|
further questions for clarification on sec-
tion 3?
Delegate Henderson?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Referring
again to section 3, sovereign immunity, I
would like to call attention to one fact
which has not yet been mentioned, I be-
lieve, and that is that the legislature under
the present Constitution has dealth with
this subject of sovereign immunity by pro-
viding that it cannot be pleaded in any
case where insurance is covered. That has
been worked out very carefully under the
rules of court to keep the fact of insurance
away from the jury, so that to that limited
extent, the legislature has already dealt
with this problem and may want to deal
with it along the same lines or other lines
and they should have an opportunity to
do so.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Does
Delegate Gill wish to seek clarification on
section 3?
DELEGATE GILL: Yes, please.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: Mr. Chairman, in
section 3, letter "A", on damage, I wonder
if I might give an example to see if I might
understand when the effective date is.
Delegate Hardwicke, if I have a home
that is damaged, say, in June of 1969, could
I bring suit or claim damages July 2, 1969?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: No.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: In other words, if
I have the same home which is damaged
July 2, from then on I could bring
damages?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Yes.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : If
there are no further questions on section 3,
we will proceed to section 4.
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: This is still on
the same section. Why is it necessary in
section 3 that there be a two-year delay or
one and a half year delay as to the double
jeopardy provisions?
|
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: At the
present time what we are trying to hit at
here is the situation where the State can
take an appeal from an adverse decision
in one of the magistrate's courts, and take
the appeal de novo to the Circuit Court. It
was our feeling that this provision ought
not to come in full force and effect until
we had the new district court set up func-
tioning, and also that it should not take
effect as to offenses committed prior to the
effective date of the new constitution.
The reason, Delegate Chabot, that the
State can take an appeal from the magis-
trate, is that the magistrate is not a fully
qualified judge. No district court judges
will be fully qualified judges. These magis-
trates, as you know, are persons who are
part-time people. They may or may not be
lawyers and so forth.
Under the present Constitution, the State
can take an appeal up to the Circuit Court
from these magistrates' courts in adverse
decisions. It was our feeling, when we get
a new district court with qualified judges,
this right ought not to exist and the double
jeopardy provision then ought to be ap-
plicable in the district court level, but until
the new district court comes into existence,
we want to continue to permit the State
to take an appeal from the magistrate.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Without agree-
ing or pursuing that particular point fur-
ther, it would appear that you are requir-
ing the State to prove that the offense was,
in fact, committed prior to a certain date
before the State can take the appeal. Was
this your purpose? I would imagine in
most of the cases coming before those
courts the question of whether the offense
was committed at all is determinative of
the issue so that the State could not nor-
mally have proven that the offense was
committed without normally proving that
that person committed the offense.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Well, Dele-
gate Chabot, I must concede that you have
a point. The way this will operate, and as
I understand it, is that before July 1, 1968,
those cases will be tried in the magistrates'
court and the State can take an appeal as
it now can.
As to those cases which are tried in the
magistrates' court until the new district
court conies into effect, the State can still
|
