No. 13502
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1976
THE STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs -
JOHN J . CARDEN, a !k/a JAMES J . CARDEN,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable R o b e r t H. I J i l s o n , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena,
Montana
Jock. Anderson, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d ,
Helena, Montana
A l b e r t M e l o l i n g , S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r a p p e a r e d , Helena,
Montana
F o r Respondent:
Wade J. Dahood a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana
Submitted: September 1 6 , 1976
Decided : 5Ep 2 7
1976
Filed: $!?p 2 7 ;2id
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by t h e S t a t e o f Montana from a n o r d e r
o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Lewis and C l a r k County d i s m i s s i n g 38
c o u n t s o f a 43 c o u n t amended I n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d a g a i n s t d e f e n d -
ant. I n view o f t h e imminent t r i a l d a t e , w e e n t e r e d o u r Order
and Judgment o n September 1 7 , 1976, v a c a t i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s
o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l , o r d e r e d 1 0 c o u n t s d i s m i s s e d a s conceded by
t h e S t a t e , and o r d e r e d t h e r e m a i n i n g 33 c o u n t s remanded t o t h e
d i s t r i c t court for trial. S t a t e v. Carden, Mont .-
1 -
P.2d -1 -St.Rep. , Cause No. 13502. I n o u r Order and
Judgment o f September 1 7 , 1976, w e i n d i c a t e d t h a t a f o r m a l w r i t t e n
o p i n i o n would f o l l o w , which w e now i s s u e .
T h i s c a s e began on December 20, 1 9 7 4 , when t h e S t a t e f i l e d
i t s motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a d i r e c t Information i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t Carden w i t h 118 c o u n t s o f c r i m i n a l o f -
fenses. Twenty-five d a y s and two j u d g e s l a t e r , t h e Hon. N a t A l l e n
granted t h e S t a t e leave t o f i l e t h i s Information. F o u r t e e n and
one-half months and two j u d g e s l a t e r , t h e Hon. P a u l H a t f i e l d
o r d e r e d 75 c o u n t s d i s m i s s e d and g r a n t e d t h e S t a t e l e a v e t o f i l e
a n Amended I n f o r m a t i o n c o v e r i n g t h e r e m a i n i n g 43 c o u n t s . Four
months and 1 0 d a y s l a t e r , t h e s i x t h judge i n t h e c a s e , t h e Hon.
R o b e r t H. Wilson, d i s m i s s e d 38 c o u n t s o f t h e 43 c o u n t Amended
I n f o r m a t i o n by o r d e r o f August 1 0 , 1976.
The S t a t e h a s a p p e a l e d from J u d g e W i l s o n ' s o r d e r d i s m i s s -
i n g t h e 38 c o u n t s . However, t h e S t a t e c o n c e d e s d i s m i s s a l o f 10
of t h e s e c o u n t s . The i s s u e on a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e r e m a i n i n g
28 c o u n t s s h o u l d have been d i s m i s s e d .
W e n o t e t h a t b o t h t h e o r i g i n a l I n f o r m a t i o n and t h e Amended
I n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d t h e 28 c o u n t s i n i s s u e . Judge A l l e n g r a n t e d
l e a v e t o f i l e t h e o r i g i n a l Lnformation c o n t a i n i n g t h e s e 28 c o u n t s
and J u d g e H a t f i e l d g r a n t e d l e a v e t o f i l e t h e Amended I n f o r m a t i o n
c o n t a i n i n g t h e s e 28 c o u n t s . Such l e a v e c o u l d n o t have been
g r a n t e d e x c e p t on a f i n d i n g o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e . The c o n t r o l l i n g
s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 9 5 - 1 3 0 1 ( a ) , R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t
part:
"The c o u n t y a t t o r n e y may a p p l y d i r e c t l y t o t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r permission t o f i l e an infor-
m a t i o n a g a i n s t a named d e f e n d a n t . The a p p l i c a -
t i o n must be by a f f i d a v i t s u p p o r t e d by s u c h
e v i d e n c e a s t h e judge may r e q u i r e . I f it appears
t h a t t h e r e i s probable cause t o b e l i e v e t h a t an
o f f e n s e h a s been committed by t h e d e f e n d a n t t h e
judge s h a l l q r a n t l e a v e t o f i l e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n ,
o t h e r w i s e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l be d e n i e d . "
(Emphasis added. )
Two j u d g e s had a l r e a d y found p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r f i l i n g
t h e 28 c o u n t s a t i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l . The " l a w o f t h e c a s e " o n
p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r f i l i n g t h e s e 28 c o u n t s had a l r e a d y been con-
s i d e r e d , d e t e r m i n e d and e s t a b l i s h e d . A l t h o u g h some c o u r t s l i m i t
a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e "law o f t h e c a s e " d o c t r i n e t o f i n a l d e c i s i o n s
o f t h e h i g h e s t a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ( F i l a n o w s k i v . Zoning Board o f
Adjustment, 439 Pa. 360, 266 A.2d 670; K u c h i n i c v . McCrory, 4 2 2
Pa. 620, 222 A.2d 8 9 7 ) , w e c o n s i d e r t h e b e t t e r r u l e p e r m i t s a p p l i -
c a t i o n of t h i s p r i n c i p l e t o p r i o r r u l i n g s of a t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e
same case a s w e l l ( S t a t e v . H a l e , 127 N.J.Super. 407, 317 A.2d
731; Chain L o c a t i o n s o f America, I n c . v . E a s t Hudson Parkway A . ,
280 F.Supp. 396).
Under t h e "law o f t h e case" p r i n c i p l e , j u d g e s o f c o o r d i n a t e
j u r i s d i c t i o n s s i t t i n g i n t h e same c o u r t and i n t h e same c a s e may
not o r d i n a r i l y overrule t h e decisions of each other. United
S t a t e s v . Baynes, 400 F.Supp. 285. I t i s simply a r u l e of prac-
t i c e t h a t a r t i c u l a t e s t h e sound p o l i c y t h a t when a n i s s u e i s o n c e
j u d i c i a l l y d e t e r m i n e d , t h a t s h o u l d be t h e end o f t h e m a t t e r a s
f a r a s j u d g e s and c o u r t s o f c o o r d i n a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n a r e c o n c e r n e d .
M a r t i n v . C i t y o f Cohoes, 371 N.Y.S.2d 687, 37 N.Y.2d 1 6 2 , 332
N.E.2d 867. The "law o f t h e c a s e " i s n o t a n i m p e r a t i v e ( S c h o n f e l d
v. R a f t e r y , 359 F.Supp. 3 8 0 ) ; d o e s n o t go t o t h e power o f t h e
court (People v. Medina, 99 Cal.Rptr. 630, 492 P.2d 686); and does
not mean that a court does not have discretion to reconsider a
ruling made by another judge in the same case. Chain Locations
of America, Inc. v. East Hudson Parkway Authority, supra.
What factors are present in this case that would move
the discretion of Judge Wilson to reconsider the prior determin-
ations of Judge Allen and Judge Hatfield? None have been brought
to our attention and we perceive none. Defendant argues that
because the prior determinations of Judge Allen and Judge Hatfield
were ex parte determinations, a later adversary hearing on prob-
able cause was not precluded. But were they? Judge Allen's
determination of probable cause on the original 118 count Inform-
ation may fall in this category, but this does not apply to Judge
Hatfield's determination of probable cause. This matter was fully
briefed and argued by both the State and defendant. An adversary
hearing was held on defendant's motions on February 4, 1976, at
which counsel for both the State and the defendant were present.
Thereafter Judge Hatfield entered an order dismissing 75 counts
of the original Information and granting leave to the State to
file an Amended Information on the remaining 43 counts.
On the other hand, there are factors in this case against
the exercise of discretion to reconsider the prior rulings. There
is an absence of anything to indicate Judge Hatfield's prior rul-
ing was in error. The case had dragged along for a year and a
half, six different judges had been involved, and the trial date
had not yet been set. To go back and relitigate the issue of
probable cause for the 28 counts filed at the commencement of the
action would permit endless manipulation of the judicial system
and thwart its proper operation and objectives. It would also
permit a judge of coordinate jurisdiction to perform appellate
functions, in effect, over the decisions of another district
judge, a p r a c t i c e which t h i s C o u r t h a s p r e v i o u s l y condemned.
S t a t e ex r e l . S t a t e Highway Comrn'n v . Kinman, 150 Mont. 1 2 , 430
For t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s we h o l d t h a t i t was a n a b u s e
o f d i s c r e t i o n f o r Judge Wilson t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e p r i o r r u l i n g o f
Judge H a t f i e l d on p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r f i l i n g t h e 28 c o u n t s a t
i s s u e i n t h i s appeal. Judge W i l s o n ' s o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l i s vaca-
t e d and s e t a s i d e ; Counts 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 6 , 1 7 , 26, 27, 30, 31, 36 and
37 of t h e Amended I n f o r m a t i o n a r e s t r i c k e n a s conceded by t h e
S t a t e ; and t h e r e m a i n i n g 33 c o u n t s o f t h e Amended I n f o r m a t i o n a r e
remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r t r i a l ; and r e m i t t i t u r s h a l l
i s s u e f o r t h w i t h ; a l l a s p r o v i d e d i n o u r p r e v i o u s Order and Judg-
ment h e r e i n d a t e d September 1 7 , 1976.
Justice
/
/, c h i e f Justice
I N THE SUPREME C U T OF T E STATE O M N A A
O R H F OTN
No. 13502
THE STATE O MONTANA,
F
VS.
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
ED
J O H N J. CARDEN, a / k / a SEPH71976
JAMES J . CARDEN,
Defendant and Respondent.
alx
3i@,%,$
STATE O F MONTANA
@?'
gRFf?
CLZAK Qii-. SUPREME COu;:*r
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM:
The a p p e a l o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana from t h e Judgment
and Order o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f t h e f i r s t j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t
o f t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of Lewis and
C l a r k , d a t e d August 1 0 , 1976, d i s m i s s i n g 38 c o u n t s o f t h e 43
c o u n t Amended I n f o r m a t i o n h e r e i n h a v i n g been f u l l y b r i e f e d ,
a r g u e d and s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r d e c i s i o n ,
I T I S ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
(1) T h a t s a i d Order d a t e d August 1 0 , 1976, i s v a c a t e d
and s e t a s i d e .
( 2 ) T h a t c o u n t s 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 6 , 1 7 , 26, 27, 3 0 , 31, 36 and
37 o f t h e Amended I n f o r m a t i o n a r e h e r e b y s t r i c k e n and d i s m i s s e d
a s conceded by t h e S t a t e .
( 3 ) T h a t t h e r e m a i n i n g 33 c o u n t s i n t h e Amended I n f o r m a t i o n
a r e remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r t r i a l commencing September
28, 1976, a s h e r e t o f o r e s e t by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
( 4 ) T h a t t h i s Order and Judgment i s i s s u e d a t t h i s t i m e
t o g i v e t h e p a r t i e s and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t n o t i c e o f o u r d e c i s i o n
f o r t h w i t h i n view o f t h e t r i a l d a t e . A formal w r i t t e n opinion
will follow in due course.
(5) Let remittitur issue forthwith.
DATED this 17th day of September, 1976.
The Honorable W. W. Lessley, district judge, sat for
Mr. Justice Wesley Castles.
The Honorable Edward T. Dussault, district judge, sat
for Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly.