No. 13073
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
1976
STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
ROBERT A. KELLER,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable R o b e r t J. Boyd, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant :
G r a y b i l l , O s t r e m , Warner & C r o t t y , G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana
Gregory Warner a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
For Respondent:
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
Lon J. Maxwell, 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
James Masar, Coumty A t t o r n e y , Deer Lodge, Montana
D a n i e l s and Mizner, Deer Lodge, Montana
Ted L. Mizner a p p e a r e d , Deer Lodge, Montana
Submitted: May 25, 1976
Decided : AUG 2 0 19%
Filed: AUbZO1976
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
Defendant a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n o f m i t i g a t e d
d e l i b e r a t e homicide i n t h e s t r a n g u l a t i o n d e a t h o f h i s w i f e
f o l l o w i n g t r i a l by j u r y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r P o w e l l
County.
On March 1 6 , 1974, t h e nude body o f t h e d e c e a s e d , G l o r i a
K e l l e r , was found between Avon and E l l i s t o n i n Powell County,
Montana, h i d d e n i n a n o l d r u s t e d c a r body. D r . John P f a f f , a
f o r e n s i c p a t h o l o g i s t , c o n c l u d e d d e a t h was by s t r a n g u l a t i o n by
h e r b r a s s i e r e found wrapped a r o u n d h e r neck.
a n a p p a r e n t common law
Defendant R o b e r t K e l l e r and G l o r i a K e l l e r r e s i d e d i n / r e -
l a t i o n s h i p a s husband and w i f e s i n c e 1964, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e i r
f i v e c h i l d r e n , t h e two e l d e s t by p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e o f G l o r i a
Keller.
B r i e f l y s t a t e d , t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e was t h a t G l o r i a had
d i s a p p e a r e d t h e e v e n i n g o f F e b r u a r y 3 , 1974, a f t e r l e a v i n g t h e
f a m i l y home i n E a s t Helena w i t h R o b e r t i n t h e f a m i l y p i c k u p
t r u c k ; t h a t t h e p i c k u p was a t t h e home t h e n e x t d a y ; t h a t a s t u b
from a p a r k i n g t i c k e t i n v o l v i n g t h e t r u c k , i s s u e d some months
e a r l i e r , was found n e a r t h e s c e n e o f t h e c r i m e ; t h a t t h e de-
c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e body was s u c h t h a t it p o s s i b l y c o u l d have l a i n
a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e c r i m e s i n c e F e b r u a r y 4 , 1974; t h a t R o b e r t ' s
l a t e r a c t i o n s were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h knowledge t h a t G l o r i a would
n o t r e t u r n ; and t h a t s a m p l e s o f h a i r and candy t a k e n from d e -
c e a s e d ' s s w e a t e r found w i t h t h e body matched s a m p l e s o f h a i r
and candy t a k e n from t h e f a m i l y p i c k u p t r u c k and s a m p l e s o f
defendant's hair. The S t a t e a l s o i n t r o d u c e d e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r
marital disputes.
The t r a n s c r i p t o f t e s t i m o n y by Gary K e l l e r , the couple's
n i n e y e a r o l d s o n , g i v e n a t t h e p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g on May 1 0 ,
1974, was r e a d a t t h e t r i a l t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e f a m i l y had
chicken f o r d i n n e r February 3 , before h i s mother's disappearance.
The a u t o p s y o f d e c e a s e d showed s h e had e a t e n c h i c k e n l e s s t h a n
two h o u r s b e f o r e d e a t h . T h i s t e s t i m o n y was g i v e n by a n i n e
y e a r o l d c h i l d r e c a l l i n g what he had e a t e n f o r d i n n e r more t h a n
t h r e e months p r e v i o u s l y . Gary d i d n o t a p p e a r a t t h e t r i a l , and
t e s t i m o n y showed h e was i n Wyoming.
D e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t e d a d e f e n s e o f a l i b i b u t was u n a b l e
defense
t o p r e s e n t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t w o / w i t n e s s e s h e a t t e m p t e d t o subpoena
t o c o r r o b o r a t e h i s testimony a s t o h i s whereabouts f o r t h e hours
of 7:00 t o 10:OO p.m. F e b r u a r y 3 , 1974. Robert t e s t i f i e d t h a t
G l o r i a d r o v e them i n t o Helena i n t h e p i c k u p and l e t him o u t t o
go i n t o a b a r t o buy c i g a r e t t e s ; and t h a t when he g o t o u t and
walked t o t h e b a r , s h e d r o v e o f f and d i d n o t r e t u r n . Robert
t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e t h e n walked home t o E a s t Helena and t h a t when
he g o t t h e r e , a b o u t 10:OO p.m., t h e t r u c k was t h e r e w i t h t h e k e y s
i n i t b u t G l o r i a was gone.
Todd K e l l e r , e l e v e n y e a r s o l d , t h e e l d e s t c h i l d , t e s t i -
f i e d t h a t h i s mother had r e t u r n e d , p i c k e d up some c l o t h e s , and
l e f t again. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e had h e l p e d f i x Hamburger
H e l p e r f o r t h e f a m i l y d i n n e r t h a t e v e n i n g , F e b r u a r y 3. Robert
t e s t i f i e d he s a w G l o r i a t h r e e d a y s l a t e r r i d i n g i n a c a r w i t h
a n o t h e r man o n t h e v i a d u c t between Helena and E a s t Helena b u t
was u n a b l e t o f o l l o w t h e c a r b e c a u s e o f t h e median d i v i d e r .
G l o r i a had l e f t t h e f a m i l y unannounced on numerous o t h e r o c c a s i o n s
f o r p e r i o d s o f a week t o a month o r more w i t h o u t l e a v i n g word
of h e r whereabouts. During t h o s e p e r i o d s R o b e r t t o o k c a r e o f
t h e f i v e c h i l d r e n a s h e d i d on t h i s o c c a s i o n u n t i l h i s a r r e s t .
Defendant s e e k s r e v e r s a l on t h e f o l l o w i n g g r o u n d s :
(1) T h a t t h e d e l a y o f 326 d a y s between a r r e s t and t r i a l
denied defendant h i s r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l ,
( 2 ) The p r o s e c u t i o n ' s n o n d i s c l o s u r e o f e v i d e n c e c o n t r a r y
t o t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r t o produce;
( 3 ) Evidence i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d from t h e f a m i l y p i c k u p t r u c k
s h o u l d have been e x c l u d e d ;
( 4 ) T h a t it was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r t o a d m i t e v i d e n c e o f a
p r e v i o u s i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g d e f e n d a n t and a gun;
( 5 ) Improper c o n d u c t o f t h e j u r y foreman; and
( 6 ) I n s u f f i c i e n c y of evidence t o support t h e c o n v i c t i o n .
The f i r s t i s s u e on a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r a d e l a y o f 326 d a y s ,
o r n e a r l y e l e v e n months from d e f e n d a n t ' s a r r e s t u n t i l t r i a l ,
deprived defendant of h i s r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l . W e hold it
d i d under t h e circumstances here.
The r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l i s mandated by t h e S i x t h
Amendment t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and A r t i c l e
11, S e c t i o n 24 o f t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , which s t a t e s :
" I n a l l c r i m i n a l prosecutions t h e accused s h a l l
have t h e r i g h t t o * * * a s p e e d y p u b l i c t r i a l
* * *.I'
I n applying t h i s guarantee t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s of
each c a s e , t h i s Court has adopted t h e balancing t e s t t h a t t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t d e s c r i b e d i n B a r k e r v . Wingo, 407
U.S. 514, 33 L Ed 2d 1 0 1 , 92 S . C t . 2182 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . See S t a t e v .
Steward, Mont . , 543 P.2d 1 7 8 , 1 8 1 , 32 St.Rep. 1185 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ;
and S t a t e e x r e l . S a n f o r d v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , d e c i d e d J u l y 8 , 1 9 7 6 ,
Mont. -P.2d , 33 St.Rep. 644. The f o u r f a c t o r s
t o be considered a r e : (1) Length o f d e l a y , (2) reason f o r delay,
( 3 ) d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n o f t h e r i g h t , and ( 4 ) p r e j u d i c e t o t h e
defendant.
Directing our a t t e n t i o n f i r s t t o t h e length of t h e delay
w e n o t e t h a t R o b e r t Keller was a r r e s t e d March 21, 1974,and t r i a l
began F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 1 9 7 5 , n e a r l y 1 months l a t e r .
1 This delay
was p r e s u m p t i v e l y p r e j u d i c i a l , and t r i g g e r e d t h e b a l a n c i n g o f
factors. S e e Steward where 1 2 months between a r r e s t a n d a r r a i g n -
ment was h e l d t o b e p r e s u m p t i v e l y p r e j u d i c i a l ; S t a t e e x r e l .
S a n f o r d where 1 0 months between arraignment and t r i a l was h e l d
t o b e p r e s u m p t i v e l y p r e j u d i c i a l d e l a y ; and F i t z p a t r i c k v . C r i s t ,
165 Mont. 382, 388, 528 P.2d 1322 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , where 7 months w a s
held " * * * long enough t o s h i f t t o t h e s t a t e t h e burden of
e x p l a i n i n g t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y and showing a b s e n c e of
prejudice * * *. "
One o f t h e major p u r p o s e s of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n
i s t o guard a g a i n s t d e l a y , b o t h t o p r o t e c t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s
and t o f u r t h e r t h e S t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t s i n c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s .
A s was s a i d i n Barker a t page 1 1 0 :
"The r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l i s g e n e r i c a l l y
d i f f e r e n t from any of t h e o t h e r r i g h t s e n s h r i n e d
i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e
accused. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l concern
t h a t a l l accused p e r s o n s be t r e a t e d a c c o r d i n g t o
d e c e n t and f a i r p r o c e d u r e s , t h e r e i s a s o c i e t a l
i n t e r e s t i n p r o v i d i n q a speedy t r i a l which e x i s t s
s e p a r a t e from, and a t t i m e s i n o p p o s i t i o n t o ,
t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e a c c u s e d . The i n a b i l i t y of
c o u r t s t o p r o v i d e a prompt t r i a l h a s c o n t r i b u t e d
t o a l a r g e backlog of c a s e s i n u r b a n c o u r t s which,
among o t h e r t h i n g s , e n a b l e s d e f e n d a n t s t o nego-
t i a t e more e f f e c t i v e l y f o r p l e a s o f g u i l t y t o
l e s s e r o f f e n s e s and o t h e r w i s e m a n i p u l a t e t h e system.
I n a d d i t i o n , p e r s o n s r e l e a s e d on bond f o r l e n g t h y
p e r i o d s a w a i t i n g t r i a l have a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o
commit o t h e r crimes. * * * Moreover, t h e l o n g e r
a n accused i s f r e e a w a i t i n g t r i a l , t h e more tempt-
i n g becomes h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o jump b a i l and e s c a p e .
F i n a l l y , d e l a y between a r r e s t and punishment may
have a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t on r e h a b i l i t a t i o n .
" * * * F i n a l l y , lengthy p r e t r i a l detention i s
c o s t l y . * * * I n a d d i t i o n , s o c i e t y l o s e s wages
which might have been e a r n e d , and it must o f t e n
s u p p o r t f a m i l i e s of i n c a r c e r a t e d b r e a d w i n n e r s . "
(Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
I n h i s c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n B a r k e r , a t page 1 2 1
J u s t i c e White emphasizes one of t h e major p u r p o s e s i n p r o t e c t -
i n g t h e accused. Wholly a s i d e from p o s s i b l e p r e j u d i c e t o a de-
f e n s e on t h e m e r i t s , t h e a c c u s e d w i l l be s u b j e c t t o s u b s t a n t i a l
r e s t r i c t i o n s on h i s l i b e r t y pending t r i a l , e i t h e r i n j a i l o r w h i l e
f r e e on bond, "I * * * t h a t may d i s r u p t h i s employment, d r a i n
h i s f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s , c u r t a i l h i s a s s o c i a t i o n s , s u b j e c t him
t o p u b l i c obloquy, and c r e a t e a n x i e t y i n him, h i s f a m i l y and h i s
friends.' U.S. v . Marion, 4 0 4 U.S. 307, 320 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ."
I n summary c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s s h o u l d n o t be b r o u g h t u n t i l
>
t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o b e l i e v e a c r i m e h a s been
committed by t h e p e r s o n c h a r g e d and u n t i l t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i s
prepared t o proceed w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e .
Delay a l s o hampers t h e l i b e r t y of p o s s i b l e w i t n e s s e s
and i m p a i r s t h e i r memory, t h u s i m p a i r i n g b o t h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n
and t h e d e f e n s e i n t h e i r q u e s t of t h e t r u t h .
W e r e c o g n i z e t h a t d e l a y may b e u s e d a s a d e f e n s e t a c t i c .
Where t h e r e c o r d s t r o n g l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t
want a speedy t r i a l , w e would be r e l u c t a n t t o r u l e t h a t he h a s
been d e n i e d t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t . S e e Barker a t page 120.
Such i s n o t t h e c a s e h e r e .
I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y i n t h i s case,
w e observe t h a t t h e p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g w a s n o t held u n t i l seven
weeks a f t e r a r r e s t . The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h i s t i m e was n e c e s s a r y
f o r defendant t o obtain counsel. However, it a p p e a r s d e f e n d a n t
was a b l e t o o b t a i n c o u n s e l w i t h i n 1 6 d a y s a f t e r h i s a r r e s t , and
no v a l i d e x c u s e f o r t h e r e m a i n i n g f i v e week d e l a y i s shown.
The p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g was h e l d May 1 0 . The o r d e r o f
t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t binding defendant over t o d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s
d a t e d August 1 5 , f o u r t e e n weeks l a t e r . The j u s t i c e c o u r t de-
l a y e d i t s d e c i s i o n a f t e r t h e p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g u n t i l it c o u l d
receive laboratory reports. Neither t h e r e s u l t s of t h e tests
nor t h e i t e m s t e s t e d w e r e properly admitted i n evidence. Also
see s e c t i o n 95-902, R.C.M. 1947 and s e c t i o n 95-1202, R.C.M. 1947,
which d e c l a r e t h e j u s t i c e o f t h e p e a c e s h a l l h o l d a p r e l i m i n a r y
e x a m i n a t i o n w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e and s h a l l h e a r t h e e v i d e n c e
without unnecessary delay.
I n a n y e v e n t , t h e l a b o r a t o r y r e s u l t s were d a t e d May 1 6 ,
1 9 7 4 , from t h e S t a t e C r i m i n a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n L a b o r a t o r y i n M i s s o u l a ,
and J u n e 25, 1974, from t h e C r i m i n a l D e t e c t i o n L a b o r a t o r y C e n t e r
f o r t h e Oregon S t a t e Department o f S t a t e P o l i c e . Y e t the order
binding defendant over t o d i s t r i c t c o u r t w a s n o t signed u n t i l
August 1 5 , 1 9 7 4 .
The j u s t i c e c o u r t d o c k e t , on t h e c o n t r a r y , i n d i c a t e s
t h a t d e f e n d a n t was bound o v e r t o d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t h e p a p e r s
g i v e n t o t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y on J u l y 5, 1974. I f t h i s be t h e
c a s e , t h e I n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d on August 29 was f i l e d more t h a n 30
d a y s a f t e r t h e d e f e n d a n t was h e l d t o a n s w e r , i n d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n
o f s e c t i o n 95-1302, R.C.M. 1947.
The S t a t e h a s shown no v a l i d j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e more
t h a n f i v e months d e l a y between a r r e s t , March 21, and f i l i n g o f
c h a r g e s i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t on August 29, 1974.
The S t a t e o f f e r s a s f u r t h e r e x c u s e a crowded c o u r t d o c k e t
and t h e u n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a c o u r t r e p o r t e r . This i s n o t a v a l i d
excuse because t h e u l t i m a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r such circumstances
must r e s t w i t h t h e government r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t .
See S t a t e v. Steward, Mont. , 543 P.2d 1 7 8 , 1 8 1 , 32 S t . R e p .
1185; S t r u n k v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 412 U.S. 434, 436, 37 L Ed 2d 5 6 ,
60, 93 S.Ct. 2260 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ; B a r k e r v . Wingo, s u p r a , Dickey v . F l o r i d a ,
398 U.S. 30, 37, 26 L Ed 2d 26, 90 S.Ct. 1564 ( 1 9 7 0 ) .
The S t a t e a l s o s u g g e s t s t h a t d e l a y was c a u s e d by d e f e n d -
a n t ' s m o t i o n s r e q u i r i n g r e s e a r c h , h e a r i n g and d e t e r m i n a t i o n . It
c a n n o t be s e r i o u s l y c o n t e n d e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a s f i l e d a n y m o t i o n s
f o r t h e purpose of delay. Defendant f i l e d m o t i o n s f o r d i s m i s s a l ,
p r o d u c t i o n of e v i d e n c e , and s u p p r e s s i o n of e v i d e n c e on t h e d a y
c h a r g e s w e r e f i l e d i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t , a motion f o r r e h e a r i n g on
October 23, and p r e t r i a l m o t i o n s a f t e r t h e t r i a l d a t e had been
set. I t d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o u s t h a t t h e t i m e r e a s o n a b l y t a k e n up
by d e f e n d a n t ' s good f a i t h m o t i o n s e x c u s e t h e d e l a y i n t h i s c a s e .
Furthermore, t h e S t a t e ' s a c t i o n s i n withholding n o t i c e of w i t -
n e s s e s , w i t h h o l d i n g e v i d e n c e , and o t h e r w i s e d e l a y i n g p r o c e e d i n g s
w e r e t h e fountainhead of d e f e n d a n t ' s motions.
Defendant h a s a s s e r t e d t h e r i g h t t o speedy t r i a l on a t
l e a s t f o u r o c c a s i o n s by a n a p p r o p r i a t e motion t o d i s m i s s be-
g i n n i n g May 2 9 , 1974, and c o n t i n u i n g t h r o u g h t r i a l .
F i n a l l y , p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s r e s u l t e d from
the delay i n t h i s case.
This Court h a s followed Barker i n i d e n t i f y i n g t h r e e
f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o p r e j u d i c e t o t h e de-
f endant :
" * * * ( i )t o p r e v e n t o p p r e s s i v e p r e t r i a l
i n c a r c e r a t i o n ; ( i i ) t o 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 (iii) t o l i m i t t h e
p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e defense w i l l be impaired.
* * * I 1
Barker a t 1 1 8 , Steward a t 1 8 3 , S t a t e e x r e l . S a n f o r d a t 647. The
u n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t went on t o s a y i n B a r k e r a t 118:
" * * * F i n a l l y , even i f a n a c c u s e d i s n o t
i n c a r c e r a t e d p r i o r t o t r i a l , he i s s t i l l
d i s a d v a n t a g e d by r e s t r a i n t s on h i s l i b e r t y
and by l i v i n g unde;r.a c l o u d o f a n x i e t y , s u s p i c i o n ,
and o f t e n h o s t i l i t y . "
With r e s p e c t t o t h e t h r e e s p e c i f i c p r e j u d i c i a l f a c t o r s :
(1) R o b e r t Keller was h e l d i n j a i l f o r f o r t y d a y s a f t e r
arrest. When h e was r e l e a s e d on bond, h e was r e q u i r e d t o remain
on h i s b r o t h e r ' s r a n c h n e a r Cutbank, Montana.
( 2 ) For f i v e months R o b e r t d i d n o t know i f h e would be
r e q u i r e d t o d e f e n d h i m s e l f on t h e c h a r g e s i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
H e s t a t e d t h a t d u r i n g t h e t i m e b e f o r e t r i a l h e had t o send h i s
c h i l d r e n o u t of Montana t o l i v e w i t h o t h e r r e l a t i v e s b e c a u s e o f
t a l k going around.
( 3 ) A c t u a l p r e j u d i c e t o h i s d e f e n s e on t h e m e r i t s re-
s u l t e d from t h e d e l a y . Two w i t n e s s e s t h a t c o u l d p o s s i b l y have
v e r i f i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s a l i b i c o u l d n o t be found t o be s e r v e d w i t h
subpoenas and had a p p a r e n t l y moved o u t o f t h e s t a t e . Determin-
a t i o n o f t h e f a c t u a l i s s u e o f what t h e f a m i l y had f o r d i n n e r
F e b r u a r y 3 , 1974, and how l o n g t h e v i c t i m had been d e a d c o u l d
o n l y become more d i f f i c u l t w i t h t h e p a s s a g e o f t i m e . Also, t h e
c o u r t had r e s e r v e d d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e i s s u e s of l e g a l i t y of
s e a r c h e s u n t i l t e s t i m o n y c o u l d be i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e t r i a l .
I n q u i r y i n t o t h e l e g a l i t y of t h e s e a r c h e s and i n t o what was
s e i z e d was hampered by t h e f a u l t y memories of t h e o f f i c e r s
involved.
I n summary, a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and
t h e f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n B a r k e r , w e h o l d t h a t t h e r e h a s been
a n e x c e s s i v e d e l a y ; t h a t t h e S t a t e h a s n o t made a showing o f
j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r such delay; t h a t defendant has c o n s i s t e n t l y
a s s e r t e d h i s r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l , and t h a t some p r e j u d i c e
h a s r e s u l t e d by r e a s o n o f t h e d e l a y .
I t c o u l d be argued from t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s t h a t t h e
r e a l r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y w a s a l a c k o f e v i d e n c e on t h e p a r t o f
t h e prosecution. I f t h i s be s o i t p r o v i d e s a p a r t i c u l a r l y com-
p e l l i n g reason f o r dismissal. To approve of d e l a y where t h e r e
i s a n a p p e a r a n c e t h a t it i s due t o l a c k of s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e
i n t h e hands of t h e S t a t e would be t o condone unwarranted and
unjust plea bargaining leverage f o r t h e S t a t e . By d e l a y i n g t h e
proceedings, t h e S t a t e can p r e s s u r e t h e defendant i n t o a p l e a
i n o r d e r t o r i d h i m s e l f of t h e onus o f t h e pending c h a r g e and
t o r e t u r n a s soon a s p o s s i b l e t o a normal way of l i v i n g . This
r e l i e v e s t h e S t a t e of i t s o b l i g a t i o n t o develop i t s c a s e t o
t h e p o i n t where i t c a n be proved beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t .
U n j u s t i f i e d d e l a y c a n be a f r i g h t f u l weapon f o r t h e S t a t e
and a d i s a r m i n g weapon f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t . The p r o p e r adminis-
t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e r e q u i r e s t h e withdrawing o f t h i s weapon from
t h e hands of b o t h .
Two o t h e r wide-spread c o n c e r n s w i t h undue d e l a y s h o u l d
be n o t e d . Delayed c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e undermining
p u b l i c c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e system i t s e l f . J u s t i c e d e l a y e d may n o t
o n l y be j u s t i c e d e n i e d b u t j u s t i c e b r o u g h t s e r i o u s l y under q u e s t i o n .
The backbone o f law e n f o r c e m e n t and t h e j u s t i c e s y s t e m i s p u b l i c
support. The c o u r t s must n o t p e r m i t t h e e r o s i o n o f t h a t s u p p o r t
by p e r m i t t i n g u n n e c e s s a r y d e l a y between c h a r g e and c o n v i c t i o n o r
release.
The o t h e r c o n c e r n i s t h a t d e l a y may s e r i o u s l y e r o d e t h e
d e t e r r e n t e f f e c t o f t h e c r i m i n a l law. I t i s f o r c e f u l l y argued
by e x p e r t s i n t h e f i e l d o f c o r r e c t i o n s t h a t t h e p r o m i s e o f s u r e
and s p e e d y j u s t i c e may b e a t l e a s t a s e f f e c t i v e a s l o n g , c o s t l y
sentences i n discouraging criminal a c t i v i t y . I f t h i s b e s o , and
a t l e a s t t o some d e g r e e it seems u n a r g u a b l e , t h e n c e l e r i t y i n
c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s becomes n o t o n l y a n i n s t r u m e n t o f j u s t i c e
but a valuable tool for corrections.
These r e a s o n s f o r l i m i t i n g t h e t i m e f o r c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d -
i n g s have been r e c o g n i z e d f o r many y e a r s e l s e w h e r e and have been
a c t e d upon i n t h e f e d e r a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m and i n many s t a t e s .
I n 1968 t h e American Bar A s s o c i a t i o n House of D e l e g a t e s
approved and s e t c e r t a i n s t a n d a r d s f o r s p e e d y t r i a l a f t e r l e n g t h y
r e s e a r c h by t h e a s s o c i a t i o n ' s p r o j e c t on s t a n d a r d s f o r c r i m i n a l
justice. S t a n d a r d 2.1, a s adopted, provides:
"A d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o s p e e d y t r i a l s h o u l d b e
e x p r e s s e d by r u l e o r s t a t u t e i n t e r m s o f d a y s
o r months r u n n i n g from a s p e c i f i e d e v e n t . C e r -
t a i n p e r i o d s o f n e c e s s a r y d e l a y s h o u l d be ex-
c l u d e d i n computing t h e t i m e f o r t r i a l , and t h e s e
s h o u l d be s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d by r u l e o r
s t a t u t e i n s o f a r as i s p r a c t i c a b l e . " (ABA compil-
a t i o n , Pg. 276, ( 1 9 7 4 ) )
I n 1967 The P r e s i d e n t ' s Commission on Law Enforcement and
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f J u s t i c e recommended a normal p e r i o d o f f o u r
months f o r t h e p r o c e s s i n g of f e l o n y p r o s e c u t i o n s (The C h a l l e n g e
o f C r i m e i n a F r e e S o c i e t y , pg. 1 5 5 ) .
I n 1973 The N a t i o n a l A d v i s o r y Commission i n C r i m i n a l
J u s t i c e S t a n d a r d s and G o a l s s e t a s t e r n e r s t a n d a r d :
"The p e r i o d from a r r e s t t o t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t r i a l
of a f e l o n y p r o s e c u t i o n g e n e r a l l y should n o t be
l o n g e r t h a n 60 d a y s . " (Standard 4 . 1 , Courts)
The f e d e r a l "Speedy T r i a l A c t o f 1974" ( P . L . 93-619, 93rd
C o n g r e s s , S. 754, J a n . 3 , 1 9 7 5 ) commands t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s t o
commence t r i a l w i t h i n 60 d a y s from a r r a i g n m e n t on i n f o r m a t i o n o r
i n d i c t m e n t (18 USC 3 1 6 1 ( c ) ) . P e r i o d s of d e l a y a r e permitted
u n d e r s p e c i f i e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s (18 USC 3161 ( h ) ) . The s a n c t i o n
i s d i s m i s s a l (18 USC 3162 ( a ) (1)) .
I n t h o s e s t a t e s which have a d o p t e d s p e c i f i c l i m i t a t i o n s
by r u l e o r s t a t u t e , t h e t i m e r a n g e v a r i e s on f e l o n y p r o s e c u t i o n s
from 7 5 d a y s t o s i x months (see "Commentary" on S t a n d a r d 4 . 1 ,
C o u r t s , NAC, s u p r a . ) .
A f t e r more t h a n a y e a r of r e s e a r c h and c o n s i d e r a t i o n ,
t h e C o u r t s Task F o r c e o f The Montana S t u d y on C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e
S t a n d a r d s and G o a l s c o n c l u d e d t h i s y e a r i n i t s S t a n d a r d 4 . 1 :
" I f t h e defendant p l e a d s n o t g u i l t y he s h a l l be
t r i e d a s soon a s p o s s i b l e a f t e r s u c h p l e a . The
t r i a l d a t e s h a l l b e s e t , by t h e j u d g e , w i t h i n 60
d a y s o f t h e p l e a u n l e s s good c a u s e i s shown by t h e
p r o s e c u t i o n o r t h e d e f e n d a n t why he s h o u l d n o t b e
brought t o t r i a l w i t h i n t h a t period. * * * "
The g r o u p , c o n s i s t i n g o f a d i v e r s e s e l e c t i o n of l e a d i n g members
o f t h e bench and b a r , law e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s and c o r r e c t i o n s
p e r s o n n e l , a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n was n o t n e c e s s a r y f o r
implementation. They n o t e d :
" * * * T r i a l j u d g e s may e s t a b l i s h t h e s e g u i d e l i n e s
f o r t h e i r c o u r t s , o r The Montana Supreme C o u r t ,
a c t i n g u n d e r t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r y a u t h o r i t y , may
e s t a b l i s h such requirements. The l a t t e r would b e
most p r e f e r a b l e , a f f e c t i n g a l l o f t h e s t a t e c o u r t s
u n i f o r m l y and s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . " (Implementation,
Std. 4.1, supra).
This Standard, t o g e t h e r w i t h i t s implementation suggestion, has
been a d o p t e d by The Montana J u s t i c e P r o j e c t C o u n c i l .
Having d e t e r m i n e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a s been d e n i e d h i s
r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l , t h e n e x t q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r d i s m i s s a l
o f t h e c h a r g e s i s t h e p r o p e r remedy.
The Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a d d r e s s e d t h i s
q u e s t i o n i n S t r u n k v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 412 U.S. 434, 439, 3 7 L Ed 2d
61,
56,/93 S . C t . 2260. I n S t r u n k t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t u p h e l d de-
f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n t o d e n i a l of speedy t r i a l . A s a remedy
it d e d u c t e d t h e amount o f d e l a y from t h e l e n g t h o f h i s sen-
tence. The Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t d e n i a l o f s p e e d y t r i a l
mandated d i s m i s s a l i n t h e s e words:
" * * * By d e f i n i t i o n , s u c h d e n i a l i s u n l i k e
some o f t h e o t h e r g u a r a n t e e s o f t h e S i x t h
Amendment. F o r example, f a i l u r e t o a f f o r d a
public t r i a l , an i m p a r t i a l jury, n o t i c e of
c h a r g e s , o r compulsory s e r v i c e c a n o r d i n a r i l y b e
c u r e d by p r o v i d i n g t h o s e g u a r a n t e e d r i g h t s i n a
new t r i a l . The s p e e d y t r i a l g u a r a n t e e r e c o g n i z e s
t h a t a p r o l o n g e d d e l a y may s u b j e c t t h e a c c u s e d t o
a n e m o t i o n a l stress t h a t c a n b e presumed t o r e s u l t
i n t h e o r d i n a r y p e r s o n from u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t h e
p r o s p e c t of f a c i n g p u b l i c t r i a l o r of r e c e i v i n g
a sentence longer than, o r consecutive t o , t h e
one he i s p r e s e n t l y serving--uncertainties t h a t
a prompt t r i a l removes. (Citing cases.) * * *
" * * * It i s t r u e t h a t Barker d e s c r i b e d d i s m i s s a l
of a n indictment f o r d e n i a l of a speedy t r i a l a s
an ' u n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y s e v e r e remedy'. Indeed, i n
p r a c t i c e , ' i t means t h a t a d e f e n d a n t who may b e
g u i l t y o f a s e r i o u s crime w i l l g o f r e e , w i t h o u t
h a v i n g been t r i e d . ' 407 U.S., a t 522, 33 L Ed 2d
1 0 1 . But s u c h s e v e r e r e m e d i e s a r e n o t u n i q u e i n
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s . In
l i q h t o f t h e p o l i c i e s which u n d e r l i e t h e r i q h t t o
a s p e e d y t r i a l , d i s m i s s a l must r e m a i n , a s B a r k e r
n o t e d , ' t h e o n l y p o s s i b l e r e m e d y . ' " (Emphasis
supplied.) S t r u n k v . U.S. a t Page 6 1 .
T h i s remedy conforms w i t h t h a t recommended by t h e American
Bar A s s o c i a t i o n i n i t s Speedy T r i a l S t a n d a r d 4 . 1 and w i t h t h e
f e d e r a l s t a t u t e (18 USC 3 1 6 2 ) .
There a r e a d d i t i o n a l independent grounds t h a t r e q u i r e
reversal i n t h i s case. Defendant o b j e c t e d t o t h e S t a t e withhold-
i n g evidence i n v i o l a t i o n of a c o u r t o r d e r t o produce evidence,
t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d e v i d e n c e , and t o t h e
admission of p r e j u d i c i a l evidence concerning a previous i n c i d e n t
i n v o l v i n g a gun. Each o f t h e s e t h r e e c o n t e n t i o n s i s i n d e p e n d e n t
grounds f o r r e v e r s a l .
I n the f i r s t instance, the d i s t r i c t court granted defendant's
m o t i o n t o p r o d u c e e v i d e n c e o f any a d m i s s i o n s o r s t a t e m e n t s by
t h e defendant, a l i s t of a l l p o s s i b l e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s ,
a l l e v i d e n c e i n t e n d e d f o r i n t r o d u c t i o n by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ,
and t h e r e s u l t s o f a l l t e s t s w h e t h e r f a v o r a b l e o r n o t . The
prosecution f a i l e d t o provide t h i s information.
The p r o s e c u t i o n d i d n o t r e v e a l t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e
l a b o r a t o r y tests u n t i l s h o r t l y before t r i a l . Notice t h a t
t h e two e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s who c o n d u c t e d t h e s e t e s t s would t e s t i f y ,
was n o t g i v e n u n t i l t h e d a y o f t r i a l a s t o o n e , a n d f o u r d a y s
b e f o r e t r i a l a s t o t h e o t h e r , even t h o u g h t h e s e r e s u l t s w e r e i n
t h e hands o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n months b e f o r e t h e m o t i o n t o p r o d u c e
was g r a n t e d .
N o t i c e o f t h e w i t n e s s e s who would p r e s e n t a m a j o r p o r t i o n
o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n c a s e was n o t g i v e n i n some c a s e s u n t i l t h e
day o f t r i a l and i n o t h e r c a s e s u n t i l a few d a y s b e f o r e t r i a l .
I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e s h e r i f f was i n p o s s e s s i o n o f numerous
a r t i c l e s t a k e n i n s e a r c h e s , b u t unknown u n t i l a f t e r t r i a l when
e v i d e n c e was o r d e r e d t o b e r e t u r n e d . I t a p p e a r s t h a t he d i d n o t
make a p r o p e r r e t u r n on t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t and t h a t h e d i d n o t
make a n i n v e n t o r y o f a r t i c l e s t a k e n on t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t o r
consent searches o r otherwise. The o n l y i n v e n t o r y f i l e d was f i l e d
after trial.
The d e f e n s e q u e s t i o n e d t h e s h e r i f f a t t h e p r e l i m i n a r y
h e a r i n g and deposed him 1 0 d a y s b e f o r e t r i a l i n e f f o r t s t o l e a r n
o f a n y s t a t e m e n t s by d e f e n d a n t o r o t h e r e v i d e n c e i n t h e h a n d s o f
the State. Y e t a t a p e r e c o r d i n g o f d e f e n d a n t was f i r s t r e v e a l e d
a t t h e t r i a l i n t e s t i m o n y by t h e s h e r i f f i n r e b u t t a l t o d e f e n d -
a n t ' s testimony. The s h e r i f f made t h e r e c o r d i n g two d a y s a f t e r
a r r e s t w h i l e d e f e n d a n t was i n c u s t o d y w i t h o u t a i d o f c o u n s e l .
The f a c t t h a t a w i t n e s s would b e p r e s e n t e d t o t e s t i f y
t o a p r i o r t h r e a t by d e f e n d a n t was n o t r e v e a l e d p r i o r t o t r i a l .
D e f e n d a n t ' s e f f o r t s t o d i s c o v e r and examine p o s s i b l e
e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t r i a l and t o d e t e r m i n e t h e l e g a l i t y of t h e i r
t a k i n g were c o m p l e t e l y f r u s t r a t e d . The a c t i o n s of t h e p r o s e -
c u t i o n i n w i t h h o l d i n g e v i d e n c e and n o t i c e of w i t n e s s e s were
c o n t r a r y t o t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r t o produce and c o n t r a r y t o t h e i n t e n t
and p u r p o s e o f T i t l e 95, Chapter 1 8 , P r o d u c t i o n and S u p p r e s s i o n
of Evidence, Montana Code of C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e .
Additionally, t h e s h e r i f f confiscated defendant's truck
t h e day a f t e r a r r e s t and t r a n s p o r t e d it from E a s t Helena t o Deer
Lodge w i t h o u t d e f e n d a n t ' s knowledge. He a t t e m p t e d t o remove t h e
t a i n t of i l l e g a l i t y by a c o n s e n t form s i g n e d by d e f e n d a n t f o u r
d a y s l a t e r t h a t d o e s n o t p u r p o r t t o be r e t r o a c t i v e . Defendant's
s i g n a t u r e was o b t a i n e d a f t e r s e a r c h o f t h e t r u c k w h i l e d e f e n d a n t
was h e l d i n j a i l i n t h e a b s e n c e of c o u n s e l . Material obtained
from t h i s t r u c k was t h e s u b j e c t of t h e l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s and was
introduced i n evidence over d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n . This material
was i l l e g a l l y o b t a i n e d , and i t s a d m i s s i o n i n e v i d e n c e and t h e
e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y and l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s c o n c e r n i n g i t was p r e j u d i c i a l
error.
F i n a l l y , t h e prosecution introduced testimony describing
d e f e n d a n t ' s a r r e s t some weeks p r i o r t o t h e a l l e g e d homicide when
he a t t e m p t e d t o c o n f r o n t h i s w i f e . A t t h a t t i m e defendant w a s
a r r e s t e d on an a s s a u l t c o m p l a i n t made by h e r two months p r i o r t o
t h e incident i n question. The a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r d i s c o v e r e d de-
f e n d a n t was c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d p i s t o l and charged him w i t h t h a t
offense. There i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t s i m i l a r i t y between t h a t i n c i d e n t
i n v o l v i n g t h e c o n c e a l e d gun and t h e c h a r g e s o f d e a t h by s t r a n g u -
l a t i o n i n t h i s case. S t a t e v. J e n s e n , 153 Mont. 233, 455 P.2d
631, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e . Such e v i d e n c e of o t h e r wrongful a c t s
t e n d s t o e x c i t e p r e j u d i c e and m i s l e a d t h e j u r y from t h e r e a l p o i n t
i n issue. S t a t e v . Merritt, 138 Mont. 546, 549, 357 P.2d 683 and
authorities cited there. Also, " * * * the defendant is
entitled to be informed of the crime charged so as to prepare
his defense and proof of other crimes subjects him to surprise
and defense of multiple collateral or unrelated issues."
Jensen at page 238. Its admission was prejudicial error.
In view of our ruling on the first four grounds of
appeal, it becomes unnecessary to consider the final two speci-
fications of error.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of conviction is
reversed and the Information ordered dismissed with prejudice.
Justice
Hon. Gordon Bennett sitting for
Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n c o n c u r r i n g and d i s s e n t i n g :
I concur i n t h e r e v e r s a l of t h e c o n v i c t i o n on t h e grounds
s t a t e d by t h e m a j o r i t y a s t o i s s u e s two, t h r e e and f o u r , b u t I
must s t a t e my d i s s e n t a s t o i s s u e o n e , t h a t of speedy t r i a l , and
not returning the case t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r r e t r i a l .
Without i n any way d e n i g r a t i n g t h e c o n c l u s i o n s r e a c h e d
by t h e m a j o r i t y , I am of t h e o p i n i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view o f
t h e f a c t w e have r e c e n t l y c o m p l e t e l y reviewed and a d o p t e d a New
C r i m i n a l Code c o v e r i n g b o t h t h e s u b s t a n t i v e p r o c e d u r a l law and
have a l s o a d o p t e d a new C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h a t w e s h o u l d l e a v e t o t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e t h e a d o p t i o n of s t a n d a r d s f o r what c o n s t i t u t e s a
"speedy t r i a l " . What t h i s C o u r t h a s done r e c e n t l y i n t r y i n g t o
f o l l o w t h e d i c t a t e s o f t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n
i n Barker v . Wingo i n o u r o p i n i o n s i n S t a t e v . S t e w a r t and S t a t e
ex r e l . S a n f o r d v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t may w e l l be e s t a b l i s h i n g by
j u d i c i a l d i c t a t e a s t a n d a r d n o t a c c e p t a b l e t o o u r lawmakers.
I d o n o t r e a d i n t o t h e Barker d e c i s i o n t h a t which i s h e r e
found by t h e m a j o r i t y . Even though t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme
C o u r t i n i t s e f f o r t t o s a y what c o n s t i t u t e d a "speedy t r i a l " by
s e t t i n g up c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a t o judge a c l a i m o f d e n i a l , it i s
of i m p o r t t o n o t e t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n d o e s n o t e s t a b l i s h d e f i n i t e
t i m e l i m i t s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g when t h e r i g h t h a s been d e n i e d . All
t h e C o u r t d i d was t o draw a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b l u e p r i n t t o a s s i s t
us i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e l i m i t s . They l e f t t o u s t o d e c i d e , on a
c a s e by c a s e b a s i s , t h e c a s e s t h a t w e must judge u s i n g a s a
b a l a n c i n g t e s t " i n which t h e c o n d u c t o f b o t h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n and
t h e d e f e n d a n t a r e weighed."
J u s t i c e P o w e l l , w r i t i n g f o r a unanimous c o u r t i n B a r k e r ,
found t h a t t h e r e w e r e t h r e e ways i n which t h e r i g h t o f speedy
t r i a l d i f f e r s i n h e r e n t l y from o t h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s t h a t
p r o t e c t an accused. F i r s t , t h e r i g h t involves considerable
s o c i e t a l i n t e r e s t s a p a r t from t h o s e of t h e a c c u s e d and t h e
g e n e r a l c o n c e r n f o r a f a i r system of c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e . Second,
t h e r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from o t h e r
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s of a n a c c u s e d i n t h a t i t s d e n i a l i s n o t
always d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e a c c u s e d . T h i r d , t h e r i g h t t o a speedy
t r i a l i s more i n d e f i n i t e t h a n o t h e r p r o c e d u r a l r i g h t s .
A s n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y Barker d o e s n o t p r o v i d e much g u i d a n c e
f o r lower c o u r t s i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a speedy t r i a l w a s d e n i e d
an accused. The o p i n i o n f a i l s t o e s t a b l i s h g u i d e l i n e s o r pro-
c e d u r e s t o implement t h e r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l . Rather, t h e
c o u r t a d o p t e d a n a d hoc b a l a n c i n g t e s t a s b e i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y
appropriate f o r a r i g h t t h a t i s necessarily relative. I n s o doing
it r e j e c t e d two i n f l e x i b l e a p p r o a c h e s ; o n e , t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of
a s p e c i f i c t i m e l i m i t ; second, t h e "demand-waiver" r u l e .
The c o u r t i n B a r k e r , i n a d o p t i n g t h e a d hoc b a l a n c i n g
t e s t d i r e c t s a c o u r t f a c e d w i t h t h e speedy t r i a l i s s u e i n t h e
problem of weighing t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : (1) Length of d e l a y ;
( 2 ) reason f o r delay; ( 3 ) defendant% a s s e r t i o n s of h i s r i g h t s ;
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 . In so doing they set t h e
s t a g e f o r t h e development o f p r o c e d u r a l and s u b s t a n t i v e s t a n d a r d s
by e i t h e r t h e c o u r t s o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . This being a substan-
t i v e m a t t e r it should be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .
I n New J e r s e y t h e c o u r t h a s a d o p t e d a r u l e t h a t would
a l l e v i a t e t h e d i f f i c u l t y t h i s Court f i n d s i t s e l f i n i n considering
what amounts t o a speedy t r i a l . N e w J e r s e y Rule 3.25.2 established
t h a t a f t e r s i x months f o l l o w i n g a c c u s a t i o n , a c o u r t of i t s own
motion o r t h a t of t h e d e f e n d a n t may s e t t h e c a s e f o r t r i a l on
a c e r t a i n day. I f t h e c a s e i s n o t t r i e d on t h a t d a y , t h e c o u r t
may d i s m i s s t h e c h a r g e and t h e d i s m i s s a l o p e r a t e s a s a n a c q u i t t a l .
Should t h e l e g i s l a t u r e f a i l t o c o n s i d e r t h i s problem a t i t s n e x t
s e s s i o n I would f a v o r a d o p t i n g a r u l e , s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f N e w
J e r s e y , u n d e r o u r r u l e making power, b u t I would f i r s t l e t them
c o n s i d e r t h e problem.
I would r e v e r s e t h e c o n v i c t i o n and send it back f o r a
new t r i a l .
Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d i s s e n t i n g :
I dissent. Although I c e r t a i n l y a g r e e w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y
statements concerning d e l a y i n j u s t i c e a s being a detriment t o
p u b l i c s u p p o r t f o r t h e j u s t i c e system, I t h i n k t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s
are misapplied here. The m a j o r i t y a t t r i b u t e s t h e e n t i r e 1 months
1
between a r r e s t and t r i a l a s d e l a y b r o u g h t on by t h e s t a t e . Surely
t h i s i s not correct. The p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g t i m e w a s a t de-
f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t and p o s s i b l y t o h i s a d v a n t a g e . Crowded c o u r t
c a l e n d a r s a r e a f a c t , and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s u s e o f p r e t r i a l m o t i o n s
a r e l e g i t i m a t e but a r e not chargeable a g a i n s t t h e state. I fear
t h a t t h i s Court's opinion w i l l r e s u l t i n continuous jury t e r m s
b e i n g r e q u i r e d t h r o u g h o u t Montana f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e a c c u s e d
w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o c o s t s t o t h e t a x p a y e r s o r whether any p r e j u d i c e
t o a f a i r t r i a l results. M own e x p e r i e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t d e l a y
y
i s t o t h e defendant's advantage r a t h e r than p r e j u d i c e . The o l d
d e f e n s e p l a y o f l e t t i n g t h e g r a s s grow g r e e n o v e r t h e g r a v e o f
t h e v i c t i m w i l l now be enhanced by t h i s d e c i s i o n . I concur i n
J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n ' s d i s s e n t on i s s u e No. 1.
I would a f f i r m t h e judgment, b u t s i n c e t h e m a j o r i t y
o p i n i o n r e v e r s e s and d i s m i s s e s on t h e i s s u e o f speedy t r i a l , t h e
g r a t u i t o u s o b s e r v a t i o n s t h e r e a f t e r on t h e o t h e r i s s u e s a r e d i c t a
o n l y , and I s h a l l n o t e l a b o r a t e on my r e a s o n i n g .