Opinion ID: 1179602
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability for City Prisoners Charged With Violating a State Statute

Text: The trial court held that city prisoners charged with violating a state statute and tried in a city court were the responsibility of the cities. We do not agree. We believe A.R.S. § 31-121(C) also controls this issue. A.R.S. § 31-121(C) is plain and unambiguous. Under that statute, the nature of the offense determines which governmental entity is responsible for prisoner housing costs. Liability does not depend upon which court has jurisdiction over the prisoner, as Mohave County argues. We agree with the court of appeals that the statute deals with two categories of persons: (1) those who are arrested for or charged with violating a city or town ordinance and (2) those who are arrested for or charged with violating a state statute. Mohave County v. City of Kingman, 158 Ariz. 172, 175, 761 P.2d 1076, 1079 (App. 1988). The first sentence of subsection C makes it apparent that the legislature intended for cities to be responsible for prisoner maintenance when the nature of the offense is a violation of a city ordinance, because, as the statute provides, the county is obligated to house the prisoner if contractual arrangements exist between the county and the city. Such contractual arrangements necessarily imply that the city pay for the housing. Otherwise, that portion of the statute would have no purpose. The last sentence of subsection C also makes it equally apparent that the legislature intended for the county to pay for housing costs when the offense involves a state statute. Responsibility for prisoner maintenance depends upon the nature of the offense committed, not upon which court has jurisdiction over the prisoner or who arrests the offender. The California Court of Appeals addressed this same question: [W]here a prisoner is confined in the county jail after having been charged with or convicted of violating a state law or county ordinance, the expense of his care and maintenance must be paid by the county, and this is true even though the prisoner may have been arrested by a city police officer. Washington Township Hosp. Dist. v. County of Alameda, 263 Cal. App.2d 272, 275, 69 Cal. Rptr. 442, 444 (1968) (citing City of Pasadena v. County of Los Angeles, 118 Cal. App.2d 497, 258 P.2d 28 (1953)). This construction is in accordance with the approach adopted by a majority of states that have considered this issue. These states follow the nature of the offense rule, while a minority of states have adopted a custody and control rule, which places responsibility for the care of a prisoner upon the entity that exerts actual physical dominion and control over the prisoner. County of Aitkin v. Department of Corrections, 394 N.W.2d 608, 610 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). [2] We believe the court of appeals correctly held that the nature of the charge is the sole criterion for determining which governmental entity is liable for the costs of housing a prisoner. Mohave County v. City of Kingman, 158 Ariz. 172, 175, 761 P.2d 1076, 1079 (App. 1988). If the charge involves a violation of a city or town ordinance, the city is responsible; if the charge involves a violation of a state statute, the county is responsible. We recognize that our opinion in City of Phoenix v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 175, 677 P.2d 1283 (1984), may appear to be contrary to what we now hold. In City of Phoenix, we held that the city, rather than the county, was liable for the defendant's hospitalization and medical costs resulting from a Rule 11 competency determination ordered by the city court. We held that A.R.S. § 13-3992 was controlling and that under that statute the city was liable for the costs as long as the matter was pending in city court. 139 Ariz. at 178, 677 P.2d at 1286. The statute reads: When a defendant in a criminal action, any time prior to pronouncement of sentence, is committed to the state hospital, the expenses of transporting him to and from the hospital and of maintaining him while confined therein shall be a charge against the county in which the indictment was found or information filed, but the county may recover such expenses from the estate of the defendant or from a relative, town, city or county required by law to provide for and maintain the defendant. A.R.S. § 13-3992 (emphasis added). This statute is not involved in the instant case and concerns the responsibility of the county to absorb the cost of transportation and maintenance of prisoners in the state hospital. Although it appears that we adopted a custody and control rule for the purposes of providing for a mental examination pursuant to Rule 11, Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S., we do not extend that rule to this case. There is a difference between treatment at the state hospital pursuant to Rule 11 and in aid of the court's determination of the ability of the defendant to stand trial and the routine pretrial and post-trial custody involved in this case. We hold that City of Phoenix does not apply.