State v. Cunningham

No. 12846

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A
F F OTW

1975

THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN,

P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,

-vs -
C A C CUNNINGHAM,
LNY

Defendant and Respondent,

Appeal from: D t s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record:

For Appellant:

Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
Richard Dzivi argued, S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t Attorney
General, Great F a l l s , Montana
Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana

For Respondent :

Moses, Kampfe, T o l l i v e r and Wright, B i l l i n g s , Montana
Ralph Wright argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana

Submitted: A p r i l 14, 1975

Decided : !\M'Y - 2 197s

+ Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I , Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .

The q u e s t i o n i n t h i s c a s e i s whether f u r t h e r p r o s e c u t i o n
i s b a r r e d by t h e d o u b l e j e o p a r d y p r o v i s i o n s of 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 . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d it was. We

reverse.

O August 24, 1973, d e f e n d a n t Clancy Cunningham was
n

charged with f i r s t degree a s s a u l t a r i s i n g o u t of t h e a l l e g e d

s t a b b i n g of one L a r r y C a t l i n . Defendant e n t e r e d a p l e a of " n o t

guilty". The c a s e was s e t f o r t r i a l on March 2 1 , 1974, i n t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Yellowstone County.

On t h e t r i a l d a t e , a j u r y was d u l y s e l e c t e d and sworn.

The d i s t r i c t judge t h e n r e a d a g e n e r a l omnibus j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n

without objection. C o u r t was t h e n r e c e s s e d o v e r t h e noon h o u r .

When c o u r t reconvened, t h e d e p u t y c o u n t y a t t o r n e y moved

t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n on t h e ground t h a t a new and d i f f e r e n t c h a r g e ,

s p e c i f i c a l l y t h i r d d e g r e e a s s a u l t , was b e i n g f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e

defendant i n j u s t i c e c o u r t . The s u b s t a n t i a l r e a s o n f o r t h e d i s -

m i s s a l was t h a t t h e v i c t i m o f t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t was n o t a v a i l -

able t o testify. The v i c t i m , a r e s i d e n t of Wyoming, had n o t been

subpoenaed. The s t a t e ' s motion t o d i s m i s s was g r a n t e d w i t h o u t

objection.

Defendant e n t e r e d a p l e a of " g u i l t y " t o t h e t h i r d d e g r e e

a s s a u l t c h a r g e based on t h e same i n c i d e n t . He was s e n t e n c e d i n

t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t t o s i x months i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l .
T h e r e a f t e r on May 1 7 , 1974, d e f e n d a n t , r e p r e s e n t e d by
d i f f e r e n t c o u n s e l , withdrew h i s p r i o r p l e a of " g u i l t y " and e n t e r -
e d a p l e a of " n o t g u i l t y " t o t h e t h i r d d e g r e e a s s a u l t c h a r g e i n

the justice court. Thereupon t h e s t a t e d i s m i s s e d t h e t h i r d de-
g r e e a s s a u l t c h a r g e and f i l e d a f i r s t d e g r e e a s s a u l t c h a r g e based
on t h e same i n c i d e n t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
 Defendant moved t o quash t h e l a t t e r c h a r g e on t h e ground

t h a t i t p l a c e d d e f e n d a n t i n j e o p a r d y a second t i m e on t h e same

c h a r g e i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e d o u b l e j e o p a r d y p r o v i s i o n s of t h e

f e d e r a l and s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n s . A f f i d a v i t s were f i l e d by t h e

deputy county a t t o r n e y , a p a r a l e g a l o f f i c e r of t h e county a t t o r -

n e y ' s s t a f f , and t h e v i c t i m . These a f f i d a v i t s a r e somewhat a t

v a r i a n c e c o n c e r n i n g what p r i o r a r r a n g e m e n t s had been made f o r t h e

v i c t i m t o t e s t i f y and why he d i d n o t a p p e a r t o t e s t i f y on March

2 1 on t h e former c h a r g e of f i r s t d e g r e e a s s a u l t a g a i n s t d e f e n d -

ant.

After hearing, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t granted defendant's

motion t o quash. The s t a t e a p p e a l s .

The F i f t h Amendment's p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t p l a c i n g a p e r -

s o n t w i c e i n jeopardy f o r t h e same o f f e n s e a p p l i e s t o s t a t e c o u r t

c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s t h r o u g h t h e "due p r o c e s s 1 ' c l a u s e of t h e

F o u r t e e n t h Amendment. Benton v . Maryland (1969) 3 9 5 U.S. 784, 89

S.Ct. 2056, 23 L ed 2d 707. This p r o s c r i p t i o n i s not only a g a i n s t

being twice punished, b u t a l s o a g a i n s t being twice p u t i n jeopardy.

United S t a t e s v. B a l l (1896) 163 U.S. 662, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 4 1 L.ed.

300; United S t a t e s v . J o r n (1971) 4 0 0 U.S. 470, 9 1 S . C t . 547, 27

L ed 2d 543. I t t h u s becomes n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e when j e o p a r d y

a t t a c h e s i n a Montana s t a t e c o u r t c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n .

Montana s t a t u t e s p r o v i d e t h a t jeopardy a t t a c h e s i n a crim-

i n a l t r i a l a f t e r t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s i s sworn. The 1969 Montana

l e g i s l a t u r e s o p r o v i d e d i n Ch. 228, S e s s i o n Laws of 1969, c o d i f i e d

a s s e c t i o n 94-6808.3, R.C.M. 1947. T h i s Montana s t a t u t e was de-

r i v e d from t h e Model P e n a l Code. B 1 . 0 8 , Model P e n a l Code, Pro-
posed O f f i c i a l D r a f t , 1962. The American Law I n s t i t u t e , i n formu-

l a t i n g t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e Model P e n a l Code, d e t e r m i n e d t h a t jeop-

a r d y c u s t o m a r i l y a t t a c h e s i n n o n j u r y c a s e s upon s w e a r i n g t h e f i r s t

w i t n e s s ( s e e Anno. 49 ALR3d 1 0 3 9 ) ; and concluded t h a t no v a l i d
r a t i o n a l e e x i s t s f o r jeopardy a t t a c h i n g a t a d i f f e r e n t t i m e i n

a jury t r i a l . The Montana l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1969 a d o p t e d t h i s

s t a n d a r d o f when j e o p a r d y a t t a c h e s .

The 1973 Montana l e g i s l a t u r e , m e e t i n g a f t e r a d o p t i o n o f

t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , a g a i n c o n s i d e r e d t h i s s t a t e ' s

c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s on former p r o s e c u t i o n s and double jeopardy.

T h i s l e g i s l a t u r e r e e n a c t e d s e c t i o n 94-6808.3, R.C.M. 1947, pro-

v i d i n g t h a t jeopardy a t t a c h e s i n a c r i m i n a l t r i a l a f t e r t h e f i r s t

w i t n e s s i s sworn. S e c t i o n 95-1711, R.C.M. 1947.

The f e d e r a l r u l e , u n l i k e t h e Montana s t a t u t e , p r o v i d e s

t h a t i n c r i m i n a l t r i a l s i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s jeopardy a t t a c h e s

when t h e j u r y i s s e l e c t e d a n d sworn. Downum v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ,

(1963) 372 U.S. 734, 83 S . C t . 1 0 3 3 , 1 0 L e d 2d 1 0 0 . Whether t h e

s o u r c e o f t h i s r u l e l i e s i n t h e r u l e making power o f t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t o v e r f e d e r a l c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s o r c o n s t i t u t e s

a pronouncement o f d o u b l e j e o p a r d y s t a n d a r d s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

Constitution is unclear.

Thus t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e Montana s t a t u t e p r o v i d i n g

t h a t j e o p a r d y a t t a c h e s when t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s i s sworn i s s q u a r e l y

presented.

D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h e Montana s t a t u t e i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

because it v i o l a t e s t h e double jeopardy s t a n d a r d s of t h e United

S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n as e n u n c i a t e d i n a s e r i e s o f U n i t e d S t a t e s

Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n s , p r i n c i p a l l y Downum v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 3 ) ,

s u p r a ; Duncan v . L o u i s i a n a ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 391 U.S. 1 4 5 , 88 S . C t . 1444,

20 L e d 2d 1412; I l l i n o i s v. S o m e r v i l l e ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 410 U.S. 458, 93

S.Ct. 1 0 6 6 , 35 L e d 2d 425, 433, 434, a n d S e r f a s s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s (1975

-U.S. , 43 L e d 2d 265, 95 S.Ct. -. Although t h e r e i s

language i n t h e s e opinions t h a t supports t h i s conclusion, t h e f a c t s

a n d i s s u e s i n t h e s e c a s e s do n o t i n o u r o p i n i o n s e t up a r i g i d , i m -

m u t a b l e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r u l e t o be a p p l i e d m e c h a n i c a l l y i n d e t e r m i n i n g
whether s t a t e laws conform. Although c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o p i n i o n s

o f t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t a r e n e c e s s a r i l y p a i n t e d

w i t h a broad b r u s h , t h e language c a n n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d i n a

f a c t u a l vacuum. A s t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court o b s e r v e d i n

S o m e r v i l l e i n commenting on i t s h o l d i n g i n a p r i o r c a s e :

"While it i s p o s s i b l e t o excise various portions
of t h e p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n t o support t h e r e s u l t
r e a c h e d below, d i v o r c i n g t h e l a n g u a g e from t h e
f a c t s of t h e case serves only t o d i s t o r t i t s
holdings."

Each of t h e c a s e s n o t e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h on

which t h e d e f e n d a n t r e l i e s i s c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e

i n s t a n t c a s e and d o e s n o t p r e s e n t t h e i s s u e w i t h which we a r e

here confronted. Downum i n v o l v e d a t r i a l i n f e d e r a l c o u r t where

jeopardy had c l e a r l y a t t a c h e d under t h e f e d e r a l r u l e . Duncan

i n v o l v e d t h e r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y , n o t d o u b l e j e o p a r d y . Somer-
v i l l e i n v o l v e d a s t a t e c r i m i n a l t r i a l where jeopardy had c l e a r l y

a t t a c h e d under a s t a t e s t a t u t e p r o v i d i n g t h a t jeopardy a t t a c h e d

when t h e former p r o s e c u t i o n was " t e r m i n a t e d i m p r o p e r l y a f t e r t h e

j u r y was impaneled and sworn", t h e f e d e r a l r u l e . (For t h e t e x t

of t h e s t a t u t e s e e P e o p l e v . S o m e r v i l l e , 8 8 I l l . A p p . 2 d 212, 232

N.E.2d 115). Serfass involves a prosecution i n federal court

where t h e i n d i c t m e n t was d i s m i s s e d by p r e t r i a l o r d e r and d e f e n d -

a n t had n o t y e t been p u t t o t r i a l b e f o r e t h e t r i e r of t h e f a c t s .

Our i n q u i r y h e r e f o c u s e s on whether t h e f e d e r a l r u l e i s

of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i m e n s i o n s p r e c l u d i n g s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n on t h e

subject. O r s t a t e d a n o t h e r way, i s t h e f e d e r a l r u l e s o fundamen-

t a l t o t h e American system of j u s t i c e t h a t t h e "due p r o c e s s "
c l a u s e of t h e F o u r t e e n t h Pmendment mandates i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o
s t a t e c o u r t criminal proceedings?
W e p e r c e i v e no i n h e r e n t m e r i t i n t h e f e d e r a l r u l e o v e r

Montana's s t a t e law. It h a s been s a i d t h e f e d e r a l r u l e i s de-

signed t o prevent p r o s e c u t o r i a l manipulation. I l l i n o i s v. Somerville,
supra. I t h a s f u r t h e r been s a i d t h a t t h e f e d e r a l r u l e g u a r a n -

tees t h e d e f e n d a n t h i s v a l u e d r i g h t t o have h i s t r i a l completed

b e f o r e t h e t r i b u n a l and j u r y s e l e c t e d f o r h i s c a s e . Wade v .

Hunter, (1949) 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed 9 7 5 ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . J o r n ,
supra.

W e f a i l t o see i n what manner t h e f e d e r a l r u l e p r o t e c t s

a g a i n s t t h e s e a b u s e s t c a g r e a t e r e x t e n t t h a n Montana law. Prose-

c u t o r i a l m a n i p u l a t i o n c a n be e f f e c t e d a s r e a d i l y under one r u l e

a s under t h e o t h e r . I f b e n t on m a n i p u l a t i o n , a f e d e r a l p r o s e c u -

t o r c a n move t o d i s m i s s a f t e r t h e j u r y i s s e l e c t e d b u t b e f o r e

it is sworn, a s r e a d i l y a s a s t a t e p r o s e c u t o r can move t o d i s -

m i s s a f t e r t h e j u r y i s sworn b u t b e f o r e t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s i s c a l l e d .
I n e i t h e r c a s e , t h e r e a l p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t p r o s e c u t o r i a l manipu-

l a t i o n i s t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge i n g r a n t i n g o r deny-
ing dismissal. Here, f o r example, t h e judge c o u l d h a v e , b u t d i d

not, dismiss with prejudice.

Nor do w e s e e any g r e a t e r p r o t e c t i o n i n t h e f e d e r a l r u l e

a s f a r a s s e c u r i n g t o d e f e n d a n t t h e r i g h t t o have h i s t r i a l com-

p l e t e d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t and j u r y s e l e c t e d t o t r y h i s c a s e . Mon-

tana adheres t o t h i s p r i n c i p l e a l s o . I t a l l depends on when t h e

t r i a l i s c o n s i d e r e d t o have commenced--whether on s e l e c t i o n and
s w e a r i n g of t h e j u r y a s i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s , o r on s w e a r i n g

t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s a s i n Montana s t a t e c o u r t s .

W f i n d no s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two r u l e s .
e

Montana p o l i c y a s e n u n c i a t e d by i t s l e g i s l a t u r e i s t h a t t h e t r i a l

d o e s n o t s t a r t u n t i l t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s i s sworn. Sound p o l i c y
reasons e x i s t f o r t h i s r u l e , p r i n c i p a l l y t h a t the jury a s t h e
t r i e r of t h e f a c t s h a s n o t h i n g t o c o n s i d e r u n t i l t h e f i r s t w i t -
n e s s i s c a l l e d and sworn. This appears e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n t with

t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l standard t h a t jeopardy does n o t a t t a c h u n t i l
t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s been p u t t o t r i a l b e f o r e t h e t r i e r of t h e f a c t s .
S e r f a s s v. United S t a t e s (1975), s u p r a . And a s t h e u n i t e d

S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t o b s e r v e d i n S o m e r v i l l e :

"Federal c o u r t s should n o t be quick t o conclude
t h a t simply because a s t a t e procedure does n o t
conform t o t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g f e d e r a l s t a t u t e o r
r u l e , it d o e s n o t s e r v e a l e g i t i m a t e s t a t e p o l i c y . "

F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e Montana s t a t u t e
does n o t v i o l a t e United S t a t e s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l standards of double

jeopardy. N e i t h e r does t h e s t a t u t e v i o l a t e t h e double jeopardy

p r o v i s i o n of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , A r t . 11, S e c t i o n 25.

T h i s p r o v i s i o n d o e s n o t d e f i n e when j e o p a r d y a t t a c h e s l e a v i n g t h e

l e g i s l a t u r e f r e e t o make t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n . The l e g i s l a t u r e h a s
done s o by e n a c t m e n t o f t h e s t a t u t e s h e r e t o f o r e n o t e d . In so

d o i n g it h a s n u l l i f i e d a n y s u g g e s t i o n found i n t h e l a n g u a g e o f

S t a t e v. Gaimos (1916) 53 Mont. 1 1 8 , 162 P . 596, t h a t j e o p a r d y

a t t a c h e s upon i m p a n e l i n g and s w e a r i n g t h e j u r y .

T h i s c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Yellow-

s t o n e County f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s .

Justice

W e concur:
- .&
* .
-,-,,--'-
,----,-- -- ------ --
,- -"-L
-'

Chief J u s t i c e