Title: Dodge City v. Day

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

195 Kan. 303 (1965)
403 P.2d 1004
CITY OF DODGE CITY, Appellant,
v.
CHARLES DAY, Appellee.
No. 44,166

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 10, 1965.
Douglas B. Myers, of Dodge City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HARMAN, C.:
This case is here on an appeal by the city of Dodge City from an order of the district court dismissing an action which originated in the police court of that city, a city of the second class, wherein it is stated the appellee was convicted of the offense of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of city ordinance.
The following proceedings occurred in the district court:
"THE COURT: It will have to be done immediately.
"THE COURT: Case dismissed.
"MR. SHULTZ: Thank you, Your Honor."
In its formal order dismissing the action the court found that "no sufficient complaint is on file with the court."
The record before the district court, purportedly a transcript of the proceedings before the police court, can best be understood by reproducing it as an appendix hereto.
Appellant first urges that the trial court erred in its finding that the complaint was not sufficient in that an oral complaint is proper under the applicable city ordinances and also under our statutes.
Trial in a police court of a city of the second class is upon the *305 complaint alleged against the defendant (K.S.A. 14-808) and it is the making of the complaint alleging a violation of a municipal ordinance which gives that court jurisdiction.
K.S.A. 14-804 provides:
Thus we see that by express statutory authority a written complaint is not required in those cases in which a person has been arrested by a police officer without process and remains in custody of such officer, and the result is that in such situations an accused may be tried in police court upon verbal complaint.
On an appeal to district court from a conviction in a police court the district judge for the time being is substituted for the police judge and in effect sits as the police judge. (City of Fort Scott v. Arbuckle, 165 Kan. 374, 196 P.2d 217.)
From all this does it necessarily follow that the district court in the instant case erred in finding that "no sufficient complaint is on file with the court"? We think not. We should keep in mind we are not here concerned with the nature or the validity of the arrest in this case, nor the manner of prosecution in the police court; we are concerned only with the propriety of the action of the district court. All the district judge had before him was the document appended hereto. He commented on its nature and little can be added to those comments. The document speaks for itself. The most that can be said for it is that it is a transcript of the purported record of the proceedings required to be kept in the police court. Insofar as stating what the alleged offense in the district court was, whether orally complained of or otherwise, it is totally deficient. It simply did not state what the complaint was or what the appellee *306 did that constituted the alleged offense. In other words, the transcript contained no complaint, there was no complaint before the trial court, and the trial court in effect so ruled. It should be noted that on an appeal of a criminal prosecution for violation of a municipal ordinance there is trial by jury unless expressly waived by appellant therein (K.S.A. 20-301), which necessarily alters district court procedure from that used in police court. It is difficult to see how the trial judge, about to commence a jury trial for an offense concerning which he knew nothing from the file before him, could have held otherwise. Quite properly, he offered the appellant the opportunity to supply the deficiency which right it had pursuant to K.S.A. 12-1101, which provides:
Appellant next urges that appellee waived any objection to the form of the complaint by giving bond for his appearance in police court and in giving bond for his appearance in his appeal to the district court, citing the cases of State v. Dye, 148 Kan. 421, 83 P.2d 113; City of Wichita v. Hibbs, 158 Kan. 185, 146 P.2d 397; State v. Barry, 183 Kan. 792, 332 P.2d 549. In the Dye case there was a written sworn complaint. Defendant waived a preliminary hearing on a charge of grand larceny and gave bond for his appearance in district court, where he was convicted in a jury trial. Thereafter defendant made some objection to the complaint. In disposing of it, this court simply stated any insufficiency in the complaint was waived when defendant gave bond for his appearance at district court. It should be noted in connection with this statement that trial in district court upon a felony is upon an information, and not the complaint which merely initiates the proceedings.
In the Hibbs case the defendant was arrested at the scene of an accident, there was an oral complaint made in police court by the arresting officer, the defendant posted an appearance bond, and was subsequently convicted in the police court. He thereafter made an appeal bond to the district court. In the district court he made some objection to the verification of the complaint, the exact nature not being stated. This court, citing the Dye case, stated that any defect in the verification of the oral complaint as made was waived by defendant when he gave bond for his appearance. The court *307 specifically pointed out that the record did disclose the making of an oral complaint on oath. In the Barry case it was held that the action of a county court in failing to affix its seal to the original complaint and warrant in a criminal action was waived by a defendant when, without having objected thereto, he gave a bond for appearance in the county court and/or furnished a bond for appeal to the district court. It is readily seen that in each of the cases cited by appellant there was in fact a complaint (or information) on file in the district court, and the principle of waiver was applied as to mere irregularities. Something was on file on which intelligent action could be taken and trial had. Here there was nothing, as we have heretofore indicated, and we think the principles enunciated in the three cases relied upon by appellant should not be extended beyond the factual situations therein set forth, and cannot be made to apply here.
In Johnson v. City of Winfield, 48 Kan. 129, 29 Pac. 559, it was stated:
A fortiori ought this apply to procedure in district court.
We hold that a defendant in entering into recognizance for his appearance in district court upon an appeal from a police court conviction does not thereby waive the necessity for a complaint, written or otherwise, to be filed or made in some manner in the district court upon trial of the appeal.
Finding no error in the trial court's order, we affirm.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.
*308 
*309