theme: Colin Fall 2022 autoscale: true slidenumbers: true header: #373737, alignment(left), line-height(150%), text-scale(1.0), ITC Galliard Pro Bold Footer:
[fit] State Constitutional Law
[fit] 22 - Unique State Rights
[fit] Justiciability in State Courts
—
Agenda
- Makeup classes options
- Thursday, April 25th 1:10pm - 3:10pm, Courtroom of the 90s.
- Friday, April 26th 1:10pm - 3:10pm, Courtroom of the 90s.
- Unique state rights
- Justiciability in state courts
—
Unique State Rights
- Privacy
- Free speech
- Civil jury trial
- Environmental rights
- Crime victims’ rights
- Right to hunt and fish
—
Crime Victims’ Rights
Common goals:
- restitution for victims
- ensure legal system is sensitive to victim’s distress and privacy
- protect victims from intimidation
- encourage and include victims’ participation in prosecution
—
State v. Strom
921 N.W.2d 660 (N.D. 2019)
“[T]he court shall fix the amount of restitution or reparation, which may not exceed an amount the defendant can or will be able to pay…” Section 12.1-32-08(1), N.D.C.C.
A crime victim has the “right to full and timely restitution in every case and from each offender for all losses suffered by the victim as a result of the criminal or delinquent conduct.” Art. I, § 25(1)(n) North Dakota Const.
—
State v. Damato-Kushel
173 A.3d 357 (Conn. 2017)
“[I]n all criminal prosecutions, a victim shall have the right to attend the trial and all other court proceedings the accused has the right to attend, unless such person is to testify and the court determines that such person’s testimony would be materially affected if such person hears other testimony.” Am. XXIX(b), Conn. Const.
—
Right to Hunt and Fish
—
Cabot v. Thomas
514 A.2d 1034 (Vt. 1986)
“The inhabitants of this State shall have liberty in seasonable times, to hunt and fowl on the lands they hold, and on other lands not enclosed, and in like manner to fish in all boatable and other waters (not private property) under proper regulations, to be made and provided by the General Assembly.” Ch. II, § 39, Vermont Const.
—
Justiciability in State Courts
- Standing
- Mootness
- Political Questions
- Advisory Opinions
—
Standing
Gregory v. Shurtleff 299 P.3d 1098 (Utah 2013)
Benson v. McKee 273 A.3d 121 (R.I. )
—
Public-interest standing
Appropriate party questions:
- Does party have interest necessary to assist court in reviewing legal and factual questions?
- Are the issues unlikely to be raised if party is denied standing?
- Is the issue better resolved by other political branches?
—
Mootness
Couey v. Atkins 355 P.3d 866 (Or. 2015)
In re Guardianship of Tschumy 853 N.W.2d 728 (Minn. 2014)
—
Political Questions
Berry v. Crawford 990 N.E.2d 410 (Ind. 2013)
In re Abbott 628 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. 2021)
Burt v. Speaker of the House of Representatives 243 A.3d 609 (N.H. 2020)
—
Advisory Opinions
State of Kansas ex rel. Morrison v. Sebelius 179 P.3d 366 (Kan. 2008)
Request for an Opinion of the Justices 274 A.3d 269 (Del. 2022)
—
Questions for Delaware Supreme Court
- May “reasonable cause” include an indictment?
- Does the authority to remove a public official implicitly include the authority to take a lesser action, such as suspension of that public official? If so, must the General Assembly address the Governor on the lesser action?
- Does the process require a hearing prior to a vote?
- Does the 10-day notice requirements apply for only the first House or are separate notices required for each House? May those notices be issued concurrently?
- Is there a mechanism for an appeal?
