Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1912-11-21
JUSTICES PEACE
POWERS SHOWN
Decision ar Globe Shows
Jurisdiction Has Been
Greatly Narrowed by
the New Laws
BIGGEST FINE Is S2OOI

y
Three-fourths of the criminal bus
mess Of courts of justices of the
peace has, by virtue Of an amend,
ment passed at the extra session OF
the legislature. been taken away and
transferred to the superior court and
justices OF the peace have been
robbed OF trial Jurisdiction in all mis-
demeanor cases but those of breach
.of-the-peace proportions
The amended law has been effec-
tive for four months but the issue
was never raised here. The effect OF
the amendment came TO light at
Globe Tuesday when Judge Walter
Shute OF the superior court OF ella
county held, in deciding on a case
appealed from a justice court, thar
justices OF the peace have no juris-
diction to try misdemeanor cases
where the maximum punishment foc
the crime charged is more than $500
or three months Imprisonment or
both.
The old law. which is sec. 204S Of
the Revised Statutes of 1911 Civil
Code referring TO Justices Of the
peace reads as follows:
They shall also have jurisdiction
over all criminal cases other than fel-
onies where the punishment is a fine
not exceeding $500 or imprisonment
in the county jail not exceeding six
months, or both"
The new law, which is Section 9
Chapter S. of the Session Laws of the
extra session, page u, reads as fol
lows:
That paragraph 204S, Section $40
OF Chapter 5. Title II. Revised Sta
tutes of 1901. (the old law above quo
ted be and the same is hereby
amended TO read as follows:
They shall also have jurisdiction
over all criminal cases other than fell
onies where the punishment is a fine
OF less than $500 or Imprisonment
in the county Jail not exceeding three
months or both such fine and i'm
The trouble lies in the fact that TN
der laws passed by previous terri
toTial legislatures the maximum fine
in nearly every misdemeanor case is
$500 or six months in the county jail
or both. The difficulty is in the word
maximum
To illustrate: A defendant may be
before a Justice of the peace for
simple assault. The Judge might
wish TO fine him SO for his misdeed,
but is now forbidden because the
maximum he MAY impose in The
case exceeds his jurisdiction. The
question Is not whether the court &C
tually does fine him a certain amount
but whether the law under which he
is punished says that he may be fined
a certain amount
The justice court under this ruling
being deprived OF power in nearly al
cases. il can only order
the defendant held for trial in the su-
DeriOr court, in which case il will be
come necessary for the county al
rorney TO file an information against
the defendant before he may be tried,
the same as he cannot do in felony
cases.
When asked about the matter by
q Review reporter yesterday, Deputy
County Attorney Alexander hurry
said:
Il have known Of the effect OF this
fer some time but have
-AAN oAadeAOAA ~ AoN AlAN INN pAOAFAA-
ITe but once. That was at Wilcox
several days ago in a misdemeauor |
case in which the maximum penalty
provided by Law exceeded $500 or
three months imprisonment. or both" (
The maximum penalty in nearly I
all misdemeanors in Arizona is great (
or than a $500 fine or three months |
In jail The jurisdiction Of the JUS /
lice of the peace is determined by |
the maximum penalty he may i'm !
pose. The result is that lowering the /
of the justice OF the
peace has taken away his jurisdic- |
lion in practically all misdemeanOr |
Eases, and leaves him but little juris- /
fiction in a criminal case except 10 4
bind the defendant over. II means |
han an information will have TO be |
lied against those charged with mis- |
iemesnor and tried in the superior !
court"
u understand that this system OF |
practice has been in vogue in Mari |
sopa County for at least four months. |
The question has not been decided in |
several of the counties of the state, |
for the reason that il has |
rot been brought up.
There is no question as to the
of il, so far as I am con
serned In my opinion it is absolute