NO. 81-163 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1981 

CITY OF HARDIN, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

VS . 

VICKI LYNN MYERS, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Hardin. 

Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Stacey and Jarussi, Billings, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Clarence T. Belue, City Attorney, Hardin, Montana 

Submitted on briefs: July 9, 1981 

Decided: SEQ 11 1981 

Filed: SEP 11 1g8I 
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Vicki Lynn Myers was charged with driving while 

intoxicated in Hardin, Montana, on September 6, 1980. At 

that time, she was given a notice to appear and complaint 

which stated the location of the offense as "Third Street" 

and listed the plaintiff as the City of Hardin. On October 

2, 1980, Myers moved the City Court of Hardin to dismiss the 

charge claiming the complaint made no specific allegation of 

place and, therefore, did not confer jurisdiction on the 

City Court. The motion was denied, a jury trial held and 

Myers found guilty. 

Myers appealed the guilty verdict. The District 

Court ordered that the respondent be allowed to amend the 

complaint to show the specific location of the offense as 

being in the City and remanded the matter to the City of 

Hardin for trial at a later date. From that order Ivlyers 

appeals. 

Two issues appear before this Court: 

1. Does the District Court have jurisdiction to 

remand for retrial a matter on appeal from City Court? 

2. Was the charging complaint fatally defective in 

that the allegation of place was not specific enough to 

confer jurisdiction on a court? 

Appellant contends the District Court has no 

jurisdiction to remand the case to City Court for further 

proceedings. 

Montana statute provides: "All cases on appeal from 

justice or city courts must be tried anew in the district 

court . . . " Section 46-17-311, MCA. Relying on Forsythe 

v. Wenholz (1976), 170 Mont. 496, 554 P.2d 1333, appellant 
argues the exclusive remedy available to a City Court 

defendant on appeal is a trial de novo in District Court. 

In Forsythe, the defendant filed for a new trial in justice 

court following a guilty verdict for driving while 

intoxicated. On review, the Justice of the Peace dismissed 

the charge. The county attorney sought writs of mandamus 

and supervisory control for reinstatement of the guilty 

verdict. This Court upheld the District Court's finding 

that a Justice Court defendant's exclusive remedy for a new 

trial is a trial de novo in District Court. 

Respondent recognizes Forsythe but claims appellant's 

right to a trial de novo was preserved with the District 

Court's remand to City Court, and, therefore, the action was 

proper. We disagree. 

On appeal from City Court, the District Court does 

not sit as a court of review but it tries the cause de novo. 

White Sulphur Springs v. Voise (1959), 136 Mont. 1, 343 P.2d 

855; State ex rel. Borberg v. District Court (1952), 125 

Mont. 481, 240 P.2d 854; State v. O'Brien (1907), 35 Mont. 

Since the District Court has no authority to sit as a 

court of review, its remand to City Court was improper. On 

appeal from a Justice or City Court, the District Court must 

try the case anew. 

Since this matter is remanded to the District Court, 

tne second issue raised will not be discussed. 
he concur: