Court Opinion

ID: 9534771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:42:42.377673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:28.237664
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting.
A short review of the statutes, case law, and rules governing the award of costs on appeal leads to the conclusion that costs are awardable to the prevailing party in this appeal. This conclusion is arrived at no matter how the appeal is characterized. Even if considered a criminal appeal, Thompson is entitled to his costs. The amount at stake is less than $100, making *71the State’s position quite clear — it is not the money which moves it to action, but rather it is the principle.
The criminal aspect of State v. Thompson was concluded before any appeal was taken, and then it was the State that appealed, not Thompson. Thompson’s position was simply that of a respondent on appeal. For certain he was not a defendant being prosecuted. The opinion for the Court specifically noted that: “[T]he criminal case against the defendant was brought to a conclusion by the entry of defendant’s plea of guilty to two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, and the entry of a judgment of conviction based thereupon, with imposition of a sentence.” (Emphasis added.) At the time the State chose to test the appellate waters, this was no longer a pending criminal case. The criminal case had come to a close.
Guidance for awarding costs in a civil appeal is found in Title 12 of the Idaho Code, entitled “Costs and Miscellaneous Matters In Civil Actions.” Section 114 of Title 12 states:
12-114. Taxation of costs on appeal in Supreme Court. — Whenever costs are awarded to a party by an appellate court, if he claims such costs he must tax the same before the clerk of the Supreme Court____
This section has been used by this Court in the past to award the costs of appeal against the State. In American Oil Co. v. Neill, 90 Idaho 333, 414 P.2d 206 (1966), overruled on other grounds, County of Ada v. Red Steer Drive-Ins of Nevada, Inc., 101 Idaho 94, 609 P.2d 161 (1980), this Court awarded costs to American Oil against the State, after American Oil successfully argued that the taxes assessed were illegal. There is no discernible procedural or substantive difference between American Oil and this case. On what basis does the Court award costs to American Oil, but not to Mr. Thompson?
The per curiam opinion states the Court’s concensus that the State’s appeal falls on the criminal side rather than the civil. Even were that true, the prevailing party should be awarded costs. In State v. Clayton, 113 Idaho 817, 748 P.2d 401 (1988), the defendant appealed the suspension of his driver’s license after he was arrested for being in physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated on December 13, 1985. This Court affirmed the license suspension. This Court also awarded costs to the State. See also, Justice v. State, 119 Idaho 158, 804 P.2d 331 (App.1990) (costs awarded to State in appeal from driver’s license suspension pursuant to I.C. § 18-8002). The facts in Clayton took place before the legislature amended I.C. § 18-8002 to provide that suspension of a license under that statute should be considered a civil and not a criminal penalty. Further muddying the already murky waters, this Court’s opinion in State v. McCormack, 117 Idaho 1009, 793 P.2d 682 (1990), held that the suspension of driving privileges under I.C. § 18-8002 is a criminal penalty.
Thus costs have been awarded to the State in its successful defense of a criminal appeal. As the defendant-appellant in Clayton pointed out in his objection to the bill of costs filed by the State, the appeal to this Court was taken pursuant to I.A.R. 11(c), which governs appeals from criminal proceedings, and not pursuant to I.A.R. 11(a) which governs appealable orders in civil proceedings.
In addition to case law, statutes and rules support the award of costs to Thompson in this case. According to I.C. § 19-2801,
An appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court from the district court in a criminal action by such parties from such judgments and orders of the district court, and within such times and in such manner as prescribed by Rule of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has responded with I.A.R. 40:
Costs shall be allowed as a matter of course to the prevailing party unless otherwise provided by law or order of the Court.
As can be readily noted, the rule does not discriminate nor distinguish in favor of the State. We learned as little children that *72what is good for the goose is good for the gander.