State v. Hughes

• Decision Date: 19 December 1930
• Docket Number: No. 28244.,28244.
• Citation: 233 N.W. 874,182 Minn. 144
• Parties: STATE v. HUGHES.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

233 N.W. 874

182 Minn. 144

STATE v. HUGHES.

No. 28244.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 19, 1930.

Appeal from Municipal Court of St. Paul; Clayton Parks, Judge.

E. J. Hughes was convicted of violating an ordinance by driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Harry P. Churchill, of St. Paul, for appellant.

Eugene O'Neill and Edwin Murphy, both of St. Paul, for the State.

Clifford W. Gardner, of St. Paul, amicus curiæ.

HILTON, J.

Defendant was charged in municipal court with having violated section 3 of Ordinance No. 6856 of the city of St. Paul by driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was convicted, given a 90-day sentence, and appeals from the judgment.

Defendant appeared specially and objected to the jurisdiction of the court. He sufficiently protected the record so that the question is properly before us. The evidence amply sustained the conviction.

Defendant's claim is that the ordinance is void and of no effect. This position is based upon four grounds: (1) That the ordinance is in conflict with Laws of 1927, c. 412; (2) that the subject-matter of the ordinance is not a local affair; (3) that the ordinance is violative of article 4, section 36, of the Constitution of Minnesota (no local charter provision or ordinance passed thereunder shall supersede any general law of the state, defining or punishing crimes or misdemeanors); (4) that the ordinance violates article 1, section 7, of the state Constitution (no person, for the same offense, shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment).

The provision of the ordinance in question reads:

"No person, whether licensed or not, who is an habitual user of narcotics, or who is under the influence of intoxicating liquors or narcotics, shall drive any vehicle upon any highway."

Laws of 1927, c. 412, § 2, is in the identical language.

Section 103 of the ordinance makes the offense a misdemeanor and fixes the punishment upon conviction as a fine not exceeding $100 or imprisonment not exceeding 90 days. A violation of the statutory provision (section 2, supra) is made a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not less than 10 days or more than a year and in addition thereto by a fine of not more than $1,000.

In section 61 of chapter 412, Laws of 1927, provision was also made for the revocation of chauffeurs' licenses and prohibiting others convicted of the offense from driving motor cars.

The important question to consider is the soundness of defendant's first ground. If that is determined adversely to him, the others are without merit. Generally speaking, a conviction under a municipal ordinance constitutes no bar to a conviction for the same act under a statute. State v. Lee, 29 Minn. 445, 13 N. W. 913; State v. Anderson, 165 Minn. 150, 206 N. W. 51.

Due to the intolerable conditions existing because of the action of some of the smaller municipalities, Laws of 1911, c. 365, § 18, was enacted. Exactly the same provision is found in Laws of 1925, c. 416, § 26, and reads:

"No city, town, village or other municipality shall make or pass any ordinance, rule or regulation limiting or restricting the speed of motor vehicles, and no ordinance, rule or regulation heretofore or hereafter made by any city, town, village or other municipality in respect of or limiting the use or speed of motor vehicles shall have any force, effect or validity. * * *"

The scope and...