Hardamon v. Municipal Court In and For City of Boulder, s. 24941
| Decision Date | 15 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 24941,24963,s. 24941 |
| Citation | 497 P.2d 1000,178 Colo. 271 |
| Parties | Charles R. HARDAMON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Petitioners-Appellants, v. The MUNICIPAL COURT IN AND FOR the CITY OF BOULDER, Colorado, and Richard F. Hansen, Municipal Judge, Respondents-Appellees. MUNICIPAL COURT IN AND FOR the CITY OF BOULDER, Colorado, and Richard F. Hansen, Municipal Judge, Appellants, v. Charles R. HARDAMON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Appellees. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
William M. Cohen, Boulder, for Charles R. Hardamon, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated.
Walter L. Wagenhals, City Atty., Lawrence C. Rider, Asst. City Atty., Boulder, for The Municipal Court in and for the City of Boulder, Colorado and Richard F. Hansen, Municipal Judge.
This consolidated appeal involves the applicability of Chapter 44 of Session Laws of Colorado of 1970 to home rule cities. This Act grants jury trials to all defendants charged with petty offenses, defined as those offenses punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or both such imprisonment and fine, including violations of municipal ordinances or offenses which were not considered a crime at common law. 1 The Act amends 1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 37--22--1(1), concerning Municipal Courts, by addition of the following declaration:
'(b) The general assembly finds that the right to a trial by jury for petty offenses is of vital concern to all of the people of the state of Colorado and that the interests of the state as a whole are so great that it retain sole legislative jurisdiction over the matter, which is hereby declared to be of Statewide concern.' (Emphasis added.)
The provisions of the foregoing Act are in direct conflict with Section 87 of the Charter of the City of Boulder concerning the police courts, which provides:
(Emphasis added.)
Charles R. Hardamon was charged in the Boulder Municipal Court with the traffic offense of 'Following Too Closely,' Section 20--107, Revised Code of the City of Boulder. He pleaded not guilty, and submitted a written demand for a jury trial as required by the foregoing Act. The municipal court denied his jury request, ruling that the right to a jury in the Boulder Municipal Court was a matter of local concern and that the charter provision denying a jury trial was controlling over the statute under consideration.
Hardamon filed his complaint in the district court under C.R.C.P. 106, seeking relief in the nature of mandamus or prohibition, for himself and for all other persons similarly situated, praying that the court issue an order staying the proceedings in the municipal court and requiring respondents to show cause why they should not be directed and ordered to grant trials by jury to Hardamon and the class he represented. The district court issued its order in the nature of an alternative writ of mandamus, directing that trials by jury be granted to the petitioners or, in the alternative, that respondents show cause why such right of trial by jury should not be granted. Upon the issues being joined, the matter was submitted to the court on Hardamon's motion for summary judgment. The court denied the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the proceeding, upholding the ruling of the municipal court. Appeal was then brought to this Court.
Thus, we have squarely presented to us for resolution the question of whether, in cases involving petty offenses, there is a right to a jury trial under Session Laws of Coloardo 1970, Chapter 44, in a municipal court of a home rule city whose city charter has expressly denied such right. In other words, is the granting of a jury trial in petty offense cases a matter of statewide concern, or a matter of local and municipal concern the control of which falls within the domain of a home rule city under the authority granted by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution? We disagree with the trial court's judgment that the matter is one of local and municipal concern, and therefore reverse.
In Austin v. Denver, 170 Colo. 448, 462 P.2d 600, we held there was no federal or state constitutional right to a jury trial in cases involving petty offenses. Our study failed to reveal any such existing statutory right or any right granted under the charter or ordinances of the City and County characterized as strictly local, the conflicting this decision that either the general assembly, on a statewide basis, or the legislative body of a home rule city, within its territorial limits, could grant a jury trial in petty offense cases.
Immediately subsequent to our pronouncement in Austin v. Denver, Supra, the general assembly, in its wisdom, enacted the Act under consideration and declared that the right to jury trials in petty offense cases was of 'vital concern' to all of the people of the state and was a matter of 'statewide concern.' We agree with this declaration and observe that a uniform system of justice throughout all of the courts of the state of Colorado, including municipal and police courts, is of paramount importance to all of the citizens of the state, and tends to promote the achievement of the ideal of equality of justice as expressed in our constitution. We would consider it to be destructive of the concept of equality of justice to grant or deny jury trials in petty offense cases merely on the basis of where the offense occurred or in what court the guilt or innocence is to be determined. It is illogical and without reason to say that a defendant charged in a state or non-home rule municipal court should be permitted a jury trial, whereas if he is similarly charged in a home rule court he should be denied a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Wharton
... ... Allen B. COLEMAN. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. September 24, 1981 ... Common Pleas and Municipal Courts of Philadelphia: December ... Term, 1980, ... [ 8 ] See, for example: ... Hardamon v. Municipal Court, 178 Colo. 271, 497 P.2d ... (Emphasis supplied) ... Lapp v. City of Worland, 612 P.2d 868 (Wyo ... We find, for ... ...
-
State ex rel. Weber v. Municipal Court of Town of Jackson
...It conflicts with general law, and it is not authorized under the rule-making power." Ibid., p. 3. In Hardamon v. Municipal Court in and for City of Boulder, 178 Colo. 271, 497 P.2d 1000, the accused brought mandamus class action seeking to stay prosecution in municipal court for a traffic ......
-
People v. District Court of Colorado's Seventeenth Judicial Dist., 92SA168
...a trial by jury must similarly be substantive in nature." Garcia, 200 Colo. at 415, 615 P.2d at 699-700 (quoting Hardamon v. Municipal Court, 178 Colo. 271, 497 P.2d 1000 (1972)) (emphasis added). This language was followed in Cisneros wherein the court of appeals ruled that defendants have......
-
City of Aurora by and on Behalf of People of State of Colo. v. Erwin, 82-1317
...provision embodies a "substantive right." Garcia v. People, 200 Colo. 413, 615 P.2d 698, 699-700 (1980); Hardamon v. Municipal Court, 178 Colo. 271, 497 P.2d 1000, 1002-03 (1972). By describing the right as "substantive," the court apparently contemplates that the right has nonprocedural at......
-
Section 16 CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS - RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT.
...(1970). There is no federal or state constitutional right to a jury trial in cases involving petty offenses. Hardamon v. Municipal Court, 178 Colo. 271, 497 P.2d 1000 (1972). But such right could be granted by general assembly. Either the general assembly, on a statewide basis, or the legis......
-
Decriminalization of Municipal Offenses in Colorado
...(Colo. 1925); Huston v. Wadsworth, 5 Colo. 213 (1880); Gibson v. Angros, 491 P.2d 87 (Colo. App. 1971). 31. Hardamon v. Municipal Court, 497 P.2d 1000 (1971). 32. Brown, supra, note 2. 33. See, CRS § 42-4-1505.3(3) and Rules 7(c)(6) and 12(a), Colorado Rules for Traffic Infractions. 34. Sup......
-
The Right to a Jury Trial in Petty Offense Cases
...363 P.3d 790 (Colo.App. 2015). [2] See CRS §§ 13-10-114 and 16-10-109(1); Colo. Mun. Court Rule 223(a); Hardamon v. Municipal Court, 497 P.2d 1000 (Colo. 1972). [3] Lafayette Rev. Mun. Code § 25-89. [4] The conditions include spaying or neutering the animal, implanting a microchip in the an......
-
Colorado's Municipal System
...13-10-114 and 16-10-109(1); Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Procedure ("C.M.C.R."), Rule 223(a). See also Hardamon v. Municipal Court, 497 P.2d 1000 1972). 18. CRS §§ 16-10-109(1) and 42-4-1707. 19. CRS § 16-10-109(1). 20. CRS §§ 13-10-114 (4) and 16-10-109(2); C.M.C.R. Rule 223(a). 21. 8......