Baxter v. State

• Decision Date: 08 March 1938
• Citation: 197 A. 678,39 Del. 223
• Court: Delaware Superior Court
• Parties: JAMES R. BAXTER, Defendant Below, v. THE STATE OF DELAWARE

197 A. 678

39 Del. 223

JAMES R. BAXTER, Defendant Below, v. THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

March 8, 1938

Superior Court for New Castle County, Certiorari, No. 218 September Term, 1937.

On August 10, 1937, James R. Baxter was arrested and tried for violation of the Motor Vehicle Laws. He entered a plea of guilty and a fine of $ 100 was imposed and paid. Subsequently, at his instance, a Writ of Certiorari was issued seeking to test the validity of the judgment by which the fine was imposed. Upon the return of the certiorari three exceptions were filed to the record of the judgment, as follows:

(1) That the record does not disclose that the Justice of the Peace had advised James R. Baxter, the defendant below, of his right to elect to have his case tried by the Court of Common Pleas, in and for New Castle County.

(2) That the said record does not disclose that the arresting officer had advised James R. Baxter, the defendant below, of his right to elect to have his case tried by the Court of Common Pleas, in and for New Castle County.

(3) That the said record does not disclose that the Justice of the Peace after passing judgment in the case below immediately advised James R. Baxter, the defendant, of his right to take an appeal from the decision of the Justice of the Peace, and that the said record does not disclose that the defendant was informed of the time and manner in which his appeal might be taken.

The first two exceptions are based upon a recent Act of the General Assembly approved April 15, 1937, being Chapter 239 Vol. 41, Laws of Delaware, page 714, as follows:

"An Act to Amend Chapter 169 of the Revised Code of Delaware 1935, in Reference to the Court of Common Pleas for New Castle County.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware in General Assembly met:

"Section 1. That Chapter 169 of the Revised Code of Delaware, 1935, be and the same is hereby amended, by adding at the end of 5811, Section 5, a new and additional paragraph, as follows:

"Section 1. In all cases where the Justice of the Peace now has jurisdiction and power to hear and finally determine the matter and the accused has the right to elect to have the case tried by the Court of Common Pleas for New Castle County, it shall be the duty of every Justice of the Peace for New Castle County, and the officer making the arrest, to advise such accused of his right to so elect, and every officer making the arrest and every Justice of the Peace for New Castle County is hereby required to so advise the accused before the said Justice of the Peace shall have jurisdiction and power to try the case."

It is conceded that, pursuant to the act creating this Court of Common Pleas for New Castle County, Revised Code 1935, § 5807 et seq., the defendant did have the right to elect to have such case tried by the said Court of Common Pleas. It is argued that the new statute made the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace depend upon the fact that he and the officer making the arrest had advised the defendant of his right of election as to the Court in which the case should be tried, and being jurisdictional, the fact that the defendant had been so advised must appear upon the record.

As to the first and second exceptions the Attorney-General contends that the cited statute is unconstitutional because it violates Section 16 of Article 2 of the Constitution, which provides:

"No bill * * * shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title."

The third exception is based upon another recent Act of the General Assembly, approved April 26, 1937, being Chapter 208, Vol. 41, Laws of Delaware, page 653, the terms of which are set out in the following opinion. It is contended that the omission from the records of any entry of any information given to the defendant constitutes the fatal error in such judgment.

Francis A. Reardon for Defendant Below.

P. Warren Green, Attorney-General, for the State.

LAYTON, C. J., RODNEY and SPEAKMAN, J. J., sitting.

OPINION

RODNEY, J.

The first exception involves the question as to whether the quoted act is unconstitutional as being violative of the Constitutional provision, "No bill * * * shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." Article 2, § 16.

It needs no additional language by this Court to support the well established doctrine that no Court ought to nullify an act of the Legislature except in a very clear case and upon weighty consideration. Every legislative enactment is presumed to be constitutional, and if there is doubt the will of the Legislature should be sustained. Many Delaware cases have embodied this principle and among the latest are In re Cypress Farms Ditch, 7 W. W. Harr. (37 Del.) 71, 180 A. 536, and Discount and Credit Corporation v. Ehrlich, 7 W. W. Harr. (37 Del.) 561, 187 A. 591.

Counsel for the defendant below argues that the act under consideration (Laws of Delaware, Vol. 41, page 714) being amendatory and supplemental in character, may refer to an original Act by title only and be constitutional. He thus seeks to sustain the act, which is entitled, "An Act to Amend Chapter 169 of the Revised Code of Delaware, 1935, in reference to the Court of Common Pleas for New Castle County."

With this argument we are in accord. It was so held in Wilmington Trust Company v. Highfield, 4 W. W. Harr. (34Del.) 394, at page 403, 153 A. 864, 869, where it is said:

"Where such a method of title-phrasing is employed, however, the authorities seem to be without dissent to the effect that the body of the act must be germane to the subject contained in the legislation to which the title of the amending act refers."

It therefore becomes material to examine the body of the new act in its relation to the act it purports to supplement and to determine whether the provisions of the new act are germane to the old.

The body of the new act consists of but one section. It relates solely and exclusively to a new duty cast upon both the Justice of the Peace and the officer making an arrest in a criminal case, and concerns nothing else at all. It makes it a duty of the Justice and the officer to give some information or advice to an accused person, and that is the sole purpose and extent of the section. The section does not concern any duty theretofore resting upon the Court of Common Pleas, nor cast any additional...