No. 13361
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
1976
THE STATE O M N A A e x r e l .
F OTN
RON SANFORD,
Relator,
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA, i n and f o r t h e County of
Carbon, and t h e HONORABLE ROBERT H.
WILSON,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING :
Counsel o f Record :
For R e l a t o r :
Moses, Kampfe, T o l l i v e r and Wright, B i l l i n g s ,
Montana
Pablo Perhacs a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
F o r Respondents:
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y General, Helena,
Montana
A r t h u r W. Ayers, Jr. argued, County A t t o r n e y ,
Red Lodge, Montana
Submitted: May 25, 1976
Decided : JUL - 8 1976
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .
Relator has f i l e d an o r i g i n a l proceeding seeking a w r i t
of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l t o r e v i e w and r e v e r s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s
d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s and s u p p r e s s i n a c r i m i n a l
p r o s e c u t i o n a g a i n s t him i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Carbon County.
R e l a t o r i s Ron S a n f o r d who was c h a r g e d w i t h b u r g l a r y o f
t h e Stockman Bar and C a f e i n B r i d g e r , Montana, a t a n u n s p e c i f i e d
d a t e between March 25 and A p r i l 1 2 , 1975.
On May 1, 1975, t h e Carbon County a t t o r n e y a p p l i e d f o r
a s e a r c h w a r r a n t o f a h o u s e and g a r a g e i n B r i d g e r o c c u p i e d by
defendant. The d i s t r i c t j u d g e i s s u e d t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t and it
w a s e x e c u t e d t h e same d a y by t h e d e p u t y s h e r i f f . Three i t e m s
a l l e g e d l y s t o l e n i n t h e b u r g l a r y w e r e found on d e f e n d a n t ' s prem-
i s e s and s e i z e d .
On May 1 5 , 1 9 7 5 , t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f i l e d a d i r e c t
i n f o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t r e l a t o r by l e a v e o f c o u r t . A r r a i g n m e n t was
s e t f o r May 29, b u t was c o n t i n u e d t o J u n e 26 by m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t
o f t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y and r e l a t o r ' s c o u n s e l .
I n t h e meantime r e l a t o r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o q u a s h t h e i n -
f o r m a t i o n w i t h s u p p o r t i n g b r i e f and m a i l e d c o p i e s o f t h e same
t o t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y and p r e s i d i n g j u d g e . On J u n e 26, r e l a t o r
was a p p a r e n t l y a r r a i g n e d , b u t t h e r e c o r d i s s i l e n t c o n c e r n i n g
w h e t h e r a p l e a was e n t e r e d .
On J u n e 27, r e l a t o r r e q u e s t e d t h e c o u r t t o s e t a h e a r i n g
on t h i s m o t i o n . The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t n o t h i n g f u r t h e r
t r a n s p i r e d u n t i l J a n u a r y 28, 1976, when r e l a t o r a g a i n r e q u e s t e d
t h e c o u r t t o s e t a h e a r i n g d a t e on h i s m o t i o n .
On J a n u a r y 30, 1976, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r
r e c i t i n g t h a t r e l a t o r ' s c a s e had been s e t f o r t r i a l a s t h e t h i r d
c a s e on A p r i l 20, 1976, and s e t a l l p e n d i n g p r e t r i a l m o t i o n s f o r
h e a r i n g on F e b r u a r y 1 9 . R e l a t o r ' s motion t o quash t h e i n f o r m a t i o n
was h e a r d and d e n i e d on F e b r u a r y 19.
One month l a t e r r e l a t o r f i l e d a n o t i c e t o s u p p r e s s a l l
t e s t i m o n y and e v i d e n c e r e s u l t i n g from i s s u a n c e of t h e s e a r c h
w a r r a n t and n o t i c e d it f o r h e a r i n g on A p r i l 1. A t that t i m e
t h e motion w a s o r d e r e d s u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s . On A p r i l 1 5 , t h e d i s -
t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d t h i s motion.
I n t h e meantime on March 25, r e l a t o r f i l e d a motion
t o d i s m i s s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e ground t h a t he had been d e n i e d
a speedy t r i a l . A t t h a t t i m e r e l a t o r f i l e d a supporting brief
and n o t i c e d h i s motion f o r h e a r i n g on A p r i l 1. On t h a t d a t e
r e l a t o r ' s motion t o d i s m i s s w a s o r d e r e d s u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s .
On A p r i l 1 5 r e l a t o r ' s motion t o d i s m i s s was d e n i e d .
On May 3 r e l a t o r a p p l i e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t of
supervisory control. The a p p l i c a t i o n was s e t f o r a d v e r s a r y
h e a r i n g , h e a r d on May 25, and t a k e n under a d v i s e m e n t by t h e C o u r t .
Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w :
(1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n d e n y i n g r e l a t o r ' s
motion t o s u p p r e s s ?
( 2 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n d e n y i n g r e l a t o r ' s
motion t o d i s m i s s ?
W e h o l d t h a t d e n i a l of r e l a t o r ' s motion t o s u p p r e s s w a s
error. The s e a r c h w a r r a n t was d i r e c t e d " t o any Peace O f f i c e r
of t h i s S t a t e " . T h i s p r a c t i c e h a s been condemned by t h i s C o u r t
i n t h e f o l l o w i n g cases: S t a t e v. Meidinger ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont.
310, 502 P.2d 58; S t a t e e x r e l . S t i e f and Mankin v. D i s t . Ct.
(1975) I Mont . , 540 P.2d 968, 32 St.Rep. 942; S t a t e v .
Snider (1975), Mont . , 541 P.2d 1204, 32 St.Rep. 1056.
Also c f . S t a t e v . T r o p f , 166 Mont. 79, 530 P.2d 1158, 32 St.Rep.
56. W e simply w i l l n o t t o l e r a t e f u r t h e r v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n
95-703, R.C.M. 1947, t o p e r m i t i n c u r s i o n s by law enforcement
o f f i c e r s i n t o a constitutionally protected area. The motion t o
s u p p r e s s should have been g r a n t e d .
W e l i k e w i s e hold t h a t d e n i a l of r e l a t o r ' s motion t o
dismiss w a s error. I n f i n d i n g t h a t r e l a t o r h a s been d e n i e d
h i s r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l a s mandated by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
and Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s , w e a p p l y t h e b a l a n c i n g t e s t o f
B a r k e r v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 33 L ed 2d 1 0 1 , 1 1 6 , 92 S.Ct.
2182. T h i s t e s t was approved by t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v . S t e w a r d ,
Mont. , 543 P.2d 1 7 8 , 1 8 1 , 32 St.Rep. 1185, where w e q u o t e d
from B a r k e r :
" ' * * * The a p p r o a c h w e a c c e p t i 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.
" ' A b a l a n c i n g t e s t n e c e s s a r i l y compels c o u r t s t o
a p p r o a c h s p e e d y t r i a l cases on a n a d hoc b a s i s .
W e c a n do l i t t l e more t h a n i d e n t i f y some o f t h e
f a c t o r s which c o u r t s s h o u l d assess i n d e t e r m i n i n g
w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r d e f e n d a n t h a s been d e p r i v e d
of h i s r i g h t . Though some m i g h t e x p r e s s them i n
d i f f e r e n t ways, w e i d e n t i f y f o u r s u c h f a c t o r s :
Length o f d e l a y , t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y , t h e
d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n o f h i s r i g h t , and p r e j u d i c e
t o the defendant.'"
H e r e t h e s t a t e a d m i t s a d e l a y o f 299 d a y s , o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y
10 months, from r e l a t o r ' s a r r a i g n m e n t on J u n e 26, 1975 t o A p r i l
20, 1976, t h e d a t e s e t f o r t r i a l . Both U n i t e d S t a t e s and Montana
c o u r t s have p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t a d e l a y o f o n e y e a r between a r r e s t
and t r i a l p r e s e n t s a c l a i m o f prima f a c i e m e r i t . See S t a t e v .
S t e w a r d , s u p r a , and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . W e now h o l d t h a t a d e l a y
of 1 0 months between a r d g n m e n t and t r i a l e s t a b l i s h e s a prima f a c i e
c a s e of d e n i a l o f t h e r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l .
The r e c o r d h e r e d i s c l o s e s no r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y c h a r g e -
able t o relator. R e l a t o r r e q u e s t e d of t h r e e d i f f e r e n t judges t h a t
h i s motion be s e t f o r h e a r i n g : a t t h e t i m e o f a r r a i g n m e n t , J u n e
2 6 , 1975; on J u n e 27, 1975; and a g a i n o n J a n u a r y 28, 1976. It
was f i n a l l y h e a r d and d e n i e d o n F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1976. I n any e v e n t
t h e t r i a l d a t e of A p r i l 20, 1976 was s e t p r i o r t o d i s p o s i t i o n o f
any o f r e l a t o r ' s m o t i o n s . The burden of j u s t i f y i n g t h e d e l a y
rests w i t h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . U.S. v . Rucker, 464 F.2d 823.
I t i s t r u e t h a t r e l a t o r made no s p e c i f i c demand t h a t
h i s c a s e be s e t f o r t r i a l . On t h e o t h e r hand, r e l a t o r d i d noth-
i n g t h a t c a n be c o n s t r u e d a s a waiver of h i s r i g h t t o a speedy
trial. O March 25, 1976, he moved t o d i s m i s s f o r d e n i a l of
n
a speedy t r i a l .
H a s r e l a t o r been p r e j u d i c e d by t h e d e l a y ? W e quote
from Barker:
" * * * P r e j u d i c e , of c o u r s e , s h o u l d be a s s e s s e d
i n t h e l i g h t of t h e i n t e r e s t s of d e f e n d a n t s
which t h e speedy t r i a l r i g h t was d e s i g n e d t o pro-
t e c t . T h i s C o u r t h a s i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e such
interests: ( i )To 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 )To minimize a n x i e t y and con-
c e r n of t h e a c c u s e d ; ( i i i )To 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 d e f e n s e w i l l be i m p a i r e d . * * *"
The f i r s t i n t e r e s t i s n o t p r e s e n t i n t h i s c a s e . The
second i s c l e a r l y p r e s e n t h e r e . The t h i r d c a n n o t be e s t a b l i s h e d
w i t h any d e g r e e of c e r t a i n t y where, a s h e r e , t h e r e h a s been no
trial. S t a t e v. Steward, supra.
C o n s i d e r i n g t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and con-
s i d e r a t i o n s i n t h e b a l a n c i n g t e s t , it a p p e a r s t o u s 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 i n b r i n g i n g r e l a t o r t o t r i a l i n t h i s
c a s e ; t h a t no v a l i d r e a s o n e x i s t s f o r s u c h d e l a y ; t h a t t h e d e l a y
i s n o t c h a r g e a b l e t o r e l a t o r ; 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
t o r e l a t o r by r e a s o n of t h e d e l a y .
A c c o r d i n g l y , w e h o l d t h a t r e l a t o r ' s motion t o d i s m i s s
f o r d e n i a l of a speedy t r i a l s h o u l d have been g r a n t e d . W e order
d i s m i s s a l of t h i s c a s e w i t h p r e j u d i c e .
Justice
W e concur:
, -
, -- ----L--------a--d---v
, ,, - -
Hon. Gordon B e n n e t t , d i s t r i c t
v
Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f M r .
Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n . - 5 -