CITY OF HARDIN v MYERS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 81-163 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1981 C I T Y O F HARDIN, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . V I C K I L N MYERS, YN Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f H a r d i n . Honorable R o b e r t Wilson, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: S t a c e y and J a r u s s i , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: C l a r e n c e T. B e l u e , C i t y A t t o r n e y , H a r d i n , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : Decided: Filed: SEP 11 1g8I J u l y 9, 1981 SEQ 11 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n the Court. Vicki Lynn intoxicated Myers i n Hardin, t h a t time, was delivered charged Montana, with driving on S e p t e m b e r s h e was g i v e n a n o t i c e which s t a t e d t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e Opinion of t o appear 6, while 1980. At and c o m p l a i n t t h e o f f e n s e a s "Third S t r e e t " and l i s t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f a s t h e C i t y o f H a r d i n . On O c t o b e r 2 , 1 9 8 0 , Myers moved t h e C i t y C o u r t o f H a r d i n t o d i s m i s s t h e c h a r g e c l a i m i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t made no s p e c i f i c a l l e g a t i o n o f place and, therefore, City Court. did not confer The m o t i o n was d e n i e d , jurisdiction on the held and a jury trial verdict. The be a l l o w e d t o amend t h e Myers f o u n d g u i l t y . Myers appealed Court ordered that the guilty t h e respondent District c o m p l a i n t t o show t h e s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n o f the offense as being t o t h e C i t y of in the City Hardin f o r trial and remanded a t a later the matter date. From t h a t o r d e r Ivlyers appeals. Two i s s u e s a p p e a r b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t : Does 1. the District Court have jurisdiction to remand f o r r e t r i a l a m a t t e r on a p p e a l from C i t y C o u r t ? 2. that the Was t h e c h a r g i n g c o m p l a i n t f a t a l l y d e f e c t i v e i n allegation of place was not specific enough to c o n f e r j u r i s d i c t i o n on a c o u r t ? Appellant jurisdiction contends t o remand the District Court t h e case t o C i t y Court f o r has no further proceedings. Montana s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s : justice court v. or c i t y c o u r t s m u s t be t r i e d anew i n t h e d i s t r i c t . . ." Wenholz " A l l c a s e s on a p p e a l f r o m S e c t i o n 46-17-311, ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 496, MCA. R e l y i n g on F o r s y t h e 554 P.2d 1333, a p p e l l a n t argues the exclusive d e f e n d a n t on a p p e a l remedy available to a City Court is a t r i a l d e novo i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t . I n F o r s y t h e , t h e d e f e n d a n t f i l e d f o r a new t r i a l i n j u s t i c e court a following guilty verdict for driving intoxicated. On r e v i e w , t h e J u s t i c e o f the charge. The c o u n t y a t t o r n e y s o u g h t w r i t s o f and supervisory verdict. control This Court for upheld t h e Peace dismissed reinstatement the while District of mandamus the Court's guilty finding t h a t a J u s t i c e C o u r t d e f e n d a n t ' s e x c l u s i v e remedy f o r a new t r i a l i s a t r i a l d e novo i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Respondent r e c o g n i z e s F o r s y t h e b u t c l a i m s a p p e l l a n t ' s right a t r i a l d e novo was p r e s e r v e d w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t to C o u r t ' s remand t o C i t y C o u r t , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h e a c t i o n was proper. W disagree. e On a p p e a l from C i t y C o u r t , the District Court does n o t s i t a s a c o u r t of r e v i e w b u t i t t r i e s t h e c a u s e d e novo. W h i t e S u l p h u r S p r i n g s v . V o i s e ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 1 3 6 Mont. 1, 343 P.2d 855; State Mont. 481, ex rel. 240 P.2d Borberg v. D i s t r i c t Court 854; S t a t e v. O'Brien ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 125 ( 1 9 0 7 ) , 35 Mont. S i n c e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s no a u t h o r i t y t o s i t a s a c o u r t of re v i e w, i t s remand t o C i t y C o u r t was i m p r o p e r . On a p p e a l from a J u s t i c e o r C i t y C o u r t , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t m u s t t r y t h e c a s e anew. S i n c e t h i s m a t t e r i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t n e s e c o n d i s s u e r a i s e d w i l l n o t be d i s c u s s e d . h e concur:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.