State v. Brown

Idaho Court of Appeals

State v. Brown

730 P.2d 1063, 112 Idaho 143, 1986 Ida. App. LEXIS 517

CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 29, 1986

DocketNo. 16378

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 730 P.2d 1063 (State v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brown, 730 P.2d 1063, 112 Idaho 143, 1986 Ida. App. LEXIS 517 (Idaho Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John Brown was cited for speeding in violation of I.C. § 49-681(2) an offense which is defined as an infraction. I.C. §§ 49-3401(3), 49-3406. He demanded a jury trial. The Idaho Traffic Infractions Act (ITIA) states that an infraction is a “public offense ... for which there is no right to a trial by jury____” I.C. § 49-3401(3). Accordingly, Brown’s trial was held before a magistrate who found that Brown had committed the infraction. The court assessed a small fine and court costs. Brown appealed to the district court and, losing there, has appealed again. He contends that the ITIA impermissibly deprives him of his constitutional right to a jury trial.

The Idaho Supreme Court recently addressed this identical issue in a detailed opinion involving similar facts. See State v. Bennion, 112 Idaho 32, 730 P.2d 952 (1986). The Supreme Court carefully reviewed the history, intent and scope of the constitutional guarantees of trial by jury. Against that background the Court examined the newly enacted ITIA. The Court focused upon the legislative intent to decriminalize certain traffic offenses and to avoid time-consuming and costly jury trials in such cases. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that because traffic infractions are not punishable by imprisonment or other criminal sanctions beyond a maximum fine of $100, such offenses may be handled in summary proceedings in which there is no right to a jury trial. The Bennion case is controlling here. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

John Brown was cited for speeding in violation of I.C. § 49-681(2) an offense which is defined as an infraction. I.C. §§ 49-3401(3), 49-3406. He demanded a jury trial. The Idaho Traffic Infractions Act (ITIA) states that an infraction is a “public offense ... for which there is no right to a trial by jury____” I.C. § 49-3401(3). Accordingly, Brown’s trial was held before a magistrate who found that Brown had committed the infraction. The court assessed a small fine and court costs. Brown appealed to the district court and, losing there, has appealed again. He contends that the ITIA impermissibly deprives him of his constitutional right to a jury trial.

The Idaho Supreme Court recently addressed this identical issue in a detailed opinion involving similar facts. See State v. Bennion, 112 Idaho 32, 730 P.2d 952 (1986). The Supreme Court carefully reviewed the history, intent and scope of the constitutional guarantees of trial by jury. Against that background the Court examined the newly enacted ITIA. The Court focused upon the legislative intent to decriminalize certain traffic offenses and to avoid time-consuming and costly jury trials in such cases. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that because traffic infractions are not punishable by imprisonment or other criminal sanctions beyond a maximum fine of $100, such offenses may be handled in summary proceedings in which there is no right to a jury trial. The Bennion case is controlling here. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

730 P.2d 1063, 112 Idaho 143, 1986 Ida. App. LEXIS 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-idahoctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack