Civics Library Of The Missouri Bar

State v. Rowe, 63S.W.2d, 847 (Mo banc 2002).

Description:  This lesson uses the case of State v. Rowe to explore how the legislature makes the law, the executive branch enforces the law and the judicial branch interprets the law.

Objectives: 

  1. To explore the concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances.
  2. To see how the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances applies in an actual situation.

Suggested grade levels:  9-12

Materials needed:  Handouts and access to either a writing board or a flip chart.

Procedures:

  1. As a class read the case of State v. Rowe.  (Attached and may be found at www.osca.state.mo.us by going to “Opinions” and then putting “State v. John Rowe” in the search box.)
  2. Possible vocabulary words to define prior to the lesson:  revoked, felony and plaintiff.
  3. After reading the case, have the students discuss this case and fill in the handout:

Possible answers to the questions in the handout:

·        John Rowe was arrested for driving while his license was revoked.

·        In court he was found guilty of the Class D felony (least severe of felony classes) of driving with his license revoked and sentenced to three years in prison and given a fine of $1,000.00.

·        The State of Missouri is the plaintiff because John Rowe is accused of breaking a Missouri law.  The prosecutor is the state lawyer in this case.

·        This was a jury tried case.

·        It was in Clark County because that is where he was arrested.

·        John Rowe (through his lawyer) argued that the law said he would be guilty of driving while his license was revoked if it had been revoked under the laws of “this” state (meaning Missouri) and his license had been revoked by the state of Iowa.

·        The role of the legislature was to pass this bill.

·        The role of the executive branch was twofold:  the governor signed this bill into law and law enforcement officials arrested Mr. Rowe.

·        The role of the judiciary is two fold:  the trial court provided Mr. Rowe with a place to have his case heard and then convicted and sentenced him and now the Supreme Court is reviewing the trial court’s action to make sure the trial court applied the law correctly.

·        §302.321. (See www.moga.state.mo.us for access to Missouri’s statutes.)

·        A person commits the crime of driving while revoked if such person operates a motor vehicle on a highway when such person's license or driving privilege has been canceled, suspended, or revoked under the laws of this state…

·        The Court believed the intention of the legislature was to make it illegal for anyone with a revoked license from any state to drive on Missouri’s roads and highways.

·        The Supreme Court reversed Mr. Rowe’s conviction because the statute’s clear language was that it was illegal only when the license had been revoked by Missouri law and since Mr. Rowe’s had been revoked under Iowa law, the Missouri law could not apply to him.

·        Because “this court….cannot rewrite the statute.”  This is the role of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

·        It does—“The legislature may wish to change the statute to cover out-of-state multiple offense drivers such as Rowe.”