Case Title: State v. Webb

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR95-30-8

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE of Arkansas  v. Aaron R. WEBB, et al.

CR 95-308                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 16, 1996


1.   Prohibition writ of -- when writ may issue. -- A writ of
     prohibition may issue if venue is improperly laid. 

2.   Jurisdiction -- if offense occurred outside the territorial
     jurisdiction of the court, a judgment rendered by the court
     would be void. -- If the allegation of a charging instrument
     were that an offense occurred outside the territorial
     jurisdiction of the court, then a judgment rendered by the
     court would be void. 

3.   Criminal law -- where criminal trials must be held according
     to law. -- The law in this State is that a criminal trial must
     be held in the county in which the crime was committed,
     provided that venue may be changed, at the request of the
     accused, to another county in the judicial district in which
     the "indictment is found"; a circuit court must try a criminal
     case in the county in which the crime was committed unless the
     accused requests the trial be moved to another county which,
     in any case, must be a part of the judicial district served by
     the court.  

4.   Courts -- limitations as to cases tried in circuit versus
     municipal courts -- municipal courts may assert limited
     subject-matter jurisdiction throughout the county in which it
     sits. -- While our circuit courts are limited to trying
     accusations of crimes which occurred in the counties, or
     judicial districts, in which they sit, our municipal courts
     are not limited, either by Constitution or by statute, to
     trying crimes which occurred in the cities in which they sit;
     our Constitution and Code both authorize a municipal court to
     assert limited subject-matter jurisdiction throughout the
     county in which it sits; no limitation is found in the
     Constitution upon the power of the Legislature to vest
     jurisdiction in municipal courts, when established, beyond the
     geographical limits of the municipalities, nor can it be said
     that there exists any policy or sound reason for restricting
     the jurisdiction to such geographical limits.

5.   Jurisdiction -- place where misdemeanor charges must be tried
     -- not limited to the city in which the court sits. -- Whether
     the issue be referred to as one of venue or territorial
     jurisdiction, nothing in our Constitution or Code dealing
     directly with the place in which misdemeanor charges must be
     tried limits it to the city in which the court sits; the
     territorial jurisdiction of municipal courts extends
     throughout the counties in which they sit.

6.   Prohibition, writ of -- when properly issued. -- With the
     possible exception of venue issues, writs of prohibition are
     limited to cases in which a trial court purports to act
     without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction.

7.   Courts -- equal protection argument not reached -- appellant's
     argument easily answered. -- The phrasing of appellees' equal
     protection argument seemed to say that these appellees would
     somehow be prejudiced if they were to be tried in a court they
     could not help elect, that argument is answered easily by
     pointing out that the jurisdiction of the courts in criminal
     cases is based on the territory in which crimes are committed
     and not on the residence or voting privileges of the persons
     who commit the crimes.  

8.   Constitutional law -- legitimate equal protection argument not
     made -- no constitutional basis for finding that municipal
     court lacked jurisdiction of misdemeanors that occurred
     outside the city limits. -- Where none of the parties who
     sought the writ of prohibition alleged that he or she was
     being hailed into a court which was not the nearest to the
     place where the offense occurred, no constitutional basis for
     lack of jurisdiction was alleged; although there may be good
     reasons for objecting to a system which might permit improper
     forum shopping, none of them amounts to a constitutional basis
     for holding a municipal court lacks jurisdiction of
     misdemeanors committed in the county in which it sits but
     beyond the limits of the city in which it is situated.

9.   Trial -- right to trial by jury -- appeals from municipal
     court tried de novo in circuit court. -- One accused of a
     crime in this State has a right to a trial by jury,  Ark.
     Const. art. 2,  7; Ark Code Ann.  107(b)(1) (1987); however,
     there are no jury trials in municipal court; in order that the
     right of trial by jury remains inviolate, all appeals from
     judgment in municipal court shall be de novo to circuit court;
     thus there is thus a "two-tier" system for an accused
     misdemeanant who wishes a jury trial.

10.  Trial -- two-tier system of providing a trial by jury for
     accused misdemeanants has withstood constitutional scrutiny --
     case reversed and dismissed. -- The two-tier system of
     providing a trial by jury for accused misdemeanants has
     withstood constitutional scrutiny in both the United States
     Supreme Court, and this Court; the arguments being made in
     this case have been considered previously, and in any event,
     they are of the sort which do not challenge the jurisdiction
     of the municipal courts and which could indeed be raised on
     appeal; the writ of prohibition issued by the circuit court
     was reversed and the case was dismissed. 


     Appeal from Benton Circuit Court; Terry Crabtree, Judge;
reversed and dismissed.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Clint Miller, Deputy Att'y
Gen., Sr. Appellate Advocate for appellant.
     George, Morris, Spivey & Capehart, by:  Tom C. Morris III and
Brent Capehart and Gocio, Dossey & Reeves, by:  Samuel M. Reeves,
for appellees.

     David Newbern, Justice.1/16/96   Justice David Newbern

                                   CR95-308
STATE OF ARKANSAS                  Opinion Delivered:

          Appellant                Appeal from Benton Circuit
                                   Court (CV 94-731-3)
     v.
                                   Honorable Terry Crabtree,
AARON R. WEBB, et al.              Circuit Judge

          Appellees                Reversed and Dismissed









     The Benton County Circuit Court issued a writ of prohibition
to the Rogers and Bentonville Municipal Courts.  The writ prohibits
those courts from trying various charges of statutory misdemeanors
levied by citations issued by police officers to Shadrick W.
Clardy, Edward Kaczorowski, Jane Schmeichel, Aaron R. Webb, Nathan
Painter, and Billie W. Keene.  The State appeals the order issuing
the writ.  We reverse the order and dismiss the case.
     Each of the appellees was arrested for a statutory misdemeanor
alleged to have been committed in Benton County but not within
either the municipality of Bentonville or the municipality of
Rogers, each of which is located in Benton County.  Each of the
appellees was ordered by citation to appear in either the Rogers or
Bentonville Municipal Court.  Upon consideration of each of the
reasons given by the Trial Court and argued on appeal in favor of
the writ, we conclude its issuance was unwarranted.

                            1. Venue
     A writ of prohibition may issue if venue is improperly laid. 
See Prairie Implement Co., Inc. v. Circuit Court of Prairie County,
311 Ark. 200,