STATE EX REL FORSYTHE v COATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13268 TN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1976 STATE e x r e l . , J O H N S. FORSYTHE, Relator, DISTRICT JUDGE ALFRED B. COATE, Judge 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 , County of Rosebud; MR. GENE HUNTLEY, A t t o r n e y a t Law; and J O H N DOE, FOREMAN of t h e Rosebud County Grand J u r y , ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel o f Record : For Relator: Eugene A. Lalonde argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana ~ o h n d .F o r s y t h e F o r Respondents : Hon. A l f r e d B. Coate, D i s t r i c t Judge, a r g u e d , F o r s y t h , Montana Gene Huntley a r g u e d , Baker, Montana Submitted : February 24, 1976 Decided : MAP 1 2 1976 PER CURIAM: This is an original application by the Rosebud County attorney for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate relief (1) to disqualify the district judge from sitting upon a grand jury investigation, and (2) to have a special prosecutor appointed from outside the sixteenth judicial district to assist the grand jury. Relator is John S. Forsythe, the county attorney of Rosebud County, Montana. Respondents are District Judge Alfred B . Coate, one of the district judges of the sixteenth judicial district; Gene Huntley, the special prosecutor, an attorney residing within the sixteenth judicial district in Fallon County, Montana; and Charles Eustice, foreman of the Rosebud County grand jury. On January 6, 1976, Judge Coate called and empaneled a grand jury in Rosebud County to examine the county's criminal justice system. Gene Huntley was named as special prosecutor because the county attorney's office was one of the subjects of investigation. According to the special prosecutor's affidavit, he has proceeded with an investigation of several matters which he intends to present to the grand jury if permitted to do so, all of which involve the county attorney. It appears from state- ments made upon oral argument that no testimony or evidence has been taken by the grand jury to da te. On February 13, 1976, the instant proceeding was filed on behalf of the county attorney and an ex parte presentation made. The gist of the county attorney's application is that (1) Judge Coate acted in excess of his lawful authority in sitting upon the grand jury's investigation, and (2) the grand jury and Judge Coate acted in excess of their lawful authority in appointing Gene Huntley to serve as special prosecutor before the grand jury. This Court ordered an a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g t o determine whether we would a c c e p t j u r i s d i c t i o n . W ordered respondents t o answer, e p l e a d , and f i l e l e g a l memoranda. The a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g was h e l d on February 23, 1976. A t t h e o u t s e t , we d e c l i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e f i r s t i s s u e . W e accepted j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e second i s s u e , v i z , t h e l e g a l i t y of t h e appointment of Gene Huntley a s s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r . R e l a t o r contends t h e d i s t r i c t judge has no power and a u t h o r i t y t o appoint a s p e c i a l prosecutor. He argues t h a t h e r e t h e d i s t r i c t judge s u b s t a n t i a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e s e l e c t i o n of t h e s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r and a c c o r d i n g l y exceeded h i s l a w f u l authority. He seeks by w r i t of p r o h i b i t i o n o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f t o have t h e grand j u r y r e q u e s t t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l t o a p p o i n t a s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r from o u t s i d e t h e s i x t e e n t h j u d i c i a l district . The foundation of r e l a t o r ' s p o s i t i o n i s h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e appointment o f a s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r a r e mandatory and e x c l u s i v e . He r e f e r s t h e Court t o s e c t i o n s 95-1405(e) and 95-'1406(c), R.C.M. 1947. Section 95-1405 r e l a t e s t o t h e powers and d u t i e s of a grand j u r y and provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " ( e ) I f , i n t h e judgment of t h e grand j u r y , t h e s e r v i c e s o f an e x p e r t a r e n e c e s s a r y , t h e grand j u r y may employ one o r more a t an agreed compensation, t o be f i r s t approved by t h e c o u r t . I f , i n t h e judgment of t h e grand j u r y , t h e s e r v i c e s o f a s s i s t a n t s t o such e x p e r t a r e r e q u i r e d , t h e grand j u r y may employ such a s s i s t a n t s , a t a compensation t o be agreed upon and approved by t h e c o u r t . I I Section 95-1406 r e l a t e s t o when and from whom t h e grand j u r y may a s k a d v i c e and who may be p r e s e n t d u r i n g i t s s e s s i o n s . This s t a t u t e provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : Where r e q u e s t e d t o do so by t h e grand j u r y of "(c) any county, t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l o r county a t t o r n e y may employ s p e c i a l counsel and i n v e s t i g a t o r s , whose duty i t s h a l l be t o i n v e s t i g a t e and p r e s e n t t h e evidence i n such i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o such grand j u r y . I I Section 95-1405(e) i s permissive and n o t mandatory. I t s language i s Il may", n o t 11 must" o r "shall". The comment of t h e Criminal Law Commission t o t h i s s t a t u t e s u p p o r t s t h i s construction: "The p r o v i s i o n i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same a s e x i s t i n g law, however it i s permissive r a t h e r than mandatory and i t provides f o r a s s i s t a n t s and e x p e r t s t o a i d t h e grand j u r y . " Being permissive, i t c a n h a d l y b e c o n s t r u e d a s t h e e x c l u s i v e method of a p p o i n t i n g a s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 95-1406(c) r e l a t i n g t o t h e a p p o i n t ment of a s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l . The same can be s a i d of s e c t i o n 95-1406(c). used i s permissive -- 11 The language t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l o r county a t t o r n e y employ s p e c i a l counsel and i n v e s t i g a t o r s " . (Emphasis a d d e d ) , T h i s language i s n e i t h e r mandatory n o r e x c l u s i v e . A r e q u e s t by t h e grand j u r y t o t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l o r county a t t o r n e y i s a c o n d i t i o n precedent t o t h e appointment of a s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r by e i t h e r . This brings us t o t h e basic question -- May t h e d i s t r i c t judge a p p o i n t t h e s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r ? Admittedly no e x p r e s s power i s g r a n t e d t h e d i s t r i c t judge t o appoint a s p e c i a l prosecutor. I s such power n e c e s s a r i l y implied from t h e e x p r e s s power g r a n t e d ? The d i s t r i c t judge i s e x p r e s s l y g r a n t e d t h e s e powers r e l a t i n g t o grand j u r i e s , among o t h e r s , by s t a t u t e : (1) The d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o summon a grand j u r y when he c o n s i d e r s i t n e c e s s a r y , s e c t i o n 95-1401. (2) Appointment of a grand j u r y foreman, s e c t i o n (3) I n s t r u c t i n g and charging t h e grand j u r y , s e c t i o n s 95-1403. 95-1404; 95-1406(d). (4) Approval o f grand j u r y expenses and c l a i m s , s e c t i o n 95-1405 ( e ) , ( f ) . (5) Advising t h e grand j u r y when r e q u e s t e d , s e c t i o n 95-1406(a). (6) Subpoena of w i t n e s s e s , s e c t i o n 95-1407. (7) Hearing i n d i c t m e n t s of t h e grand j u r y , s e c t i o n 95-1410 (b) (1) and a c t i n g on them, s e c t i o n 95-1410. The i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o p l a c e t h e d i s t r i c t judge i n o v e r a l l charge of grand j u r y proceedings i s apparent from t h e foregoing g r a n t of powers. I n t h e e x e r c i s e of t h o s e e x p r e s s powers, t h e d i s t r i c t judge must have t h e implied power t o a p p o i n t a q u a l i f i e d s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r where, a s h e r e , t h e county a t t o r n e y i s d i s q u a l i f i e d from a c t i n g a s p r o s e c u t o r . Otherwise grand j u r y proceedings i n such c a s e could be brought t o a h a l t and t h e e n t i r e grand j u r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n f r u s t r a t e d . Nothing i n t h i s c a s e s u g g e s t s i n any way an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t judge. The grand j u r y h e r e made t h e appointment whether recommended by t h e d i s t r i c t judge o r n o t . Whether t h e county a t t o r n e y approves of t h i s c h o i c e i s e n t i r e l y b e s i d e t h e p o i n t because under t h e circumstances h e r e he has no power o f appointment. Accordingly, t h e p e t i t i o n o f t h e county a t t o r n e y i s dismissed.

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.