STATE v CONRAD

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-314 I N T E SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A H F F OTN STATE O M N A A F O T N , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , VS. GERMAINE D. CONRAD and ROBERT F. PALMER, D e f e n d a n t s and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth 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 M i s s o u l a Honorable Gordon B e n n e t t , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: 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 R o b e r t L. Deschamps, I11 a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r Respondents: Moses Law Firm, B i l l i n g s , Montana C h a r l e s F. Moses a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Edward A. Curnmings a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana Submitted: Decided: O c t o b e r 1 9 , 1981 I\$R 12 1982 .APR 1 2 1 9 8 Filed. Clerk Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k 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 o f the Court. T h i s i s a11 a p p e a l motion for leave to from an o r d e r denying file an information defendants with o f f i c i a l misconduct. The facts disclose the State's charging the We affirm. t h a t d e f e n d a n t R o b e r t P a l m e r was s w o r n i n a s a M i s s o u l a C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r on t h e m o r n i n g o f January 5, 1981. Defendant Germaine Conrad Comrnissioner County B a r b a r a Evans. . The third County was already a Commissioner was C h a r l e s B r o o k e was t h e C o ~ n m i s s i o n ' s a d m i n i s - trative officer. L a t e r on t h a t same d a y , in, a f t e r P a l m e r had b e e n sworn h e and C o n r a d met t o d i s c u s s a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n p l a n f o r s t a f f personnel. F o l l o w i n g t h e m e e t i n g , B r o o k e was d i r e c t e d t o make up d o c u m e n t s t o o u t l i n e a n d i m p l e m e n t t h e p l a n t h a t h a d b e e n a p p r o v e d b y C o n r a d and P a l m e r . the supporting documents prepared in B r o o k e was t o h a v e time for s i o n e r s ' meeting scheduled f o r t h e next day, t h e commis- J a n u a r y 6. At t h a t t i m e t h e p l a n was t o b e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t h i r d commiss i o n e r , B a r b a r a Evans. Evans d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n a n y o f the respondents discussions. Both admit they consciously e x c l u d e d Evans from t h e d i s c u s s i o n s and d i d n o t want h e r t o know about them or the reorganization plan prior to the investigated by the January 6 board meeting. Thereafter, Missoula concluded County that the incident Attorney there was and was the Attorney probable cause General. to believe They that t h e r e had been a v i o l a t i o n of Montana's open m e e t i n g law and the MCA. official misconduct The p e r t i n e n t statute, open meeting section 45-7-401 (1)( e ) , s t a t u t e s and t h e o f f i c i a l misconduct s t a t u t e a r e s e t o u t below: "OPEN MEETINGS "2-3-201. L e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t - - l i b e r a l cons t r u c t i o n . The l e g i s l a t u r e f i n d s and d e c l a r e s t h a t p u b l i c boards, commissions, c o u n c i l s , and o t h e r p u b l i c a g e n c i e s i n t h i s s t a t e e x i s t t o a i d i n t h e c o n d u c t of t h e p e o p l e s ' b u s i ness. I t is t h e i n t e n t o f t h i s p a r t t h a t a c t i o n s and d e l i b e r a t i o n s of a l l p u b l i c a g e n c i e s s h a l l be c o n d u c t e d o p e n l y . The p e o p l e o f t h e s t a t e do n o t w i s h t o a b d i c a t e t h e i r s o v e r e i g n t y t o t h e a g e n c i e s which s e r v e them. Toward t h e s e e n d s , t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e p a r t s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d . "2-3-202. Meeting d e f i n e d . A s used i n t h i s part, 'meeting' means t h e c o n v e n i n g of a quorum o f t h e c o n s t i t u e n t membership o f a p u b l i c a g e n c y , w h e t h e r c o r p o r a l o r by means of e l e c t r o n i c e q u i p m e n t , t o h e a r , d i s c u s s , o r a c t upon a m a t t e r o v e r which t h e a g e n c y h a s supervision, control, jurisdiction, or a d v i s o r y power. "2-3-203. Meetings of p u b l i c a g e n c i e s t o be open t o public--exceptions. (1) A l l m e e t i n g s of p u b l i c o r governmental bodies, boards, b u r e a u s , c o m m i s s i o n s , a g e n c i e s of t h e s t a t e , o r any p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n of t h e s t a t e o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s o r a g e n c i e s s u p p o r t e d i n whole o r i n p a r t by p u b l i c f u n d s o r e x p e n d i n g p u b l i c f u n d s s h a l l be open t o t h e p u b l i c . "45-7-401. O f f i c i a l m i s c o n d u c t . (1) A p u b l i c s e r v a n t commits t h e o f f e n s e of o f f i c i a l m i s c o n d u c t when i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y h e commits a n y of t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t s : " ( e ) knowingly c o n d u c t s a meeting of a p u b l i c a g e n c y i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2-3-203." On March 6 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e County A t t o r n e y f i l e d an a f f i - d a v i t and m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e an i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s with o f f i c i a l misconduct. forth facts 1981, the essentially District o p i n i o n and o r d e r . Court as outlined denied the The a f f i d a v i t s e t above. On A p r i l State's motion by 27, an This appeal followed. The i s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e : 1. Whether t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in the a f f i d a v i t estab- l i s h p r o b a b l e c a u s e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s c o m m i t t e d t h e crime charged. is v o i d f o r W h e t h e r s e c t i o n 4 5 - 7 - 4 8 1 ( 1 ) ( e ) , MCA, 2. vagueness. W e affirm the trial court's decision and find the S t a t e ' s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a n i n f o r m a t i o n was p r o p e r l y denied. I n i t i a l l y , we f i n d t h e a f f i d a v i t e s t a b l i s h e s p r o b a b l e cause of a violation of Montana's a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e a f f i d a v i t must L i t t l e v. S t a t e v. Hhay Wolfe open meeting be ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 8 0 9 Wash.App. ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 6 Conn. taken 725, law. The as true. 5 0 9 P.2d 1 9 9 , 239 A.2d See, 92, 509. and These a l l e g a t i o n s d i r e c t l y a l l e g e t h a t B r o o k e ' s p l a n was a p p r o v e d b y Palmer and Conrad on J a n u a r y 5 and t h a t " b o t h [ P a l m e r and Conrad] admitted that t h e y c o n s c i o u s l y e x c l u d e d Evans from t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n s a n d d i d n o t w a n t h e r t o know a b o u t t h e m o r their reorganization Meeting." W e have sioners' meeting plan prior previously conducted to the held that between two January a 6th county Board commis- commissioners by t e l e p h o n e i n w h i c h t h e t h i r d c o m m i s s i o n e r h a d no n o t i c e a n d did not Board (1980) of participate violated Trustees v. Mont . etc. , Montana's Board 6 0 6 P.2d of open meeting law. County Co~umissioners 1 0 6 9 , 37 S t . R e p . 175. I n B o a r d o f T r u s t e e s , s u p r a , we h e l d : "The r e c o r d a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t d u e t o t h e f r a m e w o r k i n w h i c h t h e m e e t i n g was h e l d , i . e . , b y means of t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n , and d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t Commissioner McClintock was n o t i n f o r m e d o f t h e m e e t i n g , i t was n o t a n ' o p e n m e e t i n g ' a s r e q u i r e d i n Montana. .. "This type of c l a n d e s t i n e meeting v i o l a t e s t h e s p i r i t and l e t t e r o f t h e Montana Open l q e e t i n g Law.'' 606 P.2d a t 1 0 7 3 , 37 S t . R e p . a t 180. Having allegations section found of the that probable affidavit, 45-7-401 (1)( e ) , MCA, is cause we existed next void for under consider the whether vagueness, In d o i n g s o we n o t e t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f t h e open m e e t i n g l a w c o n t a i n e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e ' s s c h o l a r l y o p i n i o n and order: " M o n t a n a ' s ' open m e e t i n g l a w ' ( S e c t i o n s 2-32 1 0 , e t s e q . ) was p a s s e d i n 1 9 6 3 ( C h a p t e r 159). Its f i r s t s e c t i o n s t a t e d : " ' S e c t i o n 1. The l e g i s l a t u r e f i n d s a n d d e c l a r e s t h a t public boards, commissions, c o u n c i l s , and o t h e r p u b l i c a g e n c i e s i n t h i s s t a t e e x i s t t o a i d i n t h e c o n d u c t of t h e I t is t h e i n t e n t o f t h i s people's business. a c t t h a t a c t i o n s and d e l i b e r a t i o n s o f a l l pub1 i c a g e n c i e s s h a l l be c o n d u c t e d o p e n l y . The p e o p l e o f t h e s t a t e do n o t w i s h t o abdicate t h e i r sovereignty t o the agencies Toward t h e s e e n d s , t h e which s e r v e then?. p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e a c t s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y construed. T h i s s e c t i o n , h e a v i l y p l a g a r i z e d from a 1 9 5 3 a l i f o r n i a s t a t u t e ( S e c t i o n 54950) , added t o hat statute the reference to 'deliberations.' The s e c o n d s e c t i o n o f o u r s t a t u t e provided i n p e r t i n e n t (now S e c t i o n 2-3-203) part: " ' A l l meetings of p u b l i c o r . . . at . . . s h a l l be exceptions) . bodies governmental which a n y a c t i o n i s open t o t h e p u b l i c ' taken (with " T h i s mandatory s e c t i o n d i d n o t d e a l w i t h 'deliberations' a t a l l . The s t a t u t e d i d n o t d e f i n e such t h i n g s a s ' a c t i o n , ' 'deliberation,' ' m e e t i n g ' o r ' o p e n ' and i t p r o v i d e d f o r no n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s . ldo s a n c t i o n s were s u g g e s t e d , " S a n c t i o n s were added by t h e 1 9 7 5 l e g i s l a t u r e ( C h a p t e r 474) by t h e a d d i t i o n o f a s u b S e c t i o n 94-7-401 (now s e c t i o n ( e ) t o R.C.M. 45-7-401, t h e o f f i c i a l misconduct c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e p a s s e d a s p a r t o f t h e 'new' c r i m i n a l code i n 1973 ( C h a p t e r 5 1 3 ) ) , which t h e n provided i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " ' A p u b l i c s e r v a n t commits t h e o f f e n s e o f o f f i c i a l m i s c o n d u c t when, in his official knowingly c o n d u c t s a c a p a c i t y , he meeting of a p u b l i c agency i n v i o l a t i o n of . . . s e c t i o n 82-3402 [2-3-2031 .' "Having i n 1 9 7 5 i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e m a n d a t o r y p r o v i s i o n of t h e o p e n m e e t i n g l a w i n t h e c r i m i n a l c o d e by s e c t i o n numbered r e f e r e n c e , t h e r e b y making i t s v i o l a t i o n c r i m i n a l and providing a penalty t h e r e f o r , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1977 ( C h a p t e r 567) g o t t o t i n k e r i n g w i t h t h e o p e n m e e t i n g l a w and t h e i n c o r p o r As to that section, they ated section. removed t h e words ' a t which a n y a c t i o n is t a k e n ' from t h e l a n g u a g e q u o t e d a b o v e . Thus, while the original section required t h a t m e e t i n g s a t which a c t i o n was t a k e n be o p e n , t h e s e c t i o n a s amended r e q u i r e d t h a t a l l p u b l i c m e e t i n g s be o p e n , w h e t h e r a c t i o n was taken or not. But i n t h e same c h a p t e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e provided, f o r t h e f i r s t time, a d e f i n i t i o n of t h e term ' m e e t i n g ' i n a newly S e c t i o n (83d e s i g n a t e d and numbered R.C.M. 3 4 0 4 , now 2-3-202): used i n t h i s c h a p t e r , " m e e t i n g " means t h e c o n v e n i n g o f a quorum o f t h e c o n s t i t u e n t inembership of a p u b l i c agency, whether c o r p o r a l o r by means o f e l e c t r o n i c e q u i p m e n t , t o h e a r , d i s c u s s o r a c t upon a m a t t e r o v e r which t h e a g e n c y h a s s u p e r v i s i o n , c o n t r o l , j u r i s d i c t i o n o r a d v i s o r y power,' "'AS " I t w i l l be n o t e d , i n t e r a l i a , t h a t a quorum was r e q u i r e d and t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e m e e t i n g c o u l d be t o h e a r o r d i s c u s s a s w e l l as to act, T h i s C h a p t e r a l s o made v o i d a b l e any d i s c u s s i o n made i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e a c t , I n t h i s amendment o f t h e open m e e t i n g l a w , no r e f e r e n c e was made t o t h e c r i m i n a l c o d e , e i t h e r i n t h e t i t l e o r t h e body o f t h e a c t , " I n Connally v. U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. G e n e r a l C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. 126, 7!3 L,Ed. 322, Supreme C o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d a s t a n d a r d the ( 1 9 2 6 ) , 269 United States for the determination o f v a g u e n e s s which h a s b e e n f o l l o w e d t o t h i s d a y : "That t h e t e rm s of a p e n a l s t a t u t e c r e a t i n g a new o f f e n s e m u s t b e s u f f i c i e n t l y e x p l i c i t t o i n f o r m t h o s e who a r e s u b j e c t t o i t what cond u c t on t h e i r p a r t w i l l r e n d e r them l i a b l e t o i t s p e n a l t i e s , is a w e l l - r e c o g n i z e d r e q u i r e ment, consonant a l i k e with o r d i n a r y n o t i o n s o f f a i r p l a y and t h e s e t t l e d r u l e s o f l a w , " 269 U.S, a t 391, 46 S.Ct. a t 1 2 7 , 70 L.Ed. a t 328. The C o u r t r e i t e r a t e d t h i s s t a n d a r d i n W i n t e r s v . New York ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 333 U.S. from S t a t e v . ing 5 0 7 , 68 S . C t . Diamond 6 6 5 , 92 L.Ed. ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 27 N.M. 477, 848, quot- 202 P. 988, " ' W h e r e t h e s t a t u t e u s e s w o r d s o f no d e t e r m i n a t i v e meaning, o r t h e l a n g u a g e is s o g e n e r a l and i n d e f i n i t e a s t o e m b r a c e n o t o n l y a c t s commonly r e c o g n i z e d a s r e p r e h e n s i b l e , b u t a l s o o t h e r s which i t is u n r e a s o n a b l e t o presume w e r e i n t e n d e d t o b e made c r i m i n a l , i t w i l l be d e c l a r e d v o i d f o r u n c e r t a i n t y . ' " 333 U.S. a t 5 1 6 , 6 8 S , C t . a t 670-71, 92 L.Ed. a t 850. T h i s Court h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a s t a n d a r d s i m i l a r t o t h a t used i n C o n n a l l y and W i n t e r s . Mon t ex . -, 590 rel. P.2d I n S t a t e v. 1 1 2 9 , 36 S t . R e p . G r i f f i n v. Greene Perry (1979), - 2 9 1 , q u o t i n g from S t a t e ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 1 0 4 Mont. 9 9 5 , we h e l d t h a t " u n l e s s [ a s t a t u t e ] 460, 67 P.2d is s u f f i c i e n t l y e x p l i - c i t s o t h a t a l l t h o s e s u b j e c t t o t h e p e n a l t i e s may know w h a t t o avoid, i t v i o l a t e s t h e e s s e n t i a l s of due p r o c e s s . " 590 I t i s a l s o c l e a r t h a t no p e r s o n s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o guess at whether a contemplated action is c r i m i n a l . The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s s t a t e d t h e p r i n c i p l e i n t h e following language: " A s a m a t t e r o f d u e p r o c e s s , ' n o o n e may b e r e q u i r e d a t p e r i l of l i f e , l i b e r t y o r prope r t y t o s p e c u l a t e a s t o t h e meaning o f p e n a l A l l a r e e n t i t l e d t o be i n f o r m e d a s statutes. t o what t h e S t a t e commands o r f o r b i d s . ' " Hynes v . Mayor o f O r a d e l l ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 425 U.S. 6 1 0 , 6 2 0 , 96 S . C t . 1 7 5 5 , 1 7 6 0 , 48 L.Ed.2d 243, 253. S i ~ n i l a r l y ,i n Connally, s u p r a , t h e Court s a i d : "And a s t a t u t e w h i c h e i t h e r f o r b i d s o r r e q u i r e s t h e doing of an a c t i n t e r m s s o v a g u e t h a t men o f common i n t e l l i g e n c e m u s t n e c e s s a r i l y g u e s s a t i t s meaning and d i f f e r a s t o its a p p l i c a t i o n v i o l a t e s t h e f i r s t e s s e n t i a l of due p r o c e s s of law," (Citations omitted,) 269 U.S. a t 3 9 1 , 46 S.Ct. a t 1 2 7 , 70 L,Ed. a t 328. 45-7-4161 (1)( e ) , MCk, violates I t is u n c l e a r whether t h e 1977 l e g i s l a t u r e , i n enact- hold We that section these standards. ing its broad d e f i n i t i o n of "meeting" t o i n c l u d e d i s c u s s i o n s a s w e l l a s a c t i o n s ( s e c t i o n 2-3-2162, the criminal charged statute (section under which i n t e n d e d t o amend MCA), commissioners w e r e these 45-7-401(1) ( e ) , MCA), expanded scope o f t h e open meeting law. to encompass the T h e r e i s no e x p r e s s l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o do s o . Men of common intelligence could differ in their o p i n i o n a s t o whether t h e broad "meeting" d e f i n i t i o n e n a c t e d in 1977 was criminal incorporated statute. The t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of in the 1975 amendment to the f a c t t h a t a lawsuit has arisen over t h i s s t a t u t e underscores t h i s differb ence of opinion. Accordingly, any a t t e m p t a t r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s d i f f e r e n c e o f o p i n i o n would n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e g u e s s work and statute. speculation, It is a fatal simply not argues that defect clear what in any criminal constitutes the prohibited conduct. The State d i s p o s e s of t h e problem. section 2 - 1 0 8 2 , MCA, That s t a t u t e provides: " ( 2 ) A s p e c i f i c o r presumed r e f e r e n c e t o a title, chapter, part, section, or subsection o f t h e Montana Code A n n o t a t e d i s p r e s u m e d t o be a r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t t i t l e , c h a p t e r , p a r t , s e c t i o n , o r s u b s e c t i o n a s i t may b e amended o r c h a n g e d f r o m time t o t i m e . T h i s presumpt i o n may b e o v e r c o m e o n l y b y a c l e a r s h o w i n g t h a t a s u b s e q u e n t amendment o r c h a n g e i n t h e title, chapter, part, section, or subsection is i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c o n t i n u e d p u r p o s e o r meaning o f t h e s e c t i o n r e f e r r i n g t o it." The a b o v e s t a t u t e was e n a c t e d i n 1 9 7 9 and i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d e s s e c t i o n 1-2-109, MCA, w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t no Montana l a w is r e t r o a c t i v e u n l e s s e x p r e s s l y d e c l a r e d s o . The obvious difficulty i n l i g h t of with S t a t e 1s the s e c t i o n 1-2-109, argument becomes To a p p l y a 19 79 MCA. e n a c t m e n t t o a l a w p a s s e d i n 1977 ( t h e " m e e t i n g " d e f i n i t i o n ) would clearly be retroactive. Every reasonable doubt resolved a g a i n s t r e t r o a c t i v e o p e r a t i o n of a s t a t u t e . v. H o s k i n s o n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. For the 401(1) ( e ) , MCA, above is reasons void D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of for 277, 552 P.2d we hold section and affirm t h e S t a t e ' s motion f o r f i l e an i n f o r m a t i o n . ?Ad@, % Chief J u s t i c e W concur : e - .. ono or able 'B. W. Thomas, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C. S h e e h y Penrod 325. that vagueness is & . \ 45-7the leave to Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly: I concur in the result. Justice ,

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.