STATE EX REL LANCE v DIST COURT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13167 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN OTN THE STATE OF M N A A ex r e 1 STEPHEN WALTER LANCE, Relator, THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT O THE STATE O F F MONTANA, i n and f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e , and t h e HON. ROBERT H. WILSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relator : Moses, Kampfe, T o l l i v e r & W r i g h t , B i l l i n g s , Montana D. Frank Kampfe a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondents: Hon. R o b e r t I.,. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, 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 Harold F. Hanser a p p e a r e d , County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Amicus C u r i a e : Thomas Honzel a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Submitted : Decided: lerk October 29, 1975 h!@vlzlw5 Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l or other appropriate w r i t . R e l a t o r Stephen Walter Lance was charged by Information w i t h one f e l o n y count of c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous drugs (marijuana), and one f e l o n y count o f possession of dangerous drugs (marijuana), i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County. A motion t o d i s m i s s was f i l e d , heard and denied. Relator then p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l d i r e c t i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e Information. A n a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g was h e l d b e f o r e t h i s Court. R.elator c h a l l e n g e s t h e two s t a t u t e s under which he was charged, s e c t i o n s 54-132 and 54-133, R.C.M. 1947. R e l a t o r contends t h a t b o t h s e c t i o n s f a i l t o s t a t e a crime and t h e attempted enforcement of such s t a t u t e s i s i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e due process c l a u s e i n t h e Fourteenth Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 17, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . Section 54-132 r e a d s i n p a r t : "(a) A person commits t h e o f f e n s e of a c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous drugs i f he s e l l s , b a r t e r s , exchanges, g i v e s away, o r o f f e r s t o s e l l , b a r t e r , exchange or g i v e away, manufactures, p r e p a r e s , c u l t i v a t e s , compounds o r processes any dangerous drug a s d e f i n e d i n t h i s a c t . " (Emphasis added.) Section 54-133 r e a d s i n p a r t : "(a) A person commits t h e o f f e n s e of c r i m i n a l possession of dangerous drugs i f he possesses any dangerous drug a s d e f i n e d i n t h i s a c t . " ( ~ m p h a s l sadded.) Sections 54-132 and 54-133 were enacted on Pilarch 11, 1969, a s p a r t of t h e Montana Dangerous Drug Act. Also included i n t h a t a c t was s e c t i o n 54-129, which defined t h e term "dangerous drug". T h e r e a f t e r , on March 21, 1973, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e enacted f u r t h e r drug l e g i s l a t i o n borrowing h e a v i l y from t h e Uniform Cont r o l l e d Substances Act. s e c t i o n 54-129. p r e s e n t form. A s p a r t of t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n , i t r e p e a l e d It a l s o amended s e c t i o n s 54-132 and 54-133 t o t h e i r The new l e g i s l a t i o n was c o d i f i e d a s s e c t i o n s 54-301 through 54-327, R. C.Y. 1947. The *-IonLana 9angerous Drug Act remained i n T i t l e 54, Chapter 1, Revised Codesof Montana. F i r s t , r e l a t o r presents f o r t h i s Court's consideration t h e argument t h a t t h e r e a r e now two s e p a r a t e drug a c t s i n f o r c e i n t h e s t a t e of Montana : (1) t h e Montana Dangerous Drug Act, and (2) what r e l a t o r l a b e l s t h e "Controlled Substances Act". Relator a r g u e s t h a t by r e p e a l i n g s e c t i o n 54-129 t h e Montana Dangerous Drug Act no l o n g e r has a d e f i n i t i o n of a dangerous drug, t h e r e f o r e r e l a t o r cannot be charged w i t h e i t h e r t h e s a l e o r p o s s e s s i o n of a dangerous drug under s e c t i o n s 54-132 and 54-133 f o r b o t h s t a t u t e s use t h e p h r a s e "dangerous drug a s d e f i n e d i n t h i s a c t " . Relator a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e i s no such d e f i n i t i o n . With t h a t argument t h i s Court cannot a g r e e . House B i l l No. 128, 43rd L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, was e n t i t l e d : "AN ACT TO AMEND THE D N E O S DRUG ACT, BY A GR U ADOPTING SUBSTANTIALLY THE DEFINITIONS, PROCEDURES, STANDARDS AND SCHEDULES AND THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS O T E UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT F H A RECOMMENDED BY THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE O COMMISS F SIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS; BY EXCLUDING F O S C RM UH SCHEDULES NON-NARCOTIC D U S WHICH MAY BE L W U L RG A F LY SOLD OVER T E COUNTER WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION; BY H REPEALING SECTIONS 54-129, 54-130, 54-131 and 66-1504.1, R.C.M.1947; PROVIDING F R SEVERABILITY I F ANY O PART O THIS ACT I S DETERMINED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; AND F REPEALING ALL ACTS AND PARTS O ACTS I N CONFLICT HEREF WITH. " *** From i t s t i t l e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e 1973 l e g i s l a t i o n was i n t e n d e d only t o amend t h e e x i s t i n g Dangerous Drug Act and n o t t o create a separate ontr trolled Substances Act". The problem h e r e i s o b v i o u s l y an o v e r s i g h t on t h e p a r t of t h e c o d i f i e r i n making t h e l e g i s l a t i o n look l i k e two s e p a r a t e a c t s i n t h e Revised Codes o f Montana. The a c t s of t h e c o d i f i e r cannot change t h e i n t e n t of the legislature. Nor does t h e a d o p t i o n of d e f i n i t i o n s and format from t h e Uniform C o n t r o l l e d Substances Act make t h e l e g i s l a t i o n a s e p a r a t e a c t from t h e Montana Dangerous Drug Act. T h e r e f o r e , t h e 1973 drug l e g i s l a t i o n now c o d i f i e d under s e c t i o n s 54-301 through 54-327, R.C.M. 1947, was i n t e n d e d t o amend and be included a s p a r t of t h e Montana Dangerous Drug Act; t h e term 11 dangerous drug" a s used i n s e c t i o n s 54-132 and 54-133 i s d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 54-301, R.C:M. 1947. R e l a t o r ' s second argument i s t h a t t h e f e d e r a l C o n t r o l l e d Substances Act preempted ~ o n t a n a ' sDangerous Drug Act. Relator acknowledges t h a t t h e f e d e r a l C o n t r o l l e d Substances Act, 2 1 U.S.C.. $903, r e a d s : "No p r o v i s i o n o f t h i s t i t l e s h a l l b e c o n s t r u e d a s i n d i c a t i n g an i n t e n t on t h e p a r t of t h e Congress t o occupy t h e f i e l d i n which t h a t p r o v i s i o n o p e r a t e s , i n c l u d i n g c r i m i n a l p e n a l t i e s , t o t h e e x c l u s i o n of any S t a t e law on t h e same s u b j e c t m a t t e r which would o t h e r wise be w i t h i n t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e S t a t e , u n l e s s t h e r e i s a p o s i t i v e c o n f l i c t between t h a t p r o v i s i o n o f t h i s t i t l e and t h a t S t a t e law s o t h a t t h e two cannot cons i s t e n t l y stand together. II R e l a t o r concedes t h e r e was no o v e r a l l plan t o preempt t h e s t a t e s i n t h e f i e l d of a drug c o n t r o l when Congress enacted t h e f e d e r a l C o n t r o l l e d Substances Act, R e l a t o r p o i n t s o u t however t h a t t h e r e i s a s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e p e n a l t y f o r possession of marijuana between t h e f e d e r a l C o n t r o l l e d Substances Act and t h e Montana Dangerous Drug Act. There i s a "vast d i f f e r e n c e " i n t h e p e n a l t i e s provided i n t h e two a c t s f o r t h e s a l e of dangerous d r u g s , b u t t h e d i f f e r e n c e i s n o t c o n f l i c t i n g i n view of t h e s p e c i f i c i n c l u s i o n of c r i m i n a l p e n a l t i e s i n t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e . Relator a r g u e s t h a t one of t h e s t a t e d purposes of t h e enactment o f t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e was t o provide f o r an o v e r a l l balanced scheme o f c r i m i n a l p e n a l t i e s f o r o f f e n s e s i n v o l v i n g d r u g s ; t h a t t h e s t a t e and f e d e r a l a c t s provide such a p o s i t i v e c o n f l i c t a s t o p e n a l t i e s t h a t t h e two cannot s t a n d t o g e t h e r ; and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e f e d e r a l law preempted t h e s t a t e . W f i n d no m e r i t t o r e l a t o r ' s argument. e Nowhere i s t h e r e evidence t h a t t h e f e d e r a l a c t was i n any way meant t o preempt t h e s t a t e ' s r i g h t t o drug c o n t r o l , I n Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497, 76 S.Ct. 4 5 7 , L O 0 L ed 640, 652, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court s e t o u t t h r e e t e s t s , two of which a r e important t o our c o n s i d e r a t i o n h e r e , t o determine whether a f e d e r a l a c t has superseded a s t a t e a c t : " ~ i r s,t ' [ t ]he scheme of f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n [ i s ] s o pervasive a s t o make r e a s o n a b l e t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t Con r e s s l e f t no room f o r t h e S t a t e s t o supplement i t . ? * , , "second, t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s ' t o u c h a f i e l d i n which t h e e r a l i n t e r e s t i s s o dominant t h a t t h e f e d e r a l system [must] be assumed t o p r e c l u d e enforcement o f s t a t e laws on t h e same s u b j e c t . ' *** ** "Third, enforcement of s t a t e k a c t s presents a ; s e r i o u s danger o f c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e f e d e r a l program. I I Applying t h e s e s t a n d a r d s , i t cannot be s a i d t h e states have no a u t h o r i t y t o r e g u l a t e i n t h e f i e l d of drugs o r n a r c o t i c s , i n c l u d i n g t h e a u t h o r i t y t o s p e c i f y t h e punishment t o be imposed. Furthermore, t h e Congress made c l e a r , a s h e r e t o f o r e quoted, * * * including criminal law * * *." (Emphasis added.) t h a t i t d i d n o t i n t e n d "to occupy t h e f i e l d p e n a l t i e s , t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f any S t a t e Nothing could be more c l e a r . The p e t i t i o n of r e l a t o r i s denied and t h i s proceeding i s dismissed. G f&/ ¬ Chief J C s t i c e / I. ! 4:-*44Ad ' I ' Justices. /

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.