There shall be no jury trials in district court. In order that the right of trial by jury remains inviolate, all appeals from judgment in district court shall be de novo to circuit court.
While former § 16-17-704(a)(6) does provide for concurrent jurisdiction, nothing in Acts 1987, No. 431 suggests an intent by the legislature to abrogate the constitutional right to a trial by jury in tort actions triable in circuit court. To the contrary, this section, which deals with appeals from municipal court, clearly demonstrates the legislature's concern that the right secured by Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 7 not be diminished. McClanahan v. Gibson, 296 Ark. 304, 756 S.W.2d 889 (1988).
Construction with Other Law.
Although a DWI conviction is tried de novo in circuit court on appeal, the appeal does not affect the validity of the judgment of the district court until that judgment is overturned; thus, defendant's prior driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction, which was on appeal to the circuit court, was properly used to determine defendant's fourth-offense DWI status at sentencing in a subsequent case. Swint v. State, 356 Ark. 361, 152 S.W.3d 226 (2004).
Circuit Court.
In a tort case in circuit court, there is a right to trial by jury regardless of the amount in controversy. McClanahan v. Gibson, 296 Ark. 304, 756 S.W.2d 889 (1988).
Default Judgment.
A defendant has a direct right of appeal to circuit court from the entry of a default judgment in municipal court. Murdock v. Slater, 326 Ark. 1067, 935 S.W.2d 540 (1996).
Failure to Appear.
The trial court complied with Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 7 by setting defendant's case for trial by jury even though defendant failed to appear at trial and, therefore, was precluded from exercising that right. Rischar v. State, 307 Ark. 429, 821 S.W.2d 25 (1991).
Cited:
Gran v. Hale, 294 Ark. 563, 745 S.W.2d 129 (1988); Edwards v. City of Conway, 300 Ark. 135, 777 S.W.2d 583 (1989); State v. Webb, 323 Ark. 80, 913 S.W.2d 259 (1996); Johnson v. State, 337 Ark. 196, 987 S.W.2d 694, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 172 (1999); Tackett v. Merchant's Sec. Patrol, 73 Ark. App. 358, 44 S.W.3d 349 (2001).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1988–2006 · leading case: McNabb v. State, 238 S.W.3d 119 (Ark. 2006).
McNabb v. State, 238 S.W.3d 119 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 4דArk. Code Ann. § 16-17-703 (2006) provides: There shall be no jury trials in district court.”
Edwards v. City of Conway, 777 S.W.2d 583 (Ark. 1989). · cites it 4דSee Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16-17-703 and -704 (Supp.”
Gran v. Hale, 745 S.W.2d 129 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 4דHe also contends that a pro se litigant should not be held to the same standards as an attorney. Mr. Gran had a right to a de novo review of the convictions in the circuit court.”
Swint v. State, 152 S.W.3d 226 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 6דArk. Code Ann. § 16-17-703 (Supp. 2003). The right to a jury trial where a criminal action is tried in the district court is preserved by the right to appeal to the circuit court where the matter may be tried de novo with ajury.”
Johnson v. State, 987 S.W.2d 694 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2דArk. Code Ann. § 16-17-703 (Repl. 1994); State v.”
State v. Webb, 913 S.W.2d 259 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 2ד§ 16-17-703 (Repl.1994). There is thus a "two-tier" system for an accused misdemeanant who wishes a jury trial.”
McClanahan v. Gibson, 756 S.W.2d 889 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 4דTo the contrary, section 16-17-703, which deals with appeals from municipal court, clearly demonstrates the legislature’s concern that the right secured by article 2, section 7 of the Arkansas Constitution not be diminished: There shall be no jury trials in municipal court.”
Medlock v. State, 942 S.W.2d 861 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 2ד2d 583 (1989); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-703 (Repl. 1994). When a conviction is appealed from a municipal court to a circuit court, the case is tried de novo, and the appellant is entitled to a trial by jury.”
State v. Roberts, 900 S.W.2d 175 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 2ד” The General Assembly granted jurisdiction of misdemeanors to municipal courts in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-704 (Repl. 1994). As to the issue of jury trials in municipal courts, Ark.”
Davis v. State, 97 S.W.3d 921 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2ד1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure states that a defendant in a criminal case may not waive a trial by jury unless the waiver is assented to by the prosecuting attorney and approved by the court. Additionally, Rule 31.2 specifies the following: Waiver of trial by…”
Rischar v. State, 821 S.W.2d 25 (Ark. 1991). · cites it 2ד2d 583 (1989), Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-703 (Supp. 1989), and Ark.”
Drug Task Force Etc. v. Hoffman, 114 S.W.3d 213 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 2דSee Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-703 (Repl. 1999). 5 In conjunction with Ark.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.