No. 13876
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F O T N
1978
STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,
-vs-
R N L HARRIS,
O AD
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: District Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Arnold Olsen, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
Byron W. Boggs a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana
F o r Respondent :
Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a
Dennis Dunphy, I n t e r n , O f f i c e o f A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ,
a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana
S h e r i K. S p r i g g , 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 ,
H e l e n a , Montana
Submitted: January 2 5 , 1978
Decided: MAR 1 3
Filed: Mm I f€&j
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
On March 8, 1977, Ronald H a r r i s , a n i n m a t e of Montana
s t a t e p r i s o n , was c o n v i c t e d by j u r y v e r d i c t f o r t h e c r i m e of
p o s s e s s i o n of a weapon by a p r i s o n e r , a f e l o n y i n v i o l a t i o n
of s e c t i o n 94-8-213, R.C.M. 1947. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,
Powell County, s u b s e q u e n t l y s e n t e n c e d H a r r i s t o a t e r m of
f i v e y e a r s i n t h e Montana s t a t e p r i s o n , s u c h term t o be
s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e t o t h e s e n t e n c e H a r r i s i s now s e r v i n g .
Harris a p p e a l s from t h e judgment of c o n v i c t i o n on t h e grounds
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n denying h i s motion t o s u p p r e s s
and i n a d m i t t i n g i n t o e v i d e n c e a t h i s c r i m i n a l t r i a l i n c r i m i -
n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s made by H a r r i s a t a n e a r l i e r d i s c i p l i n a r y
h e a r i n g conducted a t Montana s t a t e p r i s o n .
On August 7, 1976, p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s a t Montana s t a t e
p r i s o n d i s c o v e r e d a handmade s t e e l k n i f e i n a c e l l s h a r e d by
H a r r i s and a n o t h e r p r i s o n e r , John H e n d r i c k s . The k n i f e had
been c o n c e a l e d i n a hollowed o u t p o r t i o n of t h e wooden frame
of a m i r r o r . The m i r r o r i s s u p p l i e d t o i n m a t e s by t h e
p r i s o n a s p a r t of t h e s t a n d a r d f u r n i s h i n g s of each c e l l .
Upon d i s c o v e r y of t h e k n i f e , Harris and Hendricks w e r e
removed t o t h e maximum s e c u r i t y u n i t and c h a r g e d f o r v i o -
l a t i n g t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n Inmate R u l e s and G u i d e l i n e s ,
s p e c i f i c a l l y Rule No. 215--"Possession o r i n t r o d u c t i o n of a
gun, f i r e a r m , weapon, sharpened i n s t r u m e n t , k n i f e o r unautho-
rized tool."
I n compliance w i t h t h e Inmate Rules and G u i d e l i n e s ,
p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g s were s c h e d u l e d f o r August 1 2 ,
1976. H a r r i s and Hendricks were p r o v i d e d a n i n m a t e " l a y -
a d v i s o r " of t h e i r c h o i c e who a s s i s t e d them i n p r e p a r a t i o n
f o r t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing. Hendricks' d i s c i p l i n a r y
h e a r i n g was c o n d u c t e d f i r s t and H a r r i s a p p e a r e d a s a w i t n e s s .
I n r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n s posed by t h e i n m a t e l a y - a d v i s o r ,
H a r r i s made s t a t e m e n t s t e n d i n g t o a d m i t h i s p o s s e s s i o n o f
the knife. Following H a r r i s ' admissions, t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y
hearing w a s adjourned. H a r r i s was g i v e n h i s Miranda r i g h t s
f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e and removed t o t h e maximum s e c u r i t y u n i t
of t h e p r i s o n .
On August 26, 1 9 7 6 , t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f o r P o w e l l
County f i l e d a n I n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g H a r r i s and H e n d r i c k s
w i t h v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 94-8-213, R.C.M. 1947. Charges
a g a i n s t Hendricks w e r e subsequently dismissed. Harris
e n t e r e d a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y and moved t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o
s u p p r e s s t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s made by H a r r i s a t t h e p r i s o n
d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g . H a r r i s ' m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s was d e n i e d
and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l l o w e d t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o i n t r o d u c e
e v i d e n c e o f s t a t e m e n t s made by H a r r i s a t t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y
hearing. Subsequent t o i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e evidence, d e f e n s e
c o u n s e l e n t e r e d a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e , which was a l s o d e n i e d by
t h e D i s t r i c t Court.
I n t h i s a p p e a l , w e w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e of t h e
p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y committee's use of H a r r i s ' admission.
Our i n q u i r y i s l i m i t e d t o t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e i n c r i m i -
nating statements a t Harris' criminal t r i a l . Harris contends
t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e a t h i s c r i m i n a l t r i a l of
i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s made by him when a w i t n e s s a t t h e
p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g , w i t h o u t a c a u t i o n of h i s r i g h t
t o r e m a i n s i l e n t and h i s r i g h t t o l e g a l c o u n s e l , v i o l a t e d
the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination
g u a r a n t e e d by t h e F i f t h Amendment, U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n .
Miranda v . A r i z o n a , ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S . C t . 1602, 16
L e d 2d 694; M a t h i s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 391 U.S. 1, 88
S.Ct. 1503, 2 0 L ed 2d 381; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R e d f i e l d , (4th
Cir. 1 9 6 8 ) , 402 F.2d 454. Miranda, M a t h i s and R e d f i e l d
r e q u i r e d t h e e x c l u s i o n o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s a d m i s s i o n where t h e
immediate o b j e c t i v e o f t h e o f f i c i a l s was n o t t o o b t a i n
evidence f o r u s e i n c r i m i n a l t r i a l s , b u t l a t e r it w a s
decided t o use t h e defendant's self-incriminating answers i n
prosecutions.
W e conclude such a u t h o r i t y i s c o n t r o l l i n g over t h e
f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , e v e n though t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s
w e r e i n response t o t h e q u e s t i o n s of t h e inmate lay-advisor
and n o t a p r i s o n o f f i c i a l . The p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g
was c o n d u c t e d by p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a s c e r -
t a i n i n g i n n a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r prison offenses punishable
u n d e r t h e I n m a t e R u l e s and G u i d e l i n e s . No n o t i c e o f p o t e n t i a l
c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n was announced t o H a r r i s u n t i l a f t e r h e
u t t e r e d t h e incriminating statements a t Hendricks' d i s c i -
p l i n a r y hearing. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s of t h e F i f t h
Amendment, a s announced i n Miranda, M a t h i s and R e d f i e l d ,
c a n n o t b e s u b v e r t e d u n d e r t h e g u i s e H a r r i s knowingly and
voluntarily uttered t h e incriminating statements.
F u r t h e r , t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n I n m a t e R u l e s and
Guidelines s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o t e c t a g a i n s t t h e very procedures
which o c c u r r e d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e :
"SECTION D
"RULES O INMATE OFFENSES
F
"D-11. A p p l i c a t i o n and P r o s e c u t i o n T h e r e u n d e r
, I * * *
" 2 . Whenever a misdemeanor o r f e l o n y i s a l l e g e d
t o have b e e n committed:
"a. I t w i l l b e t h e d u t y o f t h e Warden o r h i s
d e s i g n a t e t o r e p o r t a n y v i o l a t i o n of a f e d e r a l ,
s t a t e o r l o c a l l a w t o a p p l i c a b l e law e n f o r c e m e n t
authorities.
"b. A f t e r a v i o l a t i o n of t h i s n a t u r e h a s been
r e p o r t e d t o law enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s , t h e
inmate s h a l l n o t be questioned about t h e i n c i d e n t
u n t i l a f t e r i t h a s been d e t e r m i n e d t h a t no p r o s e -
c u t i o n w i l l o c c u r o r u n t i l a f i n d i n g s of g u i l t i s
made.
" c . I f a v i o l a t i o n h a s been r e p o r t e d t o law
e n f o r c e m e n t a u t h o r i t i e s , no i n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a r g e s
p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e same c h a r g e s h a l l be f i l e d
a g a i n s t t h e i n m a t e u n t i l c o m p l e t i o n of t h e i n -
v e s t i g a t i o n and p r o s e c u t i o n , i f a n y , o r i f p r o s e -
c u t e d , u n t i l t h e i n m a t e h a s been found g u i l t y of
t h e charge."
S i n c e o u r h o l d i n g i s c o n t r o l l e d by t h e above d i s c u s s i o n ,
t h o s e i s s u e s r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t which c h a l l e n g e t h e j u r y
i n s t r u c t i o n s need n o t be c o n s i d e r e d .
The judgment of c o n v i c t i o n i s v a c a t e d and t h e c a s e
dismissed.
%??
W e Concur:
A c t i n g Chief J u s t i c e
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d i s s e n t i n g :
I d i s s e n t t o t h e o p i n i o n and would a f f i r m t h e
D i s t r i c t Court.
// Justice