No. 80-419
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1981
STATE O M N A A
F O T N ,
Plaintiff and A p p e l l a n t ,
VS .
JAMES ALBERT HOUSER,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f G a l l a t i n .
Honorable W . W. L e s s l e y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
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 , Montana
Donald White, County A t t o r n e y , Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent:
McKinley T . Anderson, Bozeman, Montana
S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : March 3 , 1981
Decided :APH 8 - j:-\~,
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y 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 .
T h i s is a n a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , G a l l a t i n C o u n t y ,
g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s .
On August 26, 1980, the deputy Gallatin County
attorney filed an information charging defendant with the
offense of criminal mischief in violation of section
45-6-101(1)(a), MCA. The facts alleged were that on or
about August 21, 1980, defendant purposely or knowingly
i n j u r e d and damaged a 1980 Mercury a u t o m o b i l e b e l o n g i n g t o
John Unwin by using the vehicle he was driving, a 1979
C h e v r o l e t , t o s t r i k e and f o r c e U n w i n ' s c a r i n t o a p a r k e d AMC
H o r n e t , c a u s i n g damage t o t h e v e h i c l e s i n e x c e s s o f $150.
Based upon t h e a b o v e f a c t s , on A u g u s t 2 2 , 1 9 8 0 , t h r e e
t r a f f i c c i t a t i o n s were issued defendant charging him w i t h
failing to report an accident in violation of section
61-7-108, MCA; f a i l i n g t o s t o p a t an a c c i d e n t i n v i o l a t i o n
o f s e c t i o n 61-7-106, MCA; and r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g i n v i o l a t i o n
of section 61-8-301, MCA. On A u g u s t 26, 1980, defendant
appeared i n Bozeman C i t y Court and p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o the
f i r s t two c h a r g e s and n o t g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e o f reckless
driving. Defendant was fined $50 for each guilty plea
entered and, subsequently, was tried and convicted of
reckless driving.
On S e p t e m b e r 5, 1980, defendant filed a motion to
d i s m i s s t h e c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f c h a r g e on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t ( 1 )
the information does not s t a t e a public offense; (2) the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t d o e s n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e m a t t e r ; and
(3) that t h e S t a t e of Montana is b a r r e d from any further
p r o s e c u t i o n by reason of s e c t i o n 46-11-504, MCA. Without
stating a reason, the District Court granted defendant's
motion. The S t a t e a p p e a l s .
The f i r s t two g r o u n d s upon which d e f e n d a n t b a s e d h i s
motion a r e w i t h o u t m e r i t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e q u e s t i o n on a p p e a l
is l i m i t e d t o w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e of Montana is b a r r e d from
prosecuting the criminal mischief charge by reason of
s e c t i o n 46-11-504, MCA.
The S t a t e c o n t e n d s s e c t i o n 46-11-504, MCA, d e a l s with
conduc t c o n s t i t u t i n g an o f f e n s e w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of
two o r more courts. S t a t e ex rel. Rasmussen v . District
Court (1980), - Mont . , 615 P.2d 231, 3 7 S t . R e p . 1498,
h e l d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d o e s n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r
a n o r d i n a r y misdemeanor c o n n e c t e d t o g e t h e r i n i t s c o m m i s s i o n
with a felony.
In this case, the felony charge is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the District Court and the
misdemeanors are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
J u s t i c e Court. D i f f e r e n t c o n d u c t was a l l e g e d i n b o t h c o u r t s
a n d , t h u s , t h e r e was no v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 46-11-504, MCA.
If t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is allowed t o s t a n d ,
the State would be precluded from ever obtaining the
conviction of a defendant for both felonies and
misdemeanors connected in commission as part of the same
transaction.
Defendant argues that the State is barred from
f u r t h e r p r o s e c u t i o n of him b y r e a s o n o f s e c t i o n 46-11-504,
MCA, which p r o v i d e s :
"When c o n d u c t c o n s t i t u t e s a n o f f e n s e w i t h i n
t h e c o n c u r r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s s t a t e and
of t h e United S t a t e s o r another s t a t e or of
two c o u r t s o f s e p a r a t e , o v e r l a p p i n g , o r
concurrent jurisdiction i n t h i s s t a t e , a
p r o s e c u t i o n i n any s u c h o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s
a bar t o a subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n i n this
s t a t e under t h e f o l l o w i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s :
" ( 1 ) The f i r s t p r o s e c u t i o n r e s u l t e d i n a n
acquittal or i n a conviction a s defined in
section 46-11-503 and the subsequent
p r o s e c u t i o n i s b a s e d on a n o f f e n s e a r i s i n g
o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n . . ."
Defendant entered guilty pleas in City Court to
failing to report an accident and failing to stop a t an
accident. The s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n o f criminal mischief
by t h e S t a t e o f Montana a r i s e s o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n
to which defendant has been found guilty in City Court.
Therefore, defendant argues that convictions of these
o f f e n s e s bar t h e subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n of c r i m i n a l mischief
by t h e S t a t e .
Section 46-11-504(1), MCA, provides that the
p r o s e c u t i o n o f a c a s e is a bar t o a subsequent prosecution
if the f i r s t prosecution resulted i n a c o n v i c t i o n and t h e
s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n i s b a s e d on a n o f f e n s e a r i s i n g o u t o f
t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n . S e c t i o n 46-11-501(a), MCA, provides
t h a t t h e t e r m "same t r a n s a c t i o n " i n c l u d e s c o n d u c t c o n s i s t i n g
of a s e r i e s of a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s w h i c h a r e m o t i v a t e d by a
purpose to accomplish a criminal objective and which are
necessary or incidental to the accomplishment of that
objective.
I n Yother v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 597 P.2d
7 9 , 8 2 , 36 S t . R e p . 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 6 , we s t a t e d :
"The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s d e c i d e d
a s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n i s b a r r e d by a p r i o r
conviction i f the subsequent prosecution - is
b a s e d u p -n -t h e s a m e a c t s -a - w a s t h e p r i o r
------- - o- - -- s
c o n v i c t i o n , i f t h e s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c - t- o n i s
u- i
f o r a n o f f e n s e o f w h i c- t h e o f f e n s e i n t h e
h-
conviction is a lesser
ELF2f--------------------------------i n c l u d e d
o f f e n s e , and i f t h e s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n i s
.................... i s p ---------------
i n a c o u r t which a r t of t h e same
s o v e r e i g- a s t h e c o u r t involved i n t h e p r i o r
n-
conviction. . ." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
S e e W a l l e r v . F l o r i d a ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 397 U.S. 387, 390, 394-395, 90
S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435; see also United States v.
Mechanic (8th Cir. 1971), 454 F.2d 849, 855; Turley v.
Wyrick (E.D. Mo. 1 9 7 6 ) , 415 F.Supp. 87, 88; S t a t e v. Rook
( 1 9 7 3 ) , 14 0r.App. 2 1 1 , 511 P.2d 1245, 1246.
According t o the statutes, t o establish the offense
of criminal mischief it is necessary to prove that a
d e f e n d a n t ( 1 ) p u r p o s e l y o r k n o w i n g l y ( 2 ) i n j u r e d , damaged o r
destroyed (3) property of another (4) without consent.
S e c t i o n 45-6-101, MCA.
There may be some question as to the first two
offenses charged. The charge of failing to report an
accident requires proof that the driver of a vehicle
i n v o l v e d i n an a c c i d e n t f a i l e d t o i m m e d i a t e l y g i v e n o t i c e o f
such accident to the local police department. Section
61-7-108, MCA. This offense is n o t p a r t of the original
t r a n s g r e s s i o n which a n t e c e d e s i t , b u t a s e c o n d w i l l f u l a c t .
To establish failing to stop at an accident, the
S t a t e must prove the driver of a vehicle involved in an
a c c i d e n t f a i l e d t o i m m e d i a t e l y s t o p and l o c a t e o r n o t i f y t h e
owner o r o p e r a t o r o f s u c h v e h i c l e o f t h e name and a d d r e s s o f
the driver and owner of the vehicle causing the accident.
S e c t i o n 61-7-106, MCA. T h i s c h a r g e h a s t h e same p r o b l e m s a s
a c h a r g e o f f a i l i n g t o r e p o r t an a c c i d e n t .
However, t o e s t a b l i s h t h e crime of reckless driving
the State must prove defendant operated a vehicle in a
willful or wanton d i s r e g a r d for the safety of persons or
property. S e c t i o n 61-8-301, MCA. I n t h i s charge t h e a c t s
t h a t a r e concerned with t h e r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g a r e a l s o t h o s e
necessary to establish the felony crime of criminal
mischief. A close s c r u t i n y of the evidence i n each c a s e
will establish that the "same transaction test" has been
met. The s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n of the criminal mischief
c h a r g e i s b a r r e d by s e c t i o n 4 6 - 1 1 - 5 0 4 ( 1 ) , MCA.
The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
W concur:
e
%&.G&g&Ge
Chief J u g t i c E