State v. Bowers

498 N.W.2d 202, 1993 S.D. LEXIS 24, 1993 WL 83486

• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
• Decided: March 24, 1993
• Docket: 17562 through 17566
• Status: Published

Opinions

MILLER, Chief Justice

(on reassignment).

Appellants Kent Bowers, James Stiegel-meier, Kurt Bowers, Paul Dorr and Kathleen Ellenbecker brought appeals in circuit court challenging their magistrate court convictions and sentences which arose out of their participation in an anti-abortion protest.¹ The circuit court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences imposed. We affirm the circuit court.

FACTS

On April 12, 1990, a large group of people, which included appellants, gathered at the Women’s Medical Clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to protest against abortions taking place there and to dissuade patients from entering the clinic to obtain an abortion. Prior to this protest, the organizers had met with police in hopes of keeping their protest peaceful. The protest consisted of praying, singing and reading the bible. The protestors congregated on the parking lot and lawn of the clinic and blocked the south and east doors into the clinic. Although the protestors made no threats and induced no violence, they obstructed at least one person’s access to the clinic.

The police were called to the clinic. Anticipating a violent protest, they called in seventy-seven officers, including twenty-one off-duty officers, some of whom were detailed to various areas to put up a yellow barrier tape which read “Police Line Do Not Cross.” An officer, using a bull horn to amplify his voice, read a statement to the protestors ordering them to leave the clinic’s property. This statement was also read to those who were congregated at the clinic’s doors, whereupon the protestors left the clinic’s property and gathered on the sidewalk. An officer then read a warning, in all of the areas where the protestors were congregated, to stay off the clinic property and to not cross the police line. This warning was read from various sites on the property at least eighteen times. Despite the numerous warnings, protestors crossed the police barrier to go back onto clinic property and to resume blocking the south and east doors of the clinic. The police then began to arrest protestors. An officer read another statement telling the people congregated at the east door to disperse or risk being arrested.

The police, as a result of their foresight and planning, implemented newly developed methods and procedures for arresting and identifying arrestees who might refuse to identify themselves: An officer making an arrest put his badge number and a sequential arrest number on a card which was videotaped with the person being ar-. rested; another officer videotaped the person’ from the time of the arrest until that person was taken to a waiting bus which the police had rented; at the bus, the sequential arrest number was written on the arrested person’s hand; and finally, a still photograph was taken of each person before they were loaded on the bus. Fifty-eight people, including appellants, were arrested in this manner.

The arrested protestors were charged with one count of unlawful occupancy of property in violation of SDCL 22-35-6² and one count of disorderly assembly in violation of Rev.Ord.City of Sioux Falls § 26-27.³ The protestors requested jury trials and permission to present the defense of justification by necessity. The magistrate judge denied the motions for jury trials, assuring the protestors that he would impose no jail sentences in the event they were found guilty. The motion to present the defense of justification was also denied, although the magistrate judge did allow an extended offer of proof. Pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the cases were joined for trial. The protestors were found guilty on both counts. The magistrate judge then imposed fines and jail sentences which included seven to fourteen days jail time which was suspended on the condition of no like offenses for one year.

Separate notices of appeal were filed with the circuit court which were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument. The circuit judge affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences imposed by deleting the suspended jail time. This appeal followed.

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE COURT’S RULING THAT APPELLANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL.

The United States Constitution provides in part: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed[.]” U.S. Const. amend. VI. This right, however, does not extend to crimes which carry a possible jail penalty of only six months’ imprisonment. Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 69, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 1888, 26 L.Ed.2d 437, 440 (1970).

The South Dakota Constitution provides in part: “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to ... a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.” S.D. Const. art. VI, § 7; SDCL 23A-16-3.

In State v. Wikle, 291 N.W.2d 792 (S.D.1980), this court explained that the right to a jury trial extends to a criminal prosecution for which there could be imposed “a direct penalty of incarceration for any period of time[.]” Id. at 794. In 1984, this court modified Wikle when we held “a court may deny a jury trial request in a criminal prosecution when the court assures the defendant at the time of request that no jail sentence will be imposed. This is, of course, limited to prosecution of offenses with maximum authorized jail sentences of less than six months.”⁴ State v. Auen, 342 N.W.2d 236, 238 (S.D.1984). Appellants argue that the magistrate judge erred because the sentences imposed on them are beyond the scope of Auen.

Violators of either the state law, a Class 2 misdemeanor, or the municipal ordinance here at issue could, at the time of the alleged offenses, be punished by a maximum of thirty days in a county jail, a $100 fine, or both. When the magistrate judge was presented with the requests for jury trials, he noted that although he has granted jury trials in petty theft cases, he would not grant appellants jury trials. The magistrate judge assured appellants he would impose no jail sentences in the event they were found guilty. Nevertheless, after the trial the magistrate judge imposed suspended jail sentences as well as fines. The magistrate judge then placed appellants on probation for one year.

Appeal was then taken to the circuit court. “The circuit courts have such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law.” S.D. Const, art. V, § 5. The appellate jurisdiction of the circuit courts extend to “appeals from all final judgments, decrees or orders of all courts of limited jurisdiction, inferior officers or tribunals, in the cases prescribed by statute.” SDCL 16-6-10. Further, unless “denied by law there shall be a right of appeal to the circuit court from any final order or judgment of the magistrate court and such appeal shall be- taken in the manner prescribed by law or rule for appeals to the circuit court.” SDCL 16-12A-27. Where, as here, “an appeal is taken to the circuit court from a judgment rendered in a magistrate court with a law-trained magistrate presiding, the circuit may review all matters appearing in the record relevant to the question of whether the judgment appealed from is erroneous; the circuit court may affirm, reverse, remand, or modify the judgment.” SDCL 15-38-38.

On appeal, the circuit court noted that as the magistrate court “denied the jury trial upon this assurance [of no jail sentence], a final judgment entered imposing a suspended seven days in the county jail was contrary to the assurance of the court.” The circuit court then modified the sentences imposed and deleted the portions of the judgments which imposed jail time. We agree with the circuit court judge that the magistrate judge improperly imposed a one-year probation with suspended jail sentences.

Appellants argue that the deletion of the suspended jail time did not cure the magistrate judge’s error. “A court may correct an illegal sentence at any time[.]” SDCL 23A-31-1. The circuit court merely conformed the sentences received to that of the assurance of the magistrate judge’s pretrial statement. The circuit court’s subsequent judgment cured the magistrate judge’s improper sentencing.

We note further that appellants were not denied their Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by being placed on probation for one year. No jail sentence remains which can be imposed on appellants even in the event that their suspended sentences are revoked. Of that part of the sentence which remained after the circuit court’s judgment, not “one day of the defendant’s freedom was involved ... but only his pocketbook[.]” Wikle, 291 N.W.2d at 795 (Henderson, J., concurring specially). Appellants were not improperly denied a jury trial.

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE MAGISTRATE COURT’S RULING THAT APPELLANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEFENSE OF JUSTIFICATION BY NECESSITY.

The defense of necessity is an affirmative defense which requires the defendant to present credible evidence in its support prior to its submission to the trier of fact. State v. Rome, 452 N.W.2d 790 (S.D.1990) (Rome II); SDCL 22-1-2(3). Appellants were denied this defense but were allowed to make an extended offer of proof. Appellants assert it was error to be denied this defense. As we have previously discussed, this defense is properly raised

when the offered evidence, if believed by the jury, would support a finding by them that the offense ... was justified by a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm so imminent or emergent that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence, and morality, the desirability of avoiding the injury outweighs the desirability of avoiding the public injury arising from the offense eommitted[.]

State v. Boettcher, 443 N.W.2d 1, 2 (S.D.1989) (emphasis omitted) (citing State v. Miller, 313 N.W.2d 460, 462 (S.D.1981)).

The necessity defense is a limited defense which has been expressed in terms of a “choice of evils.” City of St. Louis v. Klocker, 637 S.W.2d 174, 175 (Mo.Ct.App.1982). While one may argue whether abortion is a moral “evil” or not, it is beyond peradventure that abortion is legal. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). Abortion has been a constitutionally protected right in South Dakota since State v. Munson, 86 S.D. 663, 201 N.W.2d 123 (1972), was vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Roe v. Wade, by the United States Supreme Court in Munson v. South Dakota, 410 U.S. 950, 93 S.Ct. 1416, 35 L.Ed.2d 683 (1973). See State v. Munson, 87 S.D. 245, 206 N.W.2d 434 (1973). The abortion procedure is also a lawful activity. As such, appellants were not presented with a choice of evils. They were not engaged in conduct which would have prevented an unlawful force or activity. Rather, they acted unlawfully to prevent the happening of a lawful activity.

A person may not be convicted of a crime based upon conduct in which he engaged because of the use or threatened use of unlawful force upon him or upon another person, which force or threatened use thereof a reasonable person in his situation would have been lawfully unable to resist.

SDCL 22-5-1 (emphasis added); State v. Rome, 426 N.W.2d 19, 21 (S.D.1988) (Rome I): An unlawful activity cannot be used to justify the prevention of a lawful activity. We therefore affirm the ruling which denied appellants the defense of justification by necessity.⁵

Appellants also assert that the magistrate judge erred when he denied their motion for acquittal at the close of the city and the state’s case. This assertion is without merit. State v. Esslinger, 357 N.W.2d 525, 533 (S.D.1984). The evidence clearly establishes appellants were arrested while in the process of committing the offenses charged.

Affirmed.

WUEST and AMUNDSON, JJ„ and HERTZ, Circuit Judge, concur. HENDERSON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. HERTZ, Circuit Judge, sitting for SABERS, J., disqualified.

1 . It appears that not all of those found guilty by the magistrate judge appealed to the circuit court, and only these five defendants appeal to this court.

2 . SDCL 22-35-6 reads in part: "Any person who, knowing that he is not privileged to do so, enters or remains in any place where notice against trespass is given ... is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor[.]” A Class 2 misdemeanor at the time of the alleged offenses was punishable by a maximum of thirty days in a county jail, a $100 fine, or both. SDCL 22-6-2. In 1991, the maximum fine was increased to $200.

3 . This ordinance provides a definition of “disorderly assembly” and outlines the authority of the police department to disperse- such persons. The statute further provides definitions of certain terms. A violation of this ordinance is punishable by a maximum of thirty days in the county jail, a $100 fine, or both.

4 . In part, SDCL 23-1A-17 recites: "A jury trial may not be granted for petty offenses, but conduct for the trial of a petty offense shall otherwise be governed by the rules of civil procedure.” There is no statutory definition of “petty offenses." This court, however, discussed the distinctions between petty and more serious offenses in Wikle, 291 N.W.2d 792.

5 . In holding as we do today, we join a long list of jurisdictions which have rejected the defense of justification by necessity to justify illegal activity directed at a locale where the lawful activity of abortion is engaged in. Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage, 631 P.2d 1073 (Alaska 1981); Gaetano v. United States, 406 A.2d 1291 (D.C.1979); People v. Stiso, 416 N.E.2d 1209 (Ill.App.Ct.1981); People v. Krizka, 92 Ill.App.3d 288, 48 Ill.Dec. 141, 416 N.E.2d 36 (1980); Sigma Reproductive Health Center v. State, 297 Md. 660, 467 A.2d 483 (1983); State v. O'Brien, 784 S.W.2d 187 (Mo.Ct.App.1989); City of St. Louis v. Klocker, 637 S.W.2d 174 (Mo.Ct.App.1982); People v. Crowley, 142 Misc.2d 663, 538 N.Y.S.2d 146 (N.Y.Just.Ct.1989); State v. Sahr, 470 N.W.2d 185 (N.D.1991); State v. Clowes, 310 Or. 686, 801 P.2d 789 (1990).