional court holding municipal in misdemeanors committed in the which it sits in it is situated. limits of the beyond
3.
trial
Jury
One
State has
to a
accused of a crime in this
a right
2,
7;
trial
art.
Ark Code Ann. 16-89-
Ark. Const.
jury,
§
107(b)(1)
Ark.
(1987);
v.
Pine
Bluff,
City Johnston
trials
(1975); however,
accused misdemeanant a who wishes trial. jury bench,
In his from the the Trial Court remarked ruling trial, about extra costs a second the extra problems effort to which a defendant has to a obtain trial expend in a circuit court after in a court, conviction jury municipal to be one embarrassment suffered who possible pleads ain guilty just expedite obtaining right trial circuit court. jury
The two-tier trial providing system by jury accused misdemeanants has withstood constitutional scrutiny v. Massachu both the Court, United States Ludwig Supreme setts, Roberts, and this Court. State (1976), U.S. 618 (1995). made arguments being this case have been considered event, and in previously, *8 are of the sort which do not of the challenge courts and which could indeed be raised on appeal.
Reversed and dismissed.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF
REHEARING FEBRUARY
87-B Miller, Clint Gen., Deputy Att’y Winston Bryant, by: Att’y for Gen., Advocate appellant. Sr. Appellate Morris, III, C. M. and Tom Samuel Reeves appellees. Newbern, petition The appellees’ David Justice. in its case erred this that the Court’s opinion asserts rehearing about how equal pro- proper somewhat explanation gratuitous The been, not, but was have presented. tection argument some of the fact that is we error that overlooked alleged but not of the cities Benton residents of County were appellees not That so. them. to prosecute proposed who were residents that the three appellees were denied but not of Bentonville Rogers of Benton County in the Court’s answered opinion of the laws was equal protection to a a court with out that the respect by pointing do to with criminal offense has necessarily resi- than the committed rather crime is been to hold that a class It be ludicrous dence of the defendant. would to elect of defendants not enfranchised persons consisting We denied laws. pointed judge being out it was intention apparently class, resi- two of them were assert constituted such a another state. dents of Bentonville and one was from *9 missed The of the additional point explanation, apparently missed concurring by appellees by opinion, certainly been raised is a have that good question might equal protection of the residents an . . . that one class is composed by “argument to who are elect the city municipal judge; enfranchised who are other . the other residents . . composed not so would supplied.]” question [Emphasis enfranchised. not in but a whether city persons residing county, court, a would be entitled to allega- served by municipal tions of criminal conduct in their adjudicated occurring locality a a court elected court elected them as solely by opposed residents of city.
87-C
We did not misunderstand the argument presented nor were asserted facts overlooked in our delib is, eration resolution of this case. The petition rehearing therefore, denied.
Glaze, concurs. J., We erred in our Justice, concurring. Glaze, opinion Tom 16, 1996, delivered that and while error does not January warrant it is that granting rehearing, significant enough appel- lees are due an I Because of the explanation. believe integrity court’s comes into without the opinion court’s correction question and clarification, I write explain.
Here, seven defendants, court appellees, had municipal misdemeanor actions them pending filed in either the against Bentonville courts. filed a Rogers municipal They petition writs of in Benton prohibition Court, Circuit County alleging the two courts lacked venue, and the cir- municipal county-wide cuit court issued the writs. The state the lower court’s appealed decision, and the defendants’ that the trial court was cor- argued rect because to allow a court to hear misdemeanor municipal actions outside limits violated their occurring city rights equal law. defendants protection Specifically, argued “one who does not reside in Bentonville not vote in the elec- may tion court, Bentonville’s and the ... result is the municipal not in a persons residing court are effec- city having denied and due tively ...” law. process to answer contention, the defendants’ attempting this “That is answered opined, argument out easily by pointing that the the courts in criminal cases is based on in which crimes are territory committed and resi- dence or who voting commit the privileges persons However, crimes.” our continued with the opinion following mistaken of the facts and law: analysis
There be a might legitimate equal protection argu- raised, ment to be but it has not been made here. The be that class one of the resi- composed dents of the who are enfranchised elect the munici- *10 the other is pal of the other judge; residents of composed
87-D Misdemeanors not enfranchised. are so who the county outside of a county lying the committed part not elected a court be in our adjudicated may, system, crime the allegedly where residents of have that citizens right It argued occurred. might ter- arise in the cases which tries the who elect person is a class reside. Such persons in which they ritory of and in this case pre- not contemplated obviously Bentonville, are residents Two sent. added.) state. one is a resident another (Emphasis and the defendants In for properly their rehearing, petition of them were fact that three out that we overlooked point in Bella Vista residents Vista, in Bella were arrested Court. in the Bentonville Centerton, Municipal but charged Gann Road arrested in the Ridge Another defendant was area, Avoca, Municipal but was Rogers resided charged fall four had standing Court. these defendants Clearly reside in Benton class who within the violated persons to elect the municipal not enfranchised judge County, before whom are charged. for
In its to the defendants’ rehearing, response petition this court’s failure to recog state makes no mention of tactfully nize and their obvious standing the above four defendants (or raise based voting argument upon rights equal protection in its Instead, — lack state its thereof). renews argument merely cannot raise consti brief defendants criminal cases original The state’s issues means of a tutional writ prohibition. Crabtree, 310 Ark. correct, H. v. argument Juvenile and in our court should (1992), retrospect, rea this the defendants’ rejected equal protection argument son without more. stating evidence, con- sum, our error in the resident overlooking rea- defendants, us four of the caused wrong
cerning give We son for to reach their argument. refusing error, a correct should and state reason to correct that willing — a writ prohibition defendants’ rejecting does errors. not lie address constitutional
I conclude that the court issues a now saying supplemen- tal wherein it better frames the opinion argu- ment it had intended to state the original opinion, namely, “The of whether persons question residing county, not in court, would be served entitled by municipal of criminal conduct in their allegations occurring locality them elected to a court adjudicated by opposed elected residents of a if But this what we solely city.” meant to in our the court fails say original opinion, explain it was to mention the out why necessary significance pointing that “two defendants residents Bentonville.” As above, noted the court’s made no men- original opinion clearly tion of the four defendants who are residents of the county.
At least with the defend- supplemental clarifying opinion, ants now know the so-called “legitimate” equal protection argu- ment this court intended its If the defendants pose opinion. missed the court’s anything importance reading original (as the it opinion was due to our suggests), failure majority make ourselves understood.
Kevin R. MULLING v. Teresa W. MULLING 95-333 Court of Arkansas
Supreme delivered Opinion January