No. 13562
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
ED DeGEORGE, WILLIAM KENNEDY
and E. J. HOLMAN,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judqe presiding.
Counsel ofbRecord:
For Appellants:
Mark P. Sullivan argued, Butte, Plontana
For Respondents:
John G. Winston argued, County Attorney, Butte,
Montana
Jack Parker argued, Deputy County Attorney, Butte,
P4ontana
For Amicus Curiae:
Terry Cosgrove argued, Helena, Montana
Submitted: May 23, 1977
Decided: .lull 2 3 W"
Honorable J o e l G. Roth, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J.
Shea, 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 from c o n v i c t i o n s o f t h r e e S i l v e r Bow
County Commissioners of two c o u n t s of o f f i c i a l misconduct, e a c h a
misdemeanor, under s e c t i o n 94-7-401 (1)( a ) and ( b ) , R.C.M. 1947,
which p r o v i d e s :
"A p u b l i c s e r v a n t commits t h e o f f e n s e of
o f f i c i a l misconduct when, i n h i s o f f i c i a l
c a p a c i t y , h e commits any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
acts:
" ( a ) p u r p o s e l y o r n e g l i g e n t l y f a i l s t o perform
any mandatory d u t y a s r e q u i r e d by law * * * o r
" ( b ) knowingly p e r f o r m s a n a c t i n h i s o f f i c i a l
c a p a c i t y which he knows i s f o r b i d d e n by l a w * * *."
A t w e l v e p e r s o n j u r y r e a c h e d unanimous g u i l t y v e r d i c t s i n d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , S i l v e r Bow County, on September 29, 1976. Judge James D.
Freebourn pronounced s e n t e n c e on October 4 , 1976, and t h e commis-
s i o n e r s f i l e d n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on October 7 , 1976.
One c o u n t c h a r g e s t h a t t h e commissioners p u r p o s e l y o r
n e g l i g e n t l y f a i l e d t o perform a mandatory d u t y of a d v e r t i s i n g a
c o u n t y r o a d c o n t r a c t o f o v e r $10,000 f o r b i d , a s r e q u i r e d by
,
s e c t i o n 16-1803 (1) R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s :
"No c o n t r a c t s h a l l be e n t e r e d i n t o by a c o u n t y
g o v e r n i n g body * * * f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f
any * * * r o a d * * * f o r which must be p a i d a sum
i n e x c e s s o f t e n thousand d o l l a r s ( $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ) ,
without f i r s t publishing a n o t i c e c a l l i n g f o r
b i d s f o r f u r n i s h i n g t h e same, which n o t i c e must
be p u b l i s h e d a t l e a s t once a week, f o r t h r e e ( 3 )
c o n s e c u t i v e weeks b e f o r e t h e d a t e f i x e d t h e r e i n
f o r r e c e i v i n g b i d s , i n t h e o f f i c i a l newspaper o f
t h e c o u n t y , and e v e r y such c o n t r a c t s h a l l be l e t
t o t h e l o w e s t and b e s t r e s p o n s i b l e b i d d e r * * *."
The o t h e r c o u n t c h a r g e s t h a t t h e commissioners knowingly
performed f o r b i d d e n a c t s by d i v i d i n g a s i n g l e r o a d c o n t r a c t i n t o
p a r t s s o a s t o circumvent t h e b i d d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . The p r o h i b i t i o n
i s c o n t a i n e d i n s e c t i o n 16-1803.1, R.C.M. 1947, and p r o v i d e s :
"Whenever any l a w of t h i s s t a t e p r o v i d e s a l i m -
i t a t i o n upon t h e amount of money t h a t a c o u n t y c a n
expend upon any p u b l i c work o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t
w i t h o u t l e t t i n g such p u b l i c work o r c o n s t r u c -
t i o n p r o j e c t t o c o n t r a c t under c o m p e t i t i v e
bidding procedures, a county s h a l l n o t circumvent
s u c h p r o v i s i o n by d i v i d i n g a p u b l i c work o r con-
s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t o r quantum of work t o be p e r -
formed t h e r e u n d e r which by i t s n a t u r e o r c h a r a c t e r
i s i n t e g r a l t o such p u b l i c work o r c o n s t r u c t i o n
p r o j e c t , o r serves t o accomplish one of t h e b a s i c
p u r p o s e s o r f u n c t i o n s t h e r e o f , i n t o s e v e r a l con-
t r a c t s , s e p a r a t e work o r d e r s o r by any s i m i l a r
device. "
The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether t h e r e w a s s u f f i c i e n t
evidence t o s u s t a i n t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t s . W e b e l i e v e t h e r e was
and a f f i r m t h e v e r d i c t s and judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
The f a c t s a s developed a t t r i a l w e r e b r i e f l y a s f o l l o w s :
a new e l e m e n t a r y p u b l i c s c h o o l ( t h e Margaret Leary S c h o o l ) , ded-
i c a t e d , September 1975, n e a r B u t t e , w a s s e r v i c e d by a d i r t c o u n t y
r o a d which was i n a d e q u a t e f o r t h e i n c r e a s e d v e h i c u l a r t r a f f i c
o c c a s i o n e d by t h e opening o f t h e s c h o o l . T h e r e had been d i s c u s s i o n s
from J u n e u n t i l September 1 2 , 1975, between t h e commissioners and
t h e c o u n t y s u r v e y o r r e l a t i n g t o c u t t i n g , g r a v e l i n g , and p a v i n g
1800 f e e t o f t h e r o a d . When t h e r o a d work was n o t commenced,
t h e commissioners i s s u e d a memo d a t e d September 1 2 , 1975, t o
t h e c o u n t y r o a d d e p a r t m e n t t o c u t , g r a v e l and pave t h e r o a d i n
question. Again t h e r o a d work was n o t commenced and t h e commis-
s i o n e r s t h e n s i g n e d a c o n t r a c t d a t e d October 1, 1975, w i t h a B u t t e
c o n t r a c t o r , Dugdale C o n s t r u c t i o n Co., Inc ., t o g r a d e , g r a v e l and
s t r a i g h t e n t h e r o a d f o r a n a g r e e d p r i c e o f $2,898.
S u b s e q u e n t l y , on October 3 0 , 1975, a n o t h e r c o n t r a c t w a s
s i g n e d by t h e same p a r t i e s t o pave t h e r o a d f o r a n a g r e e d p r i c e
o f $9,901.
The t o t a l c o n t r a c t p r i c e t o g r a d e , g r a v e l , s t r a i g h t e n and
pave t h e r o a d was $12,799, l e t on two c o n t r a c t s which were n o t
advertised f o r bids.
Commissioner Kennedy t e s t i f i e d d u r i n g t r i a l t h a t t h e
commissioners on October 1, 1975, d i d n o t e x p e c t any p a v i n g t o be
done until Spring 1976, thereby justifying dividing the work
into two separate contracts each for less than $10,000. The
jurors resolved the conflict between the commissioners' memo,
dated September 12, 1975, contemplating one undivided job, and
Commissioner Kennedy's testimony, justifying two separate con-
tracts, against the commissioners, and under proper instructions
from the court, found the commissioners had purposely and negli-
gently failed to advertise a county road project of over $10,000
for bid, and had knowingly divided a single road contract into
two parts so as to circumvent the bidding requirements.
The scope of this Court's review is to determine whether
or not there is substantial evidence to support the jury's
verdicts and the court's judgment. Section 95-2404 and 95-2425,
R.C.M. 1947.
This Court has frequently observed that disputed questions
of fact and the credibility of witnesses will not be considered
on appeal but that determination of such matters is within the
province of the jury. As long as there is substantial evidence
to support the verdict, it will not be disturbed on appeal. State
v. Bouldin, 153 Mont. 276, 456 P.2d 830; State v. Lagge, 143 Mont.
289, 388 P.2d 792.
Where there is sufficient substantial evidence to support
the jury's verdict of guilty, it must stand. State v. Feeley,
Mont. , 522 P.2d 66, 33 St.Rep. 648.
From a review of the record we find that there was suffi-
cient substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts of guilty.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
sitting in place of Mr. Justice
Daniel J. Shea.
Chief T u s t i c e
n