Opinion ID: 1141284
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: law as to the torrence and ligon cases

Text: Article 3, Section 14 of our Mississippi Constitution reads: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property except by due process of law. Article 3, Section 26 of our Mississippi Constitution provides: In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself or counsel, or both, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted by the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and, in all prosecutions by indictment or information, a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the county where the offense was committed... . These two constitutional provisions embrace fundamental principles of fairness which have prevailed in all court systems in this country and Great Britain for centuries. Any high school civics class student should be aware no person can lawfully be deprived of property or liberty without a trial, and a fair and adequate notice beforehand of the time and place for such trial so that he can know the nature of the case against him, and have reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense. To find Torrence and Ligon guilty and make a public entry of such findings on his official docket, when neither of them had any notice or knowledge of the proceedings against them, in my view was as gross a violation of Sections 14 and 26 of our Mississippi Constitution as can be envisioned. It is true they were minor cases, and also true their fines (the amount not being stated) were suspended. Nevertheless, this Court can observe two possible invidious consequences: (1) notice of the conviction is forwarded to the Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol for its records, possibly precipitating the suspension or revocation of one's license; and (2) the insurance carrier could choose to place such individual in a higher risk category. Indeed, as in Ligon's case, he received notice from the Highway Safety Patrol that his license had been suspended and that a warrant had been issued for nonpayment of his fine. While it is true justice court judges for the most part are not lawyers, and are not bound by the same formality as higher courts, the constitutional rights of any citizen are not lessened in any degree simply because his case happens to be in justice court. Justice court judges must be constantly aware that constitutional rights are not to be gauged by the court in which a litigant finds himself, and I am convinced the overwhelming majority of justice court judges recognize this responsibility. Justice court judges attend seminars, are provided ample information and are afforded virtually unlimited sources of counsel and advice to enable them in simple cases to give fair and impartial trials. I can place no credence in any claim of ignorance as an excuse for Anderson's handling of these two cases. When Anderson took the witness stand in his own defense, he produced for the first time criminal affidavits signed by Silkwood before him against Torrence and Ligon, each charging the defendant with speeding. [5] The filing of these affidavits before him made it mandatory under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-33-3 (Supp. 1981) that he issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant and try and dispose of each case according to law. The conviction of these two defendants without any hearing after criminal affidavits had been lodged against each made Anderson's violation of their rights even more egregious. If such handling had resulted in no financial benefit to him, Anderson's conduct would in my opinion have been conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute as condemned by Section 177A. To me such conclusion is inescapable from the clear words of the Constitution. Anderson handled the two citations in such a way, however, to enrich his own pocket at the expense of the taxpayers of Hancock County. He made claim upon and collected $10.00 from the county in each case. Ligon and Torrence were injured, the taxpayers of Hancock County were injured in having to pay $20.00 for nothing, and the only person to benefit was Anderson. He pocketed $20.00 from these transactions. This constituted bad faith on his part and in my opinion constituted willful misconduct in office as condemned by Section 177A. In conclusion, I am compelled to reiterate what I stated in the beginning, it is simply incomprehensible to me that Anderson's conduct cannot be seen by the majority as prejudicial to the administration of justice, and the kind of conduct that brings our judicial system into disrepute (If I am mistaken, then it follows his conduct did not harm the administration of justice). Also, when taken in conjunction with his numerous petty embezzlements, the conclusion is inescapable, at least to me, that this action was in bad faith in an effort to collect $20.00 from Hancock County. In my view, the majority of this Court has simply ignored the plain and unambiguous wording of our Constitution. It is a matter of common knowledge that the justice court system is the subject of great criticism, and at times has been considered by many citizens of this country a farce. The overwhelming majority of the justice court judges in this state are today making every effort to improve the administration of justice in their courts, and strictly adhere to the law. This Court renders no service to the justice court system and to the overwhelming majority of competent justice court judges, when it takes a paternalistic view of the system, and lightly criticizes the conduct of Anderson. It is this very sort of conduct which has brought so much trouble to the justice court system, and which the justice court judges themselves are attempting to weed out. Furthermore, to take lightly what six members of the Commission on Judicial Performance took very seriously will no doubt make these members ponder whether their efforts are worthwhile. In accepting the findings of the Commission as to Anderson's embezzlement, this Court has only recognized the obvious. The other misconduct of Anderson is somewhat more subtle and insidious, but that does not mean practices of this sort do not exist, or that they cannot permeate the justice court system without the strongest condemnation from this Court, and consequent sanctions where needed. The majority chooses to view Anderson's treatment of the Ligon and Torrence cases lightly; I cannot. BROOM and DARDEN, JJ., join in this specially concurring opinion.