STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 11, 1973

Dennis R. Padrnos
States Attorney, Davison County
Mitchell, South Dakota 57301

OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 73-26

Cities must pay reporter expenses for trials of municipal ordinance violations.

Dear Mr. Padrnos:

Your office has requested an official opinion on the following situation:

Our District County Court includes four counties and the City of Mitchell. There are many prosecutions by the City of Mitchell in this court for violations of city ordinances which require a trial and a stenographic record. It would seem that since the city is entitled to all of the fines imposed in the event the defendant is convicted, the stenographic expenses should be borne by the city.

In connection with this situation, you have asked:

When the City of Mitchell prosecutes an action under a city ordinance, requiring a trial, and a court reporter is employed to report that specific trial, is this expense to be borne by the counties of the court's district Or by the City of Mitchell?

In 1969-70 AGR 87, Opinion No. 68-49, this office concluded that a district county judge did have authority to employ necessary help, including a stenographer or a court reporter, and that a court reporter could be hired on either a "job" basis or upon a "full-time" basis. I concur with the holding of that opinion.

SDCL 16-11-30 provides that the judge of a municipal court (who is, in most cases, a district county judge, SDCL 16-9-32) may appoint a shorthand reporter who shall be paid by the county "except that the city shall pay for testimony upon trial for violation of city ordinances." In 1969-70 AGR 76, Opion No. 68-40, this office concluded that unrepealed statutes relating to municipal courts are still applicable to district county courts acting as municipal courts. I concur with that opinion also, and it is my further opinion that SDCL 16-11-30 is still valid. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the answer to your question is that the municipality should pay for testimony taken upon trial for violation of city ordinance.

If the reporter is hired on a "job" basis, there is no problem; the city is liable for the typing of the transcript as well as the reporter's per diem. If, however, the reporter is a full-tim employee of the District Court Judge’s office, the city need pay for only the cost of typing the transcript. This conclusion is based upon SDCL 16-7-6, made applicable to county district courts by virtue of SDCL 16-11-32, which provides that a short· hand reporter shall perform such duties in connection with the official duties of his court as may be assigned to him by the judge of his court. As the official duties of a district county court include sitting as a municipal court, a "full time" court reporter of the district county judge should also perform any such duties in connection therewith.

Respectfully submitted,

Kermit A. Sande
Attorney General