Encounter with SD Sheriffs - HA!

[Codee]

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 1
Penal Code of the State of Oklahoma
Section 3 - Definition of Crime and Public Offense

A crime or public offense is an act or omission forbidden by law, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, one or more of the following punishments:

So why is there always a glaring "and" or "or"? California is the same way.

PUBLIC OFFENSE is not listed in Bouvier's. Offense is however.

[masterduke]

Ahh nuthin' like the SoCal police state rearing its head. This really got started back when Raygun became the Govener. Which also led to the immediate leap from a state budget surplus to insolenvcy and a gaint amount of debt by the time he stopped being the Gov. Then he went on to be the Prez(via the Bohemian Grove). The H.B. police/Orange county sheriffs really went nuts during the Gov. Reagan era and have never looked back since.....

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by masterduke

Ahh nuthin' like the SoCal police state rearing its head. This really got started back when Raygun became the Govener. Which also led to the immediate leap from a state budget surplus to insolenvcy and a gaint amount of debt by the time he stopped being the Gov. Then he went on to be the Prez(via the Bohemian Grove). The H.B. police/Orange county sheriffs really went nuts during the Gov. Reagan era and have never looked back since.....

Yeah, but I neglected to mention that the cop stared me down from his car and when I got sick of it, I stared back until he drove around and got out of his car to harass me. The fact that I'm 6'-3, 230 pounds with dreadlocks, and he was about 5'-8 and 170 pounds with his gear on, probably gave him an instant little man complex.

But seriously, they told me there was a major drug problem in Encinitas at Moonlight Beach. Right....like I said, little man complex.

[Codee]

Where do the cops feel there is no crime?

What a lame excuse. Crime happens everywhere.

[weishaupt1776]

Gabe, good to see that you're having fun

Remember that if you aren't - then you're doing it all wrong !!

We just gotta get y'all driving with out the license now

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Gabe, good to see that you're having fun

Remember that if you aren't - then you're doing it all wrong !!

We just gotta get y'all driving with out the license now

Good to hear from you Weis! I'm almost there, but the wife drives both vehicles too. I'm on the fence due to the fact that she is still lagging behind a little as far as interest and research goes in the issues. I would hate to see the wifey spend a night in jail 'cause of me not coaching her enough.

I think we are gonna start with renewing our licenses and signing "without prejudice" and "under duress". Although this is not the preferred method, I gotta take it one battle at a time with the wifey. This way, if all goes south on a traffic stop, and she loses her arguements with the arresting officer, she can always pull the ace out of the sleeve and hand it to them.

I hear ya though buddy.

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Codee

OK Ready2fite

You are now all the way brought up to speed.

1) does a phrase "No person may CONVICTED of..." Mean "no person may be tried for" Reread the case you provided and think on that while you do. The whole Battle case may not have been necessary.

Next I believe that CPC16 was ammended to add "Public offenses) where as before it just stated "crimes."

So are public offenses crimes? In the opinion you posted there is a "Public offense (Crimes)" in there however why is crimes in parenthisis instead of being offset with a comma?

So is a public offense a crime?

Can one be convicted of a pubic offense without a jury trial?

Can one be tried and not convicted of a public offense without a jury trial?

Then look into the cases and make sure that the LATEST enacted law is the one that is being given effect.

OK, I did a little homework. The current California Penal Code Section 16 states:

16. Crimes and public offenses include:
1. Felonies;
2. Misdemeanors; and
3. Infractions

The glaring "AND" is included in this section, as you stated. So, also as you stated, it begs the question, "Is an infraction a public offense or a crime?"

People VS Battle answers that question. From the appelate court's unpublished opinion on People VS Trotter:

In People v. Battle, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, the court concluded that when
the Legislature added the term “public offense” to Penal Code section 16, “it was not so
categorizing infractions because if it did so, it would have caused inconsistency between
sections 19c and 689 of the Penal Code.” (People v. Battle, supra, at p. Supp. 6.)

So we find that infractions ARE NOT public offenses and, therefore, are not crimes or public offenses.

Sections 19.6 (formerly 19c) and 19.7 of the California Penal Code state:

19.6. An infraction is not punishable by imprisonment. A person
charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to a trial by jury.
A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to have
the public defender or other counsel appointed at public expense to
represent him or her unless he or she is arrested and not released on
his or her written promise to appear, his or her own recognizance,
or a deposit of bail.



19.7. Except as otherwise provided by law, all provisions of law
relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions including, but
not limited to, powers of peace officers, jurisdiction of courts,
periods for commencing action and for bringing a case to trial and
burden of proof.

After re-reading the opinion from the appelate court, as you suggested, I found the arrow in my achiles heel:

But at least one court has disagreed with Battle. In People v. Hamilton, supra, 191
Cal.App.3d Supp. 13, the court stated: “[W]e decline to accept the interpretation of
People v. Battle, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, in that we determine the appropriate
interpretation is that the Legislature, in drafting sections 19c and 1042.5, intended merely
to exempt infractions from those public offenses which require a jury trial rather than
exempting infractions from the definition of a public offense.” (Id. at p. Supp. 17.) For
the same reason, we agree with Hamilton and disagree with Battle.

However, the appelate opinion has this disclosure:

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

So this appelate opinion can not be cited. On that basis, I would make the logical assumption that People VS. Battle has not been overturned and that there is only one appelate case that has disagreed with the original ruling.

Cody, my question to you is, "Does the latter ruling from the appelate court, disagreeing with People VS. Battle thereby render it overturned and useless?" Forgive my naivity.

If People VS. Battle is still useable, then it would appear that infractions ARE NOT public offenses and neither are they CRIMES, and therefore are not punishable by the State.

Whoo Hah!

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Codee

So is a public offense a crime?

Can one be convicted of a pubic offense without a jury trial?

Can one be tried and not convicted of a public offense without a jury trial?

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary:

OFFENCE, crimes. The doing that which a penal law forbids to be done, or omitting to do what it commands; in this sense it is nearly synonymous with crime. (q. v.) In a more confined sense, it may be considered as having the same meaning with misdemeanor, (q.v.) but it differs from it in this, that it is not indictable, but punishable summarily by the forfeiture of a penalty. 1 Chit. Prac. 14.

From the California Penal Code Sections 15 and 16:

15. A crime or public offense is an act committed or omitted in
violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is
annexed, upon conviction, either of the following punishments:
1. Death;
2. Imprisonment;
3. Fine;
4. Removal from office; or,
5. Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust,
or profit in this State.



16. Crimes and public offenses include:
1. Felonies;
2. Misdemeanors; and
3. Infractions.

Now, we know from the previous post that infractions ARE NOT public offenses (see previous post). But we are looking for the definition of a public offense and whether or not one can be tried for a public offense without a jury.

California Penal Code Section 17:

17. (a) A felony is a crime which is punishable with death or by
imprisonment in the state prison. Every other crime or public
offense is a misdemeanor except those offenses that are classified as
infractions.

California Penal Code Section 19.4:

19.4. When an act or omission is declared by a statute to be a
public offense and no penalty for the offense is prescribed in any
statute, the act or omission is punishable as a misdemeanor.

So nowhere in the California Penal Code does it state that public offenses can be tried without a jury. IF (big IF) a nexus was made between public offense and crimes, then the sixth amendment of the constitution shall prevail:

Amendment VI

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, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Also remember from Bouvier's (see top of post):

but it differs from it in this, that it is not indictable

Bouvier says offences are not indictable.

How'd I do Cody?

[Codee]

You doing awsome...

Now does the Penal Code FORBID a BENCH TRIAL for public offenses?

If so where?

Now can one be found guilty of a public offense with a BENCH TRIAL?

If so how?

Can a trial occure even though a finding of guilty cannot result?


Next... does CGC section 201 apply to PUBLIC OFFENSES?

If not then where does the state obtain jurisdiction for the trial of those PUBLIC OFFENSES?

Why are both CRIMES and PUBLIC OFFENSES listed in CPC section 15 and 16?

When and where did the term "PUBLIC OFFENSE" first enter into the California Codes?

Does the term UNLAWFUL imply an OFFENSE rather then a crime?

Why are some actions made into CRIMES (It shall constitute a crime... Shall be a crime...) and why are some actions made UNLAWFUL (It shall be unlawful...)?

Good Luck Buddy.

I think the Battle case may have been decided wrongly. I think they decided it the way that they did is so as to avoid the fact that a PUBLIC OFFENSE is not a CRIME. If the court had just said... "OH NO!!! Public Offenses are not crimes!" That would have let a big one out of the bag. So instead they come up with some wierd crap about infractions not being crimes... when infact it maybe that ALL public offenses are not crimes.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

I think we are gonna start with renewing our licenses and signing "without prejudice" and "under duress". Although this is not the preferred method, I gotta take it one battle at a time with the wifey. This way, if all goes south on a traffic stop, and she loses her arguements with the arresting officer, she can always pull the ace out of the sleeve and hand it to them.

I tried the without prejudice thing here in Michigan and they will refuse the application if you try to use a restrictive endorsement. I was told by the clerk that their computer is set up to reject any such application. (not that they were necessarily being truthful, but JRB is right, agencies and courts dont operate in a vacuum!)
You may run into the same problem.