STATE EX REL PASCHKE v DISTRICT C

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12483 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA OR F F 1973 THE STATE O M N A A ex r e 1 J O N WILLIAM F OTN R OD PASCHKE and JOHN A N L MASON, Relators, THE DISTRICT COURT O THE THIRTEENTH F JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF M NA A e t a l , OTN Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel o f Record: For R e l a t o r : S a n d a l l , Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana. D. Frank Kampfe argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. For Respondents : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. J C Weingartner, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, appeared, Helena, Montana. Harold F. Hanser, County A t t o r n e y , argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. . . Submitted: Decided: Filed : AUG 2 3 7973 March 29, 1973 2 3 18- Hon. Jack Shanstrom, d i s t r i c t judge s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison, d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding seeking a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l over t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, and t h e Hon. C. B. Sande, presiding judge. P e t i t i o n was f i l e d by r e l a t o r s Jon William Paschke and John Arnold Mason, seeking continuance of a t r i a l d a t e and t h a t D i s t r i c t Judge Sande d i s q u a l i f y himself from hearing s a i d c a s e , a f t e r an a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n had been f i l e d by r e l a t o r s . The f a c t s i t u a t i o n is: O Monday, February 26, 1973 t h e n county a t t o r n e y of Yellowstone County f i l e d a complaint i n j u s t i c e c o u r t charging r e l a t o r s with seven counts of possession of dangerous drugs. P r i o r t o t h e complaint being f i l e d an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a search warrant had been f i l e d with t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t and pursuant t h e r e t o a search warrant was issued by t h e j u s t i c e of t h e peace on February 25, 1973. A s a r e s u l t of t h e search t h e charges of posses- s i o n of dangerous drugs were f i l e d . On February 28, 1973 t h e county a t t o r n e y f i l e d an information i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Yellowsone County, charging r e l a t o r s with seven counts of possession of dangerous drugs. O February 28, 1973 r e l a t o r s appeared a t t h e arraignment n represented by counsel, D. Frank Kampfe. B a i l was s e t a t $15,000 on each r e l a t o r . O March 2 , 1973 r e l a t o r John Arnold Mason posted bond and was n released. O March 12, 1973 r e l a t o r Jon William Paschke was r e l e a s e d n on bond, On March 2 , 1973 Judge C. B , Sande ordered a s e t t i n g f o r t r i a l of c r i m i n a l causes 8860 and 8861 f o r March 26, 1973 a t t h e hour of 9:30 a.m. The order was received by counsel f o r r e l a t o r s on March 5 , 1973. O March 21, 1973 counsel f o r r e l a t o r s f i l e d two a f f i d a v i t s n of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n which were duly signed by t h e r e l a t o r s . O March 2 1 , 1973 Judge Sande refused t o d i s q u a l i f y himself and n so advised counsel f o r r e l a t o r s by telephone. O t h e same day, March 21, 1973, c o u n s e l f o r r e l a t o r s f i l e d n a motion f o r continuance and n o t i c e of motion f o r continuance which a l l e g e d numerous grounds f o r continuance of t h e t r i a l s , among them were : 1. ~ e l a t o r s 'counsel had o t h e r previous c a s e s set f o r t r i a l d u r i n g t h e week o f March 26 through March 30. 2. R e l a t o r s ' c o u n s e l d i d n o t have adequate time t o prepare and i n v e s t i g a t e t h e c a s e s p r i o r t o t h e t r i a l s e t t i n g . 3. That a d d i t i o n a l burdens were c a s t upon c o u n s e l f o r r e l a t o r s because o f h i s handling of o f f i c e m a t t e r s p r e v i o u s l y handled by o t h e r members of t h e f i r m who were e i t h e r t r y i n g c a s e s o u t of town o r had l e f t t h e employment of t h e firm. O March 22, 1973 c o u n s e l f o r r e l a t o r s was a d v i s e d by Judge n Sande through a telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t t h e motion f o r continuance was denied w i t h o u t h e a r i n g and t h e m a t t e r would go t o t r i a l on March 26, 1973. A t t h a t time he f u r t h e r advised counsel f o r r e l a t o r s t h a t any motions t o suppress a n d / o r o t h e r h e a r i n g s would b e h e l d on March 23, 1973. Judge Sande f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t b e f o r e t h i s Court and was rep r e s e n t e d by Harold F. Hanser, county a t t o r n e y f o r Yellowstone County, a l l e g i n g t h a t w i t h i n t h e week of s e t t i n g t h e c a s e s f o r t r i a l he p e r s o n a l l y advised counsel f o r r e l a t o r s t h a t i f any motions were t o b e made i n r e g a r d t o t h e c a s e s they should be made a t an e a r l y d a t e and disposed of b e f o r e t r i a l . That he had had no communi- c a t i o n whatsoever w i t h c o u n s e l f o r r e l a t o r s from t h a t time forward u n t i l Thursday, March 22, 1973, a t which time t h e c o u r t was advised t h a t a p e t i t i o n f o r continuance and a f f i d a v i t s of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n had been f i l e d by counsel f o r r e l a t o r s . That a t t h e time he r e c e i v e d t h i s p e t i t i o n t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e was p r e p a r i n g t h e c a s e s for trial. That f o r t y j u r o r s had been summoned t o a t t e n d t h e t r i a l on March 26, 1973. That t h e c o u r t had p r e v i o u s l y s e t c r i m i n a l c a s e s a l l through t h e months of A p r i l and May, a t which time t h e term ended, and i f t h e s e c a s e s were continued i t would n o t be p o s s i b l e t o t r y them d u r i n g t h a t term. - 3 - . County Attorney Hanser a l s o f i l e d a memorandum before t h i s Court s t a t i n g t h a t t h e Yellowstone county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e f i l e d i n excess of 300 felony c a s e s i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t during t h e year 1972, and t h a t on March 23, 1973, approximately 40 cases were s e t i n Judge Sande's department during t h e months of A p r i l and May. That even though counsel f o r r e l a t o r s pointed out h i s own busy schedule and reasons f o r continuance, M r , Kampfe on March 1, 1973 spent considerable time n e g o t i a t i n g with t h e Yellowstone county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e f o r t h e r e t u r n of two $1,000 checks seized i n evidence pursuant t o t h e search warrants, That, i n a d d i t i o n , he had s u f f i c i e n t time t o f i l e i n f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t an a c t i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e s e checks. Thus, f a c t u a l l y , i t would appear t h a t counsel would have had s u f f i c i e n t time f o r motions f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge and continuance of t r i a l and could have made them more timely had he so d e s i r e d . I t i s from t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e motions t o continue t h e t r i a l s and r e f u s a l t o d i s q u a l i f y himself t h a t r e l a t o r s seek r e l i e f by way of a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l from t h i s Court. The i s s u e s : Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n i t s d e n i a l t o continue t h e t r i a l s , and was t h e attempted d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n timely made? The p r i n c i p a l Montana s t a t u t e with r e s p e c t t o d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s s e c t i o n 95-1709, R.C.M. 1947: " S u b s t i t u t i o n of judge. (a) The defendant o r t h e prosecution may move t h e c o u r t i n w r i t i n g f o r a subs 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 hearing o r t r i a l before 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 thereof a f t e r appeal, 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 a u t h o r i t y t o a c t f u r t h e r i n t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n , motion o r proceeding b u t t h e provisions of t h i s s e c t i o n do n o t apply t o t h e arrangement of t h e c a l e n d a r , t h e r e g u l a t i o n of t h e order of business, t h e power of t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e criminal 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 ano t h e r judge t o s i t and a c t i n such criminal a c t i o n o r proceeding, providing t h a t no judge s h a l l so arrange t h e calendar a s t o d e f e a t t h e purposes of t h i s s e c t i o n . Not more than one (1) judge 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 prosecution and n o t more than one (1) judge a t t h e i n s t a n c e of t h e defendant o r defendants. 11 If either party in any matter above-mentioned shall file the motion as herein provided such party may not complaint of any reasonable delay as the result thereof. 11 The provision of this section shall be inapplicable to any person in any cause involving a direct contempt of court. "b () In addition to the provision of subsection (a) any defendant may move at any time for substitution of judge for cause, supported by affidavit. Upon the filing of such motion the court shall conduct a hearing and determine the merits of the motion. II This Court has previously discussed this matter at great length in State ex rel. Wilson v. District Court, 143 Mont. 543, 393 P.2d 39, in which the Court held the language of section 95-1709, R.C.M. 1947, to be clear and concise: h he motion shall be made at least fifteen (15) days prior to the trial of the case * *.I1 Unless, of course, a deliberate attempt is made to arrange a calendar to defeat the purposes of this section. Here, from the affidavits and memorandums submitted to this Court, we find the affidavit of disqualification was filed approximately four days prior to the trial date, and that there had been no communication whatsoever between Judge Sande and counsel for relators from the time the cases were set on March 2, 1973, and .. 'I p-pjijll LC' additionally, that wi4hi-n-a week thereafter Judge Sande personally notified counsel for relators that any motions should be made at an early date to be disposed of before the trial. There is nothing in the petition of relators to show that there should be a variance or a justification for failure to file the affidavits of disqualification within the 15 days provided by the statute. We hold the motions for disqualification were not timely made and therefore Judge Sanders denial of the affidavits of disqualification was proper. The remaining issue for review relating to the district court's denial of petitioners' motion for continuance need not be determined as such issue has become moot. This original proceeding is ac~qdinglydismissed. P ' ' J /'~istrict Judge, sitting for Hon. >/ , James T. Harrison. , We Concur: \,~ssociate Justices 1 i \ I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. 12483 STATE EX REL. JON W I L L I A M PASCHKE e t a l . , Relators, VS. THE D I S T R I C T COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT e t a l . , Respondents. O R D E R PER CURIAM: I T I S ORDERED t h a t t h e w o r d " w i t h i n " i n l i n e 2% p a g e 5 , o f t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d o p i n i o n be changed t o " p r i o r t o " . DATED t h i s 1 7 t h d a y o f S e p t e m b e r , 1973.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.