STATE v CUNNINGHAM

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12846 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A F F OTW 1975 THE STATE O M N A A F OTN, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - C A C CUNNINGHAM, LNY Defendant and Respondent, Appeal from: D t s t r i c t Court o f 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 , Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Richard Dzivi argued, S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Great F a l l s , Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : Moses, Kampfe, T o l l i v e r and Wright, B i l l i n g s , Montana Ralph Wright argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided : A p r i l 14, 1975 !\M'Y - 2 197s + Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I , Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . The q u e s t i o n i n t h i s c a s e i s whether f u r t h e r p r o s e c u t i o n i s b a r r e d by t h e d o u b l e j e o p a r d y p r o v i s i o n s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d it was. We reverse. O August 24, 1973, d e f e n d a n t Clancy Cunningham was n charged with f i r s t degree a s s a u l t a r i s i n g o u t of t h e a l l e g e d s t a b b i n g of one L a r r y C a t l i n . Defendant e n t e r e d a p l e a of " n o t The c a s e was s e t f o r t r i a l on March 2 1 , 1974, i n t h e guilty". d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Yellowstone County. On t h e t r i a l d a t e , a j u r y was d u l y s e l e c t e d and sworn. The d i s t r i c t judge t h e n r e a d a g e n e r a l omnibus j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n without objection. C o u r t was t h e n r e c e s s e d o v e r t h e noon h o u r . When c o u r t reconvened, t h e d e p u t y c o u n t y a t t o r n e y moved t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n on t h e ground t h a t a new and d i f f e r e n t c h a r g e , s p e c i f i c a l l y t h i r d d e g r e e a s s a u l t , was b e i n g f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e defendant i n j u s t i c e c o u r t . The s u b s t a n t i a l r e a s o n f o r t h e d i s - m i s s a l was t h a t t h e v i c t i m o f t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t was n o t a v a i l able t o testify. subpoenaed. The v i c t i m , a r e s i d e n t of Wyoming, had n o t been The s t a t e ' s motion t o d i s m i s s was g r a n t e d w i t h o u t objection. Defendant e n t e r e d a p l e a of " g u i l t y " t o t h e t h i r d d e g r e e a s s a u l t c h a r g e based on t h e same i n c i d e n t . He was s e n t e n c e d i n t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t t o s i x months i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l . T h e r e a f t e r on May 1 7 , 1974, d e f e n d a n t , r e p r e s e n t e d by d i f f e r e n t c o u n s e l , withdrew h i s p r i o r p l e a of " g u i l t y " and e n t e r e d a p l e a of " n o t g u i l t y " t o t h e t h i r d d e g r e e a s s a u l t c h a r g e i n the justice court. Thereupon t h e s t a t e d i s m i s s e d t h e t h i r d de- g r e e a s s a u l t c h a r g e and f i l e d a f i r s t d e g r e e a s s a u l t c h a r g e based on t h e same i n c i d e n t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Defendant moved t o quash t h e l a t t e r c h a r g e on t h e ground t h a t i t p l a c e d d e f e n d a n t i n j e o p a r d y a second t i m e on t h e same c h a r g e i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e d o u b l e j e o p a r d y p r o v i s i o n s of t h e f e d e r a l and s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n s . A f f i d a v i t s were f i l e d by t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y , a p a r a l e g a l o f f i c e r of t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s s t a f f , and t h e v i c t i m . These a f f i d a v i t s a r e somewhat a t v a r i a n c e c o n c e r n i n g what p r i o r a r r a n g e m e n t s had been made f o r t h e v i c t i m t o t e s t i f y and why he d i d n o t a p p e a r t o t e s t i f y on March 2 1 on t h e former c h a r g e of f i r s t d e g r e e a s s a u l t a g a i n s t d e f e n d - ant. After hearing, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t granted defendant's motion t o quash. The s t a t e a p p e a l s . The F i f t h Amendment's p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t p l a c i n g a p e r s o n t w i c e i n jeopardy f o r t h e same o f f e n s e a p p l i e s t o s t a t e c o u r t c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s t h r o u g h t h e "due p r o c e s s 1 ' c l a u s e of t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment. S.Ct. Benton v . Maryland (1969) 3 9 5 U.S. 2056, 23 L ed 2d 707. 784, 89 This p r o s c r i p t i o n i s not only a g a i n s t being twice punished, b u t a l s o a g a i n s t being twice p u t i n jeopardy. United S t a t e s v. B a l l (1896) 163 U.S. 662, 16 S.Ct. 300; United S t a t e s v . J o r n (1971) 4 0 0 U.S. L ed 2d 543. 1192, 4 1 L.ed. 470, 9 1 S . C t . 547, 27 I t t h u s becomes n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e when j e o p a r d y a t t a c h e s i n a Montana s t a t e c o u r t c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n . Montana s t a t u t e s p r o v i d e t h a t jeopardy a t t a c h e s i n a crimi n a l t r i a l a f t e r t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s i s sworn. The 1969 Montana l e g i s l a t u r e s o p r o v i d e d i n Ch. 228, S e s s i o n Laws of 1969, c o d i f i e d a s s e c t i o n 94-6808.3, R.C.M. 1947. r i v e d from t h e Model P e n a l Code. posed O f f i c i a l D r a f t , 1962. T h i s Montana s t a t u t e was de- B 1 . 0 8 , Model P e n a l Code, Pro- The American Law I n s t i t u t e , i n formu- l a t i n g t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e Model P e n a l Code, d e t e r m i n e d t h a t jeopa r d y c u s t o m a r i l y a t t a c h e s i n n o n j u r y c a s e s upon s w e a r i n g t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s ( s e e Anno. 49 ALR3d 1 0 3 9 ) ; and concluded t h a t no v a l i d r a t i o n a l e e x i s t s f o r jeopardy a t t a c h i n g a t a d i f f e r e n t t i m e i n a jury t r i a l . The Montana l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1969 a d o p t e d t h i s s t a n d a r d o f when j e o p a r d y a t t a c h e s . The 1973 Montana l e g i s l a t u r e , m e e t i n g a f t e r a d o p t i o n o f t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , a g a i n c o n s i d e r e d t h i s s t a t e ' s c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s on former p r o s e c u t i o n s and double jeopardy. T h i s l e g i s l a t u r e r e e n a c t e d s e c t i o n 94-6808.3, R.C.M. 1947, pro- v i d i n g t h a t jeopardy a t t a c h e s i n a c r i m i n a l t r i a l a f t e r t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s i s sworn. S e c t i o n 95-1711, R.C.M. 1947. The f e d e r a l r u l e , u n l i k e t h e Montana s t a t u t e , p r o v i d e s t h a t i n c r i m i n a l t r i a l s i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s jeopardy a t t a c h e s when t h e j u r y i s s e l e c t e d a n d sworn. (1963) 372 U.S. 734, 83 S . C t . Downum v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 1 0 3 3 , 1 0 L e d 2d 1 0 0 . Whether t h e s o u r c e o f t h i s r u l e l i e s i n t h e r u l e making power o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t o v e r f e d e r a l c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s o r c o n s t i t u t e s a pronouncement o f d o u b l e j e o p a r d y s t a n d a r d s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Constitution is unclear. Thus t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e Montana s t a t u t e p r o v i d i n g t h a t j e o p a r d y a t t a c h e s when t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s i s sworn i s s q u a r e l y presented. D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h e Montana s t a t u t e i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because it v i o l a t e s t h e double jeopardy s t a n d a r d s of t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n as e n u n c i a t e d i n a s e r i e s o f U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n s , p r i n c i p a l l y Downum v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 3 ) , s u p r a ; Duncan v . L o u i s i a n a ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 391 U.S. 1 4 5 , 88 S . C t . 20 L e d 2d 1412; I l l i n o i s v. S o m e r v i l l e ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 410 U.S. S.Ct. 1444, 458, 93 1 0 6 6 , 35 L e d 2d 425, 433, 434, a n d S e r f a s s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s (1975 -U.S. , 43 L e d 2d 265, 95 S.Ct. . Although t h e r e i s language i n t h e s e opinions t h a t supports t h i s conclusion, t h e f a c t s a n d i s s u e s i n t h e s e c a s e s do n o t i n o u r o p i n i o n s e t up a r i g i d , i m m u t a b l e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r u l e t o be a p p l i e d m e c h a n i c a l l y i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether s t a t e laws conform. Although c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o p i n i o n s o f t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t a r e n e c e s s a r i l y p a i n t e d w i t h a broad b r u s h , t h e language c a n n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d i n a f a c t u a l vacuum. A s t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court o b s e r v e d i n S o m e r v i l l e i n commenting on i t s h o l d i n g i n a p r i o r c a s e : "While it i s p o s s i b l e t o of t h e p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n r e a c h e d below, d i v o r c i n g f a c t s of t h e case serves holdings." excise various portions t o support t h e r e s u l t t h e l a n g u a g e from t h e only t o d i s t o r t i t s Each of t h e c a s e s n o t e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h on which t h e d e f e n d a n t r e l i e s i s c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e i n s t a n t c a s e and d o e s n o t p r e s e n t t h e i s s u e w i t h which we a r e here confronted. Downum i n v o l v e d a t r i a l i n f e d e r a l c o u r t where jeopardy had c l e a r l y a t t a c h e d under t h e f e d e r a l r u l e . Duncan i n v o l v e d t h e r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y , n o t d o u b l e j e o p a r d y . Somer- v i l l e i n v o l v e d a s t a t e c r i m i n a l t r i a l where jeopardy had c l e a r l y a t t a c h e d under a s t a t e s t a t u t e p r o v i d i n g t h a t jeopardy a t t a c h e d when t h e former p r o s e c u t i o n was " t e r m i n a t e d i m p r o p e r l y a f t e r t h e j u r y was impaneled and sworn", t h e f e d e r a l r u l e . (For t h e t e x t of t h e s t a t u t e s e e P e o p l e v . S o m e r v i l l e , 8 8 I l l . A p p . 2 d N.E.2d 115). 212, 232 Serfass involves a prosecution i n federal court where t h e i n d i c t m e n t was d i s m i s s e d by p r e t r i a l o r d e r and d e f e n d a n t had n o t y e t been p u t t o t r i a l b e f o r e t h e t r i e r of t h e f a c t s . Our i n q u i r y h e r e f o c u s e s on whether t h e f e d e r a l r u l e i s of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i m e n s i o n s p r e c l u d i n g s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n on t h e subject. O r s t a t e d a n o t h e r way, i s t h e f e d e r a l r u l e s o fundamen- t a l t o t h e American system of j u s t i c e t h a t t h e "due p r o c e s s " c l a u s e of t h e F o u r t e e n t h Pmendment mandates i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o s t a t e c o u r t criminal proceedings? W e p e r c e i v e no i n h e r e n t m e r i t i n t h e f e d e r a l r u l e o v e r Montana's s t a t e law. It h a s been s a i d t h e f e d e r a l r u l e i s de- signed t o prevent p r o s e c u t o r i a l manipulation. I l l i n o i s v. Somerville, supra. I t h a s f u r t h e r been s a i d t h a t t h e f e d e r a l r u l e g u a r a n - tees t h e d e f e n d a n t h i s v a l u e d r i g h t t o have h i s t r i a l completed b e f o r e t h e t r i b u n a l and j u r y s e l e c t e d f o r h i s c a s e . Hunter, (1949) 336 U.S. Wade v . 684, 93 L.Ed 9 7 5 ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . J o r n , supra. W e f a i l t o see i n what manner t h e f e d e r a l r u l e p r o t e c t s a g a i n s t t h e s e a b u s e s t c a g r e a t e r e x t e n t t h a n Montana law. Prose- c u t o r i a l m a n i p u l a t i o n c a n be e f f e c t e d a s r e a d i l y under one r u l e a s under t h e o t h e r . I f b e n t on m a n i p u l a t i o n , a f e d e r a l p r o s e c u - t o r c a n move t o d i s m i s s a f t e r t h e j u r y i s s e l e c t e d b u t b e f o r e it is sworn, a s r e a d i l y a s a s t a t e p r o s e c u t o r can move t o d i s - m i s s a f t e r t h e j u r y i s sworn b u t b e f o r e t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s i s c a l l e d . I n e i t h e r c a s e , t h e r e a l p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t p r o s e c u t o r i a l manipul a t i o n i s t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge i n g r a n t i n g o r denying dismissal. Here, f o r example, t h e judge c o u l d h a v e , b u t d i d not, dismiss with prejudice. Nor do w e s e e any g r e a t e r p r o t e c t i o n i n t h e f e d e r a l r u l e a s f a r a s s e c u r i n g t o d e f e n d a n t t h e r i g h t t o have h i s t r i a l comp l e t e d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t and j u r y s e l e c t e d t o t r y h i s c a s e . tana adheres t o t h i s p r i n c i p l e a l s o . Mon- I t a l l depends on when t h e t r i a l i s c o n s i d e r e d t o have commenced--whether on s e l e c t i o n and s w e a r i n g of t h e j u r y a s i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s , o r on s w e a r i n g t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s a s i n Montana s t a t e c o u r t s . W f i n d no s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two r u l e s . e Montana p o l i c y a s e n u n c i a t e d by i t s l e g i s l a t u r e i s t h a t t h e t r i a l d o e s n o t s t a r t u n t i l t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s i s sworn. Sound p o l i c y reasons e x i s t f o r t h i s r u l e , p r i n c i p a l l y t h a t the jury a s t h e t r i e r of t h e f a c t s h a s n o t h i n g t o c o n s i d e r u n t i l t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s i s c a l l e d and sworn. This appears e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n t with t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l standard t h a t jeopardy does n o t a t t a c h u n t i l t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s been p u t t o t r i a l b e f o r e t h e t r i e r of t h e f a c t s . S e r f a s s v. United S t a t e s (1975), s u p r a . And a s t h e u n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t o b s e r v e d i n S o m e r v i l l e : "Federal c o u r t s should n o t be quick t o conclude t h a t simply because a s t a t e procedure does n o t conform t o t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g f e d e r a l s t a t u t e o r r u l e , it d o e s n o t s e r v e a l e g i t i m a t e s t a t e p o l i c y . " F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e Montana s t a t u t e does n o t v i o l a t e United S t a t e s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l standards of double jeopardy. N e i t h e r does t h e s t a t u t e v i o l a t e t h e double jeopardy p r o v i s i o n of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , A r t . 11, S e c t i o n 25. T h i s p r o v i s i o n d o e s n o t d e f i n e when j e o p a r d y a t t a c h e s l e a v i n g t h e l e g i s l a t u r e f r e e t o make t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n . The l e g i s l a t u r e h a s done s o by e n a c t m e n t o f t h e s t a t u t e s h e r e t o f o r e n o t e d . In so d o i n g it h a s n u l l i f i e d a n y s u g g e s t i o n found i n t h e l a n g u a g e o f S t a t e v. Gaimos (1916) 53 Mont. 1 1 8 , 162 P . 596, t h a t j e o p a r d y a t t a c h e s upon i m p a n e l i n g and s w e a r i n g t h e j u r y . T h i s c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Yellows t o n e County f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . Justice W e concur: - .& -,-,,--',----,- * . Chief J u s t i c e -- ------ -, - -"-L '

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.