Court Opinion

ID: 9623734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:42:21.257169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:34.310243
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
continuing to dissent.
Little more need be said. The majority simply stands fast, adding nothing to its previous opinion which for the most part simply yields to the proposition that the Industrial Commission having found that claimant was discharged for misconduct, this Court will not interfere. In an opinion in another case I will shortly write on the distinction between evidentiary facts and ultimate facts. Nothing will be gained by doing so here, where my earlier effort has now on two occasions failed to elicit any response from the other members of the Court on the desirability of adopting a standard of materiality, Part II of my earlier opinion. While I would not have been surprised at my own advancement of this proposition being ignored, this was not original with me, and I merely endorsed what respectable courts of Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Illinois have written. In eschewing the opportunity to either adopt the standard of materiality which prevails in those states, or to cogently explain why this Court should not do so, the Court wholly ignores the proposition — surely not the mark of an enlightened court. The loser in the instant case is Mr. Brown, but the overall losers are both the working public and the employers as well. The Court does nothing. And it does so notwithstanding that it was the Department, not this writer, in the Woodham case which first brought to our attention the Colorado case, Cassia v. Industrial Commission.
Even without a standard of materiality, the majority continues to err in upholding the denial of benefits to Mr. Brown, largely *567for the reasons earlier stated. To which, however, I add that it has been suggested that Mr. Brown did not report to Judge Gillespie at traffic court because, so goes the argument, we have no traffic courts in Idaho — only magistrate courts, district courts, and the appellate courts. It is said that what we have are magistrates who are designated to hear traffic cases. Very well, this may be so, and likely is an absolute in the legal minds of the majority. But, on the other hand, there is within the limits of Boise a rather new-appearing, large city-county building which the police in their reports refer to as 7200 Barrister, the building’s address. Having occasion to visit that building recently, I was greatly startled to see on the outside of the building in bold letters at least two feet high the two words: “TRAFFIC COURT.” Believing that, in the past eight and one-half years of residence in Boise, I have on occasion noticed a mention of traffic court cases carried in the Idaho Statesman, I have turned to today’s paper, November 28, 1984, and find that my powers of observation and recollection remain unimpaired:
News of record
BIRTHS
Born Nov. 26, 1984:
St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center
LINDLEY — Pamela and Larry, Mountain Home Air Force Base, a son.
Born Nov. 27, 1984:
St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center
HACKETT —Carla and Greg, 9259 Preece Drive, a daughter.
SAYLOR — Belinda and Leslie, Boise, a son.
GRAVES — Shannon and Dale, Boise, a daughter.
GEBHARDT — Joyce and Karl, Boise, a daughter.
TILTON — Jane and Gary, 2502 S. Owyhee St., a son.
KREIZENBECK — Fawn and David, Emmett, a son.
EGGERS — Debra and Drew, 6823 Center Lane, Nampa, a daughter.
ATKINS — Sharon and Jerry, 7106 San Fernando Drive, a son.
DISOTELL — Jacqui, 3905 Alpine St., No. 22, a daughter.
MARRIAGE LICENSES
HAWK, Kenneth Dean, and BECKER, Jeanne Marie, both Boise.
SCHIMMEL, James Dean, and MORRIS, Lauren Cómele, both New-berry Springs, Calif.
HYNES, Dennis Earl, Seattle, and LAKEY, Connie Jean, Boise.
METCALF, Wayne Armond, and WING, Carol Jean, both Twin Falls.
STEVENS, Adrian Dave, and DARR, Joni Dee, both Star.
BARRUS, James Lucius, Salt Lake City, and FAIRCHILD, LaRae, Boise.
SNEDDON, David Paul, and REN-NER, Sherri Lou, both Boise.
TRAFFIC COURT
SIMON, David Randall, 27, of 106 W. 37 th St., Garden City, cited Aug. 18, 1983, for driving under the influence of alcohol, withheld judgment, $500, $250 suspended, $11.50 costs, 10 days jail, suspended, 32 hours community service, one year probation. Judge Morden.
PRIEST, Randell Earl, 41, of 342 E. State St., Eagle, charged Aug. 17 with driving under the influence of alcohol, charge later reduced to reckless driving, $300, $150 suspended, $11.50 costs, five days jail, suspended, one year probation. Judge Flanagan.
BOGGIS, Gary Lee, 40 of 11370 Chapin Ave., cited May 19 for driving under the influence of alcohol, withheld judgment, $300, $11.50 costs, 15 days jail, 13 days suspended, two years probation. Judge Hamilton.
BOISE FIRE RUNS
7:01 a.m. — 2106 Warm Springs Ave., chimney fire.
7:45 a.m. — 4221 St. Andrews, chimney fire.
12:20 p.m. —1608 N. 27th St., chimney fire.
3:32 p.m. — 3300 Vista Ave., automatic alarm.
3:54 p.m. — 4907 Denton St., structure fire.
4:03 p.m. —1220 E. Washington St., structure fire.
6:03 p.m. — 4920 Franklin Road, gasoline fire.
8:25 p.m. —150 N. Capitol Blvd., automatic alarm.
OTHER EMERGENCIES
(Includes Fire Department public assistance, ambulance assists and other emergencies.)
2:38 a.m. — 6423 Franklin Road, medical assist.
7:23 a.m. —2525 Ellis Ave., medical assist.
8:47 a.m. — Gowen Field, aircraft defuel.
5:31 a.m. — 3200 Airport Way, gas way.
And, yes, Virginia, there is a traffic court. If I had time to go to the paper’s morgue, I would not be in the least surprised to find that the Statesman’s traffic court report wholly substantiated Mr. Brown’s testimony. Nothing in the record whatever refutes his testimony that the charge against him was other than what he believed it was — a misdemeanor being handled in traffic court. Now, if magistrate courts were at any time authorized to handle felony DUI information, I am at fault in not having been aware of the fact.
Counsel for DOE at oral argument insisted that even misdemeanor first offense DUI is not a minor traffic offense — notwithstanding that it is only a misdemeanor. While entitled to such view, which is certainly the popular stance to take in the last year or so, it was not ever thus. Time does not permit me to search out the case, which I do remember was in Twin Falls, but recol*568lection tells me that the defendant in that case who appealed to this Court had had a string of eight to maybe ten or twelve withheld judgments on DUI charges, before he was ever given a jail sentence to serve. We had, and probably still have, statistics here in the building which amply demonstrate that short months ago DUI was not the serious offense it is considered to be now. Be that as it may, minor traffic offenses in common sense are and have been misdemeanors, and major traffic offenses have been felonies. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. But Legal Aid counsel are to be commended for coming to Mr. Brown’s aid in the right case at the wrong time and before the wrong court. Mr. Brown, who was guilty of wanting and probably needing a job, was also guilty of not knowing for certain whether he had or had not committed a non-minor traffic offense, and guilty of speculating that he might not get the job if he incorrectly said he had been convicted of a non-minor traffic offense when he hadn’t been. Most people would have answered as he did. Nothing in the record sustains a finding that he was intentionally deceiving his employer.