No. 131-28
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F
THE STATE O M N A A on t h e R e l a t i o n F OTN of ROBERT L. WOODAHL, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l of t h e S t a t e of l"lntana,
Relator,
THE DISTRICT COURT O THE FIRST JUDICIAL F DISTRICT O THE STATE O MONTANA, i n and F F f o r t h e County o f Lewis and C h r k and t h e HON. N T ALLEN, P r e s i d i n g Judge, A
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING :
Counsel o f Record:
For Relator :
Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Richard Dzivi, S p e c i a l A s s i st a n t Attorney General, a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Thomas Beers, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
F o r Respondent :
K n l g h t , Dahood, Mackay and McLean, Anaconda, Montana Wade Dahood a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana
Submitted: August 21, 1975
Decided: SEP 5 1975 Filed : , < Q$ a m PER CURIAM: This i s an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a W r i t of Supervisory Control or other appropriate w r i t . The s t a t e of Montana, through i t s Attorney General, Robert L. Woodahl, r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e w r i t be d i r e c t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , and t h e p r e s i d i n g judge, Hon. Nat Allen, w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e causes e n t i t l e d S t a t e of Montana v. John J . Carden, a.k.a. James J. Carden, Cause No. 3937, and S t a t e of Montana v. John J. Carden, a.k.a. James J. Carden and Gloria ( ~ u s e k )Carden, Cause No. 3938. The f a c t s l e a d i n g up t o t h e p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t show t h a t on December 20, 1974, t h e s t a t e of Montana made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e Informations i n causes No. 3937 and No. 3938. O December 20, 1974, l e a v e was g r a n t e d i n cause No. 3938. n On January 9, 1975, t h e Ilon. Nat Allen assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n o f both causes No. 3937 and No. 3938 a f t e r Judges Gordon R. Bennett and P e t e r Meloy of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t v o l u n t a r i l y withdrew from t h o s e c a s e s . O January 14, 1975, t h e Hon. Nat Allen granted n l e a v e t o f i l e t h e Information i n c a u s e No. 3937. The i n i t i a l defense motions of both c a s e s were f i l e d on February 10, 1975, and t h e defense b r i e f was f i l e d on February 28, 1975. Oral argument was heard on t h e i s s u e of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r judgment of contempt a g a i n s t t h e Attorney General, e t , a l . , and t h e p e t i t i o n f o r judgment of contempt a g a i n s t t h e defendant, John J. Carden. O March 24, 1975, Judge Allen r u l e d upon t h e s e i s s u e s . n O March n 1 9 , 1975, t h e c o u r t extended t h e time f o r f i l i n g of b r i e f s f o r defendant u n t i l A p r i l 21, 1975, and t h e s t a t e u n t i l May 21, 1975, and defendant u n t i l May 30, 1975, t o r e p l y . A l l b r i e f s were f i l e d w i t h i n t h e time e x t e n s i o n s o f t h e c o u r t . O August 4 , 1975, pursuant t o s e c t i o n 95-1709, R.C.M. n 1947, t h e Attorney General moved t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r an o r d e r t o s u b s t i t u t e judge i n causes No. 3937 and No. 3938. O August 11, 1975, by w r i t t e n o r d e r , t h e Hon. Nat Allen n ordered t h e Attorney General's motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge on both causes No. 3937 and No. 3938 b e denied and ordered s t r i c k e n from t h e r e c o r d . The c o u r t s t a t e d t h i s reason: h he attempt by t h e Attorney General t o s u b s t i t u t e a judge a f t e r t h e m a t t e r was submitted and pending d e c i s i o n by t h e Court i s d e l i b e r a t e abuse of t h e d i s q u a l i f y i n g s t a t u t e , and i f allowed would d e s t r o y t h e e f f i c i e n c y of a l l D i s t r i c t Courts." Therefore, t h e Attorney General has p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r a Writ of Supervisory Control o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t i n s t r u c t i n g t h e Hon. Nat Allen t o i s s u e t h e o r d e r of sub- stitution. Petitioner presents these three issues f o r t h i s c o u r t ' s review: 1) Whether t h e motion of s u b s t i t u t i o n o f judge, submitted by t h e s t a t e of Montana was proper and whether i t comported w i t h a 1 1 c o n d i t i o n s precedent t o s e c t i o n 95-1709, R.C.M.
2) Whether, looking t o t h e r e a s o n i n g of Judge Allen above, t h e cause had been i n f a c t submitted t o him; and 3) Whether t h e Hon. Nat Allen must r e l i n q u i s h a l l j u r i s - d i c t i o n t o t h e above c a s e s e f f e c t i v e upon t h e f i l i n g of t h e motion. P e t i t i o n e r contends t h a t he has complied w i t h a l l of t h e requirements of s e c t i o n 95-1709. That s e c t i o n i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t provides :
"(a) The defendant o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n may move t h e c o u r t i n w r i t i n g f o r a s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge on t h e ground t h a t he cannot have a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g o r t r i a l b e f o r e s a i d judge. The motion s h a l l be made a t l e a s t f i f t e e n (15) days p r i o r t o t h e t r i a l of t h e c a s e , o r any r e t r i a l t h e r e o f a f t e r a p p e a l , except f o r good cause shown. Upon t h e f i l i n g of such a motion t h e judge a g a i n s t whom t h e motion i s f i l e d s h a l l be without authority t o a c t f u r t h e r i n the criminal action, motion o r proceeding b u t t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s s e c t i o n do n o t a p p l y t o t h e arrangement of t h e i a l e n d a r , t h e r e g u l a t i o n of t h e o r d e r of b u s i n e s s , izhe power of t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r proceeding t o some o t h e r c o u r t , nor t o t h e power of c a l l i n g i n a n o t h e r judge t o s i t and a c t i n such c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r proceeding, providing t h a t no judge s h a l l s o a r r a n g e t h e c a l e n d a r a s t o d e f e a t t h e ourposes of t h i s s e c t i o n . Not more than one (1) iudge can be d i s q u a l i f i e d i n t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r proceeding, a t t h e i n s t a n c e of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n and n o t more than (1) judge a t t h e i n s t a n c e of t h e defendant or defendants. I P e t i t i o n e r ' s motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n was made i n w r i t i n g
b e i o r e a n y t r i a l d a t e was s e t . The grounds and r e a s o n s upon
which t h e motion was based was t h a t t h e s t a t e "cannot have a
f a i r and i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g o r t r i a l b e f o r e s a i d judge. I' There-
f o r e , having reviewed a l l t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e a t t h e d a t e of
t h e h e a r i n g , we f i n d p e t i t i o n e r has complied w i t h a l l t h e c o n d i t i o n s
precedent t o s e c t i o n 95-1709.
The second i s s u e then i s whether t h e r e a s o n i n g of Judge A l l e r l i n h i s o r d e r d a t e d August 11, 1975, f o r n o t d i s q u a l i f y i n g
himself:
"The a t t e m p t by t h e Attorney General t o s u b s t i t u t e a judge a f t e r t h e m a t t e r was submitted and pending d e c i s i o n by t h e Court i s d e l i b e r a t e abuse of t h e d i s q u a l i f y i n g s t a t u t e , and i f allowed would d e s t r o y che e f f i c i e n c y of a l l D i s t r i c t Courts. 11
was a v a l i d r e a s o n which would a l l o w Judge Allen t o maintain j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e two c a u s e s b e f o r e him.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
No. 131-28
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F
THE STATE O M N A A on t h e R e l a t i o n F OTN of ROBERT L. WOODAHL, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l of t h e S t a t e of l"lntana,
Relator,
THE DISTRICT COURT O THE FIRST JUDICIAL F DISTRICT O THE STATE O MONTANA, i n and F F f o r t h e County o f Lewis and C h r k and t h e HON. N T ALLEN, P r e s i d i n g Judge, A
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING :
Counsel o f Record:
For Relator :
Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Richard Dzivi, S p e c i a l A s s i st a n t Attorney General, a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Thomas Beers, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
F o r Respondent :
K n l g h t , Dahood, Mackay and McLean, Anaconda, Montana Wade Dahood a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana
Submitted: August 21, 1975
Decided: SEP 5 1975 Filed : , < Q$ a m PER CURIAM: This i s an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a W r i t of Supervisory Control or other appropriate w r i t . The s t a t e of Montana, through i t s Attorney General, Robert L. Woodahl, r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e w r i t be d i r e c t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , and t h e p r e s i d i n g judge, Hon. Nat Allen, w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e causes e n t i t l e d S t a t e of Montana v. John J . Carden, a.k.a. James J. Carden, Cause No. 3937, and S t a t e of Montana v. John J. Carden, a.k.a. James J. Carden and Gloria ( ~ u s e k )Carden, Cause No. 3938. The f a c t s l e a d i n g up t o t h e p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t show t h a t on December 20, 1974, t h e s t a t e of Montana made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e Informations i n causes No. 3937 and No. 3938. O December 20, 1974, l e a v e was g r a n t e d i n cause No. 3938. n On January 9, 1975, t h e Ilon. Nat Allen assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n o f both causes No. 3937 and No. 3938 a f t e r Judges Gordon R. Bennett and P e t e r Meloy of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t v o l u n t a r i l y withdrew from t h o s e c a s e s . O January 14, 1975, t h e Hon. Nat Allen granted n l e a v e t o f i l e t h e Information i n c a u s e No. 3937. The i n i t i a l defense motions of both c a s e s were f i l e d on February 10, 1975, and t h e defense b r i e f was f i l e d on February 28, 1975. Oral argument was heard on t h e i s s u e of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r judgment of contempt a g a i n s t t h e Attorney General, e t , a l . , and t h e p e t i t i o n f o r judgment of contempt a g a i n s t t h e defendant, John J. Carden. O March 24, 1975, Judge Allen r u l e d upon t h e s e i s s u e s . n O March n 1 9 , 1975, t h e c o u r t extended t h e time f o r f i l i n g of b r i e f s f o r defendant u n t i l A p r i l 21, 1975, and t h e s t a t e u n t i l May 21, 1975, and defendant u n t i l May 30, 1975, t o r e p l y . A l l b r i e f s were f i l e d w i t h i n t h e time e x t e n s i o n s o f t h e c o u r t . O August 4 , 1975, pursuant t o s e c t i o n 95-1709, R.C.M. n 1947, t h e Attorney General moved t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r an o r d e r t o s u b s t i t u t e judge i n causes No. 3937 and No. 3938. O August 11, 1975, by w r i t t e n o r d e r , t h e Hon. Nat Allen n ordered t h e Attorney General's motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge on both causes No. 3937 and No. 3938 b e denied and ordered s t r i c k e n from t h e r e c o r d . The c o u r t s t a t e d t h i s reason: h he attempt by t h e Attorney General t o s u b s t i t u t e a judge a f t e r t h e m a t t e r was submitted and pending d e c i s i o n by t h e Court i s d e l i b e r a t e abuse of t h e d i s q u a l i f y i n g s t a t u t e , and i f allowed would d e s t r o y t h e e f f i c i e n c y of a l l D i s t r i c t Courts." Therefore, t h e Attorney General has p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r a Writ of Supervisory Control o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t i n s t r u c t i n g t h e Hon. Nat Allen t o i s s u e t h e o r d e r of sub- stitution. Petitioner presents these three issues f o r t h i s c o u r t ' s review: 1) Whether t h e motion of s u b s t i t u t i o n o f judge, submitted by t h e s t a t e of Montana was proper and whether i t comported w i t h a 1 1 c o n d i t i o n s precedent t o s e c t i o n 95-1709, R.C.M.
2) Whether, looking t o t h e r e a s o n i n g of Judge Allen above, t h e cause had been i n f a c t submitted t o him; and 3) Whether t h e Hon. Nat Allen must r e l i n q u i s h a l l j u r i s - d i c t i o n t o t h e above c a s e s e f f e c t i v e upon t h e f i l i n g of t h e motion. P e t i t i o n e r contends t h a t he has complied w i t h a l l of t h e requirements of s e c t i o n 95-1709. That s e c t i o n i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t provides :
"(a) The defendant o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n may move t h e c o u r t i n w r i t i n g f o r a s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge on t h e ground t h a t he cannot have a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g o r t r i a l b e f o r e s a i d judge. The motion s h a l l be made a t l e a s t f i f t e e n (15) days p r i o r t o t h e t r i a l of t h e c a s e , o r any r e t r i a l t h e r e o f a f t e r a p p e a l , except f o r good cause shown. Upon t h e f i l i n g of such a motion t h e judge a g a i n s t whom t h e motion i s f i l e d s h a l l be without authority t o a c t f u r t h e r i n the criminal action, motion o r proceeding b u t t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s s e c t i o n do n o t a p p l y t o t h e arrangement of t h e i a l e n d a r , t h e r e g u l a t i o n of t h e o r d e r of b u s i n e s s , izhe power of t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r proceeding t o some o t h e r c o u r t , nor t o t h e power of c a l l i n g i n a n o t h e r judge t o s i t and a c t i n such c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r proceeding, providing t h a t no judge s h a l l s o a r r a n g e t h e c a l e n d a r a s t o d e f e a t t h e ourposes of t h i s s e c t i o n . Not more than one (1) iudge can be d i s q u a l i f i e d i n t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r proceeding, a t t h e i n s t a n c e of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n and n o t more than (1) judge a t t h e i n s t a n c e of t h e defendant or defendants. I P e t i t i o n e r ' s motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n was made i n w r i t i n g
b e i o r e a n y t r i a l d a t e was s e t . The grounds and r e a s o n s upon
which t h e motion was based was t h a t t h e s t a t e "cannot have a
f a i r and i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g o r t r i a l b e f o r e s a i d judge. I' There-
f o r e , having reviewed a l l t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e a t t h e d a t e of
t h e h e a r i n g , we f i n d p e t i t i o n e r has complied w i t h a l l t h e c o n d i t i o n s
precedent t o s e c t i o n 95-1709.
The second i s s u e then i s whether t h e r e a s o n i n g of Judge A l l e r l i n h i s o r d e r d a t e d August 11, 1975, f o r n o t d i s q u a l i f y i n g
himself:
"The a t t e m p t by t h e Attorney General t o s u b s t i t u t e a judge a f t e r t h e m a t t e r was submitted and pending d e c i s i o n by t h e Court i s d e l i b e r a t e abuse of t h e d i s q u a l i f y i n g s t a t u t e , and i f allowed would d e s t r o y che e f f i c i e n c y of a l l D i s t r i c t Courts. 11
was a v a l i d r e a s o n which would a l l o w Judge Allen t o maintain j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e two c a u s e s b e f o r e him. Respondent a r g u e s : II J u s t i c e and f a i r n e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t a judge cannot b e d i s q u a l i f i e d a s t o a motion b e f o r e t h e c o u r t where t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r had been h e l d , a l l b r i e f s were submitted by b o t h s i d e s , and t h e m a t t e r had been deemed submitted t o t h e judge f o r h i s de- c i s i o n . II This Court has reviewed t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d of c a u s e s No. 3937 and !jo. 3938 and nowhere can we f i n d any e n t r y i n t h e r e c o r d which would show t h a t any motion was pending b e f o r e t h e c o u r t o r deemed submitted by t h e c o u r t a t t h e time t h e motion f o r sub-
s t i t u t i o n of judge was made t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t by t h e p e t i t i o n e r . W will e n o t c o n s i d e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of p a r t i e s a f t e r t h e f a c t o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s dehors t h e r e c o r d s . W therefore find e r e s p o n d e n t ' s argument t h a t a judge cannot be d i s q u a l i f i e d when a motion i s submitted t o t h a t judge, i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n now b e f o r e u s . The f i n a l i s s u e presented t o t h i s Court i s whether t h e Hon. Mat Allen must r e l i n q u i s h a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e causes i n q u e s t i o n . W f i n d t h a t s i n c e p e t i t i o n e r has complied e w i t h a l l c o n d i t i o n s precedent t o s e c t i o n 95-1709 and t h e r e has been no showing by respondent of any f a c t s which would e s t a b l i s h noncompliance w i t h t h a t s t a t u t e , t h e Hon. Nat Allen must r e l i n - q u i s h a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e c a s e s i n q u e s t i o n e f f e c t i v e upon t h e d a t e of t h e f i l i n g o f t h e motion of s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge. This opinion s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a W r i t of Supervisory Control o r d e r i n g t h a t t h e h e r e t o f o r e mentirnd o r d e r of August 11, 1975, b e s e t a s i d e and a n n u l l e d ; and d i r e c t i n g Hon. Nat Allen t o r e l i n q u i s h j u r i s d i c t i o n so t h a t a n o t h e r judge may b e c a l l e d i n t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n over c r i m i n a l causes No. 3937 and No. 3938.
Hon. Jack L. Green, D i s t r i c t Judge, s a t f o r Nr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly i n t h e above e n t i t l e d o r i g i n a l proceeding.