SOLBERG v COUNTY OF YELLOWSTONE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 DOUGLAS D . SOLBERG, a s P e r s o n a l R e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e E s t a t e of D a r r e l B. S o l b e r g , Deceased, Plaintiff and A p p e l l a n t , VS. COUNTY O F YELLOWSTONE, HAYES, J R . , M.D., MONTANA, a n d SIDNEY J . Defendants Appeal from: Counsel of and Respondents. D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth 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 Y e l l o w s t o n e , Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Record: For Appellant: S a n d a l 1 & Cavan, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Anderson, Montana Brown, Gerbase, Cebull & Jones, Billings, S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : Decided: September 9 , 1982 March 1, 1 9 8 3 M r . Justice Court. Conway H a r r i s o n delivered the Opinion of the is a w r o n g f u l d e a t h a c t i o n on a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t This C o u r t of of John t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n and Yellowstone. County. The j u r y found for From t h a t a d v e r s e v e r d i c t f o r t h e County the defendant, and judgment, Yellowstone the p l a i n t i f f appeals. S o l b e r g had b e e n i n c a r c e r a t e d s i n c e mid-day single-car On t h a t d a y he was i n v o l v e d i n a on November 1 9 . accident. car His i n t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e County j a i l left f e n c e , and came t o rest i n a f i e l d . taken intoxicated" to jail and and road, went through a S o l b e r g was i n t h e c a r when A c c o r d i n g t o t h e d e p u t y , S o l b e r g was t h e deputy s h e r i f f a r r i v e d . "quite the "he charged could with b a r e l y walk." driving driving without a valid d r i v e r ' s license. while was He intoxicated then and On t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , November 2 0 , 1 9 7 4 , he p l e d g u i l t y to t h e two o f f e n s e s i n j u s t i c e court. H e was u n a b l e t o p a y t h e f i n e imposed and a s a r e s u l t he was o r d e r e d t o s e r v e t i m e i n j a i l . On November 22, 1974, at H e was i m m e d i a t e l y r u s h e d t o t h e i n t h e Yellowstone County j a i l . dead on a r r i v a l . t h e emergency A t room h i s t e m p e r a t u r e was r e c o r d e d a t 1 0 7 . 8 d e g r e e s . m o r n i n g a n a u t o p s y was p e r f o r m e d . mined to be to related complaint hyperpyrexia delirium alleged ; the tremens that the Darrel a padded c e l l S o l b e r g was found l y i n g f a c e down on t h e f l o o r of h o s p i t a l and was p r o n o u n c e d a.m., a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7:30 Later that The c a u s e of d e a t h w a s d e t e r greatly and elevated alcohol defendant, temperature withdrawal. Yellowstone The County, " n e g l i g e n t l y and c a r e l e s s l y f a i l e d t o p r o m p t l y s e c u r e , o r demand, a d e q u a t e and p r o p e r m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n . the defendant. The p l a i n t i f f . ." The j u r y h e l d for then brought t h i s appeal. S e v e r a l i s s u e s were r a i s e d on a p p e a l : 1. w h e t h e r t h e j u r y was s e l e c t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e l a w ; 2. whether o r not t h e District Court e r r e d in refusing to g i v e a n o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n on n e g l i g e n c e as a matter of l a w ; and w h e t h e r or n o t t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t 3. the verdict? The first relating a reversal necessitates issue and to the remand selection of f o r new t r i a l ; the jury however, we w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e o t h e r i s s u e s i n v i e w o f t h e f a c t t h e case m u s t be r e t r i e d . The trial in this cause took place during October 1980. D u r i n g t h a t same t i m e p e r i o d , w i t h i n weeks of t h e S o l b e r g t r i a l , a n o t h e r t r i a l was h e l d i n t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . case other was In District. entitled Dvorak case that a appealed t o t h i s Court. v. jury Huntley rendered We reversed, Project The Irrigation a verdict which was b e c a u s e t h e j u r y had n o t been s e l e c t e d i n accordance with law. Dvorak v . H u n t l e y P r o j e c t I r r i g a t i o n District . (1981) St.Rep. 2176. 25-7-202 and 25-7-204, - -- .- Mont Specifically, Upon r e v i e w o f Dvorak, -- we found r 639 P.2d violations of 62, 38 sections MCA. t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l t r a n s c r i p t of p r o c e e d i n g s i n w h i c h h a v e become p a r t o f the record i n t h i s case, w e f i n d t h e f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y of Charmaine F i s h e r , a Deputy C l e r k o f Court f o r t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District: "Q. Have you s a t on o t h e r cases w h e r e j u r i e s were s e l e c t e d i n t h e same p r o c e d u r e ? A. Yes. there "Q. Was Yes. a case called Solberg? A. "Q. And was t h e j u r y s e l e c t e d i n t h a t c a s e i n t h e same m a n n e r ? A. Yes ." A l s o t h e t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e had b e e n u s e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t f o r many y e a r s . "Q. And is that [the jury selection commonly used in Y e l l o w stone procedure 1 County? A. Y e s , has been f o r , w e l l I c a n ' t I know a t l e a s t i m a g i n e how many y e a r s twenty. . ." Here, a p p e l l a n t ' s were tried in the a r g u m e n t is s i m p l y : same judicial district, Dvorak and t h i s case - both having juries Dvorak s e l e c t e d w i t h t h e same p r o c e d u r e s and s i n c e - - was r e v e r s e d - because of such p r o c e d u r e s , this case s h o u l d a l s o be reversed. W e agree. Respondent s t r e n u o u s l y argues not that appellant's objection is I n --Dvorak t h e a p p e l l a n t made h i s o b j e c t i o n known a timely. week a f t e r t h e v e r d i c t had b e e n e n t e r e d b u t b e f o r e h i s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . I n t h i s case, a p p e l l a n t f i r s t o b j e c t e d to t h e j u r y s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s i n h i s i n i t i a l b r i e f ; more t h a n o n e y e a r s i n c e the trial. i n Dvorak a r g u e d - The r e s p o n d e n t t h e j u r y s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s had come t o o l a t e . that objections to We held otherwise, stating: " [ t j h e b a s i c f l a w i n t h i s c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t counsel f o r the [appellant] did not discover t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n t h e j u r y s e l e c t i o n proc e s s u n t i l a week a f t e r t h e t r i a l . Further, c o u n s e l had no r e a s o n , p r i o r to h i s i n q u i r i e s , t o s u s p e c t t h a t t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e s were not being followed. I n o t h e r words, the 'means of knowledge1 were n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r c o u n s e l t o o b j e c t b e f o r e or d u r i n g t h e t r i a l . " I n L e d g e r v. McKenzie ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 1 0 7 Mont. 3 3 5 , P.2d 352, this Court discussed the 85 n e c e s s i t y o f o b j e c t i n g t o t h e i m p a n e l i n g of a j u r y i n a t i m e l y manner. T h i s Court held: . . . t h a t i f c o u n s e l does n o t have t h e k n o w l e d g e , or means o f k n o w l e d g e , o f t h e irr e g u l a r i t y i n t h e d r a w i n g of t h e j u r y o r t h e p a n e l f r o m w h i c h it is s e l e c t e d u n t i l a f t e r t h e v e r d i c t , t h e q u e s t i o n may be r a i s e d f o r 85 t h e f i r s t t i m e on m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l . I P.2d 3 5 3 . " Dvorak, Mont. a t - -- - 639 P.2d a t 6 4 , 3 m T ~ e p - r 2179. I' I at Respondent asserts that since the issue was m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l , a n y o b j e c t i o n was l o s t . be so construed. The s i m p l y states rule not raised on The r u l e c a n n o t that if counsel was w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e o r means of knowledge d u r i n g t r i a l h e may, upon g a i n i n g k n o w l e d g e of s e l e c t i o n i r r e g u l a r i t i e s , make h i s o b j e c t i o n known i n a motion t i m e period ticular f o r new f o r making point a s being the trial. The r u l e d o e s n o t objection, timely. In rather this l i m i t the it d e f i n e s a par- case w e m e r e l y d e f i n e a n o t h e r p o i n t a s being timely. R e s p o n d e n t a l s o a r g u e s t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l is a v e t e r a n t r i a l a t t o r n e y and m u s t h a v e b e e n aware of t h e p r e s e l e c t i o n p r o cess, t h u s c o u n s e l m u s t h a v e had knowledge o r means of k n o w l e d g e of selection irregularities. t h a t t h e j u r y was p r e s e l e c t e d , Although a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l knew i t d o e s n o t f o l l o w t h a t h e knew or s h o u l d h a v e known t h a t t h e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e s were n o t f o l l o w e d . A s we said St.Rep. i n Dvorak, Mont. at - c l e r k to f o l l o w t h e i r s t a t u t o r y d u t i e s Court to 639 P.2d a t 6 5 , 38 " c o u n s e l had a r i g h t to r e l y on t h e j u d g e a t 2179, Next, -. appellant c o n t e n d s error give offered his jury and ." f o r f a i l u r e of instruction t h e District number 28, which reads: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s f o u n d a s a matter o f l a w t h a t Y e l l o w s t o n e County w a s n e g l i g e n t i n i t s care and t r e a t m e n t of Darrel S o l b e r g and t h e r e f o r e no f i n d i n g on t h i s The o n l y q u e s t i o n is r e q u i r e d o f y o u . remaining i s s u e with respect t o Yellowstone C o u n t y is f o r you to f i n d w h a t d a m a g e s , i f a n y were proximately caused by Yellows t o n e County s n e g l i g e n c e . " I n s u p p o r t o f t h e a b o v e i n s t r u c t i o n w e are c i t e d t o A z u r e v . C i t y o f B i l l i n g s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 2 Mont. case we upheld the District Billings was negligent 53-24-303(2), MCA. 234, Court's 5 9 6 P.2d ruling as a m a t t e r of law that 460. the i n view of In that City of section A p p e l l a n t would h a v e t h i s C o u r t d e c l a r e t h e s t a t u t e a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s c a s e , h o w e v e r , w e c a n n o t d o so. The s t a t u t e reads: "A p e r s o n who a p p e a r s to be i n c a p a c i t a t e d b y a l c o h o l s h a l l be t a k e n i n t o p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y b y t h e p o l i c e and f o r t h w i t h b r o u g h t to a n approved public treatment facility for emergency t r e a t m e n t . I f no a p p r o v e d p u b l i c t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t y is r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , h e s h a l l be t a k e n t o a n e m e r g e n c y m e d i c a l s e r v i c e c u s t o m a r i l y used f o r i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s . The p o l i c e , i n d e t a i n i n g t h e p e r s o n and i n t a k i n g him t o a n a p p r o v e d p u b l i c t r e a t m e n t facility, are t a k i n g him i n t o p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y and s h a l l make e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t t o p r o t e c t h i s h e a l t h and s a f e t y . In taking custody, the the person into protective d e t a i n i n g o f f i c e r may t a k e r e a s o n a b l e s t e p s to p r o t e c t h i m s e l f . N o e n t r y o r o t h e r r e c o r d may b e made t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p e r s o n t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y under t h i s s e c t i o n h a s been a r r e s t e d or charged with a crime." Appellant's a r g u m e n t is s i m p l y t h i s , the s t a t u t e established a d u t y on Yellowstone County t o t a k e S o l b e r g t o a t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t y or e m e r g e n c y m e d i c a l s e r v i c e , and s i n c e t h i s was n o t d o n e t h e d e f e n d a n t was n e g l i g e n t as a matter o f l a w . t o u p h o l d n e g l i g e n c e p e r se t h r o u g h s t a - A s we s a i d i n Azure, t u t e , " t h e p l a i n t i f f m u s t be a member of t h e c l a s s i n whose f a v o r a d u t y was imposed b y t h e s t a t u t e a member o f . . . and t h e d e f e n d a n t m u s t be t h e c l a s s a g a i n s t whom a d u t y is imposed 1 8 2 Mont. a t 240-241, 5 9 6 P.2d t i f f was n o t a member o f a t 464. ." Azure, W e hold t h a t the plain- t h e p r o t e c t e d class. W e do n o t reach t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y was a member of the c l a s s on whom t h e d u t y was imposed. The underlying f o c u s of s e c t i o n 53-24-303 ( 2 ) , MCA, is set f o r t h i n a l e g i s l a t i v e s t a t e m e n t of p o l i c y : " I t is t h e p o l i c y o f t h e s t a t e of Montana t o r e c o g n i z e a l c o h o l i s m as a n i l l n e s s and t h a t a l c o h o l i c s and i n t o x i c a t e d p e r s o n s may n o t be s u b j e c t e d t o c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n b e c a u s e of t h e i r c o n s u m p t i o n of a l c o h o l i c b e v e r a g e s b u t r a t h e r s h o u l d be a f f o r d e d a c o n t i n u u m o f t r e a t m e n t i n o r d e r t h a t t h e y may l e a d n o r m a l l i v e s as p r o d u c t i v e members o f society." S e c t i o n 53-24-102, MCA. I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e had i n mind t h e p r o t e c t i o n of those is a n a f f i n i t y i n d i v i d u a l s whose o n l y f a u l t for alcohol. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e p o l i c e are o b l i g a t e d to f u r t h e r t h a t p u r p o s e by placing i n p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y t h o s e who a p p e a r to be incapaci- t a t e d by a l c o h o l , and " [ n ] o e n t r y or o t h e r r e c o r d may be made to indicate that arrested or the person charged with taken a into crime ." custody . . . Too of t e n in has the been past, i n t o x i c a t e d or i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s were t h r o w n i n j a i l t o s l e e p it o f f and i n v a r i a b l y were c h a r g e d with i n d i c a t i n g t h e community's d i s p l e a s u r e . some c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e T h i s is w h a t h a p p e n e d i n Azure. Solberg w a s not i n t h e p r o t e c t e d class. He was arrested for d r i v i n g u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a l c o h o l and f o r d r i v i n g w i t h o u t a valid license. He pled g u i l t y to b o t h of these offenses. The s t a t u t e i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s who h a v e c o m m i t t e d or are s u s p e c t e d o f reason custody. of c r i m i n a l a c t s ; o n l y t h o s e who b y their incapacitation, Azure was in the are in protected need class. of protective After being a s s a u l t e d , p o l i c e found him i n a s e e m i n g l y i n t o x i c a t e d c o n d i t i o n . i n j u r y ; two b l a c k e y e s , a l a r g e b r u i s e He showed o b v i o u s s i g n s o f H e was o n h i s f o r e h e a d , and d r i e d b l o o d o n h i s l i p s and t e e t h . i n j a i l f o r s i x t e e n h o u r s b e f o r e being t a k e n to t h e h o s p i t a l . no crime. had committed He P o l i c e had r e s p o n d e d t o w h a t seemed to be an attempted burglary. H e was c h a r g e d w i t h p u b l i c intoxica- C l e a r l y , --- was among t h e p r o t e c t e d c l a s s . Azure t i o n and t r e s p a s s . The f o r e g o i n g d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e a common law d u t y . In Pretty o n Top v . C i t y of H a r d i n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 2 Mont. 3 1 1 , 3 1 5 , 5 9 7 P.2d 60-61, 58, we s t a t e d : "A j a i l e r owes a d u t y t o t h e p r i s o n e r t o k e e p h i m s a f e and t o p r o t e c t him from u n n e c e s s a r y harm. R e a s o n a b l e and o r d i n a r y care m u s t be e x e r c i s e ~ f o r t h e l l ~ a n d - h x t of t h e p r i h soner. ( C i t a t i o n s omitted. ) ' A s h e r i f f owes a p r i s o n e r p l a c e d i n h i s c u s t o d y a d u t y to k e e p t h e p r i s o n e r s a f e l y and f r e e from harm, t o r e n d e r him m e d i c a l a i d when n e c e s s a r y , and t o t r e a t him h u m a n e l y and refrain from oppressing him.'" W a g a i n c i t e d t h e r u l e i n A z u r e , t h a t " l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f ie c i a l s h a v e a d u t y t o o b t a i n m e d i c a l c a r e when n e c e s s a r y f o r p e r sons in their care o r 243, 596 P.2d in their a t 465. custody." Azure, 1 8 2 Mont. A p p e l l a n t claims t h a t e v e n u n d e r common l a w p r i n c i p l e s t h e d e f e n d a n t was n e g l i g e n t as a m a t t e r of thus, apart from have given should the s t a t u t e discussed his proposed t h e r e was a d u t y owed, for jury or whether above, the instruction. t h a t while the at trial However, law, court we hold it became a f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n not that duty was breached: " O r d i n a r i l y it is f o r t h e j u r y to d e c i d e , u n d e r a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e i s s u e of w h e t h e r t h e r e h a s b e e n a n e g l i g e n t b r e a c h of a l e g a l duty. (Citations omitted. ) Negligence and b r e a c h of d u t y a r e f o r t h e c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e o n l y i f t h e e v i d e n c e is u n d i s p u t e d o r s u s c e p t i b l e o f b u t o n e c o n c l u s i o n by reason a b l e men." S u h r v. S e a r s Roebuck Co. ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 2 Mont. 3 4 4 , 3 4 8 , 450 P.2d 8 7 , 8 9 . See also L a w l o r v. C o u n t y o f F l a t h e a d ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 5 0 8 , 582 P.2d W . W e find issue. that the Reasonable 75\ issue men of breach could d u t y was p r o p e r l y a jury d i f f e r e n t conclusions, thus of reach n e g l i g e n c e as a matter o f l a w d i d n o t e x i s t . W e now reach the third issue, whether or not there is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence to support the v e r d i c t . " I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of e v i d e n c e we a p p l y a l i m i t e d s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w . Where a f a c t i s s u e is p r e s e n t e d b e f o r e a c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h a j u r y , and t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to support the jury verdict, the verdict w i l l stand . " E v i d e n c e may be i n h e r e n t l y weak and s t i l l be deemed s u b s t a n t i a l , and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e may c o n f l i c t w i t h o t h e r e v i d e n c e . " Gunnels v. Hoyt ( 1 9 8 1 1 , Mont I , 6 3 3 P.2d 1 1 8 7 , 1 1 9 1 , 3 8 ~ x . ~ e p1492-,- 1493.---. . V o l u m i n o u s e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d b y b o t h p a r t i e s c o n c e r n i n g S o l b e r g ' s c o n d i t i o n p r i o r to h i s d e a t h . on the precise Solberg may nature have of d e l i r i u m tremens crossed the fine w i t h d r a w a l , which is n o t l i f e - t h r e a t e n i n g mens, which is. Medical e x p e r t s d i f f e r e d and line whether between or not alcoholic , and t r u e d e l i r i u m tre- T h e r e is no d o u b t t h a t S o l b e r g was c o m p l e t e l y d i s o r i e n t e d a t times, h o w e v e r , it was v i g o r o u s l y d i s p u t e d as to w h a t t h i s symptom m e a n t i n terms of how a r e a s o n a b l e j a i l e r would act. Appellant contended i n d i c a t i v e of D T 1 s . cating that the that Solberg's behavior was clearly However, r e s p o n d e n t p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y i d i - kind of symptoms t h a t Solberg exhibited o c c u r w h i l e a p e r s o n was g o i n g t h r o u g h a l c o h o l w i t h d r a w a l . o t h e r words, could In t h e s e symptoms d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean a p e r s o n is i n t h e l i f e t h r e a t e n i n g c o n d i t i o n of D T ' s . A p p e l l a n t r e l i e s h e a v i l y on h i s e x h i b i t number two which is a training manual used i n Yellowstone c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r o b l e m s of County special prisoners. to e d u c a t e j a i l e r s A pertinent part o f t h a t manual r e a d s : "Probably t h e s p e c i a l p r i s o n e r s e e n most o f t e n And s i n c e t h e s e b y t h e j a i l e r is t h e ' d r u n k . ' p e o p l e are f r e q u e n t l y p u t i n j a i l , o f f i c e r s o f t e n t e n d t o become c a s u a l i n t h e i r t r e a t m e n t o f them, a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e y o n l y need t o ' s l e e p it o f f . ' T h i s may be t r u e of some a l c o h o l i c s , b u t t h e r e a r e many o t h e r s who m i g h t become s e r i o u s l y i l l o r e v e n d i e i f m e r e l y l e f t a l o n e to ' s l e e p it o f f . " W h i l e c h e c k i n g t h e i n t o x i c a t e d p r i s o n e r s , you should ask yourself: ARE ANY OF THE PRISONERS TREMBLING AND SHOWING SIGNS OF EXPERIENCING STRANGE HALLUCINATIONS? " I f a p r i s o n e r t r e m b l e s i n f e a r t h i n k i n g h e is b e i n g a t t a c k e d by such t h i n g s as s p i d e r s , snakes, i n s e c t s , etc. , h i s condition--far from being s i l l y or amusing--is extremely serious. H e may be s l i p p i n g i n t o a c o n d i t i o n commonly known a s D ' s ( d e l i r i u m t r e m e n s ) T . " I f you r e c o g n i z e t h e a b o v e symptoms: CALL A PHYSICIAN IMMEDIATELY AND DESCRIBE THE THEN: FOLLOW PRISONER'S CONDITION TO H I M . HIS INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY. " A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e j a i l e r s , a l l of whom were r e q u i r e d t o p a s s a c o u r s e which used t h e manual, should have recognized t h e d a n g e r t o S o l b e r g , and s i n c e t h e y d i d n o t , reasonably. However, there was they d i d n o t act to evidence establish S o l b e r g d i d n o t e x h i b i t a n y symptoms of b e i n g f e a r f u l . expert testified that the e l e m e n t of uncontrollable p r e r e q u i s i t e t o being i n life-threatening This tempting case to is say factually that the difficult. jailers s e r i o u s n e s s of S o l b e r g ' s c o n d i t i o n . dence a jury could have DT's logically A medical is a fear . With should that hindsight have it recognized is the However, i n v i e w o f t h e e v i concluded a c t e d r e a s o n a b l y and w i t h o u t n e g l i g e n c e . that the jailers " [ O l n l y when t h e r e is a c o m p l e t e a b s e n c e of p r o b a t i v e f a c t s to s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t d o e s e r r o r occur." P.2d S t r o n g v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 9 1 , 1 9 4 , 36 S t . R e p . Mont . ----I I 600 1665, 1669. F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we r e v e r s e and d i r e c t t h e c o u r t to Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea, concurring: I join in the opinion and simply point out that in holding that a party can challenge the selection of a iury panel by raising the issue for the first time on appeal, we have impliedly overruled our holding in State v. Fitzpatrick (1977), 178 Mont. 530, 536, 569 P.2d 383, 387-388. Although we reversed defendant's conviction and the conviction of a co-defendant on other grounds and sent the case back for retrial, we held in Fitzpatrick that "defendants cannot challenge the jury for the first time on appeal on the ground that the District Court failed to select and draw panels in accordance with applicable Montana law." In reaching our decision here this Court should have addressed Fitzpatrick and the two other cases relied on in Fitzpatrick for the proposition which we are impliedly overruling today.

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.