STATE EX REL RASMUSSEN v DISTRICT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-215 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA THE STATE O F MONTANA, ex r e l . , DAVID ERROL RASMUSSEN, a/k/a DAVID ERROL HENSRUD, Relator, THE D I S T R I C T COURT O F THE EIGHTEENTH J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T , GALLATIN COUNTY, HON. J O S E P H B. GARY, D I S T R I C T JUDGE, Respondent. O R I G I N A L PROCEEDING: For R e l a t o r : A. M i c h a e l S a l v a g n i , B o z e m a n , Montana For R e s p o n d e n t : D o n a l d E. White, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : A u g u s t 8 , 1 9 8 0 Decided: Filed: AbG 2 5 1980 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . R e l a t o r h a s f i l e d a n 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 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 of h i s motion t o d i s m i s s Count 11 of a n i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g him w i t h a s s a u l t , a misdemeanor, i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 45-5-201 (1)( a ) , MCA. Count I of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g e s b u r g l a r y , a f e l o n y , i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 45-6204 ( I ) , MCA. The two c h a r g e s i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i c a t e t h a t r e l a t o r e n t e r e d t h e a p a r t m e n t of Robin L e s s l e y i n Bozeman, Montana, f o r t h e p u r p o s e of r a n s a c k i n g i t , and w h i l e i n t h e a p a r t m e n t , h e h i t Robin L e s s l e y i n t h e f a c e t h r e e t i m e s w i t h h i s hand. R e l a t o r c o n t e n d s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r y him f o r a misdemeanor, s i m p l e a s s a u l t . The S t a t e contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r y a f e l o n y and a misdemeanor t o g e t h e r where t h e two a r e c o n n e c t e d t o g e t h e r i n t h e i r commission. The q u e s t i o n i n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e f o r e , i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r y r e l a t o r f o r s i m p l e a s s a u l t , a misdemeanor. J u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t and J u s t i c e C o u r t s o v e r c r i m i n a l m a t t e r s depends on t h e maximum s e n t e n c e t h a t c a n be imposed f o r committing t h e crime. MCA, Under s e c t i o n 3 - 5 - 3 0 2 ( 1 ) , t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s given o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l f e l o n y c r i m i n a l c a s e s and " a l l c a s e s of misdemeanor n o t otherwise provided f o r . " The J u s t i c e C o u r t , on t h e o t h e r hand, i s g i v e n c r i m i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of a l l misdemeanors p u n i s h a b l e by a f i n e n o t e x c e e d i n g $500 o r imprisonment n o t e x c e e d i n g s i x months o r b o t h . S e c t i o n 3-10-303(1), MCA. The maximum s e n t e n c e f o r a p e r s o n c o n v i c t e d of a s s a u l t i s a f i n e n o t e x c e e d i n g $500 o r imprisonment n o t e x c e e d i n g s i x months o r b o t h . S e c t i o n 45-5-201 ( 2 ) , MCA. Under s e c t i o n 46-11-404(1), tion . . . may MCA, "[aln . . . informa- c h a r g e two o r more d i f f e r e n t o f f e n s e s c o n n e c t e d t o g e t h e r i n t h e i r commission." This s e c t i o n i s not a g r a n t of j u r i s d i c t i o n b u t simply a permissive joinder s t a t u t e f o r o f f e n s e s w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of a g i v e n c o u r t . It is p r o v i d e d t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r misdemeanor a s s a u l t l i e s w i t h t h e J u s t i c e Court. We, t h e r e f o r e , r e v e r s e the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of d i s m i s s a l of Count I1 and remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s on Count I . J/ J u s Ice W e concur: Z - ~ Chief J u s t i c e Q P G ~

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.