State v. Stevens, 36724

• Decision Date: 29 March 1956
• Docket Number: No. 36724,36724
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Bernard STEVENS, Appellant.

Page 903

75 N.W.2d 903

247 Minn. 67

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Bernard STEVENS, Appellant.

No. 36724.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 29, 1956.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The evidence in the record reasonably sustains the finding of the municipal court that the defendant was guilty of violating the ordinance of the city of Minneapolis which prohibits the driving of an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

2. The legislature has the authority to confer summary jurisdiction upon justices of peace and police and municipal courts to try offenses against municipal ordinances where the penalty does not exceed a fine of $100 or an imprisonment of 90 days.

3. The violation of a municipal ordinance is properly punishable under our constitution and through the delegation of legislative power to municipalities by fine or by imprisonment, so that the municipal court of Minneapolis may, without violating any provisions of the Minnesota constitution, impose a workhouse sentence upon defendant without giving him an option of paying a fine.

Vennum, Newhall & Ackman and Daniel R. Hart, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Charles A. Sawyer, City Atty., Milton Gershin, Asst. City Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.

FRANK T. GALLAGHER, Justice.

Appeal from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis denying defendant's motion for a new trial, or in the alternative for amended findings of fact and a sentence of 'Not Guilty' or for the substitution of a fine instead of imprisonment as the sentence of the court.

Defendant was found guilty in the municipal court of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This is an offense under Minneapolis City Charter and Ordinances (Perm. ed.) 9:1--303.

Defendant raises as assignments of error on this appeal that the municipal court erred:

1. In denying defendant's motion for an amended finding of not guilty based upon the ground that the evidence did not support a finding of guilty.

2. In sentencing the defendant to 90 days in the workhouse without giving him the alternative of paying a fine of up to $100.

1. We will first decide the question of whether the evidence supported the finding of guilty. Defendant, while in the process of driving his truck out of a parking area behind the Pillsbury Annex in the city of Minneapolis, drove across a narrow alley into which the parking area driveway enters and ran the right side of his truck into the left corner of a garage on the edge of the alley. Both the garage and the truck were damaged. Defendant claims that, as he was making a turn from the parking area, some bushes pushed through the open window of the truck and slapped him in the face, causing him to veer off and strike the garage. There is conflicting testimony as to the exact time of the accident but it apparently occurred sometime between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. The police were not called until later and did not arrive at the scene until sometime between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. At the time the police arrived, defendant, by his own admission, was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. However, it is his claim that he was not in such a condition at the time of the accident but rather that he became intoxicated between the time of the accident and the time the police arrived at the scene.

The two policemen who were called to the scene of the accident were witnesses for the state. They testified that the defendant told them several times at the scene that he had eight to ten 'whiskeys' prior to the accident and that he also had two drinks after the accident. Defendant, on the other hand, brought in three witnesses whose testimony substantially corroborated his own, which was to the effect that he had consumed only one bottle of beer prior to the accident.

After reviewing the record, it is our opinion that the finding of the municipal court is reasonably sustained by the evidence and that, insofar as the sufficiency of the evidence is concerned, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. Ehmke v. Hill, 236 Minn. 60, 51 N.W.2d 811.

2--3. In connection with defendant's second assignment of error, our attention is called to Minn.Const. art. 1, § 2, M.S.A., which states that involuntary servitude may only be imposed for the 'punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.' It is the claim of the defendant that this section of our constitution precludes the imprisonment of defendant for the violation of a municipal ordinance without being given the alternative of paying a fine up to $100. In response to this claim the state contends that the violation of a municipal ordinance constitutes an offense against...