STATE EX REL SANFORD v DISTRICT CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13361 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1976 THE STATE O M N A A e x r e l . F OTN RON SANFORD, Relator, THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, i n and f o r t h e County of Carbon, and t h e HONORABLE ROBERT H. WILSON, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel o f Record : For R e l a t o r : Moses, Kampfe, T o l l i v e r and Wright, B i l l i n g s , Montana Pablo Perhacs a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondents: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y General, Helena, Montana A r t h u r W. Ayers, Jr. argued, County A t t o r n e y , Red Lodge, Montana Submitted: May 25, 1976 Decided : JUL - 8 1976 Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . Relator has f i l e d an o r i g i n a l proceeding seeking a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l t o r e v i e w and r e v e r s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s and s u p p r e s s i n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n a g a i n s t him i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Carbon County. R e l a t o r i s Ron S a n f o r d who was c h a r g e d w i t h b u r g l a r y o f t h e Stockman Bar and C a f e i n B r i d g e r , Montana, a t a n u n s p e c i f i e d d a t e between March 25 and A p r i l 1 2 , 1975. On May 1, 1975, t h e Carbon County a t t o r n e y a p p l i e d f o r a s e a r c h w a r r a n t o f a h o u s e and g a r a g e i n B r i d g e r o c c u p i e d by defendant. The d i s t r i c t j u d g e i s s u e d t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t and it w a s e x e c u t e d t h e same d a y by t h e d e p u t y s h e r i f f . Three i t e m s a l l e g e d l y s t o l e n i n t h e b u r g l a r y w e r e found on d e f e n d a n t ' s prem- i s e s and s e i z e d . On May 1 5 , 1 9 7 5 , t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f i l e d a d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t r e l a t o r by l e a v e o f c o u r t . A r r a i g n m e n t was s e t f o r May 29, b u t was c o n t i n u e d t o J u n e 26 by m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t o f t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y and r e l a t o r ' s c o u n s e l . I n t h e meantime r e l a t o r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o q u a s h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h s u p p o r t i n g b r i e f and m a i l e d c o p i e s o f t h e same t o t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y and p r e s i d i n g j u d g e . On J u n e 26, r e l a t o r was a p p a r e n t l y a r r a i g n e d , b u t t h e r e c o r d i s s i l e n t c o n c e r n i n g w h e t h e r a p l e a was e n t e r e d . On J u n e 27, r e l a t o r r e q u e s t e d t h e c o u r t t o s e t a h e a r i n g on t h i s m o t i o n . The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t n o t h i n g f u r t h e r t r a n s p i r e d u n t i l J a n u a r y 28, 1976, when r e l a t o r a g a i n r e q u e s t e d t h e c o u r t t o s e t a h e a r i n g d a t e on h i s m o t i o n . On J a n u a r y 30, 1976, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r r e c i t i n g t h a t r e l a t o r ' s c a s e had been s e t f o r t r i a l a s t h e t h i r d c a s e on A p r i l 20, 1976, and s e t a l l p e n d i n g p r e t r i a l m o t i o n s f o r h e a r i n g on F e b r u a r y 1 9 . R e l a t o r ' s motion t o quash t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was h e a r d and d e n i e d on F e b r u a r y 19. One month l a t e r r e l a t o r f i l e d a n o t i c e t o s u p p r e s s a l l t e s t i m o n y and e v i d e n c e r e s u l t i n g from i s s u a n c e of t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t and n o t i c e d it f o r h e a r i n g on A p r i l 1. t h e motion w a s o r d e r e d s u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s . A t that t i m e On A p r i l 1 5 , t h e d i s - t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d t h i s motion. I n t h e meantime on March 25, r e l a t o r f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e ground t h a t he had been d e n i e d A t t h a t t i m e r e l a t o r f i l e d a supporting brief a speedy t r i a l . and n o t i c e d h i s motion f o r h e a r i n g on A p r i l 1. On t h a t d a t e r e l a t o r ' s motion t o d i s m i s s w a s o r d e r e d s u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s . On A p r i l 1 5 r e l a t o r ' s motion t o d i s m i s s was d e n i e d . On May 3 r e l a t o r a p p l i e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t of supervisory control. The a p p l i c a t i o n was s e t f o r a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g , h e a r d on May 25, and t a k e n under a d v i s e m e n t by t h e C o u r t . Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w : (1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n d e n y i n g r e l a t o r ' s motion t o s u p p r e s s ? ( 2 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n d e n y i n g r e l a t o r ' s motion t o d i s m i s s ? W e h o l d t h a t d e n i a l of r e l a t o r ' s motion t o s u p p r e s s w a s error. The s e a r c h w a r r a n t was d i r e c t e d " t o any Peace O f f i c e r of t h i s S t a t e " . T h i s p r a c t i c e h a s been condemned by t h i s C o u r t S t a t e v. Meidinger ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. i n t h e f o l l o w i n g cases: 310, 502 P.2d 58; S t a t e e x r e l . S t i e f and Mankin v. D i s t . (1975) I Mont Snider (1975), . , Mont 540 P.2d 968, 32 St.Rep. . , Ct. 942; S t a t e v . 541 P.2d 1204, 32 St.Rep. 1056. Also c f . S t a t e v . T r o p f , 166 Mont. 79, 530 P.2d 1158, 32 St.Rep. 56. W e simply w i l l n o t t o l e r a t e f u r t h e r v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 95-703, R.C.M. 1947, t o p e r m i t i n c u r s i o n s by law enforcement o f f i c e r s i n t o a constitutionally protected area. s u p p r e s s should have been g r a n t e d . The motion t o W e l i k e w i s e hold t h a t d e n i a l of r e l a t o r ' s motion t o dismiss w a s error. I n f i n d i n g t h a t r e l a t o r h a s been d e n i e d h i s r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l a s mandated by 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 , w e a p p l y t h e b a l a n c i n g t e s t o f B a r k e r v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 2182. 514, 33 L ed 2d 1 0 1 , 1 1 6 , 92 S.Ct. T h i s t e s t was approved by t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v . S t e w a r d , Mont. , 543 P.2d 1 7 8 , 1 8 1 , 32 St.Rep. 1185, where w e q u o t e d from B a r k e r : " ' * * * The a p p r o a c h w e a c c e p t i s a b a l a n c i n g t e s t , i n which t h e c o n d u c t o f b o t h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n and t h e d e f e n d a n t a r e weighed. " ' A b a l a n c i n g t e s t n e c e s s a r i l y compels c o u r t s t o a p p r o a c h s p e e d y t r i a l cases on a n a d hoc b a s i s . W e c a n do l i t t l e more t h a n i d e n t i f y some o f t h e f a c t o r s which c o u r t s s h o u l d assess i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r d e f e n d a n t h a s been d e p r i v e d of h i s r i g h t . Though some m i g h t e x p r e s s them i n d i f f e r e n t ways, w e i d e n t i f y f o u r s u c h f a c t o r s : Length o f d e l a y , t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n o f h i s r i g h t , and p r e j u d i c e t o the defendant.'" H e r e t h e s t a t e a d m i t s a d e l a y o f 299 d a y s , o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 months, from r e l a t o r ' s a r r a i g n m e n t on J u n e 26, 1975 t o A p r i l 20, 1976, t h e d a t e s e t f o r t r i a l . Both U n i t e d S t a t e s and Montana c o u r t s have p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t a d e l a y o f o n e y e a r between a r r e s t and t r i a l p r e s e n t s a c l a i m o f prima f a c i e m e r i t . S t e w a r d , s u p r a , and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . See S t a t e v . W e now h o l d t h a t a d e l a y of 1 0 months between a r d g n m e n t and t r i a l e s t a b l i s h e s a prima f a c i e c a s e of d e n i a l o f t h e r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l . The r e c o r d h e r e d i s c l o s e s no r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y c h a r g e able t o relator. R e l a t o r r e q u e s t e d of t h r e e d i f f e r e n t judges t h a t h i s motion be s e t f o r h e a r i n g : a t t h e t i m e o f a r r a i g n m e n t , J u n e 2 6 , 1975; on J u n e 27, 1975; and a g a i n o n J a n u a r y 28, 1976. was f i n a l l y h e a r d and d e n i e d o n F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1976. It I n any e v e n t t h e t r i a l d a t e of A p r i l 20, 1976 was s e t p r i o r t o d i s p o s i t i o n o f any o f r e l a t o r ' s m o t i o n s . rests w i t h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . The burden of j u s t i f y i n g t h e d e l a y U.S. v . Rucker, 464 F.2d 823. I t i s t r u e t h a t r e l a t o r made no s p e c i f i c demand t h a t h i s c a s e be s e t f o r t r i a l . On t h e o t h e r hand, r e l a t o r d i d noth- i n g t h a t c a n be c o n s t r u e d a s a waiver of h i s r i g h t t o a speedy trial. O March 25, 1976, he moved t o d i s m i s s f o r d e n i a l of n a speedy t r i a l . H a s r e l a t o r been p r e j u d i c e d by t h e d e l a y ? W e quote from Barker: " * * * P r e j u d i c e , of c o u r s e , s h o u l d be a s s e s s e d i n t h e l i g h t of t h e i n t e r e s t s of d e f e n d a n t s which t h e speedy t r i a l r i g h t was d e s i g n e d t o prot e c t . T h i s C o u r t h a s i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e such ( i )To p r e v e n t o p p r e s s i v e p r e t r i a l interests: i n c a r c e r a t i o n ; ( i i )To minimize a n x i e t y and conc e r n of t h e a c c u s e d ; ( i i i )To l i m i t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e d e f e n s e w i l l be i m p a i r e d . * * *" The f i r s t i n t e r e s t i s n o t p r e s e n t i n t h i s c a s e . second i s c l e a r l y p r e s e n t h e r e . The The t h i r d c a n n o t be e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h any d e g r e e of c e r t a i n t y where, a s h e r e , t h e r e h a s been no trial. S t a t e v. Steward, supra. C o n s i d e r i n g t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and con- s i d e r a t i o n s i n t h e b a l a n c i n g t e s t , it a p p e a r s t o u s t h a t t h e r e h a s been a n e x c e s s i v e d e l a y i n b r i n g i n g r e l a t o r t o t r i a l i n t h i s c a s e ; t h a t no v a l i d r e a s o n e x i s t s f o r s u c h d e l a y ; t h a t t h e d e l a y i s n o t c h a r g e a b l e t o r e l a t o r ; and t h a t some p r e j u d i c e h a s r e s u l t e d t o r e l a t o r by r e a s o n of t h e d e l a y . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e h o l d t h a t r e l a t o r ' s motion t o d i s m i s s f o r d e n i a l of a speedy t r i a l s h o u l d have been g r a n t e d . d i s m i s s a l of t h i s c a s e w i t h p r e j u d i c e . Justice W e concur: , , - ----L--------a--d---v , , , - Hon. Gordon B e n n e t t , d i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n . v - 5 - W e order
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.
