Brief Fact Summary. Appellant was convicted on a violation of a local statute for solicitation to commit sodomy. The city ordinance was harsher and defined the crime different than the State statute. Appellant appealed arguing that the city ordinance was invalid.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A power or function is in conflict with a state statute if it is expressly prohibited by a state statute or there is a comprehensive scheme of legislation on the same general subject.
Issue. Whether a city by local ordinance may redefine the elements of the offense and impose criminal penalties greater than allowed by state statute.
Held. Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A power or function is in conflict with a statute if it is expressly prohibited by a statute or there is a comprehensive scheme of legislation on the same general subject embodied in the state statutes.
The state designed a comprehensive approach to prohibiting the solicitation of crimes and directs a range of punishment.
The court noted that that there are many individual situations where local police power may operate on the same subject matter to supplement the general law by providing for additional reasonable requirements.View Full Point of Law