STATE v CARDWELL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-314 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs . CURTIS CARDWELL, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin. Hon. W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: A. Michael Salvagni argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Chris Tweeten appeared, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Michael Lilly argued, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: MljR February 17, 1981 MAR 2 4 1981 24.1!?8f v I Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d the Court. t h e Opinion of C a r d w e l l a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n by a G a l l a t i n County j u r y o f t a m p e r i n g w i t h a w i t n e s s and misdemeanor a s s a u l t . , I n S t a t e v. C a r d w e l l ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. - 609 P.2d 1230, 37 St.Rep. 750, we reversed the defendant's first c o n v i c t i o n s on c h a r g e s o f a i d i n g and a b e t t i n g a n o t h e r i n t h e commission o f aggravated the offense of assault. 46-11-403, doing allowing MCA, information without Af t e r In t a m p e r i n g w i t h w i t n e s s e s and leave so, the of we ruled amendment court, that of a section criminal was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . t h e o p i n i o n was e n t e r e d , Cardwell asked this C o u r t f o r a n o r d e r d i s c h a r g i n g him from t h e s t a t e p r i s o n . W o r d e r e d him r e l e a s e d e authorities Defendant for moved and bound o v e r t o G a l l a t i n C o u n t y rearraignment the District on t h e o r i g i n a l Court for charges. dismissal on g r o u n d s o f d o u b l e j e o p a r d y and s p e e d y t r i a l v i o l a t i o n s . the The m o t i o n was d e n i e d . The c a u s e went t o t r i a l on J u n e 1 0 , 1980. The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t o f g u i l t y on t h e l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e s of misdemeanor felony. assault and tampering with a witness, a This appeal follows. The u n d e r l y i n g f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e h a v e no b e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e a p p e a l and w i l l n o t be r e c i t e d . They can be found in our first Cardwell opinion, cited above. Defendant o f f e r s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r our review: 1. Did t h e s e c o n d t r i a l v i o l a t e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o be p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t d o u b l e j e o p a r d y a s g u a r a n t e e d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ? 2. Did t h e a c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t and t h e s u b s e q u e n t d e t e n t i o n and t r i a l v i o l a t e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e d u e process c l a u s e s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ? 3. Was d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l d e n i e d ? Double Jeopardy This supra, Court's provided: remand "The order in State is r e v e r s e d cause v. and Cardwell, t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t is o r d e r e d d i s m i s s e d . " Cardwell m a i n t a i n s t h a t h i s second t r i a l v i o l a t e d h i s constitutional Maryland 707. rights (1969), against 395 U.S. See a l s o A r t . double 784, 89 S . C t . 11, S e c t i o n 2 5 , Benton jeopardy. 2056, v. 23 L.Ed.2d 1 9 7 2 Mont. C o n s t . D e f e n d a n t c i t e s numerous d e c i s i o n s b y t h i s C o u r t f o r the proposition that double jeopardy C o u r t f a i l s t o o r d e r a new t r i a l . , Mont. 603 P.2d Holliday (1979), 1535; 78, Mont S t a t e ex r e l . 375 P.2d 246, 316. , v. this S t a t e v . Hodgson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 36 S t . R e p . . Nelson e x i s t s whenever 2121; 598 P.2d Ellsworth S t a t e v. 1 1 3 2 , 36 S t . R e p . ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 1 4 1 Mont. W do n o t a g r e e t h a t s u c h a r u l e c a n be e found i n t h e s e d e c i s i o n s . In Ellsworth, supra, " r u l e o f l a w was c l e a r : conviction upon double jeopardy." appeal t h i s Court explained ... and 1 4 1 Mont. a that the a r e v e r s a l o f a judgment o f retrial does not constitute a t 81. The r u l e i n E l l s w o r t h was b a s e d on t h e c a s e o f S t a t e v. Aus (1937), underscores emphasizing the 105 Mont. language several points: 82, of 69 P.2d Aus for ( 1 ) when 584. the a Cardwell purpose new trial of is g r a n t e d , t h e d e f e n d a n t is n o t p l a c e d i n d o u b l e j e o p a r d y b u t m e r e l y s u b j e c t e d t o t h e same j e o p a r d y h e was i n d u r i n g t h e first trial; ( 2 ) t h e d e f e n d a n t may n o t be t r i e d a g a i n f o r t h e same o f f e n s e e x c e p t i n t h e c a s e w h e r e a new t r i a l granted or ordered; and ( 3 ) a person convicted of is a crime w a i v e s h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t b e i n g twice i n j e o p a r d y where a t h i s r e q u e s t t h e v e r d i c t a g a i n s t him i s s e t a s i d e and a new t r i a l g r a n t e d . Defendant Cardwell admits that if this Court had o r d e r e d o r g r a n t e d a new t r i a l , a s i n Aus and i t s p r o g e n y , h e would n o t h a v e b e e n a b l e t o c l a i m t h a t h e was p l a c e d i n double that jeopardy the cited by salient the second trial. Cardwell d i s t i n c t i o n between and h i s c a s e the concludes precedent cases is t h e a b s e n c e o f an e x p r e s s o r d e r of t h i s C o u r t d i r e c t i n g t h e new p r o c e e d i n g . The i s s u e b e f o r e u s i s more p r o p e r l y framed i n t e r m s o f w h e t h e r t h e f a i l u r e t o s p e c i f i c a l l y and e x p r e s s l y o r d e r a new t r i a l n e c e s s a r i l y p r e c l u d e s f u r t h e r a c t i o n . I t is our o p i n i o n t h a t it does n o t . Cardwell c o r r e c t l y r e c i t e s t h e c a s e law a p p l i c a b l e t o f o r m e r j e o p a r d y p r o t e c t i o n s a s t h e y h a v e b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d by t h i s C o u r t i n t h e Aus l i n e o f c a s e s . by d e f e n d a n t ' s logic, however, t h a t t h e remand o r d e r m u s t o r d e r a new t r i a l f o r one t o o c c u r . not exist opinion. in the abstract, W a r e not persuaded e Our remand o r d e r s do independent of the supporting I n t h e body o f t h e C a r d w e l l o p i n i o n , we w r o t e : " S e c t i o n 46-11-403(1) b e i n g u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n s h o u l d h a v e b e e n d i s m i s s e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on t h e o r i g i n a l m o t i o n by C a r d w e l l , and h e s h o u l d n o t h a v e p r o c e e d e d t o t r i a l on t h e c h a r g e s i n t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n . Since the D i s t r i c t Court failed to dismiss the amended i n f o r m a t i o n , we m u s t d o s o now. However, orderin t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e amended ------- g ----------------------------i n f o r m a t i o n , we d o n o t mean t o p r e c l u d e - e th - It is u n r e a s o n a b l e t o u r g e t h i s C o u r t t o d i s r e g a r d i t s own l a n g u a g e . Clearly, t h e d o o r open t o r e t r i a l . the wording of the i t was o u r intention t o leave Any a m b i g u i t y c r e a t e d b e c a u s e o f remittitur order r e f e r r i n g t o t h e above l a n g u a g e . is eliminated W conclude, e by therefore, t h a t a new t r i a l was i n d e e d g r a n t e d by t h e o r i g i n a l o p i n i o n , and w e a r e c o m p e l l e d by t h e p r e c e d e n t c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t t o hold t h a t h i s former jeopardy r i g h t s w e r e n o t v i o l a t e d by h i s second t r i a l . Due P r o c e s s On A p r i l 23, 1 9 8 0 , C a r d w e l l p e t i t i o n e d t h i s C o u r t f o r an order discharging s e c t i o n 46-20-707, In a May Cardwell from returned to was 1, the 1980, state Gallatin denied from c u s t o d y i n compliance w i t h MCA. o r i g i n a l charges. he him order prison County this and for Court directed discharged that rearraignment he on be the C a r d w e l l now o b j e c t s on t h e g r o u n d t h a t due process of law, citing the Fifth and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 1 7 , o f t h e 1 9 7 2 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . Cardwell m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h i s Court d i d n o t have t h e authority to order him rearraigned under the original c h a r g e s i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a new t r i a l o r d e r i n t h e o r i g i n a l opinion of t h i s Court. A s with d e f e n d a n t ' s double jeopardy argument, h i s i n i t i a l p r e m i s e t h a t w e d i d n o t g r a n t a new t r i a l is e r r o n e o u s . would Cardwell's Only i f w e were p e r s u a d e d of t h a t f a c t due process c l a i m s have any p o s s i b l e validity. W a r e n o t so persuaded. e The s t a t u t e we a r e c h a r g e d w i t h d i s r e g a r d i n g , s e c t i o n 46-20-707, MCA, defendant is Court must custody. provides t h a t , reversed direct " [ i ] f a judgment a g a i n s t t h e w i t h o u t o r d e r i n g a new t r i a l , " that the defendant be this discharged from T h i s argument a g a i n u r g e s t h i s C o u r t t o d i s r e g a r d t h e l a n g u a g e of t h e o r i g i n a l o p i n i o n s t a t i n g u n q u e s t i o n a b l y that the r e v e r s a l of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment on t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n d i d n o t p r e c l u d e t h e r e f i l i n g o f c h a r g e s against t h i s defendant. indeed grant a new I n l i g h t of trial, our p a r a m e t e r s o f s e c t i o n 46-20-707, t h e f a c t t h a t we d i d action MCA, was beyond the and t h i s C o u r t was n o t bound by i t s p r o v i s i o n s . Cardwell f u r t h e r argues t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l information had no effect f i l i n g of since it t h e amended became information. and I n f o r m a t i o n s B 238 a t 1 2 4 8 . i n f o r m a t i o n was functus officio dismissed, 42 C.J.S. upon the Indictments T h e r e f o r e , when t h e amended there was no information then e x i s t i n g and C a r d w e l l was i l l e g a l l y d e t a i n e d . T h i s C o u r t i s of the opinion interpreted the that the operation defendant of the has doctrine incorrectly and that he misconstrues t h e e f f e c t of t h i s C o u r t ' s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n . Although t h e q u e s t i o n is one of f i r s t impression f o r it is our o p i n i o n t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l p l e a d i n g s t h i s Court, would become f u n c t u s o f f i c i o o n l y i f t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n This Court held i n t h e f i r s t Cardwell opinion were v a l i d . that the amended Constitution. render the pleading As a result, original was not valid under the t h e i n v a l i d amendment c o u l d n o t information f u n c t - o -i c -. u s -f f -i o This r u l i n g a d o p t s t h e p o s i t i o n e n u n c i a t e d i n S t a t e v. (Mo. 1 9 6 5 ) , 392 S.W.2d 617, Thompson t h a t where a n u n a u t h o r i z e d o r otherwise improper amended information dismissed, f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s may be had o n t h e o r i g i n a l quashed is or information. T h i s C o u r t ' s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n s i m p l y wiped point in the time s l a t e clean at which we i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t from t h a t determined that the amended i n f o r m a t i o n had n o t b e e n p r o p e r l y f i l e d . State's The o r d e r had no e f f e c t on t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t o c c u r r e d p r i o r t o t h a t time, a including the f i l i n g of the o r i g i n a l information. result, this Court properly ordered that defendant As be bound o v e r t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o p r o c e e d from t h a t p o i n t . Speedy T r i a l Cardwell (19791, cites our , Mont. decision 603 P.2d in 661, S t a t e v. 36 Harvey St.Rep. 2035, a r g u i n g t h a t when t h i s C o u r t c o n s i d e r s t h e f a c t o r s r e l a t i n g t o speedy t r i a l g u a r a n t e e s w e should r e v e r s e h i s c o n v i c t i o n . The deprived defendant him of alleges his right that to unnecessary a speedy delay trial, s p e c i f i c a l l y names t h i s C o u r t a s t h e p r i m a r y m a l i n g e r e r t h e r e s o l u t i o n of h i s f i r s t appeal. has and in Cardwell claims t h a t t h e 174 d a y s we u s e d t o d e c i d e t h e c a s e was u n r e a s o n a b l e and t h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d . Once again defendant's W cannot agree. e assignment of error hinges upon a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e was no new t r i a l g r a n t e d by u s i n t h e previous Cardwell opinion. For the reasons discussed a b o v e , w e f i n d t h a t w e g r a n t e d a new t r i a l by t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e o p i n i o n , i f n o t by t h e r e m i t t i t u r o r d e r . This being the case, Cardwell is in error when he argues that the W e adopted t h e c r u c i a l t i m e f r a m e b e g a n upon h i s a r r e s t . p o s i t i o n i n S t a t e v . S a n d e r s ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 209, 516 P.2d 372, that, in cases r e m i t t i t u r which of retrial, it is the time of the is c o n t r o l l i n g i n d e t e r m i n i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s r e l a t i v e speedy t r i a l r i g h t s . In t h i s case, remittitur days. and t h e t i m e e l a p s e d between t h i s C o u r t ' s defendant's W e do n o t second trial was find t h i s period offensive t o Cardwell's constitutional guarantees or prejudicial Compare S t a t e v. H a r v e y , s u p r a . W affirm. e W concur: e thirty-three t o h i s cause.

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.