FORSYTHE v WENHOLZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13262 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1976 J O H N S. FORSYTHE, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, EW L ALICE W h O Z , J u s t i c e of t h e Peace i n Department #1, I n and F o r t h e County of Rosebud, Respondent and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A . B. M a r t i n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : W i l l i a m F. Meisburger a r g u e d , F o r s y t h , Montana F o r Respondent : John S. F o r s y t h e a r g u e d , F o r s y t h , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed : 1jG i; -5 3% \Jr0 September 8, 1976 OCT - 5 1976 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s a n a p p e a l by A l i c e Wenholz, J u s t i c e of t h e Peace i n Department No. 1, i n and f o r t h e County of Rosebud, from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e q u i r i n g h e r t o r e i n s t a t e a judgment and p e n a l t y p r e v i o u s l y imposed i n a c r i m i n a l misdemeanor case. The c a s e a r i s e s from an a c t i o n brought i n t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t e n t i t l e d " S t a t e of Montana v . S t a n l e y B r i a n Johnson". M r . Johnson was found g u i l t y of d r i v i n g while i n t o x i c a t e d by j u r y v e r d i c t i n t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t , Department No. 1, County of Rosebud. A f t e r t r i a l , Johnson f i l e d a motion f o r a new t r i a l , pursuant t o s e c t i o n 95-2101, R.C.M. 1947. The j u s t i c e of t h e peace, a p p e l l a n t h e r e , took t h e motion under advisement, r u l e d i n f a v o r of Johnson and dismissed t h e charge a g a i n s t him. The d i s m i s s a l was g r a n t e d under t h e a u t h o r i t y of s e c t i o n 95-2101(c) ( 3 ) , which s t a t e s : " ( c ) A l t e r n a t i v e A u t h o r i t y of t h e Court on Hearing Motion f o r New T r i a l . On h e a r i n g t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l , i f j u s t i f i e d by t h e law and t h e weight of t h e evidence, t h e c o u r t may: "3. Modify o r change t h e v e r d i c t o r f i n d i n g by f i n d i n g t h e defendant g u i l t y of a l e s s e r degree of t h e crime charged, f i n d i n g t h e defendant g u i l t y of a l e s s e r included crime o r f i n d i n g t h e defendant n o t g u i l t y . " T h e r e a f t e r , Rosebud County Attorney John S. F o r s y t h e , respondent h e r e , f i l e d a " P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t of Mandate and W r i t of Supervisory Control" i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , s e e k i n g , i n t e r a l i a , r e i n s t a t e m e n t of t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t j u r y ' s g u i l t y v e r d i c t i n t h e c a s e of S t a t e v . S t a n l e y Brian Johnson. Forsythe a l l e g e d t h e defendant Johnson's e x c l u s i v e remedy f o r a l l e g e d e r r o r s i n t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t t r i a l was an a p p e a l f o r a t r i a l de novo i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t pursuant t o t h e terms of s e c t i o n 95-2009, 1947. R.C.M. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t l i m i t e d i t s review t o t h e q u e s t i o n of whether s e c t i o n 95-2101 a p p l i e s t o j u s t i c e of t h e peace c o u r t s , and r u l e d t h a t i t does n o t . On January 5 , 1976, t h e judgment and p e n a l t y of t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t i n t h e c a s e of S t a t e v . S t a n l e y Brian Johnson were ordered r e i n s t a t e d . Wenholz appeals. The i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether a j u s t i c e of t h e peace c o u r t has t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d i s m i s s an a c t i o n under t h e new t r i a l p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 95-2101, R.C.M. 1947. Appellant advances two p r i n c i p a l arguments t o s u s t a i n h e r p o s i t i o n : (1) t h a t t h e word "court" i n s e c t i o n 95-2101 i n c l u d e s j u s t i c e of t h e peace c o u r t s ; and ( 2 ) , t h a t i f a s e c t i o n 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947, a p p e a l i s t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy f o r a new t r i a l i n j u s t i c e of t h e peace c o u r t s , then a s e r i o u s i n e q u i t y t o j u s t i c e c o u r t defendants a r i s e s . S e c t i o n 95-2101 r e f e r s f o u r times t o t h e "court". Nothing on t h e f a c e of t h e s t a t u t e i n d i c a t e s which c o u r t s a r e w i t h i n i t s scope. 1947, I n t h e Code of Criminal Procedure, T i t l e 95, R.C.M. "court" i s d e f i n e d a s "a p l a c e where j u s t i c e i s j u d i c i a l l y administered and i n c l u d e s a judge t h e r e o f ." S e c t i o n 95-205. A "judge" i s d e f i n e d a s "a person who i s i n v e s t e d by law w i t h t h e power t o perform j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n s and i n c l u d e s c o u r t , j u s t i c e of t h e peace o r p o l i c e m a g i s t r a t e when a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t so requires." S e c t i o n 95-206. (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) With r e s p e c t t o a p p e l l a n t ' s f i r s t argument, t h e t a s k i s t o determine whether t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t of s e c t i o n 95-2101 r e q u i r e s t h a t "court" be r e a d t o i n c l u d e j u s t i c e s of t h e peace. I n i t i a l l y , we n o t e t h i s Court i n S t a t e v. Bush, 164 Mont. 81, 518 P.2d 1406, s t a t e d : "* * * s i n c e t h e code [of c r i m i n a l procedure] was adopted a s one comprehensive p i e c e of l e g i s l a t i o n i t should be considered i n i t s e n t i r e t y t o determine t h e e f f e c t of any one s e c t i o n . " The d i s t r i c t c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n excluding j u s t i c e s of t h e peace from t h e purview of s e c t i o n 95-2101 because t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t of t h a t s e c t i o n i n Montana's Code of Criminal Procedure c l e a r l y r e q u i r e s a d i f f e r e n t meaning than t h a t propounded by t h e appellant. Chapter 20, T i t l e . 9 5 , R.C.M. S e c t i o n 95-201, R.C.M. 1947. 1947 " J u s t i c e and P o l i c e Court Proceedings", was accompanied by a Criminal Law Commission Comment which s t a t e s i n p a r t : "This Chapter i n c l u d e s only t h o s e s e c t i o n s which a r e p e c u l i a r o r apply e x c l u s i v e l y t o j u s t i c e and *I1 police courts. ** I n Chapter 20, t h e only p o s t - t r i a l r e l i e f a f f o r d e d i s an a p p e a l t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a t r i a l de novo. S e c t i o n 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947. It would be anomalous t o e x p r e s s l y provide f o r a t r i a l anew i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t under s e c t i o n 95-2009 and a t t h e same time i n f e r t h e r i g h t t o a t r i a l anew i n t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t under s e c t i o n 95-2101. T h i s i n c o n s i s t e n c y i s demonstrated by t h e f a c t t h a t under s e c t i o n 95-2009(b) t h e defendant i s g i v e n t e n days t o f i l e n o t i c e of a p p e a l , w h i l e under s e c t i o n 95-2101 (b) (2) t h e defendant i s given t h i r t y days t o f i l e a motion f o r a new t r i a l . S u r e l y a defendant i n j u s t i c e c o u r t could n o t allow h i s appeal time t o l a p s e and s t i l l be a f f o r d e d t h e remedy of a new t r i a l i n t h e same c o u r t . I n C i t y of B i l l i n g s v . Smith, 158 Mont. 197, 212, 490 P. 2d 221, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "Where s t a t u t e s r e l a t e t o t h e same g e n e r a l s u b j e c t they should be s o construed t o g e t h e r , where t h e r e i s no i n c o n s i s t e n c y between them, s o as t o g i v e e f f e c t t o b o t h where p o s s i b l e . A l l acts relating t o the same s u b j e c t , o r having t h e same g e n e r a l purpose a s t h e s t a t u t e being c o n s t r u e d , should be r e a d i n connection S t a t u t e s passed a t t h e same w i t h such s t a t u t e . time, and r e l a t i n g t o t h e same g e n e r a l s u b j e c t a r e t o be construed t o g e t h e r and both given e f f e c t i f p o s s i b l e . *** *** ** **'I Under t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n , we d e c l i n e t o c o n s t r u e s e c t i o n 95-2101 i n t h e manner urged by a p p e l l a n t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y h e l d t h a t s e c t i o n 95-2009 i s a j u s t i c e c o u r t d e f e n d a n t ' s e x c l u s i v e remedy f o r a new t r i a l . A p p e l l a n t ' s second a t t a c k i s t h a t t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy of a p p e a l pursuant t o s e c t i o n 95-2101 i s i n e q u i t a b l e t o j u s t i c e c o u r t defendants. I n p a r t i c u l a r , i t i s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e r e was e x t e n s i v e p r o s e c u t o r i a l misconduct i n t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t t r i a l and defendant Johnson should n o t b e compelled t o b e a r t h e expense of a t r i a l de novo i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o c o r r e c t t h e e r r o r s of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . It i s further alleged t h a t denial of d e f e n d a n t ' s a c c e s s t o t h e new t r i a l procedure of s e c t i o n 95-2101 i s a d e n i a l of e q u a l j u s t i c e t o j u s t i c e c o u r t defendants v i s - a - v i s d i s t r i c t c o u r t defendants. N authority i s cited o f o r t h e s e p r o p o s i t i o n s , and we r e j e c t them. Any defendant convicted i n j u s t i c e c o u r t has t h e f u l l b e n e f i t of a new t r i a l i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Compare: B a i l e y v. S t a t e , 163 Mont. 380, 383, 517 P.2d 708, where t h e appeal procedure of s e c t i o n 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947, w a s d e s c r i b e d a s "a p l a i n , speedy and adequate remedy a t law." A p p e l l a n t ' s arguments r e g a r d i n g a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s and p e r s o n a l involvement i n a d i s t r i c t c o u r t t r i a l de novo a r e n o t p e r s u a s i v e . The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of January 5 , 1976, i s a£firmed. W concur: e , i \ / ef J u s t i c e . /'

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.