 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Broussard v. Watkins3/31/2004
does not deny a defendant due process. The City contends that North is inapposite because in Louisiana, a mayor's court magistrate must be a licensed attorney. In the City of Broussard, at the mayor's request, the board of aldermen are to appoint an attorney to serve as court magistrate. The magistrate is to preside over the mayor's court at the request of the mayor. Although the Broussard magistrate is an attorney, as suggested by the City, this court has found that an accused is, nevertheless, entitled to a trial de novo:
LSA-R.S. 33:441, which provides for the establishment of mayor's courts, provides in Subparagraph B that the board of aldermen may appoint an attorney, upon request of the mayor, who may serve in the stead of the mayor as magistrate of the mayor's court with all the power and authority of the mayor. This authority is specific in the case of the Town of Cottonport. LSA-R.S. 33:441.8. The case sub judice was heard by and acted upon by an attorney magistrate, so the magistrate was presumptively qualified to fulfill a judicial role. However, it is not required that a board of aldermen appoint an attorney. Therefore, a mayor acting as magistrate may possibly not have the legal training and qualifications one would have to have in order to accord accuseds who appear before the mayor's courts those constitutional rights to which they are entitled. This court in Broussard v. Town of Delcambre, 458 So.2d 1003 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984) found that no constitutional violations occur when an accused, subject to possible imprisonment, is tried before a non-lawyer magistrate when a later trial de novo is available. In order to give this principle full effect we conclude that it should apply to all criminal cases emanating from mayor's courts whether or not the magistrate is a trained attorney and regardless of whether the conviction and sentence resulted from trial or the entry of a plea of guilty.
State v. Fontenot, 535 So.2d 433, 438-39 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1988).
While we are cognizant that Fontenot involves a criminal case, for the same reasons espoused therein, the protection of the defendant's constitutional rights, we hold that a defendant in a civil proceeding in mayor's court is entitled to a trial de novo. Thus, this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
Watkins contends the district court erred in finding the City proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. He notes that the district court referred to incident reports and minutes of court, but did not refer to the actual trial transcript because a proper transcript was not prepared in the case. In light of our decision that the case be remanded for a trial de novo in the district court, this assignment of error is rendered moot.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ORDINANCE
Watkins contends the district court did not consider his motions concerning the constitutionality of Ordinance 144, noting that the judgment contains no discussions of this issue. We note that the district court's ruling does not mention the challenge to the constitutionality of the ordinance. We also note that there is no pleading challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance contained in the record before us.
In State v. Williams, 02-0898, 02-1030, p. 7 (La.10/15/02), 830 So.2d 984, 988, the supreme court stated:
The general rule established by this Court is that issues not submitted to the trial court for decision will not be considered by the appellate court on appeal. Constitutional issues are no exception. Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., 94-1238 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 859. This court has often cited Lemire v. New Orlean
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|