file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-389%20Opinion.htm
No. 00-389
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2001 MT 150
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DUANE STEDMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Jefferson,
The Honorable Frank Davis, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-389%20Opinion.htm (1 of 5)1/18/2007 10:16:58 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-389%20Opinion.htm
For Appellant:
Edmund F. Sheehy, Jr., Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General;
John Paulson, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Valerie D. Wilson, Jefferson County Attorney; Leonard J. Haxby,
Deputy County Attorney, Boulder, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 18, 2001
Decided: August 9, 2001
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-389%20Opinion.htm (2 of 5)1/18/2007 10:16:58 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-389%20Opinion.htm
Justice Jim Regnier delivered the Opinion of the Court.
1. ¶Duane Stedman was found guilty of criminal mischief after a bench trial in the
Fifth Judicial District Court, Jefferson County. Stedman appeals. We find one issue
to be dispositive: Whether the District Court improperly relied on Stedman's Justice
Court proceeding in his de novo District Court trial?
2. ¶We reverse.
BACKGROUND
1. ¶On October 28, 1998, a complaint was filed by the Jefferson County Attorney in
the Justice Court, Jefferson County, alleging that Duane Stedman committed the
offense of criminal mischief in violation of § 45-6-101, MCA. The complaint
alleged that Stedman damaged property belonging to William Gruber by removing
two metal gate posts which were cemented into the ground, severing the gate from
the posts, and dragging the gate away and hiding it. The gate had been installed by
Gruber who owns property over which Stedman has an access easement.
2. ¶Gruber, along with Julie Dolan, owns a mining claim adjacent to another mining
claim where Stedman and Nancy Larson reside. Stedman and Larson hold an access
easement along a common road that passes over the Dolan/Gruber land. Discussions
took place between the parties centering on the concern that trespassers were using
the road to access land above the Stedman/Larson property. The possibility of
erecting a gate was discussed. Gruber, believing that the parties were in agreement,
installed gate posts. A few days later, Gruber attached a gate to the posts. When he
returned the next morning, the gate posts had been removed and the gate was
missing. Believing that Stedman may have been involved in the removal and
destruction of the gate, Gruber reported the incident to the Jefferson County
Sheriff's Office. Stedman was subsequently charged with criminal mischief for
removing the gate.
3. ¶Stedman was tried in the Justice Court and found guilty. He then appealed for a
trial de novo in the District Court. A bench trial was held on October 18, 1999. On
the day of trial Stedman's counsel was present, but Stedman was not. The trial
proceeded and Stedman was tried in absentia pursuant to § 46-16-122(2)(d), MCA.
4. ¶At the conclusion of the trial, the District Court found the defendant guilty.
Stedman subsequently moved to set aside the verdict of guilty which was denied.
The District Court, however, allowed Stedman to present evidence and the State to
present rebuttal evidence at a supplemental hearing. On January 14, 2000, the
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-389%20Opinion.htm (3 of 5)1/18/2007 10:16:58 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-389%20Opinion.htm
District Court issued its Findings and Opinion finding Stedman guilty of the
misdemeanor offense of criminal mischief.
DISCUSSION
1. ¶Stedman contends that the District Court abused its discretion when it considered
matters occurring in the Justice Court during a trial de novo in the District Court.
The State responds that the District Court merely noted the Justice Court actions in
relation to procedural history, and that the District Court's ultimate determinations
were based on its independent consideration of all the evidence. Whether a
defendant has been provided his or her constitutional and statutory right to a trial de
novo is a question of law. We review a district court's conclusion of law as to
whether the court's interpretation of the law is correct. Carbon County v. Union
Reserve Coal Co. (1995), 271 Mont. 459, 469, 898 P.2d 680, 686.
2. ¶The Montana Constitution provides that "[t]he district court shall hear appeals from
inferior courts as trials anew unless otherwise provided by law." Article VII, Sec. 4
(2), Mont. Const. In addition, § 46-17-311(1), MCA, provides in relevant part that
"[e]xcept for cases in which legal issues are preserved for appeal pursuant to 46-12-
204, all cases on appeal from a justice's or city court must be tried anew in the
district court . . . ." See, e.g., State v. Kestler (1987), 228 Mont. 242, 245, 741 P.2d
791, 793 (holding that a district court does not have appellate jurisdiction to review
a justice court order suppressing evidence but that the case must be tried de novo).
3. ¶A trial "de novo" means trying the matter anew, the same as if it had not been
heard before and as if no decision had been previously rendered. See, e.g.,
Farmingdale Supermarket, Inc., v. U. S., (D.N.J. 1971), 336 F. Supp. 534, 536;
Blacks Law Dictionary 435 (6th ed. 1990). In its Findings and Opinion the District
Court specifically referenced the Justice Court proceedings in several instances.
First, the District Court noted that "[t]he Justice Court, following trial, found
[Stedman] GUILTY of the offense. He immediately appealed for a trial de novo."
Next, after discussion of Gruber's testimony relating to Stedman's comments about
removing the gate, the District Court stated that "[i]n both the Justice of the Peace
and this Court's view, that is exactly what he did. The evidence was credible."
Finally, in relating that it found the defendant guilty of the charged offense, the
District Court noted "[s]o said the Justice of the peace [sic], so says this Court." The
references by the District Court to the findings and conclusions of the Justice Court
strongly suggest that the District Court was influenced by the decision of the Justice
Court, and based on said comments, we cannot conclude that the District Court was
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-389%20Opinion.htm (4 of 5)1/18/2007 10:16:58 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-389%20Opinion.htm
not unduly influenced by the Justice Court proceedings. Thus, we conclude that
Stedman was denied his constitutional and statutory right to a trial de novo in the
District Court.
4. ¶ Reversed and remanded for a trial de novo.
/S/ JIM REGNIER
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-389%20Opinion.htm (5 of 5)1/18/2007 10:16:58 AM