Riendeau v. Municipal Court of Milford

• Decision Date: 29 January 1962
• Citation: 177 A.2d 396,104 N.H. 33
• Parties: . Supreme Court of New Hampshire
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 396

177 A.2d 396

104 N.H. 33

Bruce G. RIENDEAU v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF MILFORD.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued Dec. 6, 1961.

Decided Jan. 29, 1962.

William D. Tribble, Jaffrey, for plaintiff.

Maurice J. Murphy, Jr., Atty. Gen., and William J. O'Neil, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

LAMPRON, Justice.

The main question to be decided is whether as a matter of right the defendant in a criminal proceeding in a municipal court can have issues of law determined by that court reviewed directly by the Supreme Court without recourse to the Superior Court.

RSA 502:24 reads as follows: 'Transfer to Supreme Court. In municipal courts located in cities and towns having a population of fifteen hundred or more, the finding of facts shall be final; but questions of law may be transferred to the supreme court in the same manner as from the superior court.' In State v. Deane, 101 N.H. 127, 135 A.2d 897, we decided that this court has jurisdiction under that statute to entertain the transfer of questions of law from a municipal court in a criminal case. At page 130, 135 A.2d at page 899 we said 'It is to be noted that in criminal cases the transfer under RSA 502:24 is discretionary with the municipal court and does not grant to the parties a right of transfer.' We are still of that opinion.

Plaintiff admits that RSA 599:1 grants him the right to appeal his sentence to the Superior Court. State v. Cook, 96 N.H 212, 214, 72 A.2d 778. However he maintains that this procedure imposes an undue financial burden on him as well as an unreasonable delay in a case like the present where the only issue is the determination of a legal question.

Article 14, Part I, of our Constitution which plaintiff claims is thus violated reads in part as follows: 'Every subject of this state is entitled to a certain remedy by having recourse to the laws * * * promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws.' Such a right is necessarily relative, and must be considered with regard to the practical administration of justice. See Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U.S. 77, 86, 87, 25 S.Ct. 573, 49 L.Ed. 950; Kyle v. United States, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 912, 914; Halcomb v. Eckle, 110 Ohio App. 208, 165 N.E.2d 479. A disposition of a case made according to the prevailing proceedings of law free from arbitrary, vexatious, and oppressive delays is considered to be in accordance with such a constitutional requirement. See Shepherd v. United States, 8 Cir., 163 F.2d 974, 976; Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 361, 77 S.Ct. 481, 1 L.Ed.2d 393; State v. Beckwith, 222 Ind. 618, 57 N.E.2d 193; 22 A C.J.S. Criminal Law §§ 466-467(4), pp. 18-30.

We are of the opinion that our present system by which a defendant aggrieved by a sentence in a municipal court can obtain a new trial in the Superior Court and transfer therefrom to this court all questions of law (unless the municipal court in its discretion has transferred such a question directly to this court) meets the requirements of our Constitution.

Plaintiff's arguments that where the sole issue is one of law there is no reason to further burden the docket of the...