City of Raytown v. Roach, 23599
| Decision Date | 01 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 23599,23599 |
| Citation | 360 S.W.2d 741 |
| Parties | CITY OF RAYTOWN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dona Lee ROACH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Rollie R. Baldwin and W. Hugh McLaughlin, Kansas City, for appellant.
No appearance, for respondent.
On October 9, 1961, a judgment was entered in the city court of Raytown, Missouri, convicting defendant of violating that city's Ordinance No. 489, entitled 'An Ordinance Prohibiting Careless, Wreckless(sic) and Imprudent Driving'. Defendant duly appealed to the circuit court. That court rendered its judgment affirming the conviction, from which defendant now appeals.
The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether or not the complaint filed against defendant is legally sufficient as a basis for her prosecution. Defendant contends that the document filed as a complaint does not allege any facts constituting the charge of any offense, whatsoever. This contention was first made in the circuit court. The record shows that prior to trial in that court defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was no valid information or complaint lodged against her. The motion was overruled. Defendant ineffectively renewed her attack upon the validity of the complaint in her motion for a new trial.
Plaintiff city makes no appearance on this appeal and has filed no brief.
The purported complaint is on a printed form which had been only partially filled out and signed by two arresting police officers. The form is entitled 'Missouri Uniform Traffic Ticket' and is essentially identical to form No. 37.1162 as promulgated by the Supreme Court for suggested use in municipal and traffic court cases. The form recites (in printing) that defendant 'DID UNLAWFULLY . . . (operate a motor vehicle) . . . AND THEN AND THERE DID COMMIT THE FOLLOWING OFFENSE, TO-WIT:'. Immediately following the quoted printed recital appear the words 'SIX PRINCIPAL CAUSES OF ACCIDENTS:', followed by a listing of six offenses, to-wit: (1) speeding, (2) disobeyed signal, (3) disobeyed stop sign, (4) improper turn, (5) improper passing, and (6) improper lane use. The six offenses are separately listed in 'boxes' for use in indicating, by check mark, the offense charged. No mark whatsoever appears to indicate any one of the enumerated offenses. Immediately following the above described part of the printed traffic ticket there is a separate bracketed space bearing the printed legend 'OTHER VIOLATIONS (DESCRIBE)'. In this space there appears the following, written by hand: 'C & I ACC'. Another space contains the printed words 'IN VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ___' in which had been written the numbers '489'. Nothing further appears on the traffic ticket that can be construed as a designation of any offense charged against defendant.
Prosecutions for violation of municipal ordinances are regarded as civil actions, although it has been said that they have quasi criminal aspects. City of St. Louis v. Pope, Mo.App., 129 S.W.2d 106; City of Clayton v. Nemours, 237 Mo.App. 167, 164 S.W.2d 935. Hence, our courts have consistently held that the sufficiency of the complaint in such cases is to be determined by the same rules that are applicable in other civil actions. Kansas City v. Wiskur, Mo.App., 343 S.W.2d 89; Ex parte Corvey, 220 Mo.App. 602, 287 S.W. 879. More to the point--Missouri courts have recognized and adhered to the general rule that the complaint must specifically allege the facts which amount to the offense defined and forbidden by the ordinance. City of St. Louis v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 317 Mo. 907, 296 S.W. 993, 54 A.L.R. 1082. Or, as conversely stated in Kansas City, Missouri v. Wiskur, supra, '* * * there can be no doubt but that the rule is that an information charging violation of an ordinance without specifically alleging facts amounting to violation is insufficient.' This general rule, developed by court decision and rules of civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Ava v. Yost
...new trial, that the information was insufficient. In so holding we believe the judge of the circuit court was correct (City of Raytown v. Roach, Mo.App., 360 S.W.2d 741); but in examining the transcript we have found ourselves confronted by a question of jurisdiction which, although not rai......
-
Kansas City v. Mathis, 24434
...charging violation of an ordinance without specifically alleging facts amounting to violation is insufficient. See City of Raytown v. Roach, Mo.App., 360 S.W.2d 741 and Kansas City v. Franklin, Mo.App., 401 S.W.2d 949, for a more complete statement of the rules generally observed by Missour......
-
State v. Barlett, 8410
...Mo., 246 S.W. 911; State v. Hall, 130 Mo.App. 170, 108 S.W. 1077(3).3 State v. McCloud, Mo.App., 313 S.W.2d 177, 181; City of Raytown v. Roach, Mo.App., 360 S.W.2d 741, 743; State v. Reynolds, Mo.App., 274 S.W.2d 514, and cases at 515; State v. Muchnick, Mo.App., 334 S.W.2d 386, 390; State ......
-
Kansas City v. Stricklin, 53419
...for violation of a city ordinance must be determined by the same rules as are applicable in other civil cases. In City of Raytown v. Roach, Mo.App., 360 S.W.2d 741, the complaint was for violation of a traffic ordinance. The Missouri Uniform Traffic Ticket used was in substantially the form......