Title: CITY OF HARDIN v MYERS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-163
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: September 11, 1981

NO. 81-163 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1981 C I T Y OF HARDIN, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . V I C K I L Y N N MYERS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Hardin. Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Stacey and J a r u s s i , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Clarence T. Belue, C i t y Attorney, Hardin, Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : J u l y 9, 1981 Decided: SEQ 11 1981 Filed: S E P 11 1g8I Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Vicki Lynn Myers was charged w i t h d r i v i n g while i n t o x i c a t e d i n Hardin, Montana, on September 6, 1980. A t t h a t t i m e , s h e was given a n o t i c e t o appear and complaint which s t a t e d t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e o f f e n s e a s "Third S t r e e t " and l i s t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f a s t h e C i t y of Hardin. On October 2, 1980, Myers moved t h e C i t y Court of Hardin t o d i s m i s s t h e c h a r g e claiming t h e complaint made no s p e c i f i c a l l e g a t i o n of p l a c e and, t h e r e f o r e , d i d n o t confer j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h e C i t y Court. The motion was d e n i e d , a j u r y t r i a l h e l d and Myers found g u i l t y . Myers appealed t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t . The D i s t r i c t Court ordered t h a t t h e respondent be allowed t o amend t h e complaint t o show t h e s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n of t h e o f f e n s e a s being i n t h e C i t y and remanded t h e m a t t e r t o t h e C i t y of Hardin f o r t r i a l a t a l a t e r d a t e . From t h a t o r d e r Ivlyers a p p e a l s . Two i s s u e s appear b e f o r e t h i s Court: 1. Does t h e D i s t r i c t Court have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o remand f o r r e t r i a l a m a t t e r on appeal from C i t y Court? 2. Was t h e charging complaint f a t a l l y d e f e c t i v e i n t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n of p l a c e was n o t s p e c i f i c enough t o c o n f e r j u r i s d i c t i o n on a c o u r t ? A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o remand t h e c a s e t o C i t y Court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. Montana s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s : " A l l c a s e s on appeal from j u s t i c e or c i t y c o u r t s must be t r i e d anew i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . . . " S e c t i o n 46-17-311, MCA. Relying on F o r s y t h e v. Wenholz ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 496, 554 P.2d 1333, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy a v a i l a b l e t o a C i t y Court defendant on appeal is a t r i a l de novo i n D i s t r i c t Court. I n F o r s y t h e , t h e d e f e n d a n t f i l e d f o r a new t r i a l i n j u s t i c e c o u r t f o l l o w i n g a g u i l t y v e r d i c t f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d . On review, t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace dismissed t h e charge. The county a t t o r n e y sought w r i t s of mandamus and s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l f o r r e i n s t a t e m e n t of t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t . T h i s Court upheld t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t a J u s t i c e Court d e f e n d a n t ' s e x c l u s i v e remedy f o r a new t r i a l is a t r i a l de novo i n D i s t r i c t Court. Respondent r e c o g n i z e s F o r s y t h e b u t c l a i m s a p p e l l a n t ' s r i g h t t o a t r i a l de novo was p r e s e r v e d with t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s remand t o C i t y Court, and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e a c t i o n was p r o p e r . W e d i s a g r e e . On appeal from C i t y Court, t h e D i s t r i c t Court does n o t s i t a s a c o u r t of review b u t it t r i e s t h e cause de novo. White Sulphur S p r i n g s v. Voise ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 136 Mont. 1, 343 P.2d 855; S t a t e ex r e l . Borberg v . D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 125 Mont. 481, 240 P.2d 854; S t a t e v. O'Brien ( 1 9 0 7 ) , 35 Mont. S i n c e t h e D i s t r i c t Court h a s no a u t h o r i t y t o sit a s a c o u r t of review, its remand t o C i t y Court was improper. On a p p e a l from a J u s t i c e or C i t y Court, t h e D i s t r i c t Court must t r y t h e c a s e anew. S i n c e t h i s matter is remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t n e second i s s u e r a i s e d w i l l n o t be d i s c u s s e d . h e concur: