STATE v LINK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-374 I N THE SUPREJE COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1981 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , LONNIE LINK, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Cascade. Honorable H. W i l l i a m Coder, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana C h r i s Tweeten a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana J. F r e d Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana C a r r o l l Blend a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana F o r Respondent: Michael S m a r t t a r g u e d , P u b l i c D e f e n d e r , Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: JJFI 2 3 1981 J u n e 8 , 1981 3UN 2 3 1981 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. The S t a t e a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r e n t e r e d i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Cascade County, g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a change of venue. W reverse. e D e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d F e b r u a r y 25, 1980, i n G r e a t F a l l s , Montana, and was c h a r g e d w i t h f e l o n y t h e f t . H e pleaded not g u i l t y and was r e l e a s e d on h i s own r e c o g n i z a n c e . T r i a l was s e t f o r J u n e 3 0 , b u t was v a c a t e d and r e s e t f o r August 25, 1980. August 11, 1980, d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d f o r r o b b e r y . were reported i n t h e Great F a l l s Tribune. On Both crimes One a r t i c l e , p u b l i s h e d 1 2 d a y s b e f o r e t r i a l , p i c t u r e d d e f e n d a n t i n h a n d c u f f s , and i n a n a r t i c l e a p p e a r i n g a week b e f o r e t r i a l , s e v e r a l community bus i- nessmen were r e p o r t e d a s b e i n g c r i t i c a l of t h e p r e s i d i n g d i s t r i c t j u d g e f o r h a v i n g r e l e a s e d d e f e n d a n t on h i s m n r e c o g n i z a n c e . The r e m a i n i n g a r t i c l e s were r o u t i n e news r e l e a s e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e c r i m e s a l l e g e d l y committed by d e f e n d a n t . On August 25, t h e day of t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a m o t i o n and a f f i d a v i t w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e q u e s t i n g e i t h e r a change o f venue, o r t h e postponement of t h e t r i a l t o a l l o w t i m e f o r t h e p u b l i c i t y t o d i e down. F o l l o w i n g h e a r i n g , t h e d i s t r i c t judge g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a change of venue. The S t a t e appeals. The p a r t i e s r a i s e d s e v e r a l i s s u e s which w e frame a s f o l l o w s : 1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t judge a b u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g t h e change of venue? 2 ) Should t h i s Court r e c o n s i d e r t h e s t a n d a r d used t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a change of venue s h o u l d be g r a n t e d ? The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g t h e change of venue, b e c a u s e t h e r e was n o t a showing of e x i s t i n g p r e j u d i c e i n t h e community. A mere showing o f p u b l i c a t i o n d o e s n o t p r o v e t h a t p r e j u d i c e r e s u l t s , which w i l l bias the t r i a l . D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e h a s a heavy bur- "The c a s e s i n Montana h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t b e f o r e a d i s t r i c t judge can e x e r c i s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g a c h a n g e o f v e n u e t h e r e m u s t be more t h a n (1) a f f i a n t w s u n s u p p o r t e d o p i n i o n , ( 2 ) t h e f a c t t h a t t h e a c c o u n t o f a crime h a s b e e n p u b l i s h e d , t h a t s a i d published a c c o u n t s of t h e crime are n o t p r e j u d i c i a l u n l e s s t h e y a r e p a s s i o n a t e e n o u g h t o e x c i t e undue p r e j u d i c e , t o the xt nt of it f h -- e e d e -o-h a v ree n djeur ri n g f r e e i mrp o s spi rbel jeu d iocre .t" e accus t a y -f om S t a t e e x r e l . H a n r a h a n v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t , ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 4 5 Mont. 501, 508, 4 0 1 P.2d 7 7 0 , 774. S e e a l s o S t a t e v. C o r l i s s ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 1 5 0 Mont. 40, 430 P.2d S t a t e v. S a n d s t r o m ( 1 9 7 8 ) , St.Rep. Mont. , 580 P.2d 632; 106, 3 5 744. What is r e q u i r e d by Montana case l a w , t h e n , i s more t h a n a n a l l e g a t i o n of p u b l i c i t y ; t h e c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e p u b l i c i t y h a s s o a f f e c t e d t h e community and h a s so a r o u s e d p r e j u d i c e i n t h e community t h a t a f a i r t r i a l c a n n o t be h a d . Here, t h e r e was no a t t e m p t t o assess t h e e f f e c t o f t h e publicity. A l t h o u g h t h e j u r y was r e a d y f o r t r i a l , t h e c h a n g e o f v e n u e was g r a n t e d w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n i n g t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s a s t o t h e i r k n o w l e d g e o f t h e case, w h e t h e r t h e y had s e e n t h e p u b l i c i t y , or as t o t h e e f f e c t o n them o f t h e p u b l i c i t y . The d e c i s i o n t o c h a n g e v e n u e r e s u l t e d f r o m a f i n d i n g of p r e j u d i c e p e r se a r i s i n g o n l y f r o m p u b l i c a t i o n . Montana. T h i s is n o t t h e l a w i n W i t h no f i n d i n g o f e x i s t i n g p r e j u d i c e , t h e d i s t r i c t judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g t h e change. T h e r e f o r e we r e v e r s e t h e o r d e r and remand t h e c a u s e f o r t r i a l i n C a s c a d e County. The d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s case a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e r e was n o showing of e x i s t i n g p r e j u d i c e . H e acknowledged t h a t no o n e a r t i c l e w a s p a s s i o n a t e e n o u g h t o a r o u s e t h e p r e j u d i c e of t h e community, b u t h e u r g e d t h e c o u r t t o v i e w t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t o f a l l of t h e articles published. He argued t h a t t h e s t a n d a r d u s e d i n Montana f o r g r a n t i n g a c h a n g e o f v e n u e i s too r i g i d to b e w o r k a b l e , and u r g e s t h i s C o u r t t o a d o p t t h e ABA s t a n d a r d on change of venue o r c o n t i n u a n c e . Montana l a w now r e q u i r e s a d e n t o show a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e j u d g e . He c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e a r t i c l e s p u b l i s h e d and t h e i n f o r m a t i o n which t h e . j u d g e was aware o f were s u f f i c i e n t to a l l o w him t o make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t defendant could not g e t a f a i r t r i a l . The s t a t u t e a u t h o r i z i n g a c h a n g e o f v e n u e r e q u i r e s a showing of existing prejudice: "Change o f p l a c e o f t r i a l . (1) The d e f e n d a n t or t h e p r o s e c u t i o n m a y move f o r a c h a n g e o f p l a c e of t r i a l o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s - -e in th c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e c h a r g e i s p e n d i n g -- such pre i u d i c e - - - a f a i r t r i a l cannot - - i n s u c h that b e had c o u n t y . The m o t i o n m u s t be made a t l e a s t 1 5 d a y s p r i o r t o t r i a l e x c e p t t h a t , i f good c a u s e i s shown, it may be made t h e r e a f t e r . a " ( 2 ) The m o t i o n m u s t be i n w r i t i n g and supp o r t e d by a n a f f i d a v i t which m u s t s t a t e f a c t s showing t h e n a t u r e of t h e p r e j u d i c e a l l e g e d . The d e f e n d a n t o r t h e s t a t e may f i l e c o u n t e r affidavits. The c o u r t s h a l l c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g a n d d e t e r m i n e t h e merits o f t h e m o t i o n . " ( 3 ) I f the court determines t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s in th - -e c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n is pending such p r e j u d i c e t h a t a f a i r t r i a l cannot b e h a d , it s h a l l t r a n s f e r t h e c a u s e t o a n y o t h e r c o u r t of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n i n any county i n w h i c h a f a i r t r i a l may be had." ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d . ) MCA. S e c t i o n 46-13-203, The f i n d i n g s o f t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e d o n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t h e found e x i s t i n g p r e j u d i c e . R a t h e r , h e found t h a t " t h e p u b l i c i t y i n c i d e n t t o t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r cases, w i t h o u t more, is s u f f i c i e n t N o t i n g t h a t t w o c h a r g e s were t o w a r r a n t a change of venue." p e n d i n g a g i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t i n Cascade County a t t h i s t i m e , t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t j u d i c i a l t i m e and economy would be b e s t served by o r d e r i n g a change of venue. T h i s Court h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t where t h e e v i d e n c e is i n c o n c l u s i v e on t h e i s s u e of p r e j u d i c e , t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e ' s d i s c r e t i o n s h o u l d be r e l i e d o n . H i s r u l i n g s h o u l d n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n is shown. Bashor ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 1100. Mont. , S t a t e v. 614 P.2d 470, 476, 37 S t . R e p . 1098, Under t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e w e f i n d a n a b u s e o f discretion. T h i s C o u r t h a s d i s c u s s e d t h e showing t h a t m u s t be made b e f o r e a c h a n g e o f v e n u e is g r a n t e d : showing of e x i s t i n g p r e j u d i c e s u b s t a n t i a l enough t o make a f a i r t r i a l i m p o s s i b l e , w h i l e t h e ABA s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e s o n l y a showing o f a " r e a s o n a b l e l i k e l i h o o d " t h a t a f a i r t r i a l c a n n o t be h a d , and i t d o e s n o t r e q u i r e any showing of a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e . W a g r e e t h a t t h e " i m p o s s i b l e t o have a f a i r t r i a l " s t a n e d a r d is an unworkable o n e . I t is u n l i k e l y t h a t e x c e p t i n t h e most e x t r e m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d show t h a t it i s i m p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n a j u r y f r e e from p r e j u d i c e . But, r a t h e r t h a n a d o p t i n g t h e ABA s t a n d a r d , a s we a r e urged t o do by d e f e n d a n t , w e w i l l h e r e a f t e r a p p l y t h e r u l e a s s e t o u t by t h e I l l i n o i s Supreme C o u r t , i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e I l l i n o i s venue s t a t u t e , on which o u r s t a t u t e i s p a t t e r n e d : 'I [TI he r u l e i s t h a t an accused is e n t i t l e d t o a c h a n g e of venue when i t a p p e a r s t h e r e a r e r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s to b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p r e j u d i c e a l l e g e d a c t u a l l y e x i s t s and t h a t by r e a s o n of t h e p r e j u d i c e t h e r e is a r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n t h a t t h e accused c a n n o t r e c e i v e a f a i r and impartial t r i a l . P e o p l e v. B e r r y ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 37 I11.2d 329, 226 N . E . 2 d 591, 592-593. S e e a l s o , P e o p l e v. Campbell ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 28 Ill.App.3d 480, 328 By a d o p t i n g t h e I l l i n o i s s t a n d a r d , we a r e n o t s u g g e s t i n g t h a t a showing of e x i s t i n g p r e j u d i c e need no l o n g e r be made. B e f o r e a d i s t r i c t judge c a n f i n d " r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p r e j u d i c e a l l e g e d a c t u a l l y e x i s t s " , something beyond b a r e a l l e g a t i o n is r e q u i r e d t o prove t h a t t h e community i s a c t u a l l y infected with prejudice . However, by h o l d i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t no l o n g e r h a s t o show t h a t it is " i m p o s s i b l e " t o f i n d a n u n p r e j u d i c e d j u r y i n t h e community, w e a r e a l l o w i n g a d i s t r i c t judge t o e x e r c i s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n determining t h a t t h e a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e is s u f f i c i e n t l y p e r v a s i v e to w a r r a n t a change of venue. Although we a r e a d o p t i n g t h i s r u l e p r o s p e c t i v e l y , it i s u n l i k e l y t h a t d e f e n d a n t would have p r e v a i l e d under t h e new standard. A s w e noted above, no a c t u a l e x i s t i n g p r e j u d i c e was a l l e g e d o r proved which is f a t a l under e i t h e r s t a n d a r d . The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t judge is r e v e r s e d , and we remand t h e cause t o Cascade County f o r t r i a l on the m e r i t s . Chief J u s t i c e W con 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.
