Williams v. Pierson
| Decision Date | 13 November 1945 |
| Citation | 301 Ky. 302,191 S.W.2d 574 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. PIERSON. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Muhlenberg County; Clarence Bartlett Judge.
Action by R. L. Pierson against W. B. Williams for writ of prohibition to prevent defendant Williams, a police judge of Drakesboro from proceeding under a judgment wherein defendant found plaintiff guilty of driving automobile while intoxicated. From a judgment ruling that the judgment of conviction was void, defendant Williams appeals.
Reversed with directions.
T. O. Jones, of Greenville, for appellant.
Arthur T. Iler, of Central City, for appellee.
R. L Pierson was arrested by the marshal of the town of Drakesboro, Muhlenberg County, who had a search warrant for his automobile. The arrest was made outside the corporate limits of the town, after the marshal had trailed Pierson through the town and past his home. Being of the opinion that Pierson was drunk, and had violated the law by driving through Drakesboro in that condition, the marshal put him under arrest and took him before W. B. Williams, the appellant in this action, who is the police judge of Drakesboro, where a charge of operating an automobile while intoxicated was made against him. The judge was of the opinion that Pierson was too drunk to be tried when he was first brought before him or released on bond, so he committed him to jail. Late in the afternoon he was brought before the judge and the warrant was read to him. He requested that the trial be continued until the next day so he could get his witnesses. According to the testimony for the judge in this action, Pierson said he did not want his witnesses subpoenaed, but would bring them with him. Pierson's automobile was left as surety for his appearance at the trial. At the time set for the trial Pierson appeared before the judge and said he wanted the trial put off and that he wanted his witnesses summoned. The judge proceeded to try Pierson without a jury, though Pierson told him he wanted one. His punishment was fixed at a fine of $100, and judgment was entered accordingly. The automobile remained in the hands of the officers as surety for the payment of the fine and costs. A few days thereafter Pierson instituted this action in the Muhlenberg circuit court in which he sought a writ of prohibition to prevent Williams from proceeding under the judgment, and to have his automobile delivered to him. The judge of the circuit court ruled that the judgment was void, because the police judge refused to grant Pierson a trial by jury.
Williams is now challenging the correctness of that ruling. We think his position is well taken. KRS 26.400 provides that the use of a jury in criminal cases in the police court in a city of the fifth class, of which Drakesboro is one, shall be governed by section 319 of the Criminal Code of Practice. That Code provision follows: 'The issues of law and fact shall be tried by the judge, in all cases in which the only punishment is a fine of sixteen dollars or less; in other cases the defendant may demand that issues of fact be tried by a jury.'
The police judge had jurisdiction of both the subject matter and the person, and he had a right to try Pierson on the misdemeanor charge without the intervention of a jury, if Pierson did not demand such a trial. It was his view, because Pierson said nothing about a jury trial when he was released from jail on the day he was arrested, that he had waived such a trial. In this we think he was in error, since Pierson had a right to demand that the issues of fact be tried by a jury. Even if he had waived one on the day he was released from jail, he still had a right to demand such a trial before the proceeding was actually begun. But the question is, Did refusal of the police judge to grant Pierson a trial by jury make his judgment of conviction void or only erroneous?
The case of City of Mt. Sterling v. Holly, 108 Ky. 621 57 S.W. 491, 492, disposes of the question as to whether or not Pierson was entitled to a jury trial as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Hoblitzell
...for a jury trial. Failure to demand a jury trial waives the right to it. Garner v. Shouse, 292 Ky. 798, 168 S.W.2d 42; Williams v. Pierson, 301 Ky. 302, 191 S.W.2d 574. It is error for the court to impose more than the minimum penalty on a plea of guilty without the defendant having had the......
-
Stewart v. Taustine
...made, the court's denial of such motion is improper, and the judgment rendered against the defendant is erroneous. Williams v. Pierson, 301 Ky. 302, 191 S.W.2d 574. Consequently, the refusal of this respondent to order a jury trial was improper and, although within his jurisdiction, was err......
- Williams v. Pierson