No. 13167
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
THE STATE OF M N A A ex r e 1
OTN
STEPHEN WALTER LANCE,
Relator,
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT O THE STATE O
F F
MONTANA, i n and f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e ,
and t h e HON. ROBERT H. WILSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e ,
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:
Counsel of Record:
For Relator :
Moses, Kampfe, T o l l i v e r & W r i g h t , B i l l i n g s , Montana
D. Frank Kampfe a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
F o r Respondents:
Hon. R o b e r t I.,. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ,
Helena, Montana
Thomas A. Budewitz, 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 , Helena, Montana
Harold F. Hanser a p p e a r e d , County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s ,
Montana
F o r Amicus C u r i a e :
Thomas Honzel a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
Submitted : October 29, 1975
Decided: h!@vlzlw5
lerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
This i s an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l
or other appropriate w r i t . R e l a t o r Stephen Walter Lance was
charged by Information w i t h one f e l o n y count of c r i m i n a l s a l e of
dangerous drugs (marijuana), and one f e l o n y count o f possession of
dangerous drugs (marijuana), i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone
County. A motion t o d i s m i s s was f i l e d , heard and denied. Relator
then p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l
d i r e c t i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e Information. An
a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g was h e l d b e f o r e t h i s Court.
R.elator c h a l l e n g e s t h e two s t a t u t e s under which he was
charged, s e c t i o n s 54-132 and 54-133, R.C.M. 1947. R e l a t o r contends
t h a t b o t h s e c t i o n s f a i l t o s t a t e a crime and t h e attempted enforce-
ment of such s t a t u t e s i s i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e due process c l a u s e i n
t h e Fourteenth Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and
A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 17, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n .
Section 54-132 r e a d s i n p a r t :
"(a) A person commits t h e o f f e n s e of a c r i m i n a l
s a l e of dangerous drugs i f he s e l l s , b a r t e r s , ex-
changes, g i v e s away, o r o f f e r s t o s e l l , b a r t e r ,
exchange or g i v e away, manufactures, p r e p a r e s , c u l -
t i v a t e s , compounds o r processes any dangerous drug
a s d e f i n e d i n t h i s a c t . " (Emphasis added.)
Section 54-133 r e a d s i n p a r t :
"(a) A person commits t h e o f f e n s e of c r i m i n a l
possession of dangerous drugs i f he possesses any
dangerous drug a s d e f i n e d i n t h i s a c t . " ( ~ m p h a s l sadded.)
Sections 54-132 and 54-133 were enacted on Pilarch 11, 1969,
a s p a r t of t h e Montana Dangerous Drug Act. Also included i n t h a t
a c t was s e c t i o n 54-129, which defined t h e term "dangerous drug".
T h e r e a f t e r , on March 21, 1973, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e enacted
f u r t h e r drug l e g i s l a t i o n borrowing h e a v i l y from t h e Uniform Con-
t r o l l e d Substances Act. A s p a r t of t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n , i t r e p e a l e d
s e c t i o n 54-129. It a l s o amended s e c t i o n s 54-132 and 54-133 t o t h e i r
p r e s e n t form. The new l e g i s l a t i o n was c o d i f i e d a s s e c t i o n s 54-301
through 54-327, R. C.Y. 1947. The *-IonLana 9angerous Drug Act
remained i n T i t l e 54, Chapter 1, Revised Codesof Montana.
F i r s t , r e l a t o r presents f o r t h i s Court's consideration
t h e argument t h a t t h e r e a r e now two s e p a r a t e drug a c t s i n f o r c e
i n t h e s t a t e of Montana : (1) t h e Montana Dangerous Drug Act, and
(2) what r e l a t o r l a b e l s t h e "Controlled Substances Act". Relator
a r g u e s t h a t by r e p e a l i n g s e c t i o n 54-129 t h e Montana Dangerous Drug
Act no l o n g e r has a d e f i n i t i o n of a dangerous drug, t h e r e f o r e
r e l a t o r cannot be charged w i t h e i t h e r t h e s a l e o r p o s s e s s i o n of
a dangerous drug under s e c t i o n s 54-132 and 54-133 f o r b o t h s t a t u t e s
use t h e p h r a s e "dangerous drug a s d e f i n e d i n t h i s a c t " . Relator
a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e i s no such d e f i n i t i o n .
With t h a t argument t h i s Court cannot a g r e e . House B i l l
No. 128, 43rd L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, was e n t i t l e d :
"AN ACT TO AMEND THE D N E O S DRUG ACT, BY
A GR U
ADOPTING SUBSTANTIALLY THE DEFINITIONS, PRO-
CEDURES, STANDARDS AND SCHEDULES AND THE REGULATORY
PROVISIONS O T E UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT
F H
A RECOMMENDED BY THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE O COMMIS-
S F
SIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS; BY EXCLUDING F O S C
RM UH
SCHEDULES NON-NARCOTIC D U S WHICH MAY BE L W U L
RG A F LY
SOLD OVER T E COUNTER WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION; BY
H
REPEALING SECTIONS 54-129, 54-130, 54-131 and 66-1504.1,
R.C.M.1947; ***
PROVIDING F R SEVERABILITY I F ANY
O
PART O THIS ACT I S DETERMINED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; AND
F
REPEALING ALL ACTS AND PARTS O ACTS I N CONFLICT HERE-
F
WITH. "
From i t s t i t l e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e 1973 l e g i s l a t i o n was
i n t e n d e d only t o amend t h e e x i s t i n g Dangerous Drug Act and n o t t o
create a separate ontr trolled Substances Act". The problem h e r e
i s o b v i o u s l y an o v e r s i g h t on t h e p a r t of t h e c o d i f i e r i n making
t h e l e g i s l a t i o n look l i k e two s e p a r a t e a c t s i n t h e Revised Codes
o f Montana. The a c t s of t h e c o d i f i e r cannot change t h e i n t e n t of
the legislature. Nor does t h e a d o p t i o n of d e f i n i t i o n s and format
from t h e Uniform C o n t r o l l e d Substances Act make t h e l e g i s l a t i o n a
s e p a r a t e a c t from t h e Montana Dangerous Drug Act.
T h e r e f o r e , t h e 1973 drug l e g i s l a t i o n now c o d i f i e d under
s e c t i o n s 54-301 through 54-327, R.C.M. 1947, was i n t e n d e d t o amend
and be included a s p a r t of t h e Montana Dangerous Drug Act; t h e term
11
dangerous drug" a s used i n s e c t i o n s 54-132 and 54-133 i s d e f i n e d
i n s e c t i o n 54-301, R.C:M. 1947.
R e l a t o r ' s second argument i s t h a t t h e f e d e r a l C o n t r o l l e d
Substances Act preempted ~ o n t a n a ' sDangerous Drug Act. Relator
acknowledges t h a t t h e f e d e r a l C o n t r o l l e d Substances Act, 2 1 U.S.C..
$903, r e a d s :
"No p r o v i s i o n o f t h i s t i t l e s h a l l b e c o n s t r u e d
a s i n d i c a t i n g an i n t e n t on t h e p a r t of t h e Congress t o
occupy t h e f i e l d i n which t h a t p r o v i s i o n o p e r a t e s , i n -
c l u d i n g c r i m i n a l p e n a l t i e s , t o t h e e x c l u s i o n of any
S t a t e law on t h e same s u b j e c t m a t t e r which would o t h e r -
wise be w i t h i n t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e S t a t e , u n l e s s t h e r e
i s a p o s i t i v e c o n f l i c t between t h a t p r o v i s i o n o f t h i s
t i t l e and t h a t S t a t e law s o t h a t t h e two cannot con-
s i s t e n t l y stand together. II
R e l a t o r concedes t h e r e was no o v e r a l l plan t o preempt
t h e s t a t e s i n t h e f i e l d of a drug c o n t r o l when Congress enacted t h e
f e d e r a l C o n t r o l l e d Substances Act, R e l a t o r p o i n t s o u t however
t h a t t h e r e i s a s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e p e n a l t y f o r possession
of marijuana between t h e f e d e r a l C o n t r o l l e d Substances Act and t h e
Montana Dangerous Drug Act. There i s a "vast d i f f e r e n c e " i n
t h e p e n a l t i e s provided i n t h e two a c t s f o r t h e s a l e of dangerous
d r u g s , b u t t h e d i f f e r e n c e i s n o t c o n f l i c t i n g i n view of t h e s p e c i f i c
i n c l u s i o n of c r i m i n a l p e n a l t i e s i n t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e . Relator
a r g u e s t h a t one of t h e s t a t e d purposes of t h e enactment o f t h e
f e d e r a l s t a t u t e was t o provide f o r an o v e r a l l balanced scheme o f
c r i m i n a l p e n a l t i e s f o r o f f e n s e s i n v o l v i n g d r u g s ; t h a t t h e s t a t e and
f e d e r a l a c t s provide such a p o s i t i v e c o n f l i c t a s t o p e n a l t i e s t h a t
t h e two cannot s t a n d t o g e t h e r ; and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e f e d e r a l law
preempted t h e s t a t e .
W f i n d no m e r i t t o r e l a t o r ' s argument.
e Nowhere i s t h e r e
evidence t h a t t h e f e d e r a l a c t was i n any way meant t o preempt t h e
s t a t e ' s r i g h t t o drug c o n t r o l ,
I n Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497, 76 S.Ct. 4 5 7 ,
L O 0 L ed 640, 652, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court s e t o u t t h r e e
t e s t s , two of which a r e important t o our c o n s i d e r a t i o n h e r e , t o
determine whether a f e d e r a l a c t has superseded a s t a t e a c t :
" ~ i r s,t ' [ t ]he scheme of f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n [ i s ]
s o pervasive a s t o make r e a s o n a b l e t h e i n f e r e n c e
t h a t Con r e s s l e f t no room f o r t h e S t a t e s t o supple-
ment i t . ? * , ,
"second, t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s ' t o u c h a f i e l d i n which
t h e e r a l i n t e r e s t i s s o dominant t h a t t h e f e d e r a l
system [must] be assumed t o p r e c l u d e enforcement o f
s t a t e laws on t h e same s u b j e c t . ' ***
"Third, enforcement of s t a t e ** k a c t s presents a
;
s e r i o u s danger o f c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
of t h e f e d e r a l program. I I
Applying t h e s e s t a n d a r d s , i t cannot be s a i d t h e states
have no a u t h o r i t y t o r e g u l a t e i n t h e f i e l d of drugs o r n a r c o t i c s ,
i n c l u d i n g t h e a u t h o r i t y t o s p e c i f y t h e punishment t o be imposed.
Furthermore, t h e Congress made c l e a r , a s h e r e t o f o r e quoted,
t h a t i t d i d n o t i n t e n d "to occupy t h e f i e l d * * * including criminal
p e n a l t i e s , t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f any S t a t e law * * *." (Emphasis added.)
Nothing could be more c l e a r .
The p e t i t i o n of r e l a t o r i s denied and t h i s proceeding
i s dismissed.
G
f&/€
/ Chief J C s t i c e
I.
! 4:-*44Ad
I
' ' Justices. /