STATE v CARDEN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13502 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1976 THE STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - JOHN J . CARDEN, a !k/a JAMES J . CARDEN, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R o b e r t H. I J i l s o n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: 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 Jock. Anderson, 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 A l b e r t M e l o l i n g , S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r a p p e a r e d , Helena, Montana F o r Respondent: Wade J. Dahood a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana Submitted: September 1 6 , 1976 Decided : 5Ep 2 7 Filed: $!?p 2 7 ;2id 1976 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 . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by t h e S t a t e o f Montana from a n o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Lewis and C l a r k County d i s m i s s i n g 38 c o u n t s o f a 43 c o u n t amended I n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d a g a i n s t d e f e n d ant. I n view o f t h e imminent t r i a l d a t e , w e e n t e r e d o u r Order and Judgment o n September 1 7 , 1976, v a c a t i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l , o r d e r e d 1 0 c o u n t s d i s m i s s e d a s conceded by t h e S t a t e , and o r d e r e d t h e r e m a i n i n g 33 c o u n t s remanded t o t h e S t a t e v. Carden, d i s t r i c t court for trial. P.2d -1 St.Rep. , Cause No. 13502. Mont . 1 - I n o u r Order and Judgment o f September 1 7 , 1976, w e i n d i c a t e d t h a t a f o r m a l w r i t t e n o p i n i o n would f o l l o w , which w e now i s s u e . T h i s c a s e began on December 20, 1 9 7 4 , when t h e S t a t e f i l e d i t s motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a d i r e c t Information i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t Carden w i t h 118 c o u n t s o f c r i m i n a l o f fenses. Twenty-five d a y s and two j u d g e s l a t e r , t h e Hon. N a t A l l e n granted t h e S t a t e leave t o f i l e t h i s Information. one-half F o u r t e e n and months and two j u d g e s l a t e r , t h e Hon. P a u l H a t f i e l d o r d e r e d 75 c o u n t s d i s m i s s e d and g r a n t e d t h e S t a t e l e a v e t o f i l e a n Amended I n f o r m a t i o n c o v e r i n g t h e r e m a i n i n g 43 c o u n t s . Four months and 1 0 d a y s l a t e r , t h e s i x t h judge i n t h e c a s e , t h e Hon. R o b e r t H. Wilson, d i s m i s s e d 38 c o u n t s o f t h e 43 c o u n t Amended I n f o r m a t i o n by o r d e r o f August 1 0 , 1976. The S t a t e h a s a p p e a l e d from J u d g e W i l s o n ' s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e 38 c o u n t s . of t h e s e c o u n t s . However, t h e S t a t e c o n c e d e s d i s m i s s a l o f 10 The i s s u e on a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e r e m a i n i n g 28 c o u n t s s h o u l d have been d i s m i s s e d . W e n o t e t h a t b o t h t h e o r i g i n a l I n f o r m a t i o n and t h e Amended I n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d t h e 28 c o u n t s i n i s s u e . Judge A l l e n g r a n t e d l e a v e t o f i l e t h e o r i g i n a l Lnformation c o n t a i n i n g t h e s e 28 c o u n t s and J u d g e H a t f i e l d g r a n t e d l e a v e t o f i l e t h e Amended I n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n i n g t h e s e 28 c o u n t s . Such l e a v e c o u l d n o t have been g r a n t e d e x c e p t on a f i n d i n g o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e . s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 9 5 - 1 3 0 1 ( a ) , R.C.M. The c o n t r o l l i n g 1947, p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t part: "The c o u n t y a t t o r n e y may a p p l y d i r e c t l y t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r permission t o f i l e an inform a t i o n a g a i n s t a named d e f e n d a n t . The a p p l i c a t i o n must be by a f f i d a v i t s u p p o r t e d by s u c h e v i d e n c e a s t h e judge may r e q u i r e . I f it appears t h a t t h e r e i s probable cause t o b e l i e v e t h a t an o f f e n s e h a s been committed by t h e d e f e n d a n t t h e judge s h a l l q r a n t l e a v e t o f i l e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , o t h e r w i s e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l be d e n i e d . " (Emphasis added. ) Two j u d g e s had a l r e a d y found p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r f i l i n g t h e 28 c o u n t s a t i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l . The " l a w o f t h e c a s e " o n p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r f i l i n g t h e s e 28 c o u n t s had a l r e a d y been conA l t h o u g h some c o u r t s l i m i t s i d e r e d , d e t e r m i n e d and e s t a b l i s h e d . a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e "law o f t h e c a s e " d o c t r i n e t o f i n a l d e c i s i o n s o f t h e h i g h e s t a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ( F i l a n o w s k i v . Zoning Board o f Adjustment, 439 Pa. 360, 266 A.2d 670; K u c h i n i c v . McCrory, 4 2 2 Pa. 620, 222 A.2d 8 9 7 ) , w e c o n s i d e r t h e b e t t e r r u l e p e r m i t s a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s p r i n c i p l e t o p r i o r r u l i n g s of a t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e same case a s w e l l ( S t a t e v . H a l e , 127 N.J.Super. 407, 317 A.2d 731; Chain L o c a t i o n s o f America, I n c . v . E a s t Hudson Parkway A . , 280 F.Supp. 396). Under t h e "law o f t h e case" p r i n c i p l e , j u d g e s o f c o o r d i n a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n s s i t t i n g i n t h e same c o u r t and i n t h e same c a s e may not o r d i n a r i l y overrule t h e decisions of each other. S t a t e s v . Baynes, 400 F.Supp. 285. United I t i s simply a r u l e of prac- t i c e t h a t a r t i c u l a t e s t h e sound p o l i c y t h a t when a n i s s u e i s o n c e j u d i c i a l l y d e t e r m i n e d , t h a t s h o u l d be t h e end o f t h e m a t t e r a s f a r a s j u d g e s and c o u r t s o f c o o r d i n a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n a r e c o n c e r n e d . M a r t i n v . C i t y o f Cohoes, 371 N.Y.S.2d N.E.2d 867. 687, 37 N.Y.2d 1 6 2 , 332 The "law o f t h e c a s e " i s n o t a n i m p e r a t i v e ( S c h o n f e l d v. R a f t e r y , 359 F.Supp. 3 8 0 ) ; d o e s n o t go t o t h e power o f t h e court (People v. Medina, 99 Cal.Rptr. 630, 492 P.2d 686); and does not mean that a court does not have discretion to reconsider a ruling made by another judge in the same case. Chain Locations of America, Inc. v. East Hudson Parkway Authority, supra. What factors are present in this case that would move the discretion of Judge Wilson to reconsider the prior determinations of Judge Allen and Judge Hatfield? to our attention and we perceive none. None have been brought Defendant argues that because the prior determinations of Judge Allen and Judge Hatfield were ex parte determinations, a later adversary hearing on probable cause was not precluded. But were they? Judge Allen's determination of probable cause on the original 118 count Information may fall in this category, but this does not apply to Judge Hatfield's determination of probable cause. This matter was fully briefed and argued by both the State and defendant. An adversary hearing was held on defendant's motions on February 4, 1976, at which counsel for both the State and the defendant were present. Thereafter Judge Hatfield entered an order dismissing 75 counts of the original Information and granting leave to the State to file an Amended Information on the remaining 43 counts. On the other hand, there are factors in this case against the exercise of discretion to reconsider the prior rulings. There is an absence of anything to indicate Judge Hatfield's prior ruling was in error. The case had dragged along for a year and a half, six different judges had been involved, and the trial date had not yet been set. To go back and relitigate the issue of probable cause for the 28 counts filed at the commencement of the action would permit endless manipulation of the judicial system and thwart its proper operation and objectives. It would also permit a judge of coordinate jurisdiction to perform appellate functions, in effect, over the decisions of another district judge, a p r a c t i c e which t h i s C o u r t h a s p r e v i o u s l y condemned. S t a t e ex r e l . S t a t e Highway Comrn'n v . Kinman, 150 Mont. 1 2 , 430 For t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s we h o l d t h a t i t was a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n f o r Judge Wilson t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e p r i o r r u l i n g o f Judge H a t f i e l d on p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r f i l i n g t h e 28 c o u n t s a t i s s u e i n t h i s appeal. Judge W i l s o n ' s o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l i s vaca- t e d and s e t a s i d e ; Counts 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 6 , 1 7 , 26, 27, 30, 31, 36 and 37 of t h e Amended I n f o r m a t i o n a r e s t r i c k e n a s conceded by t h e S t a t e ; and t h e r e m a i n i n g 33 c o u n t s o f t h e Amended I n f o r m a t i o n a r e remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r t r i a l ; and r e m i t t i t u r s h a l l i s s u e f o r t h w i t h ; a l l a s p r o v i d e d i n o u r p r e v i o u s Order and Judgment h e r e i n d a t e d September 1 7 , 1976. / /, c h i e f Justice Justice I N THE SUPREME C U T OF T E STATE O M N A A O R H F OTN No. 13502 THE STATE O MONTANA, F ED P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , VS. SEPH71976 J O H N J. CARDEN, a / k / a JAMES J . CARDEN, 3i@,%,$ alx @?' gRFf? Defendant and Respondent. CLZAK Qii-. SUPREME COu;:*r STATE O F MONTANA ORDER AND JUDGMENT PER CURIAM: The a p p e a l o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana from t h e Judgment and Order o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f t h e f i r s t j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of Lewis and C l a r k , d a t e d August 1 0 , 1976, d i s m i s s i n g 38 c o u n t s o f t h e 43 c o u n t Amended I n f o r m a t i o n h e r e i n h a v i n g been f u l l y b r i e f e d , a r g u e d and s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r d e c i s i o n , I T I S ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: (1) T h a t s a i d Order d a t e d August 1 0 , 1976, i s v a c a t e d and s e t a s i d e . ( 2 ) T h a t c o u n t s 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 6 , 1 7 , 26, 27, 3 0 , 31, 36 and 37 o f t h e Amended I n f o r m a t i o n a r e h e r e b y s t r i c k e n and d i s m i s s e d a s conceded by t h e S t a t e . ( 3 ) T h a t t h e r e m a i n i n g 33 c o u n t s i n t h e Amended I n f o r m a t i o n a r e remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r t r i a l commencing September 28, 1976, a s h e r e t o f o r e s e t by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . ( 4 ) T h a t t h i s Order and Judgment i s i s s u e d a t t h i s t i m e t o g i v e t h e p a r t i e s and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t n o t i c e o f o u r d e c i s i o n f o r t h w i t h i n view o f t h e t r i a l d a t e . A formal w r i t t e n opinion will follow in due course. (5) Let remittitur issue forthwith. DATED this 17th day of September, 1976. The Honorable W. W. Lessley, district judge, sat for Mr. Justice Wesley Castles. The Honorable Edward T. Dussault, district judge, sat for Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly.

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.