*1 WILSON, Petitioner, Sharon FOSTER, Judge of the District L.
Robert County, Dis Judicial of Lincoln
Court Twenty-Three, Respon Number
trict
dent.
No.
Supreme Oklahoma. Court 27,
March
1330
of this trial mode would violate the
Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth
the United
States Constitu-
and, implicitly,
rights
her
under Art.
59, Okl.Con.
I
right
by
The Sixth Amendment’s
to trial
jury applies to state criminal actions [Dun
Louisiana,
can v.
88 S.Ct.
(1968)]
McKeiver
negates
Fourteenth
claim to a Sixth and
tioner’s
trial must be
jury at
to trial
Amendment’s
rejected
applied.
This contention was
us
pro
J.V. v.
procedural setting in
in a
different
Her claim under
the Seventh
ceeding.
Institutions, etc.,
State,
Dept. of
*3
persuasive.
be even less
Amendment would
1283, 1284-1285 (1978).
re-analysis
P.2d
On
the constraints
The states remain free from
J.V.
to
commitment
today
we reiterate
our
Federal
imposes
judiciary
of the
of our fundamen
exposition
as the correct
Republic.3
tal law.
19,
phrase
supra,
in
pivotal
The
both
§
II
versions,
original
its
and
remains
post-1969
Petitioner’s
state
right
of trial
the
is that
same.4
“[T]he
proviso
by
the
added
grounded
claim is
on
”
by
be
remain
.
.
jury shall
and
inviolate
19,
2,
to
the 1969 Amendment
Art.
Okl.
§
sweep
This
has
time-honored
of
phrase
a
argument
thrust
her
that
Con. The
of
meaning coextensive with “the course of
express mention of
since
is now an
law” as it stood settled when the
common
proviso,
1969
“juvenile proceedings”
the
adopted.5
as a class
was
juvenile litigation stands included
Federal Constitution
“
right
byjury
ability
unique
of
shall be and remain
The
trial
to function in a
court’s assumed
inviolate,
remedy
except
It would not
the defects of
in civil cases wherein the
manner.
the
advance in
would be
hoped-for
system. Meager
controversy
as has
the
been
amount in
does not exceed One
juvenile field,
the
the alternative
($100.00),
Hundred Dollars
or in criminal cases
regressive,
has been
would lose what
punishment
charged
for the offense
wherein
by
gained,
place
again
once
and would tend
to
only,
exceeding
Hundred Dol-
fine
One
juvenile squarely in the routine of the criminal
Provided, however,
($100.00).
lars
process.”
Legislature
provide
jury
in cases
for
trial
involving
Cole,
54,
lesser
for the trial of
amounts. Juries
Chicago,
3.
R. I. & R.
v.
P. Co.
68,
133;
shall
of twelve
Maryland
civil and criminal cases
(12) persons;
consist
64
40
L.Ed.
National
S.Ct.
misdemeanors,
Court, Okl.,
trial
v.
455
but in the
of
Insurance Co. District
690,
P.2d
Saye,
(1969);
v.
rel.
82
of ordinances or
Keeter State ex
the violation
557;
89,
866,
Sharpe
towns, juvenile pro-
regulations
198 P.
Okl.
A.L.R.
of
and
cities
Okl.Jud.,
Ass’n,
entry
State
rel. Oklahoma Bar
ceedings,
er,
ex
and
for forcible
detain-
actions
904,
(1968),
P.2d
cert. den. 394 U.S.
only,
property
col-
of real
and
or detention
216;
Corpora
Vogel
therefor,
S.Ct.
con-
rents
and civil cases
lection of
Oklahoma,
tion
190 Okl.
Commission of
involving
cerning
less than
causes of action
121 P.2d
juries
Twenty-five
($2,500.00),
Dollars
Hundred
cases,
(6) persons.
civil
of
In
shall consist
six
(Pre-1969
Art.
Okl.Con.
felonies,
less than
three-
and in criminal cases
version) provides:
jurors
(3A)
of
of the whole number
fourths
“
right
byjury
of trial
shall be and remain
The
concurring
power
ver-
to render a
shall have
inviolate,
jury
and a
for the trial of civil and
number of
In all other cases
entire
dict.
record,
other than
criminal cases
county
sons];
record,
courts
jurors
verdict. In case
must concur to render a
courts,
(12)
[per-
shall consist
twelve
by
a
than
whole
verdict
rendered
less
county
but
courts and courts not
writing
jurors,
inbe
number of
the verdict shall
(6) [persons].
consist of
a
shall
six
by
concurring
signed
juror
therein.”
and
each
This
prevent
shall not be so construed as to
section
[emphasis added]
being
by
upon
limitations
fixed
law
right
appeal
judgments
by jury,
from
of courts not
right
inviolate
declared
5.The
trial
concerning
Okl.Con.,
in civil
causes of ac-
record
cases
reference to
Art.
has
($20.00).
involving
twenty
less than
dollars
in the territories at the time
as it existed
cases,
In civil
felonies,
and in criminal cases less than
Constitution,
adoption
the State
(¾)
three-fourths
of the whole number
to was
to a
trial therein referred
jurors concurring
power to render
of
a
of
shall have
existing
predicated
in the
the statutes
number
In all other cases the entire
verdict.
time,
upon the
but rather
territories at that
right
jurors
In
to render a verdict.
concur
guaranteed
Constitu-
Federal
as
case
verdict
less than the
is rendered
according
common
tion and
course
jurors, the
shall be in
whole number of
writing
verdict
3;
Saye, supra note
ex rel.
law. Keeter State
Maryland
concurring
signed by
juror
each
v. District
Insurance Co.
National
[emphasis
therein.”
added]
Court, supra
note
19 is:
1969 Amendment version Art.
deny
proviso
equal protection
ates to
her
The function of
to restrict
gone
make clear
has
before.6
guaranteed
laws as
the Fourteenth
The 1969
did not extend the
proviso
as, implicitly, rights
Amendment as well
beyond
existing
its
common-
trial
5, 59,
under Art.
Okl.Con.
adding
pivotal
parameter by
law
1102B authorizes consolidation of
Section
phrase
disputes.
class of
None of
any other
custody controversies
matrimonial-action
expressly
categories
mentioned
pro-
proceedings.
proviso juvenile proceedings
city
ordi-
—
thought
device
cedural
was no doubt
neces-
regulation
nance or
violations —came to be
prevent
sary
conflicting
sep-
decisions in
in the
thereby included
class of cases triable
involving custody of the
arate suits
Rather,
proviso
to a jury eo nomine.
to make more efficient use of
child and
operates
regulate
jury,
the size of the
flexibility
single-level
afforded
our
where
either at
law or
affordable
common
about,
bench. The statute is silent
and does
*4
by statute,
within the
for use
framework of
prescribe,
to
appear
steps
that are
litigation cognizable by
all-inclusive
to follow the authorized consolidation of
post-1969 single-level
trial bench and to
causes.
jury
define those
where a
less than
cases
There
neither
nor
statu-
requisite
common-law number of twelve
tory right
by jury
to trial
in
contro-
persons
permitted.7
was to be
to,
generated
ancillary
by,
versies
or
matri-
short,
peo-
In
proviso
secures to
monial actions while
is a
clear statu-
ple,
legislative
and
shields
from
thus
tory
mandate
such mode
trial at the
change,
prescribed
jury
the therein
size of
adjudicatory
deprived-status
stage of the
in the defined
of cases.
class
proceedings.9
urged
trial court’s
proceedings
Juvenile
did not exist at com-
dispensing
act of
jury
with
via
1102B
§
mon law. There could be hence no constitu-
impermissibly
consolidation
sets divorced
tional
jury
available in
judicially separated] parents apart from
[or
them.
inception
Both from the
since
and
others in the same
and denies
19,
the 1969
statutory
law
amendment
§
a
former
that stands available to ei-
has been
sole authority
Oklahoma’s
for af-
single
ther
or
parent
a
married
never be-
fording a jury
proceedings
in
to establish
fore
litigation.
involved in matrimonial
guilt
underage
of an
person
accused
de-
status,
linquency
person’s
or where such
Clause,
The
Protection
al
milieu,
vis-a-vis
custodial
may
his/her
be
though
guarantee
not an absolute
equali
litigation.8
issue in
ty
operation
application
legis
of state
lation,
safeguard
is intended to
the quality
Ill
governmental
against
treatment
arbi
Lastly, petitioner
respondent’s
trary
contends
Legislative
discrimination.
classifica
application
of consolidation
under
tion
apart
which sets
a
any
class without
1102B,
trial,
dispensing
jury
oper-
basis
rational
therefor offends that clause.10
Key,
(1961).
protection
equal
6. Welch v.
10.The Court held
P.2d 154
of laws
statutory procedure
was denied
state
allow-
appears
necessary
to have been
because
civilly
person
a
to be
committed to a mental
by jury contemplates
body
the trial
persons.
a
of twelve
hospital
penal
expiration
at the
of his
sentence
Saye, supra
v.
Keeter
State ex rel.
jury
a
without
trial which was accorded to all
868;
State,
pg.
note 3 at
Paris v.
6 Okl.Cr.
persons sought
civilly
other
so
to be
commit-
(1911).
118 P. 1113
prison
ted. Had
Baxstrom not been
at the
commenced,
time civil
were
he
O.S.1961, 102, repealed
January
8. 10
effective
would have been afforded
trial. Baxstrom
Code,
1969 and
recodified
Juvenile
Herold,
383 U.S.
86 S.Ct.
Gault,
1110. In
re
(1966);
Cady,
Humphrey
17-18,
(1967).
87 S.Ct.
statute capricious statutory not be arbi- their given must classification be char- If it on some distinctive trary. rests trial. treatment upon which different
acteristic respon- commanding Let writ founded, it furnishes a justifiably be judge grant petitioner a trial dent rational, permis- constitutionally and hence proceed- at sible, basis for discrimination.11 ings petition declare her two and for the care con- parent’s A concern deprived. children It cannot trol of his/her child is universal. setting single rationally be dichotomized IRWIN, J., LAVENDER, J., V. C. C. never involved
parents those before [or HARGRAVE, JJ., HODGES, BARNES and from litigation] apart matrimonial others. concur. parents litigating to accord all Failure JJ., DOOLIN, WILLIAMS, SIMMS statutorily opportunity enjoy pre- equal part. part; concur in dissent in by jury on the issue of scribed mode of trial deprived a classifica- a child’s status creates Justice, SIMMS, concurring in part, dis- real and any sub- founded senting part: *5 stantial distinctions. ap- majority I that this concur susceptible of When a statute is wrongfully denied trial pellant was construction, be giv than it must more one ac- agree I consolidation of also that rather en that which makes only take may place tions 1102 B under § one renders it invalid.12 We than adjudicatory stage juvenile after the 1102B therefore hold that consolida proceeding. dispense sponte the court not sua however, to I respectfully dissent Rather, jury. with trial when sec portion majority decision which that invoked, tion’s consolidation juvenile holds trial to a post-adjudicatory take at the place should merely statutory. hearing to litigation. At in my as forth dissent my opinion, set stage, is no Instit., etc., Okl, State, Dept. to J. V. future well-be principal and the issue (1978), to a P.2d procedure When this child. guaran proceeding is jury trial in such a everyone within followed on consolidation Constitution, Art. teed by the Oklahoma will receive affected treatment under 10 equal footing [jury and shall stand on trial] state that Justice I am authorized to when, non-jury hearing, in a the court later join me DOOLIN and Justice WILLIAMS adjudication custodial-place reaches for Part, Concurring in writing special in this the matrimo ment common both Dissenting in Part. as as well nial-action contest hearing. “dispositional” Protection
Both under
Clause of the Fourteenth Constitution, as as well U. S. Okl.Con., dicho-
provisions of Art. Pittsburg Walker, County Equalization, Coun Bd. 11. Anderson v. Okl., P.2d Corp., ty Muskogee Finance Industrial (1958). Smith, (1960); Thompson 357 P.2d Okl. 114 P.2d