{
  "id": 1884324,
  "name": "Christopher ROBINSON v. Dennis C. SUTTERFIELD, Municipal Judge",
  "name_abbreviation": "Robinson v. Sutterfield",
  "decision_date": "1990-04-02",
  "docket_number": "89-327",
  "first_page": "7",
  "last_page": "10",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "302 Ark. 7"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "786 S.W.2d 572"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "336 N.W.2d 271",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10671765
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nw2d/336/0271-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.W.2d 387",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10680362
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nw2d/301/0387-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "411 So.2d 1182",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9574728
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/411/1182-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "466 N.E.2d 488",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        11036818
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ne2d/466/0488-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "381 N.W.2d 470",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10631513
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nw2d/381/0470-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "527 A.2d 1355",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N.J. 98",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J.",
      "case_ids": [
        291910
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nj/108/0098-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "725 S.W.2d 915",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9989903
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/725/0915-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "759 P.2d 436",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 Wash. 2d 353",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1179801
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash-2d/111/0353-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 Ark. 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721090
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/286/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-27-303",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(11)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-27-306",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)(l)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-27-301",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 Ark. 289",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718880
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/273/0289-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 Ark. 403",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873783
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/290/0403-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 325,
    "char_count": 4762,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.907,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.52505798825848e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8119249423421984
    },
    "sha256": "1c81ce9dc6fae8f48742caf074f863dd5a7da40c602550cf39d74f01bb705a50",
    "simhash": "1:865dcd875068c0fd",
    "word_count": 798
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:34:09.444418+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Christopher ROBINSON v. Dennis C. SUTTERFIELD, Municipal Judge"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nAppellant, a sixteen-year-old youngster, seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent a municipal court from hearing a charge of driving while under the influence which was filed against him. He contends the charge can only be heard in juvenile court. We hold the municipal court has jurisdiction to hear the case and, accordingly, decline to issue the writ.\nPetitioner first asked the municipal court to dismiss the charge because, he argued, the municipal court had no jurisdiction. The municipal court denied the motion. Petitioner then sought a writ of prohibition in circuit court. The circuit court declined to issue the writ. Petitioner now seeks to \u201cappeal.\u201d The circuit court\u2019s order is not an appealable order. However, to decide this important issue, we treat the \u201cappeal\u201d as a petition for a writ of prohibition filed in this court. We have so proceeded in other similar cases. Lowe v. State, 290 Ark. 403, 720 S.W.2d 293 (1986), and Norton v. State, 273 Ark. 289, 618 S.W.2d 164 (1981).\nThe Juvenile Code of 1989, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-27-301 to -368 (Supp. 1989), provides that the juvenile court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of proceedings in which a juvenile is alleged to be delinquent. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-27-306(a)(l) (Supp. 1989). A delinquent juvenile is defined by the code as \u201cany juvenile ten (10) years or older who has committed an act other than a traffic offense or game and fish violation, which, if such act had been committed by an adult, would subject such adult to prosecution . . . .\u201d (Emphasis added.) Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-27-303(11) (Supp. 1989). Thus, traffic offenses are excluded from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and generally are within the jurisdiction of municipal courts.\nThe issue then is whether the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants is a \u201ctraffic offense.\u201d The appellant contends that it is not since the offense is not one codified under Title 27 of the Arkansas Code Annotated. We do not consider that fact persuasive. Title 27 is entitled \u201cTransportation\u201d and nowhere represents that it contains an exclusive listing of traffic offenses. In fact, in his brief, appellant argues only that the \u201cmajority\u201d of traffic offenses are listed there. Further, while the manner in which the statute is codified may be an indication of the nature of the crime, it is not necessarily determinative, especially when common sense dictates otherwise.\nThe term \u201ctraffic offense\u201d refers to a violation of a law regulating the operation of a vehicle upon a roadway. The offense \u201cdriving while under the influence of intoxicants\u201d is a violation of a law regulating the operation of a vehicle upon a roadway. Thus, \u201cdriving while under the influence\u201d is a traffic offense.\nBy case and by rule we have referred to the term \u201ctraffic offense\u201d as including the offense of driving while intoxicated. Weatherford v. State, 286 Ark. 376, 692 S.W.2d 605 (1985), and A.R.Cr.P. Rule 4.1(a)(ii)(C). Other states have similarly referred to the term \u201ctraffic offense\u201d as including driving while intoxicated. In Re Petition of Williams, 111 Wash. 2d 353, 759 P.2d 436 (1988); Dover v. State, 725 S.W.2d 915 (Mo. App. 1987); State v. DeLuca, 108 N.J. 98, 527 A.2d 1355 (1987); State v. Yanez, 381 N.W.2d 470 (Minn. App. 1986); Mottern v. State, 466 N.E.2d 488 (Ind. App. 1984); State v. Bartholmew, 411 So.2d 1182 (La. App. 1982).\nIn a case comparable to the one now before us, the Supreme Court of North Dakota held, as we now do, that driving while under the influence was a \u201ctraffic offense\u201d as described by statute, and that juvenile court did not have jurisdiction. The Juvenile Code provision there was the same as ours. In Interest of B.L., 301 N.W.2d 387 (N.D. 1981). At first blush the case of State v. Leonard, 336 N.W.2d 271 (Minn. 1983), may seem contra, but, in fact, it is in accord because the statute involved in that case provided that \u201cmajor traffic offenses\u201d were to be dealt with in juvenile court. The court held that \u201c \u2018major traffic offenses\u2019 (which include D WI) must be dealt with in juvenile court. . . In summation, many courts have referred to the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants as a traffic offense, and two have expressly so held.\nAccordingly, we hold that the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants is a \u201ctraffic offense,\u201d and that under our Juvenile Code the municipal court has jurisdiction to hear such cases. The writ is accordingly denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael R. Davis, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: R.B. Friedlander, Solicitor General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Christopher ROBINSON v. Dennis C. SUTTERFIELD, Municipal Judge\n89-327\n786 S.W.2d 572\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 2, 1990\nMichael R. Davis, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: R.B. Friedlander, Solicitor General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0007-01",
  "first_page_order": 33,
  "last_page_order": 36
}