Opinion ID: 2222248
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constitutional Limits on Jurisdiction

Text: We arrive at our next question. Does granting authority to the chief judge of a district to assign any district court matter to a judicial officer, including a felony jury trial, violate the Minnesota Constitution? In construing articles of the constitution, we have stated: The rules governing the courts in construing articles of the State Constitution are well settled. The primary purpose of the courts is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature and people in adopting the article in question. If the language used is unambiguous, it must be taken as it reads, and in that case there is no room for construction. The entire article is to be construed as a whole, and receive a practical, common sense construction. Rice v. Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241, 247 (Minn.1992) (quoting State ex rel. Chase v. Babcock, 175 Minn. 103, 107, 220 N.W. 408, 410 (1928)). We provide a brief history of the development of the judicial power of the state to provide context for our analysis. The Minnesota Constitution vests judicial power of the state in the various courts. The original Minnesota Constitution of 1857 provided: The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, courts of probate, justices of the peace, and such other courts, inferior to the supreme court, as the legislature may from time to time establish by a two-thirds vote. Minn. Const. of 1857, art. VI, § 1. Accordingly, the original language permitted the legislature to establish additional courts so long as they were inferior to the supreme court. In 1956, article VI, section 1, was amended to provide: The judicial power of the state is hereby vested in a supreme court, a district court, a probate court, and such other courts, minor judicial officers and commissioners with jurisdiction inferior to the district court as the legislature may establish. Minn. Const. of 1857, art. VI, § 1 (1956). This amendment changed the definition of an inferior court. Before the amendment, a court was inferior so long as its jurisdiction was inferior to the supreme court; after the change, a court or judicial officer was inferior if their jurisdiction was inferior to the district court. After further amendment, Minn. Const. art. VI, § 1, currently provides: The judicial power of the state is vested in a supreme court, a court of appeals, if established by the legislature, a district court and such other courts, judicial officers and commissioners with jurisdiction inferior to the district court as the legislature may establish. The district court has original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases. Minn. Const. art. VI, § 3. This felony first-degree murder case falls within the district court's original jurisdiction. See Minn. Stat. § 484.01, subd. 1 (2002); Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 1(1)(a); State v. Sailor, 257 N.W.2d 349, 351 (Minn.1977). Granting judicial officers the power to hear and try all civil and criminal cases may improperly infringe on the district court's original jurisdiction. The legislature's delegation of an area of the district court's original jurisdiction calls for this court's close scrutiny. Holmberg v. Holmberg, 588 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Minn. 1999) (holding that the legislature infringed on the original jurisdiction of the district courts when it empowered administrative law judges to decide child support matters). Harris maintains that allowing a judicial officer to hear and try a first-degree murder case puts the officer on the same footing as a district court judge, in violation of the constitution's clear mandate that judicial officers have jurisdiction inferior to the district court. We have a common understanding of courts of inferior jurisdiction, and dictionary definitions are instructive and supportive of our understanding. Webster's defines an inferior court as a court having limited and specified rather than general jurisdiction. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1158 (1993). An inferior court is also termed lower court. Id. at 1341. Conciliation court is an example of a contemporary court of inferior jurisdiction. See Minn.Stat. § 491A.01 (2002) (addressing establishment, powers, and jurisdiction of conciliation court division of district court). County and municipal courts also are familiar to us as historical examples of such inferior courts. See Minn.Stat. ch. 487 (2002) (addressing county courts); Minn. Stat. ch. 488A (2002) (addressing municipal courts for Hennepin and Ramsey Counties). If an inferior court is one that has limited and specified rather than general jurisdiction, then it naturally follows that for a judicial officer to remain inferior to the district court under article VI, the judicial officer must have limited and specified jurisdiction. In other words, the judicial officer must be a person having limited rather than general jurisdiction. The state maintains that a judicial officer may be assigned any district court matter, yet remain inferior in jurisdiction to the district court because his jurisdiction is granted on a case-by-case basis. According to the state, The judicial officer receives whatever jurisdiction he has when the chief judge assigns him a case. Since the judicial officer has only dependent jurisdictionjurisdiction that is dependent on assignment by the chief judgeit is by definition inferior to the district court's jurisdiction. To say that the judicial officer's jurisdiction is inferior because he can only hear cases assigned to him by the chief judge begs the question, however, because Minn. Stat. § 487.08, subd. 5, does not expressly limit the authority of the chief judge to assign matters to the judicial officer, stating only that judicial officers shall hear and try matters as assigned to them by the chief judge. District court judges are subject to the same assignment authority by the chief judge of the district. Minn. Stat. § 484.69, subd. 3 (stating that [t]he chief judge may assign any judge of any court within the judicial district to hear any matter in any court of the judicial district). As we see it, the question is not whether the judicial officer's jurisdiction is independent of the district court; the question is whether his jurisdiction is sufficiently limited or specified so that his authority is inferior to the district court. We cannot say that this judicial officer did not entirely assume the role of a district court judge. [3] The record reveals that the judicial officer presided over most of the pretrial proceedings, as well as Harris's entire trial, including jury selection, ruling on evidentiary objections, and instructing the jury. He also sentenced Harris to life in prison. His order of judgment was appealable in the same manner as all other final orders of the district court. In sum, he presided over this entire felony trial and was utilized as the functional equivalent of a district court judge. The power of the judicial officer to hear and try this felony level case was not limited and specific. Rather, the judicial officer exercised jurisdiction over a complex felony trial in which substantive constitutional issues were generally implicated. If judicial officers are allowed to preside over one of the weightiest matters within the district court's jurisdictiona first-degree murder trialthen there is no effective limit to the judicial officer's jurisdiction. Statutes are presumed constitutional, and we will exercise our power to declare a statute unconstitutional with extreme caution, State v. Larsen, 650 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Minn.2002), and only when there is no reasonable alternative construction available. See In re Cold Spring Granite Co., 271 Minn. 460, 467, 136 N.W.2d 782, 787 (1965). Given the history of judicial officers in Minnesota and the unambiguous language of Article VI, we conclude that there is no reasonable alternative available. Therefore, we hold that the legislative grant of authority to the chief judge of a judicial district to assign any district court matter to a judicial officer pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 487.08, subd. 5, violates Article VI, Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution, because the grant of authority runs afoul of the constitutional mandate that judicial officers be inferior in jurisdiction to the district court. [4]