Civil traffic hearings 101

By: 
CRAIG WISMER, Justice of the Peace, Arrowhead Precinct

I’m writing this column on a Friday night having earlier today completed a full calendar of civil traffic hearings in the Arrowhead Justice Court. Civil traffic hearings are probably the most common reason people set foot in a court of law, so I want to spend some time explaining to you how they are conducted.
When someone is issued a citation for a violation of civil traffic laws, he will be required to make his appearance in court in the not-too-distant future for an event called an arraignment hearing. In the alternative, he may choose to enter a plea with the court in advance in lieu of appearing in person. In either case, defendants are given the option of entering either a plea of responsible or not responsible to the charges. If they plead not responsible, the case will be set for a civil traffic hearing.
At the hearing, the officer will give testimony as to the basis for citing the defendant for the civil traffic violations noted on the complaint (most people know this as the ticket). The officer will be permitted to call witnesses to testify on behalf of the state (this doesn’t occur very often) and offer exhibits for admission into evidence. Exhibits most often take the form of equipment calibration records, accident report or a copy of the defendant’s motor vehicle record. Once the officer concludes his or her testimony, the defendant will be given an opportunity to engage in cross examination, that is, ask questions after which the presentation of the state’s will have concluded.
The focus of the hearing now shifts to the defendant. Just as did the officer, the defendant may testify, call witnesses and offer exhibits for admission into evidence. Unless the citing officer is licensed to practice law in the state of Arizona, he or she will not be permitted to cross-examine the defendant; however, the officer will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony, that is, respond to or refute testimony given by the defendant after which the hearing will conclude.
If the state is to prevail, the judge, having reviewed all the evidence presented, must be of the opinion that it met a certain burden of proof, that being, proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Think of it as a slight tipping of the scales in favor of the state. If the judge is of the opinion that the state prevailed, he or she will enter a judgment of responsible against the defendant. Because the case was disposed at a hearing, the defendant may appeal the judge’s decision to the Arizona Superior Court. If the state doesn’t prevail, a judgment of not responsible will be entered in favor of the defendant.
Reach Judge Craig Wismer at www.craigwismer.com.

The Glendale Star

The Glendale Star
7122 N. 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85301-2436
Ph: (623) 842-6000
Fax: (623) 842-6013
Terms of Service

Email Us

Facebook

Peoria Times

Peoria Times
7122 N. 59th Ave
Glendale, AZ 85301-2436
Ph: (623) 842-6000
Fax: (623) 842-6013

Terms of Service

Email Us

Facebook

Please Login for Premium Content