Rogers v. State
| Decision Date | 20 May 1912 |
| Docket Number | 15813 |
| Citation | 101 Miss. 847,58 So. 536 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILL RODGERS v. STATE |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Forrest county, HON. PAUL B JOHNSON Judge.
Will Rodgers was convicted in the circuit court and appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Affirmed. Suggestion of error filed and overruled.
J. R Tally, for appellant.
We submit that the state had the right to elect in the outset into which forum it would go with the prosecution of this misdemeanor, and that it exercised that right and began the prosecution in the justice court, the justice court and the circuit court both having concurrent jurisdiction, and having elected to go into the justice court, the defendant then had a right to demand that he be either convicted or acquitted in that court; and that after the state had brought him to trial there, the state had no right to play with the jurisdiction of that court as merely using it as a post to hitch the defendant to until it got ready to try him in the circuit court; and that the state cannot be permitted to play his game of hide and seek as to jurisdiction at its pleasure regardless of the rights of defendant. We submit that inasmuch as the state elected to begin this prosecution in the justice court it had no right through the same officers to go into the circuit court and institute another prosecution for the same offense, and then simply kick the defendant out of the justice court where he had a right to contend for his rights and bring him over to the other court because the state, as a matter of convenience, or for some other reason, decided to go into that court. We submit that if the state can use the justice court jurisdiction merely as a hole to drive the citizens into until they can get ready to march them over to some other court, it turns loose upon the people an arm of oppression that the law never contemplated.
And we submit that this court held in the case of Neely v State, 56 So. 377, that when one court with concurrent jurisdiction with another has acquired jurisdiction that it is the duty of the second court acquiring jurisdiction to discontinue and let the court having the first jurisdiction try the case; and we think that the language of the court in that case condemns the proceedings followed in this case, and that for that error alone this case ought to be reversed and remanded as the circuit court did not acquire jurisdiction by the procedure here discussed.
This court in the case of Smith v. State, 86 Miss. 316 the court said: And we submit that this is the law when a justice of the peace having once acquired jurisdiction of a misdemeanor is bound under the law to convict him or acquit the defendant upon the merits of said cause, that the county or the district attorney has no right to play the game that was played in this case. We are willing to concede the state a great many rights, but the state has no right to simply run over the rights of individuals guaranteed by law simply for the amusement of the great state and the large officers who may happen to be appointed or elected to represent it among the people.
Claude Clayton, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
From a careful reading of the decisions of this court the first enunciation upon this principle of law is found in the case of Smithey v. State, 93 Miss. 257. But, it will be observed that in that case there had been by the justice court an actual conviction of the party, and that he had actually paid his fine at a time when an affidavit had been returned against him by the circuit court of Union county, Mississippi. And this case is to be distinguished from the case of Smithey, supra, which will be observed from a reading of the record in the case at bar, and the report of the Smithey case. Therefore, if they are dissimilar and involve different principles of law, no application can follow.
In the case of Neely v. State, the same being a recent case of this court, the Smithey case was followed. But it will be observed that that case also is not in point.
I concede every right given to appellant by the fundamental principles of our law, and also the statutory enactment therein; yet, at the same time, it is impossible for me to conceive why a dismissal of this case, by a justice of the peace, could be availed of by the appellant to shield himself from bearing the just penalties of the violation of the laws of this state.
As to whether or not appellant sold the intoxicating liquors in question, that is a question of fact and was properly submitted to the jury. They have decided it in the affirmative. No right was denied him and the giving up of the right to jurisdiction in the matter by the justice court, did not in the least prohibit the exercise of the jurisdiction of the circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clayton
...nolle prosequi, and that thereafter another prosecution may be carried on in another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. Rodgers v. State (1911) 101 Miss. 847, 58 So. 536; Chandler v. State (1925) 140 Miss. 524, 106 So. 265 (recognizing rule; dismissal entered by justice of peace in vacation......
-
Simmons v. State
...factual scenario, this Court has run down a parallel track and paradoxically come to the opposite conclusion In Rogers v. State, 101 Miss. 847, 58 So. 536 (1912), an affidavit was filed against the defendant in justice court charging him with a liquor law violation. Thereafter he was indict......
- Bottom v. State
-
Milling v. State
...complain, nor did he complain so far as the record discloses until he had again been indicted in the circuit court. As was said in the Rodgers case, supra, the reason the rule which renders it proper where concurrent jurisdiction is vested in two courts that the court first acquiring jurisd......