Paley v. State
| Decision Date | 25 September 1947 |
| Docket Number | 22 |
| Citation | 44 Del. 64,55 A.2d 279 |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
| Parties | GEORGE ERNEST PALEY, Defendant Below, v. THE STATE OF DELAWARE |
Daniel J. Layton for defendant below.
Daniel J. Layton, Jr., for the State.
OPINION
The record of the Justice of the Peace sets forth that on January 29, 1947, the defendant, Paley, was arraigned on a charge of violating a section of the Motor Vehicle Laws, that he pleaded guilty, was fined $ 100, and that he paid the fine and costs. Defendant has filed the following exception to the record:
"That it does not appear from the record that the Justice of the Peace advised the defendant of his right to take an appeal from the decision of said Justice of the Peace and to inform the defendant of the time and manner in which the appeal must be taken."
Defendant relies on a statute which imposes a duty on Justices of the Peace to inform parties of their rights of appeal, 41 Laws of Del., Chap. 208, p. 653, as follows:
In Baxter v. State, 39 Del. 223, 9 W. W. Hart. 223, 197 A 678, 681, an exception similar to the present, taken in a similar situation, was overruled. Defendant's counsel points out that it appears from the opinion that the court considered only whether the duty to inform is jurisdictional, decided that question in the negative, and overruled the exception for this reason. The court added that although failure of the docket to show any entry of the information given to the defendant does not render the judgment defective on certiorari proceedings, the duty to give appeal information exists and a justice's failure to comply with the statute "would constitute an omission of duty which may be considered in other appropriate proceedings." The proceedings alluded to doubtless include those which call for the exercise of the power and authority of the Superior Court "to examine, correct and punish the contempts, omissions, neglects, favors, corruptions and defaults of all justices of the peace" and other officers, under Rev. Code of Del., 1935 § 4275.
Defendant argues that the primary object in enacting the appeal information statute was to safeguard the rights of litigants and defendants in criminal proceedings; that the imposition of the duty upon Justices of the Peace creates a clear legal right in litigants and defendants; that punishing a Justice for an omission of this duty "is poor consolation to one who has suffered because of his ignorance of the law." Continuing, defendant contends that on certiorari, the court "may reverse a judgment not only for want of jurisdiction, but also for not proceeding in the manner the law directs", citing Bailey v. Luff, 2 Del. 292, 2 Harr. 292 note; 1 Woolley on Delaware Practice § 896, and other authorities; and that this aspect of the function of certiorari was not brought to the attention of the court in the Baxter case, nor considered by it. Defendant concludes that an entry on the record as directed by the appeal information statute is essential to a "perfect judgment" and that the absence of such an entry warrants a reversal of the judgment by analogy to the rule with respect to entries required by Rev. Code § 4514. Compare: 1 Woolley on Delaware Practice §§ 923-937.
If failure to comply with the statute has no other legal consequence than to make possible the punishment of the Justice for his omission or neglect, then from the standpoint of a party entitled to but not given the...
To continue reading
Request your trial