Court Opinion

ID: 9532944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:26:28.435599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:52.590604
License: Public Domain

LANE, Judge,
dissenting:
I agree with the majority as to its conclusions of law. However, I disagree with the application of the law to the facts of this ease. I find that the imposition of community service is for purely punitive purposes, and not remedial. To say that it is for the betterment and protection of the university community is a fiction that would classify any punishment rendered by the State of Oklahoma through a student disciplinary proceeding as remedial including assessing fines, loss of credits, and flogging.1
The majority states that it has not found any cases where a student disciplinary sanction has been found to be subject to double jeopardy prohibitions and cites many eases. However, when you look at the facts of those eases it is evident that the sanction in all of them was either expulsion or suspension. None of the remedies required servitude as does community service. Eliminating undesirable students from the rolls of the school is remedial. Requiring the student to perform labor is not.
The majority cites a Wisconsin case as authority to find that community service is not punishment.2 In response, I would first say that I do not agree with the intermediate Wisconsin court since, as pointed out above, I think requiring servitude is punishment and not remedial. Second, I would point out a major discrepancy between the Wisconsin case and our current matter. Lawton was given a “civil citation” for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OMVWI) as a first offender. He was later prosecuted for vehicular homicide. The ease points out that this citation was not a criminal matter under Wisconsin law since the legislature removed fines or imprisonment as penalties for a violation of the OMVWI law and the elements of the two charges were different.3 We do not have that situation here. Here, the university punished Kauble for falsely reporting a crime to the university police, and the State is also prosecuting him for the same thing in the district court. In my opinion, this is double jeopardy. It is the same incident, and the elements are the same.
I dissent.

. The authority of the university to require community service as a sanction is not challenged in this appeal.

. State v. Lawton, 167 Wis.2d 461, 482 N.W.2d 142 (1992).

. Lawton, 482 N.W.2d at 146.