Opinion ID: 1388024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: prosecution under the statute rather than the anchorage ordinance

Text: Wester contends that to be charged under AS 28.35.030 rather than City of Anchorage Municipal Code 9.28.020 [28] when both provisions apply to the same general facts constitutes an arbitrary application of the law violative of constitutional safeguards of equal protection. The argument is without merit. It is settled that an act may be made a penal offense under state statute, and also made punishable under an ordinance of a municipal corporation. [29] Weser interprets City of Anchorage Ordinance No. 1513 [30] as manifesting an intention by the city council to have prosecution rendered under city ordinances when their scope is identical to a state law. But Wester's interpretation is assailable as the ordinance merely acknowledges the sovereignty of the state and does not preclude the state's jurisdiction. Hutcherson v. United States [31] involved alleged due process violations as the appellant in that case was indicted and convicted under a federal statute rather than the District of Columbia Code when the measures were identical but for the more serious penalty provision under the federal statute. The court held appellant's argument untenable: A defendant has no constitutional right to elect which of two applicable statutes shall be the basis of his indictment and prosecution. [32] This same principle of prosecutorial discretion has been upheld against equal protection challenges. [33] There was no error by the trial court herein, and the judgment is hereby affirmed.