Municipal Courts in Tennessee - a Constitutional and Statutory Primer
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange MTAS Publications: Full Publications Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) 11-1988 Municipal Courts in Tennessee - A Constitutional and Statutory Primer Sid Hemsley Municipal Technical Advisory Service Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_mtaspubs Part of the Public Administration Commons The MTAS publications provided on this website are archival documents intended for informational purposes only and should not be considered as authoritative. The content contained in these publications may be outdated, and the laws referenced therein may have changed or may not be applicable to your city or circumstances. For current information, please visit the MTAS website at: mtas.tennessee.edu. Recommended Citation Hemsley, Sid, "Municipal Courts in Tennessee - A Constitutional and Statutory Primer" (1988). MTAS Publications: Full Publications. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_mtaspubs/294 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in MTAS Publications: Full Publications by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MUNICIPAL COU RTS IN TENNESSEE--A CONSTITUTIONAL AND STA1�TORY PRIMER by Sidney D. Hemsley Senior Legal Consultant The University of Tennessee Municipal Technical Advisory Service 891 20th Street Knoxville, TN 37996-4400 November, 1988 MUNICIPAL COURTS IN TENNESSEE�A CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PRIMER This paper will first examine the constitutional and statutory underpin nings of municipal courts in Tennessee. Then it will briefly review the jurisi diction of municipal courts, the selection of municipal court judges, and municipal court penalties. Finally, it will take a look at the recent case of Summers v. Thompson, Tenn. Sup. Ct., No. 23, filed May 23, 1988. That case has a significant bearing on all of those topics, and it has some implications for what municipal courts will look like in the future. No pretense is made that '•Very important thing is said or every important case is cited on those topics. A certain amount of picking and choosing goes into every short treatment of any major subject. This paper is, as its title claims, only a primer. Supra, infra, etc., in citations are used sparingly, if at all, and page citations in cases have been omitted. An interesting observation in The Judicial System of Tennessee, published in 1971 by The Institute of Judicial Administration under a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is appropriate here: In the exercise of judicial power by the incorporated munici palities of the state, almost infinite variety creeps in the treatment of traffic and other petty offenses. Tennessee, like many other states, has authorized municipal officers to try violations of municipal ordinances and minor state offen ses. But unlike some of them, it has enshrined the practice in its state constitution and failed to regulate the conduct of these courts by general law. As a result, there is a bewildering variety of part-time officials presiding over municipal courts (usually at odd hours) and there is equally bewildering variety in the state law violations entrusted to their jurisdiction.· Some can impose jail sentences while others are limited to imposing fines for violations of city ordinances. Some have committing power in the case of major crimes so that they can bind defendants over for grand jury action; some cannot. The same observation could have been made in 1988. The Constitutional and Statutory Basis of Municipal Courts The Constitutional Basis Article VI, Section 1 of the Tennessee Constitution provides that The judicial power of this State shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such Circuit, Chancery and other inferior courts as the Legislature shall from ti me to time, ordain and establish; in the Judges thereof, and in Justices of the peace. The Legislature may also vest such juris diction in Corporation Courts as may be deemed necessary. Courts to be holden by Justices of the Peace may also be established. [Emphasis mine]. -1- -2- oration Courts" referred to in Art, VI, Section 1 are the courts of )i!r�e "Corp Gregory v, City of 157 Tenn, , :.'inunicipal corporations, Memphis, 68, 6 S.W,2d 332 ·' (1927); Hill v. State ex rel Phillips, 216 Tenn. 503, 392 S,W.2d 950 (1965), The same is true of the metropolitan court established by the Nashville-Davidson County Metropolitan Charter, State ex rel Boone v, Torrence, 470 S,W,2d 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1971), A municipal court created by the legislature which has jurisdiction to hear only municipal charter and ordinance violation cases is a "corporation court" and not a "constitutional court" State v. Davis, 204 Tenn. 510, 322 s. W, 2d 214 (1959); Summers v. Thompson, (Tenn, Sup. Ct,, No, 23, filed May 23, 1988), The Statutory Basis T,C,A. 16-1-101 provide11 that The judicial power of the state is vested in the judges of the courts of general ses sions, recorders of certain towns snd cities, county courts, circuit courts, criminal courts, common law and chancery courts, chancery courts, Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court and other courts created by I law. Municipal courts are authorized under this section to be created by the legislature and under Article VI, Section l of the Tennessee Constitution. ! Deming v. Nichols, 135 Tenn, 295, 186 s.w. 113 (1916), I As far as it can be determined, the legislature has authorized every muni cipality in Tennessee, through its charter or by statute, to establish a munici pal court. T,C.A. 16-17-101 authorizes home rule municipalities to establish municipal courts, and in those home rule municipalities which already have a municipal court, to increase the number of divisions of the same, It is not clear whether this statute is supplemental and in addition to the authority granted in the charters of home rule municipalities to establish municipal cou-rts, That issue will be. discussed in more detail in the sections on Jurisdiction of Municipal Courts, and Municipal Judges. T,C,A. 16-18-101 authorizes the governing body of any municipality having a mayor's or a i \ l' recorder's court, and no other provision for a city judge, to provide by Ii, ordinance for the office of a city judge, ,I I Jurisdiction of Municipal Courts General The legislature may vest such jurisdiction in Corporation Courts as it may deem necessary. Artic le VI, Section l of the Tennessee Constitution. The legislature has deemed it necessary to give every municipal court the authority to hear ordinance violation cases. A few municipal courts have the authority to hear charter violation cases, although it is not clear how such cases are heard. -3- unicipaliti·�s, pos sibly the majority of them, have the addi ge group of m nal authority to exercise jurisdiction concurrent with that of justices of courts of gen•aral sessions in criminal cases. Some charter pro e peace or of iisions granting the municipal court concurrent jurisdiction expressly limit the concurrent jurisdiction to jurisdiction to hold preliminary hearings. ¥any municipal courts which have c,oncurrent jurisdiction do not exercise it. A municipality cannot exercise concurrent jurisdiction absent an express grant of authority by the General Assembly giving it such authority, Hill v. State ex rel Phillips, 216 Tenn. 503, 392 S.W,2d 950 (1965), Jurisdiction prescribed by the charter Some private act charters prescribe concurrent jurisdiction, others prescribe jurisdiction only in ordinance violation cases. Each private act municipal charter must be examined to determine the extent of the municipal court's jurisdiction. Under the general law mayor-aldermanic and modified city manager-council charters the municipal court has jurisdiction in ordinance violation cases and concurrent jurisdiction. T.C.A. 6-1-405, 6-2-403 and 6-33-103, There are two classes of courts under the general law uniform city manager-commission charter: a small class falling within certain population brackets has jurisdiction in ordinance violation cases and concurrent juris diction, while the larger class has jurisdiction in only ordinance violation cases. T.C.A. 6-21-501. Municipal courts in home rule municipalities have jurisdiction in ordinance violation cases and concurrent jurisdiction (T,C,A. 16-17-101 and 16-17-103), except for the municipal court in Knoxville whose con current jurisdiction was abolished by T,C,A, 40-4-121--40-4-124, City of Knoxville· ex rel Roach v. Dossett, 672 S.W.2d 193 (Tenn. 1984), A confusing aspect of municipal court Jurisdiction in home rule municipali ties is that many such municipalities have established municipal courts under provisions of their charters. Some of those provisions are not consistent with T.c.A. 16-17-101 et seq., which purports to govern the establishment of munici pal courts in "all" home rule munlcipalities, and the selection of municipal judges to staff those courts. What is not clear is whether T.c.A. 16-17-101 supplements the authority granted home rule municipalities in their charters to establish municipal courts or whether it supercedes it. The Tennessee Attorney General has opined that an amendment to the Lenoir City Charter which gave the city judge jurisdiction to hear ordinance and charter violation cases and mis demeanors adopted from state laws is not the exclusive provision granting juris diction to municipal courts in home rule municipalities, that such municipalities also have concurrent jurisdiction under T.C.A. 16-17-101. OAG 85-047 (2/21/85). As will be pointed out in the section on Municipal Judges, the same opinion declares that a Lenoir City charter (home rule) amendment providing for the at will appointment of municipal judges was a violation of T.C.A.