Court Opinion

ID: 9615576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:38:30.839833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:42.080210
License: Public Domain

*898CARDINE, Justice.
Appellants Canaday and Manning were tried and convicted of misdemeanor charges in justice of the peace court and appealed from their respective convictions. Both defendants were represented by counsel. District court, on appeal, after hearing arguments and reviewing a transcript of the proceedings, affirmed the convictions.
Appellants present a single issue for review:
“Whether a trial before a non-lawyer justice of the peace denies a defendant his constitutionally-guaranteed right to.due process of law.”
Appellants are not alleging that specific errors occurred during the trial, but rather contend that the trial before a non-attorney judge is, per se, a violation of due process.
The United States Supreme Court upheld Kentucky’s court system which provided for trials before a non-lawyer police court judge with a later trial de novo available under the state’s two-tier court system. In North v. Russell, 427 U.S. 328, 96 S.Ct. 2709, 49 L.Ed.2d 534 (1976), they stated:
“Our concern in prior cases with judicial functions being performed by nonjudicial officers has also been directed at the need for independent, neutral, and detached judgment, not at legal training.” 96 S.Ct. at 2713.
The Court also noted
“ * * * that the justifications urged by States for continuing such tribunals are the ‘increasing burdens on state judiciaries’ and the ‘interest of both the defendant and the State, to provide speedier and less costly adjudications’ than those provided in courts ‘where the full range of constitutional guarantees is available. * * * ’ Moreover, state policy takes into account that it is a convenience to those charged to be tried in or near their own community, rather than travel to a distant court where a lawyer-trained judge is provided, and to have the option, as here, of a trial after regular business hours.” (Citation omitted.) 96 S.Ct. at 2713.
Various states have held that a violation of due process does not occur when the defendant has a right to trial de novo. Young v. Konz, 91 Wash.2d 532, 588 P.2d 1360 (1979); Conkling v. Pollock, 27 Ariz.App. 670, 558 P.2d 35 (1976) (there are no transcripts of proceedings in city court); People v. Skrynski, 42 N.Y.2d 218, 397 N.Y.S.2d 707, 366 N.E.2d 797 (1977) (a procedure is available to remove a criminal proceeding to a superior court). The Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of whether a trial before a non-attorney judge would meet constitutional requirements when a trial de novo is unavailable.
In Wyoming the office of the justice of the peace is created by statutory authority. The only requirement necessary to be a justice of the peace is that the person be a qualified elector of the county.1
If a defendant is convicted by a justice of the peace, he has a right to appeal that conviction to the district court. All criminal cases tried before a justice of the peace must be recorded and a typewritten transcript may be requested.2 Therefore, although a defendant does not have a right to a trial de novo before the district court, the proceedings in the justice of the peace courts are recorded and the testimony of witnesses and the record is available for review upon appeal. The provision for appeal upon the record made in justice court is unlike similar proceedings in other states which, in the absence of a record, provide for a trial de novo. An appeal to a law-trained judge in district court, upon the *899justice court record, is intended to provide the due process safeguards.
We held in Thomas v. Justice Court of Washakie County, Wyo., 538 P.2d 42 (1975), that a non-attorney judge at a preliminary hearing was adequate to satisfy due process specifications. We, however, did not address the question of the constitutionality of having a non-attorney judge preside at trial.
Appellant would have us adopt the reasoning of Gordon v. Justice Court for Yuba Judicial District of Sutter County, 12 Cal.3d 323, 115 Cal.Rptr. 632, 525 P.2d 72, 71 A.L.R.3d 551 (1974), which held that a trial must be presided over by a lawyer judge and stated that:
“Whatever the justification for permitting laymen to preside over criminal trials in the 1800’s, it is a well-recognized principle that even long-standing practices are subject to constitutional scrutiny and must meet the advancing standards of due process. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter noted in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 1361, 93 L.Ed. 1782, ‘Due process of law thus conveys neither formal nor fixed nor narrow requirements. It is the compendious expression for all those rights which the courts must enforce because they are basic to our free society. But basic rights do not become petrified as of any one time, even though, as a matter of human experience, some may not too rhetorically be called eternal verities. It is of the very nature of a free society to advance in its standards of what is deemed reasonable and right. Representing as it does a living principle, due process is not confined within a permanent catalogue of what may at a given time be deemed the limits or the essentials of fundamental rights.’ ” 525 P.2d at 75.
The court also stated that:
“The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the legal and constitutional issues involved in a misdemeanor case may be as complex as those involved in a trial for a more serious offense. (See Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra, 407 U.S. 25, 33, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530.) There is little guarantee that the background of a non-attorney judge will have prepared him to recognize these issues and resolve them according to established legal principles.” (Footnote omitted.) 525 P.2d at 76.
The California court relied on Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972)3 for the proposition that there is an inherent inconsistency in guaranteeing a defendant an attorney to represent him without providing a lawyer judge to preside at those proceedings. At least one other jurisdiction has followed this reasoning. State v. Dunkerley, 134 Vt. 523, 365 A.2d 131 (1976). We note, however, that the proceedings in California are not recorded as they are in Wyoming.
The other cases which appellant cites as support for our adoption of the Gordon rule are easily distinguishable and turn on the guarantees of fair trial rather than the fact that the judge is a non-attorney. Ward v. Village of Monroeville, Ohio, 409 U.S. 57, 93 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972) (a mayor judge who is responsible for revenue production is not constitutionally acceptable since his interest in the finances negates the impartiality required even though trial de novo and appeal is available). Even trial de novo does not cure a defect at the initial trial when defendant is deprived of a neutral and independent judge. Iglesias-Delgado v. Rivera-Rivera, 430 F.Supp. 309 (D.C.P.R.1976) (the judge exercised the function of the judge and the prosecutor). One system was overturned because in order to get a trial de novo, one had to post a bond and the lower courts were not courts of record. This was deemed unconstitutional because indigents did not get adequate due process. However, a non-attorney judge was *900deemed sufficient if there were equal access to an attorney judge. LeCates v. Justice of the Peace Court, No. 4 of State of Delaware, 637 F.2d 898 (3rd Cir.1980).
We find the reasoning of jurisdictions which uphold the constitutionality of non-attorney judges persuasive. Arizona held, in Palmer v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 114 Ariz. 279, 560 P.2d 797 (1977), that when a non-attorney judge is paid a fixed salary and receives no part of the fine, he is free to be independent and neutral in his judgment. The court system and procedure, therefore, does not violate due process especially where the record of the proceeding provides an opportunity for a meaningful and complete judicial review by a law-trained judge.
New Mexico disagreed with the Gordon, supra, interpretation of fairness:
“Implicit in this interpretation is that the judge is the guardian of the rights of the defendant. However, our legal system is primarily of an adversary nature, and the guardianship of the defendant’s rights lies chiefly with his attorney, not the judge. Rights not asserted by the defendant’s attorney generally are waived. Furthermore, it is not the function of the judge to second guess the tactics or strategies of the defendant’s attorney at each step of the defense of an accused. The judge’s major function is to determine which of two espoused viewpoints— the attorney’s or the prosecutor’s — is applicable to the facts of the case before him. An unbiased and reasonably intelligent person should be able to choose fairly between such espoused viewpoints. Fairness in this context is not critically dependent upon the judge being a member of the bar; a judge must have wisdom and common sense which are at least as dependable as an education in guaranteeing the defendant a fair trial. As with district court judges, as a last resort the appellate process is able to correct the mistakes of law of a municipal court judge. We therefore hold that fairness is not so inextricably tied to the education of an attorney that without such an education a municipal court judge cannot be fair.” (Footnotes omitted.) Tsiosdia v. Rainaldi, 89 N.M. 70, 547 P.2d 553, 555 (1976).
Although Utah’s system is different from ours in that their justices of the peace are constitutionally created rather than statutorily, part of their rationale upholding non-attorney judges is applicable. Shelmidine v. Jones, Utah, 550 P.2d 207 (1976). They stated at p. 211:
“It is thus seen that in a considerable portion of our State there are some very practical problems in placing restrictions upon justices of the peace and requiring professionalized courts to handle minor offenses. If it were not for those justices in our sparsely populated rural counties an accused would often encounter inconvenience in delay of time and distance of travel before he could have his case disposed of. It seems to be a sound observation that our justice of the peace system has and continues to serve a useful purpose by providing a readily accessible and expeditious means of handling of minor cases; and that it is more of an aid in assuring the constitutional guarantees of a speedy disposition of one’s case, and thus of due process of law, than the contrary.” (Footnote omitted.)
Other jurisdictions have approved non-attorney judges when a record is available for review by a lawyer judge. State v. Duncan, 269 S.C. 510, 238 S.E.2d 205 (1977); Treiman v. State, ex rel. Miner, Fla., 343 So.2d 819 (1977) (a non-attorney judge is acceptable if he has completed the state training program); People v. Sabri, 47 Ill.App.3d 962, 6 Ill.Dec. 104, 362 N.E.2d 739 (1977); Ex parte Ross, Tex.Cr.App., 522 S.W.2d 214, cert. denied 423 U.S. 1018, 96 S.Ct. 454, 46 L.Ed.2d 390 (1975).
Justices of the peace in this state are paid a fixed salary. They receive no part of fines, nor is their pay dependent upon fines collected. Justice of the peace courts are courts of record; and appeal to a lawyer judge, upon the record made at trial, is available. We hold, therefore, that appel*901lants’ due process rights were not violated by a trial presided over by a non-attorney judge in these circumstances. The decisions of the district court affirming the convictions of the justice of the peace court are affirmed.

. Section 5-4-201(b), W.S.1977, Cum.Supp.1983, provides in part:
"(b) To be eligible for election or appointment to the office of justice of the peace, a person shall be a qualified elector of the county in which he seeks the office of justice of the peace. * * * ”

. Rule 10(k), W.R.Cr.P.J.C., provides in part:
"All criminal cases tried before a justice or a jury shall be recorded either electronically or stenographically. * * * ”

. Argersinger v. Hamlin held that a person may not be imprisoned for any offense unless he was represented by counsel at trial.