State v. Anton

• Decision Date: 14 July 1983
• Citation: 463 A.2d 703
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Charles L. ANTON and Joseph A. Sylvester.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 703

463 A.2d 703

STATE of Maine v. Charles L. ANTON and Joseph A. Sylvester.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Jan. 11, 1983.

Decided July 14, 1983.

Wayne S. Moss, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Augusta, for plaintiff.

Becker & Olmsted, P.A., Peter J. Becker (orally), Bridgton, Jeffrey Pickering, Naples, for defendants.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and GODFREY, ROBERTS, CARTER, ^* VIOLETTE and WATHEN, JJ.

GODFREY, Justice.

Two cases have been consolidated for disposition on this appeal. ¹ In each case, the defendant was charged in District Court with having committed the "traffic infraction" of exceeding the speed limit in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1251 (Supp.1982). ² Each defendant moved the District Court to transfer his case to Superior Court for trial by jury. ³ In each case, the District Court denied the motion, decided that the defendant had committed the traffic infraction, and imposed a fine. ⁴

Each defendant then appealed to Superior Court contending he was guaranteed a right to trial by jury under either article I, section 6 ⁵ or ARTICLE I, SECTION 20 OF THE MAINE CONSTITUTION⁶. In Sylvester's case, the Superior Court, Cumberland County, affirmed the judgment of the District Court. From that decision Sylvester appeals. In Anton's case, the Superior Court, York County, reaching the opposite result, "reversed" the District Court judgment and ordered that the case remain "on the civil docket of the Superior Court for further proceedings." From that decision the state appeals. Both cases present the same issue on appeal: whether a defendant has a constitutional right to a trial by jury for an alleged traffic infraction in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1251. ⁷ Holding that the defendants do not have that right, we affirm the judgment against Sylvester and reverse the judgment of the Superior Court in favor of Anton.

I.

Before 1975, violations of section 1251 were punishable by a fine of not less than $10 or more than $100, or by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or by both. Because a defendant was potentially subject to such penalties, this Court decided in State v. Inman, 301 A.2d 348, 353-54 (Me.1973), that the offense could be properly labeled criminal. A year later, in State v. Sklar, 317 A.2d 160 (Me.1974), we held that article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution guaranteed the right to a trial by jury to a defendant charged with a violation of section 1251 notwithstanding that such a violation was only a petty crime. In doing so, we stated that "the Constitution of the State of Maine in article I, section 6 guarantees the right of jury trial in 'all criminal prosecutions' in the most literal and comprehensive sense of the word, 'all.' " Sklar, 317 A.2d at 165.

In 1975, the Maine legislature enacted a classification of violations entitled "traffic infractions." 29 M.R.S.A. § 1(17-C) (1978). Section 1(17-C) expressly declares that traffic infractions are civil violations and that there is no right to a trial by jury. ⁸ The Maine District Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all "prosecutions" for traffic infractions. 29 M.R.S.A. § 2302 (Supp.1982). The Supreme Judicial Court adopted special procedures in the District Court Civil Rules designed to simplify traffic infraction proceedings. M.D.C.Civ.R. 80F; State v. Meyer, 423 A.2d 955, 956 n. 1 (Me.1980). Since the 1975 revision of the motor vehicle law, a traffic infraction in violation of section 1251 has been reclassified as civil rather than criminal.

The first issue raised by defendants is whether a traffic infraction in violation of section 1251 has been so effectively decriminalized that the right to trial by jury guaranteed in all criminal prosecutions by article I, section 6 does not apply. We hold that it has been effectively decriminalized.

Whether an offense defined by statute is civil or criminal is primarily a matter of statutory construction. See United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248, 100 S.Ct. 2636, 2641, 65 L.Ed.2d 742 (1980). The Maine legislation has clearly expressed the purpose of making a minor traffic offense in violation of section 1251 a civil infraction, and that expression of purpose is entitled to substantial weight. See Ward, 448 U.S. at 249, 100 S.Ct. at 2641; Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 617, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 1376, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960); In re Garay, 89 N.J. 104, 112, 444 A.2d 1107, 1111 (1982). That purpose may not be achieved, however, by a mere change in the label of the offense. ⁹ The statutory scheme must be analyzed to determine whether it is "so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate that intention" with regard to the constitutional protection at issue. Ward, 448 U.S. at 249, 100 S.Ct. at 2641; see also In re Garay, 89 N.J. at 111-12, 444 A.2d at 1111; State v. Schulz, 100 Wis.2d 329, 330, 302 N.W.2d 59, 60 (Wis.Ct.App.1981).

Several factors have been used to determine whether the purpose or effect of a civil penalty proceeding is so punitive as to render it a criminal prosecution for purposes of applying constitutionally guaranteed protections. See Brown v. Multnomah County District Court, 280 Or. 95, 570 P.2d 52 (1977); Nickelson v. People, 607 P.2d 904 (Wyo.1980). ¹⁰ The following factors, set forth in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69, 83 S.Ct. 554, 567-68, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963), exemplify some of the considerations used by courts to resolve issues similar to the one now before us:

Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment, whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment--retribution and deterrence, whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned are all relevant to the inquiry, and may often point in differing directions. (Notecalls omitted).

This list does not exhaust all the factors relied on by the courts, which have examined also the nature of the conduct, whether adverse collateral consequences may arise, and whether there exists the possibility of pretrial arrest and detention. See Brown, 280 Or. at 101-08, 570 P.2d at 57-60; Nickelson, 607 P.2d at 909. Usually no single one of the relevant factors can be applied to resolve the issue conclusively.

Although not alone decisive, the degree of severity of the penalty is important. See Brown 280 Or. at 103, 570 P.2d at 57; Nickelson, 607 P.2d at 909. In theory, a criminal sanction serves to "punish" an individual for violating a legal norm, while civil sanctions serve to coerce, regulate or compensate. Clark, supra n. 10, at 429-32, 475. Imprisonment may not be imposed as a sanction for a civil offense. Brown, 280 Or. at 103, 570 P.2d at 57; Nickelson, 607 P.2d at 909; Perkins, The Civil Offense, 100 U.Pa.L.Rev. 832, 846 (1952). Imprisonment is not a sanction for violation of a "traffic infraction" under section 1251. Even so, other sanctions must be examined, for they may be so severe as to render the statute penal in nature. Ward, 448 U.S. at 249, 100 S.Ct. at 2641. Brown, 280 Or. at 104, 570 P.2d at 57; Nickelson, 607 P.2d at 909.

Possible sanctions for a traffic infraction in violation of section 1251 are a $250 fine, 29 M.R.S.A. § 2303(1) (1978), and a temporary suspension of defendant's driver's license, 29 M.R.S.A. § 2305 (Supp.1982). The District Court is authorized to impose a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $250. The amount of the potential fine is not "so unreasonable or excessive that it transformed what was clearly intended to be a civil penalty into a criminal penalty." Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 148, 154, 76 S.Ct. 219, 222, 100 L.Ed. 149 (1956). Defendants do not challenge the fine as being punitive on that ground; rather, they argue that the fine is unrelated to any actual damage to the state and must therefore be considered punitive. Monetary fines that are reasonable in the circumstances have been deemed civil in nature on the ground that they have a remedial rather than punitive purpose. See Ward, 448 U.S. at 256, 100 S.Ct. at 2645 (Blackmun, J. concurring); One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232, 236, 93 S.Ct. 489, 492, 34 L.Ed.2d 438 (1972); Rex Trailer Co., 350 U.S. 148, 76 S.Ct. 219, 100 L.Ed. 149; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 63 S.Ct. 379, 87 L.Ed. 443 (1943); Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 58 S.Ct. 630, 82 L.Ed. 917 (1938); Scott v. Association for Childbirth at Home, 88 Ill.2d 279, 288, 58 Ill.Dec. 761, 766, 430 N.E.2d 1012, 1017 (1982); In re Garay, 89 N.J. at 114, 444 A.2d at 1112; State v. Western Capital Corporation, 290 N.W.2d 467, 473 (S.D.1980). In effect, the fine serves as a form of damages for the state's enforcement costs. It is irrelevant for characterizing the proceeding as civil or criminal that the state neither alleges nor proves the amount of its actual costs or damages. Rex Trailer Co., 350 U.S. at 152, 76 S.Ct. at 221; In re Garay, 89 N.J. at 114, 444 A.2d at 1112.

In addition to or instead of imposing the fine, the District Court also has the authority to suspend a defendant's license temporarily. 29 M.R.S.A. § 2305. ¹¹ The possibility of direct or collateral ¹² suspension of an operator's license does not tend to make the offense criminal if it is not imposed to punish the individual but reflects a judgment that the violator should not continue to drive. Brown, 280 Or. at 108, 570 P.2d at 58. A proceeding to revoke a driver's license is a reasonable regulatory measure to protect public safety. See State v. Carlisle, 20 N.C.App. 358, 201 S.E.2d 704, 706, aff'd, 285 N.C. 229, 204 S.E.2d 15 (1974); see also Brown, 280 Or. at 105, 570 P.2d at 58; Schulz, 100 Wis.2d at 331, 302 N.W.2d at 61; Clark, supra n. 10, at 475. In...