Court Opinion

ID: 9740689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:40:22.482911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:19.610513
License: Public Domain

Shanahan, J.,
concurring.
This court continues to use a strange standard for disposition of a case involving an omitted ordinance, namely:
When an ordinance charging an offense is not properly made a part of the record, an appellate court presumes the existence of a valid ordinance creating the offense charged .... In the absence from the record of the applicable municipal ordinance, an appellate court presumes that the evidence sustains the findings of the trial court and that a sentence is within the limits set out in the applicable ordinance.
*644The preceding incantation is used to pull no fewer than two “presumptions” out of a judicial hat to affirm Lewis’ conviction. As the result of those unwarranted and untenable presumptions, the majority relieves the State from the fundamental requirement of establishing a valid basis for taking away a defendant’s liberty or property. Rather than indulge in such dispensation, other courts in several jurisdictions have concluded that the State’s failure to establish the ordinance on which a prosecution is based requires reversal of the conviction and dismissal of the proceeding; for instance, see State v. Pallet, 283 N.C. 705, 198 S.E.2d 433 (1973) (State’s failure to establish the municipal ordinance on which the prosecution is based required dismissal of the prosecution); Sisk v. Town of Shenandoah, 200 Va. 277, 280, 105 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1958) (conviction based on a municipal ordinance prohibiting drunk driving is, in the absence of the municipal ordinance in the record, reversed because “[fjair trial practice required that the defendant be afforded the opportunity to know the provisions of the ordinance she is charged with violating”); Hishaw v. City of Oklahoma City, 822 P.2d 1139 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991) (conviction reversed because municipal ordinance was absent from record presented to appellate court); Peters v. City of Phenix City, 589 So. 2d 800 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (failure to introduce into evidence the ordinance on which the charge was brought rendered the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction); Gonon v. State, 579 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. App. 1991) (ordinance’s absence from the record renders the evidence insufficient to sustain a defendant’s conviction). Thus, prosecution of a defendant for violation of an ordinance without including the ordinance in the case against the defendant implicates due process and the right to a fair trial.
Although one might contend that a defendant can offer a certified copy of the ordinance at some stage of the proceeding before judgment in the trial court, the fact remains that the prosecution should be required to prove a prima facie case against a defendant, including existence of the very ordinance under which the prosecution is maintained. Otherwise, this court condones and even assists in the deprivation of a *645defendant’s liberty or property, as the result of prosecution under an ordinance which may, or may not, exist. Moreover, any litigant whose success in an action depends on existence of an ordinance should have the burden to establish existence of the ordinance. Also, in Zybach v. State, 226 Neb. 396, 401, 411 N.W.2d 627, 631 (1987) (quoting Nevels v. State, 205 Neb. 642, 289 N.W.2d 511 (1980)), this court stated that “ ‘a party seeking the benefit of such provisions [of an ordinance or regulation must] plead and prove the existence of the ordinance or rule.’ ” Thus, in cases involving an alleged violation of an ordinance, this court “presumes the existence of a valid ordinance creating the offense,” while simultaneously requiring that a party who seeks to benefit from the provisions of an ordinance must “ ‘plead and prove the existence of the ordinance.’ ” Judicial doublethink!
Furthermore, the standard employed in Lewis’ case may effectively eliminate appellate review of a conviction, since the prosecution, by omitting the crucial ordinance from the record in the trial court, can obviate a defendant’s successful appeal from a conviction based on the ordinance. The standard in Lewis’ case may also lead to certain undesirable and peculiar results, such as this court’s upholding a conviction obtained under an unconstitutional ordinance. For example, suppose that a defendant is prosecuted for violating a municipal ordinance which prohibits an individual’s criticism of city government or a public official, or suppose that a defendant is charged with violating an ordinance which forbids the presence of a particular racial minority within a city, a racial minority which includes the defendant. In the foregoing examples, notwithstanding that the defendant has properly challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance that is omitted from the trial, the defendant’s conviction under a constitutionally suspect ordinance must be upheld, even if the unconstitutional ordinance is missing from the prosecution’s case through oversight or deliberate deletion. Could not happen? Take a look at State v. Sator, 194 Neb. 120, 230 N.W.2d 224 (1975); State v. Radcliff, 188 Neb. 236, 196 N.W.2d 119 (1972); and State v. Novak, 153 Neb. 596, 45 N.W.2d 625 (1951).
The only explanation for the strange standard used by the *646majority regarding the missing ordinance in Lewis’ case is the rationalization: “Even though wrong, we’ve always done it this way.” Under that approach to jurisprudence, trial by ordeal and dousing suspected witches would still be acceptable methods to ascertain truth of allegations.
As an alternative to the standard employed by this court regarding an omitted ordinance, Lewis has supplied us with certified copies of applicable Lincoln ordinances pertinent to the prosecution and requests that this court take judicial notice of those ordinances as adjudicative facts. The State does not question the authenticity of the ordinances presented for judicial notice by this court; hence, the applicable Lincoln ordinances are beyond question in Lewis’ appeal.
The Nebraska Evidence Rules allow the judicial notice requested by Lewis, for Neb. Evid. R. 201(2) provides: “A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is . . . (b) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Neb. Evid. R. 201(6) states that “ [j judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.” Therefore, an appellate court can take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact.
Various commentators have emphasized the propriety and practicality concerning judicial notice of a municipal ordinance.
In the case of local ordinances, judicial notice was originally withheld by courts other than those of the local adoptive government. The reason is that only the judge of the local court was likely to have knowledge about or access to the ordinance. Therefore the rule of availability would naturally be limited to that court. The facts do not support the rule. Regardless of the court, if the ordinance is available, is reliable and is known to the court, it should be judicially noticed. Today a growing number of cities are publishing their ordinances. Where ordinances are available or are actually known to the court, the formal rule limiting judicial notice to municipal courts should be abandoned.
2 Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction *647§ 39.01 at 163-64 (4th ed. 1986). As pointed out in 2 McCormick on Evidence § 335 at 415 (John William Strong 4th ed. 1992),
municipal ordinances . . . are not commonly included within the doctrine of judicial notice and these must be pleaded and proved. To the extent that these items become readily available in compilations, it may be expected that they will become subject to judicial notice; whereas, in the meantime, it would appear appropriate for judges to take judicial notice of both private laws and municipal ordinances if counsel furnish a certified copy thereof.
Consequently, court after court has recognized that a municipal ordinance may be judicially noticed in a trial court and at the appellate level. See, Barberton v. O’Connor, 17 Ohio St. 3d 218, 478 N.E.2d 803 (1985); Concrete Contractors, Inc. v. City of Arvada, 621 P.2d 320 (Colo. 1981); Wessel v. Erickson Landscaping Co., 711 P.2d 250 (Utah 1985); State v. Duranleau, 99 N.H. 30, 104 A.2d 519 (1954); Martinez v. City of San Antonio, 768 S.W.2d 911 (Tex. App. 1989); Lowery v. Bd. of Cty. Com’rs for Ada Cty., 115 Idaho 64, 764 P.2d 431 (Idaho App. 1988); Forks v. Fletcher, 33 Wash. App. 104, 652 P.2d 16 (1982); Powers v. State, 370 So. 2d 854 (Fla. App. 1979); People v Miller, 77 Mich. App. 381, 258 N.W.2d 235 (1977).
However, as requested by Lewis, judicial notice of Lincoln ordinances affords no solace to Lewis, for Lincoln Mun. Code § 10.04.216 (1982) states: “Snowmobile shall mean a self-propelled motor vehicle designed to travel on snow or ice on a natural terrain steered by wheels, skis, or runners and propelled by a belt-driven track with or without steel cleats.” (Emphasis supplied.) Other Lincoln ordinances pertaining to snowmobiles prohibit operation of this type of motor vehicle on a public street, Lincoln Mun. Code § 10.65.010 (1986), and on private property, Lincoln Mun. Code § 10.65.040 (1986), within the city of Lincoln, but permit snowmobiling in Lincoln parks, Lincoln Mun. Code § 12.08.021 (1986). Nevertheless, the fact remains that, under Lincoln ordinances pertinent to Lewis’ case, a snowmobile is a type of motor vehicle that is subject to the Lincoln ordinances governing operation of a *648motor vehicle within the city limits of Lincoln. Stipulated evidence established that on January 20, 1990, two Lincoln police officers, apparently on cruiser patrol, saw Lewis driving his snowmobile at a high rate of speed on public streets within Lincoln; that the officers later stopped Lewis on his snowmobile and administered field sobriety tests and a “preliminary breath test” to Lewis, who failed those tests; that, subsequently, an Intoxilyzer test, properly administered to Lewis, disclosed that he had a breath alcohol level prohibited by Lincoln ordinance concerning operation of a motor vehicle; and that the officers had formed the opinion that Lewis “was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at the time they saw him operating the snowmobile on the public street.” Therefore, in light of judicial notice concerning the Lincoln ordinances, the State charged and proved that Lewis operated his snowmobile, which is a motor vehicle, in violation of the Lincoln ordinance that prohibits a person’s operation or physical control of a motor vehicle while that person is under the influence of alcoholic liquor. For that reason, Lewis’ conviction must be affirmed.
Were it not for appellate judicial notice of the Lincoln ordinances as requested, Lewis’ conviction would have to be set aside, with this cause remanded for dismissal of the prosecution as the result of the State’s omitting proof of the ordinances.