STATE v BAILEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 82-100 I N THE SUPREPIE COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A O T N 1982 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, GORDON A . BAILEY, Defendant and Respondent. AL3peal f r o m : District Court o f 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 C o u n t y o f M i s s o u l a , The H o n o r a b l e J a m e s B. W h e e l i s a n d The H o n o r a b l e J o h n S. IJenson, Judges presiding. 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 , H e l e n a , Montana R o b e r t L. Deschamps, 111, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r Resgondent: F r e d R. Van V a l k e n b u r g ; S m i t h , Connor & Van V a l k e n b u r g , M i s s o u l a , I~Iontana Submitted on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: DEC 1 6 ?SB2 September 2 3 , 1982 December 1 6 , 1 9 8 2 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B . D a l y 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 . T h i s case comes b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourth Judicial Missoula District, County. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s d t h e c h a r g e of a t t e m p t e d s a l e of d a n g e r o u s d r u g s , a f e l o n y , on the grounds t h a t t h e defendant w a s denied h i s r i g h t to speedy t r i a l . The defendant, f e l o n y o f f e n s e of arrested and m a t i o n was f i l e d . 22, 1981, with the On March 3 1 a n i n f o r - The d e f e n d a n t a p p e a r e d and moved to dismiss the g r o u n d s t h a t it was f i l e d f i v e d a y s beyond l i m i t s e t out charged a t t e m p t e d s a l e of d a n g e r o u s d r u g s on F e b r u a r y H e waived p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g . 1 8 , 1981. April was Bailey, i n s e c t i o n 46-11-203, i n D i s t r i c t Court on information on the t h e t h i r t y day t i m e T h a t i n f o r m a t i o n was MCA. dismissed pursuant t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n o n May 2 6 . t h a t d i s m i s s a l and i n a p p a r e n t r e l i a n c e on t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s order, t h e d e f e n d a n t moved After the dismissal, t o I n d i a n a and o b t a i n e d the State submitted a After employment. motion to the D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e q u e s t i n g t h a t it be a l l o w e d t o renew i t s o r i g i - n a l motion denied f o r l e a v e to f i l e t h e o n J u l y 22 and information. on J u l y 23, 1981, the T h i s m o t i o n was S t a t e moved D i s t r i c t C o u r t to r e c o n s i d e r t h e motion f o r r e n e w a l . the That motion was a l s o d e n i e d on A u g u s t 1 2 . On t h e State same d a y filed dangerous a drugs, t h e motion new a to information felony. reconsider alleging This was was denied, attempted done pursuant the sale of to the s u g g e s t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n its o r d e r denying t h e m o t i o n . On that day the date of the initial appearance was set for S e p t e m b e r 1 4 . T h i s was d o n e p u r s u a n t to a n a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e S t a t e and the defendant, t o allow him to a v o i d e x t r a d i t i o n to Montana. The i n i t i a l a p p e a r a n c e and a r r a i g n m e n t w a s h e l d o n S e p t e m b e r 14. At t h a t t i m e t h e t r i a l d a t e was s e t f o r S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , b u t was p o s t p o n e d on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t u n t i l F e b r u a r y 1982. On J a n u a r y 1 2 , 1 9 8 2 , t h e d e f e n d a n t moved to d i s m i s s t h e charge on trial. the ground the charge, second should reality this was d e n i e d be his on February District the between t h e d i s m i s s a l of the he was g r a n t e d T h i s motion dismissing that Court to right 2. In noted speedy its o r d e r that time the t h e f i r s t i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e f i l i n g of charged against the State, because in is b u t o n e c a u s e of a c t i o n c o n t i n u o u s l y p u r s u e d by the State. Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d Whether 1. time between the the in t h i s case: District dismissal Court of erred the when first f i l i n g o f t h e s e c o n d i n i t s c a l c u l a t i o n of it included information and the the t i m e t o s e e i f speedy t r i a l had b e e n d e n i e d ? W h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d when i t d e t e r m i n e d 2. the defendant was denied a speedy t r i a l ? I n t h e case a t h a n d , dismissal of the t h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t i m e between f i r s t i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e f i l i n g of should not be trial, t h a t t h e speedy t r i a l and t h e f i l i n g of i n t h e computation of Wingo ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 407 U.S. t i m e f o r a speedy c l o c k b e g i n s to r u n anew upon t h e second i n f o r m a t i o n . t h a t looking a t a l l the contend v. included t h e second Based o n t h a t , they also f a c t o r s enumerated under Barker 514, 3 3 L.Ed.2d 101, 92 S.Ct. 2182, t h e r e is no d e n i a l o f a s p e e d y t r i a l h e r e . I n s u p p o r t of its p o s i t i o n , t h e S t a t e p r i n c i p a l l y r e l i e s on f o u r c a s e s , 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 3 7 2 ; S t a t e v. Fife McCarthy (9th Cir. 1 9 7 8 ) , 566 F.2d McDonald (1982)f - As that t o the when a ( 1 9 8 1 ) r 6 3 2 P.2d -- first cause U.S. . - 712, 1377; and, , 7 1 L.Ed.2d two d e c i s i o n s , is 38 S t . R e p . reversed and W e do n o t United S t a t e s v. 696, 1 0 2 S.Ct. -S a n d -. s -- - - e r - and --i f e , F -- re-anded s p e e d y t r i a l c l o c k b e g i n s anew on t h e d a t e of continues u n t i l t r i a l . 1 3 3 4 ; A r n o l d v. for they held retrial, the t h e r e m i t t i t u r and believe t h a t the r u l e set out i n S a n d e r s and F i f-- is a p p l i c a b l e to t h e p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n . e t h o s e cases d e a l w i t h p o s t - a p p e a l 1497. Both s i t u a t i o n s i n which t h e d e f e n - d a n t h a s a l r e a d y b e e n t r i e d b u t r e v e r s a l is r e q u i r e d d u e t o some . impropriety i n the proceed ing B u t , t h i s is n o t t h e s i t u a t i o n i n M r . through an e r r o r dismissed. interim in f i l i n g the technically be two the an informations, accused. it was c h a r g e s were p n d i n g A l t h o u g h no f o r m a l between It was information t h a t initial Bailey's case. During Bailey that during still the seemed interim, the to deputy c o u n t y a t t o r n e y a t t e m p t e d to c o n t i n u e h i s p r o s e c u t i o n . He t r i e d twice t o h a v e t h e i n £ ormat i o n r e i n s t a t e d , t h r o u g h mot i o n s . These a t t e m p t s were o p p o s e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t t h r o u g h h i s c o u n s e l . District Court, had its o r d e r denying in t o point out to the t h e motion to The reconsider, c o u n t y a t t o r n e y how t o p r o c e e d . Only t h e n was t h e p r o p e r d o c u m e n t a t i o n to r e f i l e t h e c h a r g e s u b m i t t e d to the court. Under such circumstances, a c c u s e d as h i s l i b e r t y is r e s t r a i n e d , b e c a u s e of a s t o w h e t h e r h i s p r e s e n c e w i l l be r e q u i r e d , to prosecute cause in his normal life, is Bailey still an the uncertainty t h a t these e f f o r t s and is he subject to p u b l i c a c c u s a t i o n as t h e s e a t t e m p t s were r e p e a t e d l y made i n o p e n court. who has accused. L.Ed.2d required T h i s p l a c e s him i n a c o m p a r a b l e s i t u a t i o n of a d e f e n d a n t been arrested thus U n i t e d S t a t e s v. 468, for 92 the S.Ct. Marion 455. right to putting him in the ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 4 0 4 U.S. Being accused trial speedy an to category of 307, 321, 30 is a l l that is attach. S t a t e v. L a r s o n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 6 2 3 P.2d 9 5 4 , 957. The Arnold case relied on by d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h e case a t h a n d . the State is factually D e s p i t e it d e a l i n g w i t h a p e r i o d b e t w e e n t h e d i s m i s s a l o f a c h a r g e a f t e r a m i s t r i a l and t h e subsequent r e f i l i n g of t h a t charge, the prosecutor i n t h a t case d i d n o t make a t t e m p t s t o c o n t i n u e p r o s e c u t i o n i n t h e i n t e r i m bet w e e n t h e f i r s t and s e c o n d c h a r g i n g . T h i s c a n n o t be s a i d of county a t t o r n e y i n B a i l e y ' s case though. he tried to c o n t i n u e t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , t h e f i r s t and t h e f i l i n g o f A s pointed between t h e second c h a r g e . the o u t above, dismissal Also, the of as p o i n t e d o u t above, t h i s continued attempt t o prosecute placed B a i l e y i n a p o s i t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f o n e who had b e e n a r r e s t e d t h u s making him an a c c u s e d . The S t a t e a l s o r e l i e s on t h e r e c e n t p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n of the U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. McDonald, s u p r a . I n t h a t c a s e a c a p t a i n s t a t i o n e d a t F o r t Bragg, North C a r o l i n a , was f o r m a l l y c h a r g e d w i t h Those But, c h a r g e s were at Criminal tion. the t h e m u r d e r of dismissed request of and the A l l the Department. he was Justice Investigation Division h i s w i f e and c h i l d r e n . (CID) honorably discharged. Department, continued the its Amy's investiga- i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d was f o r w a r d e d t o t h e J u s t i c e The i n £ o r m a t i o n w a s u l t i m a t e l y p r e s e n t e d to a g r a n d j u r y which i n d i c t e d McDonald f o r t h e m u r d e r s . However, t h e McDonald c a s e is a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e one p r e s e n t l y b e f o r e us. D e s p i t e McDonald ongoing investigation that took p l a c e during t h e s e v e r a l years between the dismissal of the i n d i c t m e n t by t h e g r a n d j u r y , nically an accused. But, army charges being and a w a r e of his the subsequent i t c a n n o t be s a i d t h a t he was t e c h - this is n o t the case with Bailey. D e s p i t e no f o r m a l c h a r g e s p e n d i n g , it is c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d he is an a c c u s e d , because a s pointed o u t above, i n our discussions o f t h e o t h e r c a s e s t h e S t a t e r e l i e s o n , he is i n a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n t o a n a r r e s t e d p e r s o n due t o t h e S t a t e ' s c o n t i n u e d e f f o r t s t o c h a r g e him d u r i n g the i n t e r i m between the f i r s t and second information. We t h e r e f o r e hold t h a t under these f a c t s t h a t B a i l e y meets t h e t h r e s h o l d r e q u i r e m e n t of b e i n g a n a c c u s e d , t h u s , t h e r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l a t t a c h e s . The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t i n a p p l y i n g t h e ad hoc t e s t , which is m a n d a t e d by B a r k e r v. Wingo, s u p r a , to d e t e r m i n e i f a d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to speedy t r i a l h a s been denied t h a t t h e c l o c k should b e g i n t o r u n anew on t h e f i l i n g o f t h e s e c o n d i n f o r m a t i o n . o u t above, But, a s set t h i s i s n o t t h e c a s e , b e c a u s e B a i l e y was a n a c c u s e d f r o m t h e t i m e of h i s i n i t i a l a r r e s t , d u e t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t took place in the i n t e r i m between the dismissal of the first i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e f i l i n g of t h e s e c o n d and t h e e f f e c t of t h o s e p r o c e e d i n g s on him. T h e r e f o r e , a l l t h a t r e m a i n s to be d o n e is t o a p p l y t h e B a r k - r - -e a d h o c b a l a n c i n g t e s t t o B a i l e y ' s case. T h i s Court h a s s e t o u t how t h i s t e s t is to be a p p l i e d i n S t a t e v. L a r s o n , s u p r a , where it s t a t e d : " F o u r f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d u n d e r t h e anal y s i s are: (1) l e n g t h of d e l a y ; ( 2 ) r e a s o n f o r d e l a y ; ( 3 ) t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n of t h e r i g h t ; and ( 4 ) p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . It B a r k e r , 407 U.S. a t 5 3 0 , 9 2 S . C t . a t 2191. m u s t be remembered, h o w e v e r , none of t h e f o u r f a c t o r s is r e c o g n i z e d as e i t h e r a n e c e s s a r y o r sufficient condition t o a finding t h a t the r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l h a s been deprived. R a t h e r , t h e y are r e l a t e d f a c t o r s and m u s t be considered t o g e t h e r with such o t h e r circ u m s t a n c e s as may be r e l e v a n t . The C o u r t m u s t s t i l l e n g a g e i n a d i f f i c u l t and s e n s i t i v e balancing process. S e e B a r k e r , 4 0 7 U.S. a t 5 3 3 , 9 2 S . C t . a t 2193." 625-Fr2d a t 957. L e n g t h o f d e l a y is t h e f i r s t f a c t o r to be l o o k e d a t u n d e r t h e test. a t 715, T h i s is t h e t r i g g e r i n g mechanism, S t a t e v . F i f e , 6 3 2 P.2d and u n l e s s t h e r e is a p e r i o d o f d e l a y l o n g e n o u g h t o be presumptively prejudicial v. Armstrong (1980), , 616 no f u r t h e r i n q u i r y is r e q u i r e d ; S t a t e P.2d 341, 351, 37 St.Rep. B a i l e y claims a d e l a y of 216 d a y s i n t h i s c a s e . 1563. However, i n o u r v i e w , o n l y 1 8 6 d a y s , t h e p e r i o d from h i s i n i t i a l a r r e s t u n t i l t h e f i l i n g o f t h e s e c o n d i n f o r m a t i o n , s h o u l d be used t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e d e l a y is p r e s u m p t i v e l y p r e j u d i c i a l . The r e m a i n i n g t i m e is d u e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s need f o r time to p u t h i s a f f a i r s i n I n d i a n a i n o r d e r p r i o r to r e t u r n i n g to Montana to f a c e t h e d r u g c h a r g e s and a r e q u e s t f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e g r a n t e d t o him. The inquiry denied. 186 to days see The if in this the l e n g t h of case is defendant's sufficient right to to trigger speedy trial the was t h e d e l a y n e c e s s a r y to p r o v o k e s u c h a n i n q u i r y is d e p e n d e n t on t h e p e c u l i a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e case a n d a lesser d e l a y w i l l be t o l e r a t e d f o r s i m p l y s t r e e t crimes, as w e h a v e h e r e , t h a n f o r complex o n e s ; B a r k e r v . Wingo, 407 U.S. NOW at w e must l o o k a t t h e second f a c t o r under t h e t e s t s e t o u t by B a r k e r , t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y . I t is c l e a r from t h e f a c t s that the cause of d e l a y was this error i n f i l i n g the information. arrest u n t i l from B a i l e y ' s the deputy county a t t o r n e y ' s Therefore, the second t h e e n t i r e 186 d a y s information was filed is a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h e S t a t e . f a c t o r t o be c o n s i d e r e d The t h i r d t i o n of h i s r i g h t . is t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s asser- The S t a t e , when d i s c u s s i n g t h i s f a c t o r , u r g e s t h i s C o u r t t o a d o p t t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t B a i l e y ' s a s s e r t i o n was s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e i n q u i r y as to w h e t h e r t h e r i g h t w a s d e n i e d , b u t is i n s u f f i c i e n t to s u s t a i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s because claim on t h e r i g h t was n o t a s s e r t e d o f t e n e n o u g h . i t s merits However, this is n o t t h e case, b e c a u s e a s l o n g a s t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s a s s e r t e d he h a s m e t t h e h i s r i g h t t o s p e e d y t r i a l p r i o r to t r i a l , f a c t o r i n t h i s t e s t ; S t a t e v. P.2d third S t e w a r d ( 1 9 7 5 ) r 1 6 3 Mont. 3 8 5 , 5 4 3 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 ; S t a t e v. L a r s o n , 6 2 3 P.2d The S t a t e , when d i s c u s s i n g a t 958. t h e a s s e r t i o n of the right, also claims t h a t B a i l e y d i d n o t w a n t a s p e e d y t r i a l b e c a u s e he e x e r c i s e d h i s r i g h t t o have t h e i n f o r m a t i o n d i s m i s s e d and resisted i t s r e i n s t a t e m e n t a f t e r t h e S t a t e f a i l e d to comply w i t h s e c t i o n 46-11-203, the MCA. defendant T h i s p o s i t i o n is u n t e n a b l e . for exercising prosecutor's mistake. his W e cannot penalize statutory To do s o would be rights or for the to d e p r i v e him o f d u e p r o c e s s o f l a w which is g u a r a n t e e d u n d e r A r t i c l e 1 1 , S e c t i o n 7 o f t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . N e i t h e r c a n w e f o r c e him t o c h o s e o n e right was over another, i n Simmons v. Supreme C o u r t 1 9 L.Ed.2d and this 1 2 4 7 , 88 S . C t . ". . . stated: tional right we should have made clear by the United U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 390 U.S. States 377, 9 6 7 , w h e r e it a d d r e s s e d a s i m i l a r i s s u e find it intolerable t o be s u r r e n d e r e d t h a t one c o n s t i t u - to a s s e r t a n o t h e r . " B e c a u s e t h i s a n a l y s i s seems t o a p p l y w i t h e q u a l s t r e n g t h n o t o n l y t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s b u t t o a l l r i g h t s , B a i l e y s h o u l d n o t and c a n n o t be f o r c e d t o c h o s e b e t w e e n h i s s t a t u t o r y r i g h t u n d e r section 46-11-203, MCA, and his constitutional right to a s p e e d y trial. The f o u r t h f a c t o r t o be c o n s i d e r e d u n d e r t h e B a r k e r a n a l y s i s is t h a t o f p r e j u d i c e : " P r e j u d i c e i n a s p e e d y t r i a l c o n t e x t is to be a s s e s s e d i n l i g h t o f t h e i n t e r e s t s of d e f e n dants which the speedy trial right was designed to protect. In this regard, d e f e n d a n t s ' i n t e r e s t s h a v e b e e n i d e n t i f i e d as : '(i) to prevent oppressive p r e tr i a1 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, c o n c e r n o f t h e a c c u s e d ; and ( i i i ) t o l i m i t t h e will be possibility that the defense B a r k e r v. Wingo, 407 U.S. a t 5 3 2 , impaired. ' S t a t e v. L a r s o n , 6 2 3 P.2d 9 2 S . C t . a t 2192." a t 658-659. In addressing t h i s f a c t o r , t h e S t a t e a s s e r t s t h a t no p r e j u - However, t h e d e f e n d a n t claims p r e j u d i c e d i c e whatsoever e x i s t s . was to the fact Indiana and r e t u r n t o Montana due that he to required t o defend give up h i s the charges. job in Economic h a r d s h i p h a s been recognized as o n e form o f p r e j u d i c e t h a t c a n f l o w from t h e d e p r i v a t i o n of a defendant's speedy t r i a l right; S t a t e v. H a r v e y ( 1 9 7 9 ) r 6 0 3 P.2d 6 6 1 , 6 6 8 , 36 S t . R e p 2035; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. claims that State's the Marion, 404 any economic conduct, as a t 320. U.S. loss is n o t . We disagree. the prejudice it was t h e r e s u l t of l a w and n o t a s a r e s u l t o f offense Here, county caused Bailey's the State's attorney by the i g n o r a n c e of p r o s e c u t i o n of this The economic h a r d s h i p t h e d e f e n d a n t s u f - f e r e d is a d i r e c t r e s u l t of e r r o r i n t h e h a n d l i n g o f t h i s case by the State. The d e f e n d a n t ' s l o s s would h a v e n e v e r o c c u r r e d i f t h e f i l i n g o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n would h a v e b e e n h a n d l e d p r o p e r l y i n t h e f i r s t place. The l e n g t h o f delay i n t h i s case shifted S t a t e to e x p l a i n t h e reasons f o r i t and p r e j u d i c e to t h e defendant; S t a t e v. d i d neither adequately, it as t h e burden t o t h e to show t h e a b s e n c e of F i f e , 6 3 2 P.2d a t 715. It is a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s own a c t i o n s c a u s e d t h e d e l a y and as shown a b o v e t h e r e w a s p r e j u d i c e . These considered along w i t h t h e o t h e r r e l e v a n t circumstances such a s t h e l e n g t h o f d e l a y and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t u s as a n a c c u s e d , d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e p e r i o d o f d e l a y a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h e S t a t e , support the District Court's finding t h a t the defendant w a s denied h i s r i g h t to speedy t r i a l . W t h e r e f ore a f f i r m . e - Justice 8 - * ' 8' I,Ve c o n c u r : & d C h i e f Justice o 4
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.
