CITY OF CAMDEN v. BRASSELL
4/21/1997
a vehicle upon a
roadway. The offense "driving while under the influence
of intoxicants" is a violation of a law regulating the
operation of a vehicle upon a roadway. Thus, "driving
while under the influence" is a traffic offense.
By case and by rule we have referred to the term
"traffic offense" as including the offense of
In a case comparable to the one now before us, the
Supreme Court of North Dakota held, as we now do,
that driving while under the influence was a "traffic
offense" as described by statute, and that juvenile
court did not have jurisdiction. The Juvenile Code
provision there was the same as ours. In Interest of
B.L., 301 N.W.2d 387 (N.D. 1981). . . . In summation,
many courts have referred to the offense of driving
while under the influence of intoxicants as a traffic
offense, and two have expressly so held.
Accordingly, we hold that the offense of driving
while under the influence of intoxicants is a "traffic
offense," and that under our Juvenile Code the
municipal court has jurisdiction to hear such cases.
The writ is accordingly denied.
Robinson, 786 S.W.2d at 573.
The Arkansas Supreme Court revisited the issue in State v. J.B., 827 S.W.2d 144 (Ark. 1992), and held:
This case turns on the jurisdictional point, which is
whether the juvenile court has jurisdiction to hear DWI
cases. The answer to that question is clear. The
Juvenile Code defines a delinquent juvenile as "any
juvenile ten (10) years or older who has committed an
act other than a traffic offense or game and fish
violation which, if such act had been committed by an
adult, would subject such adult to prosecution for a
felony, misdemeanor, or violation under the applicable
criminal laws of this state." Ark. Code Ann. §
9-27-303(11) (Supp. 1989). There is no doubt that DWI
is a traffic offense with jurisdiction resting in
municipal court rather than juvenile court. See
Robinson v. Sutterfield, 302 Ark. 7, 786 S.W.2d 572
(1990).
State v. J.B., 827 S.W.2d at 145. (emphasis added).
Elucidating the issue with clarity, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, in Fanshier v. City of Oklahoma City, 620 P.2d 1347 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980), concluded:
The question before us is whether a municipal D.U.I.
ordinance, which provides for a fine and/or
imprisonment is an offense which should be transferred
from the municipal court of record to the Juvenile
Division of the District Court.
In considering the question of jurisdiction, we stated
that the ordinance was traffic in nature; that a
municipal court of record does not have jurisdiction to
sentence juveniles to incarceration for violation of
municipal traffic ordinances; and that the juvenile was
properly within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
This conclusion was deduced after reviewing the concurrent jurisdiction provision of Title 10 O.S. Supp. 1974, § 1112(a):
In general, a child charged with having violated any
state statute or municipal ordinance shall be tried
in the juvenile division of the District Court rather
than in a criminal action. The criminal division of
the district court and the municipal court are free
to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the juvenile
division in cases wherein children are charged with
violations of state or municipal traffic laws or
ordinances. [Emphasis ours] (emphasis in original).
Although Mook v. City of Tulsa, supra, dealt with a
reckless driving ordinance, we find the reasoning
Page 1 2 3 4 South Carolina DUI Attorneys