No. 12918
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
THE STATE O M N A A on t h e r e l a t i o n o f
F OTN
ROBERT L. WOODAHL, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f t h e
S t a t e o f Montana,
Relator,
THE DISTRICT COURT O THE FIRST JUDICIAL
F
DISTRICT O THE STATE O MONTANA, i n and
F F
f o r t h e County of Lewis and C l a r k , and t h e
Honorable Gordon R. B e n n e t t and P e t e r G.
Meloy, J u d g e s t h e r e o f ,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING :
F o r Rela t o r :
Hon. R o b e r t L. bloodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ,
a p p e a r e d , Helena, Montana
Kichard D z i v i , S p e c i a l 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 , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
Donald N. Eastman, S p e c i a l 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
For Respondents:
Roland V. Colgrove a r g u e d , M i l e s C i t y , Montana
Submitted: December 1 6 , 1974
Decided :
JAN =. 7 1975
T h i s i s a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a writ o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l
d i r e c t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e f i r s t j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t ,
Lewis and C l a r k County, and t o t h e two j u d g e s t h e r e o f , t h e Hon-
o r a b l e Gordon R . B e n n e t t and t h e H o n o r a b l e P e t e r G . Meloy. The
a p p l i c a t i o n i s by t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d i s w i t h r e s p e c t t o
t h a t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s formal request t h a t
a g r a n d j u r y be empaneled t o i n q u i r e i n t o m a t t e r s r e l a t e d t o t h e
Workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n , Department o f Labor a n d I n d u s t r y ,
Cause #38354 i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
T h i s C o u r t , on e x p a r t e a p p l i c a t i o n , i s s u e d a n o r d e r
c a l l i n g f o r an adversary hearing wherein counsel f o r r e l a t o r
a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l and respondent d i s t r i c t judges could appear i n
o r a l argument. Such o r a l a r g u m e n t was h e a r d on December 1 6 , 1974.
The background g i v i n g r i s e t o t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , a s r e c i t e d
therein, is:
I n 1967 t h e s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d "The L e g i s l a t i v e
A u d i t A c t " ( C h a p t e r 23, T i t l e 7 9 , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) and p r o v i d e d f o r
a b i p a r t i s a n a u d i t committee w i t h t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o a p p o i n t a n
a u d i t o r whose d u t y i t was t o make a u d i t s o f " e v e r y s t a t e agency
a t l e a s t once each biennium." ( S e c t i o n 79-2308, R.C.M. 1947.)
S e c t i o n 79-2308 f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 3 ) t h a t s a i d
a u d i t o r was t o :
"Report immediately i n w r i t i n g t o t h e a t t o r n e y
g e n e r a l any apparent v i o l a t i o n of penal s t a t u t e s
d i s c l o s e d by t h e a u d i t of a s t a t e a g e n c y and f u r -
nish the attorney general a l l information i n h i s
possession r e l a t i v e t o t h e violation."
In 1973 a n a u d i t was p e r f o r m e d by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t o r
of the a c c o u n t s and o p e r a t i o n s of t h e Workmen's Compensation
-
s i v i s i o n , Department o f Labor and I n d u s t r y . The a u d i t o f h u n d r e d s
of i n d u s t r y r e l a t e d i n j u r y c l a i m s r e v e a l e d e v i d e n c e t h a t wide-
s p r e a d c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y was o c c u r r i n g a n d had o c c u r r e d i n
Norkrnen' s Compensation i l i v i s i o n r e l a t e d m a t t e r s . These a l l e g e d
z r i m i n a l i r r e g u l a r i t i e s w e r e t h e r e a f t e r r e p o r t e d and r e f e r r e d
by t h e b i p a r t i s a n a u d i t c o m m i t t e e - f o r t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l a s
r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 79-2308, R.C.M. 1947.
I n 1974, t h e Montana L e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d s e c t i o n 79-
2 3 1 5 , R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s :
"The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l s h a l l c o n d u c t o n b e h a l f o f
the s t a t e , a l l prosecutions f o r public offenses
d i s c l o s e d by a n a u d i t o f a s t a t e a g e n c y p e r f o r m e d
by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t o r . I f t h e a t t o r n e y gen-
e r a l s h a l l d e c l i n e such prosecution o r s h a l l f a i l
t o commence a c t i o n on a p u b l i c o f f e n s e w i t h i n a
reasonable t i m e t h e county a t t o r n e y of t h e appro-
p r i a t e county s h a l l conduct on behalf of t h e s t a t e
such prosecution."
The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l assumed t h e d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l -
i t i e s imposed upon h i s o f f i c e by t h i s new l e g i s l a t i o n and com-
menced t o i n v e s t i g a t e , p r e p a r e and p r o s e c u t e t h e a p p a r e n t c r i m -
i n a l v i o l a t i o n s i n workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n r e l a t e d m a t t e r s .
A s of t h e d a t e of t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f i v e c r i m i n a l prose-
c u t i o n s h a v e been i n i t i a t e d by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l a n d h i s s t a f f :
S t a t e v . McKeon, Cause number 3868, L e w i s and C l a r k County; S t a t e
v . L . R . B r e t z and G l o r i a Eusek C a r d e n , Cause number 6537 B , Cas-
c a d e County; S t a t e v . F r a n k P r e i t e , Cause number 2724, H i l l
County; S t a t e v . Thomas Powers, Cause number 2814, Deer Lodge
County; S t a t e v . Merril C l i n e , L . R. B r e t z and S h i r l e y ( L a n k f o r d )
C l i n e , Cause number 3921, Lewis and C l a r k County. Through c o n s t a n t
review of t h e f r u i t s of t h e ongoing a u d i t and d u r i n g t h e prosecu-
t i o n o f t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d m a t t e r s and o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ,
much e v i d e n c e h a s been u n c o v e r e d d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t p u b l i c
o c f i c e r s a n d / o r e m p l o y e e s , p a s t o r p r e s e n t , most o f whom h a v e o r
had t h e i r o f f i c i a l b u s i n e s s o f f i c e s i n H e l e n a , a c t e d i n c o l l u s i o n
with p r i v a t e persons such a s a t t o r n e y s , d o c t o r s , runners, etc.,
i n t h e commission o f p u b l i c o f f e n s e s a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e o f Montana,
the I n d u s c r i a l A c c i d e n t Board, now t h e Workmen ' s Compensation
U i v i s i o n ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s "IAB/WCD1') t h e r e o f , and
i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t v i c t i m s who were c l a i m a n t s i n t h e IAB/WCD
e a s e s a u d i t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t o r .
A d d i t i o n a l l y , it i s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e r e a r e s t r o n g
i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t c e r t a i n persons a r e d e f i n i t e l y involved; t h a t
o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s a r e p r o b a b l y i n v o l v e d ; and t h a t s t i l l o t h e r
i n d i v i d u a l s a r e possibly involved. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n l e d t h e
a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l and h i s s t a f f i n t o p r i v a t e and p u b l i c s e c t o r s ;
p e r s o n s c o n n e c t e d t h e r e w i t h r e s i s t e d and r e f u s e d t h e r e q u e s t s
and demands of t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l and h i s s t a f f t o r e v e a l
and d i s c l o s e m a t e r i a l f a c t s and e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o t h i s i n v e s t i -
gation. I t was t h e r e f o r e d e t e r m i n e d by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l t h a t
a grand j u r y must be empaneled t o c a l l and command r e l u c t a n t
w i t n e s s e s t o a p p e a r and produce e v i d e n c e s o t h a t t h e r e s p o n s i b l e
i n d i v i d u a l s c a n be p r o s e c u t e d and t o e x o n e r a t e t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s
who a r e s u s p e c t e d of committing c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s b u t who have
n o t done s o , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e e v i d e n c e , o r where e v i d e n c e i s
i n a d e q u a t e t o m e r i t i n i t i a t i o n of c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s .
On October 1 8 , 1974, a p e t i t i o n was f i l e d w i t h respond-
o n t s erein in a s k i n g t h a t a g r a n d j u r y be promptly empaneled i n
L e w i s and C l a r k County, s t a t e of Montana:
" * * * f o r t h e purpose of i n q u i r i n g i n t o p u b l i c
c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s , committed o r t r i a b l e i n L e w i s
and C l a r k County which r e l a t e t o Workmen's Comp-
e n s a t i o n D i v i s i o n m a t t e r s ; and a l s o , f o r t h e pur-
pose of i n q u i r i n g i n t o a l l e g a t i o n s of w i l l f u l
and c o r r u p t misconduct i n o f f i c e by p u b l i c o f f i -
c e r s w i t h i n t h e c o u n t y of Lewis and C l a r k , which
r e l a t e t o Workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n m . a t t e r s . "
A f t e r s t u d y i n g t h e m a t t e r f o r s i x weeks, t h e a t t o r n e y
g e n e r a l ' s r e q u e s t f o r t h e empaneling o f a grand j u r y was d e n i e d
on November 2 7 , 1974, by r e s p o n d e n t J u d g e s Gordon R . B e n n e t t
and P e t e r G . Meloy. Respondent d i s t r i c t j u d g e s based t h e i r de-
c i s i o n on s e v e r a l p r e m i s e s , a l l of which p u r p o r t t o s u p p o r t t h e
c o n t e n t i o n t h a t a grand j u r y i s n o t n e c e s s a r y . The o r d e r
denying t h e r e q u e s t s t a t e s :
"We have b e f o r e u s t h e P e t i t i o n of t h e A t t o r n e y
G e n e r a l f o r t h e summoning of a g r a n d j u r y under
t h e p r o v i s i o n s of 95-1401, R.C.M. 1947. T h a t
s t a t u t e , and t h e 1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n , A r t i c l e 11,
S e c t i o n 2 0 , a s w e l l a s t h e 1889 C o n s t i t u t i o n ,
A r t i c l e 111, S e c t i o n 8 , p r o v i d e s t h a t a g r a n d
j u r y may be drawn and summoned o n l y a t t h e d i s -
c r e t i o n of t h e C o u r t . That s t a t u t e s p e c i f i e s
t h a t t h i s d i s c r e t i o n be e x e r c i s e d o n l y when t h e
C o u r t f i n d s a grand j u r y 'necessary! It is
t h e r e f o r e t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r a grand jury t h a t
rnust be of paramount c o n c e r n i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e
Petition.
" I n Montana, i n d i c t m e n t by grand j u r y h a s been
r e p l a c e d , i n p r a c t i c e , a l m o s t e n t i r e l y by t h e
d i r e c t f i l i n g of a.n i n f o r m a t i o n . The r e a s o n
was b e s t s t a t e d by Chief J u s t i c e B r a n t l e y of t h e
Xontana Supreme C o u r t s i x t y y e a r s a g o . R e f e r r i n g
t o p r o s e c u t i o n by i n f o r m a t i o n a s a u t h o r i z e d by
t h e 1889 C o n s t i t u t i o n he s a i d :
"'One of t h e p u r p o s e s of t h e c o n v e n t i o n i n
f o r m u l a t i n g i t , and t h e p e o p l e i n a d o p t i n g i t ,
was t o d i s p e n s e w i t h t h e s l o w , e x p e n s i v e , and
t h e r e f o r e u n s a t i s f a c t o r y p r o c e d u r e by i n d i c t -
ment, and t o s u b s t i t u t e a p r o c e d u r e e x p e d i t i o u s
and i n e x p e n s i v e , t o be a v a i l e d of by t h e p r o s e c u -
ting officers a t t h e i r discretion, subject t o
c o n t r o l by t h e c o u r t , t o guard a p a r t i c u l a r de-
f e n d a n t a g a i n s t o p p r e s s i o n and m a l i c e , and p r e -
v e n t a b u s e of power by t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y . '
S t a t e v . Vinn, 50 Mont. 27, 34.
"The q u e s t i o n becomes, t h e n , what n e c e s s i t y
j u s t i f i e s t h e e x t r a e x p e n d i t u r e of t i m e and money
t h a t would undoubtedly be o c c a s i o n e d by t h e c a l l -
i n g of a grand j u r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e m a t t e r s
referred t o in the Petition.
"We b e l i e v e t h a t t h e most c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n f o r
c a l l i n g a grand j u r y would be t h e f a i l u r e of
t h o s e charged w i t h p r o s e c u t i o n t o c a r r y o u t t h a t
responsibility. N such r e a s o n a p p e a r s i n t h e
o
P e t i t i o n o r i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s we under-
s t a n d them. The P e t i t i o n i t s e l f i s r e p l e t e
with declarations t h a t t h e prosecution assigned
t o t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e
(Ch. 4 , L . 1974) i s n o t f a i l i n g and w i l l be
d i l i g e n t l y , even ' r u t h l e s s l y " , p u r s u e d i f no
j u r y i s impaneled. P r o s e c u t i o n s have begun i n
f o u r c o u n t i e s , Cascade, H i l l , Lewis & C l a r k and
Deer Lodge. One c o n v i c t i o n by p l e a h a s been
o b t a i n e d . A i n v e s t i g a t i v e and p r o s e c u t o r i a l
n
s t a f f h a s been assembled and i s o p e r a t i n g
throughout t h e s t a t e . W a r e f u r t h e r assured
e
by t h e same a c t t h a t i f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l
d e c l i n e s o r f a l l s to ? r o s e c u t e w i t h i n a r e a s o n -
a b l e t i m e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y may
conduct t h e prosecution.
"The P e t i t i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t p r o s e c u t i o n may
he o r i s f e t t e r e d by l a c k of subpoena power.
W f i n d no s u c h d e t r i m e n t . The l e g i s l a t u r e
e
h a s chosen t o make t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l i t s
s p e c i a l a g e n t f o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of ' p u b l i c
o f f e n s e s d i s c l o s e d by an a u d i t of a s t a t e agency
performed by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t o r . ' (Ch. 4 ,
L. 1 9 7 4 ) . I n d i s c h a r g i n g t h i s e x t r a o r d i n a r y
and p e c u l i a r f u n c t i o n t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l may
draw on t h e subpoena power of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .
The L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l h a s subpoena power
( S e c t . 43-713, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) , a s d o e s t h e L e g i s -
i a t i v e F i s c a l Review Committee ( S e c t . 43-1105,
R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) . F u l l a c c e s s t o a l l s t a t e govern-
ment r e c o r d s and t h e r e c o r d s of a l l t h o s e r e c e i v -
i n g s t a t e government g r a n t s i s p r o v i d e d t h e
L e g i s l a t i v e A u d i t o r ( S e c t s . 79-2314 and 7 9 - 2 3 1 0 ( 7 ) ,
R.C.M. 1947). I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Attorney General
h a s f u l l s t a t u t o r y powers t o subpoena w i t n e s s e s
and r e q u i r e them t o t e s t i f y under o a t h , a s w e l l
a s compel t h e p r o d u c t i o n of documents ( S e c t .
95-1801 and 95-1802, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) . even from
o u t of s t a t e ( S e c t . 94-9001 e t s e q . ) .
" I t i s suggested t h a t a grand jury i s necessary
t o ' s i f t ' t h e mass of e v i d e n c e uncovered and t o
be uncovered i n t h e Workmen's Compensation D i v i -
s i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n . These m a t t e r s have been under
i n v e s t i g a t i o n by t h e Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
t h e L e g i s l a t i v e A u d i t Committee and t h e A t t o r n e y
G e n e r a l ' s o f f i c e f o r more t h a n a y e a r and a h a l f .
W have been informed by t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l i n
e
t h e p r e s s and i n h i s P e t i t i o n t h a t t h e s e m a t t e r s
a r e t e c h n i c a l , complex, w i d e l y r a m i f i e d , i n v o l v e
l a r g e numbers of p e o p l e and voluminous documenta-
t i o n and a r e v a s t i n s c o p e . The i n f o r m a t i o n h a s
been developed and e v a l u a t e d by e x p e r t s . W e s e e
no n e c e s s i t y o r p u r p o s e t o be s e r v e d by having
it s i f t e d and e v a l u a t e d by e l e v e n p e o p l e summoned
from o r d i n a r y walks of l i f e w i t h l i t t l e o r n o , .
f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r . On t h e con-
t r a r y , t h e p r o c e s s would impede t h e p r o s e c u t i o n
r a t h e r than e x p e d i t e it.
"'i'he grand j u r y , a s c o n s t i t u t e d by s t a t u t e s of
Montana, i s a l o c a l c o u n t y f u n c t i o n d e s i g n e d t o
d e a l with a f f a i r s within t h e county. W e f i n d i n
the s t a t u t e s a u t h o r i z i n g a g r a n d j u r y no i n t e n -
t i o n t o use a grand jury t o d e a l w i t h statewide
a f f a i r s . The m a t t e r s a s s i g n e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e
t o t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n and
prosecution a r e c l e a r l y not l o c a l county m a t t e r s
but a r e l e g i s l a t i v e l y recognized statewide matters.
"We f i n d t h a t it i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o impose upon
t h e p e o p l e of Lewis and C l a r k County t h i s e x t r a -
a r d i n a r y burden. The 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
a r e a l r e a d y f i n a n c e d by an a p p r o p r i a t i o n of t h e
s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e t o t h e Attorney General i n t h e
amount of $183,191.00, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f u n d i n g
provided t h e L e g i s l a t i v e Auditor. The A t t o r n e y
General h a s a l l of t h e n e c e s s a r y l e g a l t o o l s t o
p u r s u e , a s he h a s , any c r i m i n a l m a t t e r s d i s c l o s e d
by t h e Workmen's Compensation a u d i t .
"'The P e t i t i o n i s d e n i e d . "
There i s no s t a t u t o r y means p r o v i d e d f o r a p p e a l i n g t o
t h i s Court from t h e a d v e r s e d e c i s i o n of t h e r e s p o n d e n t d i s t r i c t
court. However, when t h e f a c t s c l e a r l y show t h a t a p a r t y h a s
no p l a i n , speedy o r a d e q u a t e remedy a t law, and when t h e r e i s
ilo r i g h t of a p p e a l from a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e 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 may i s s u e s o t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e lower
c o u r t may be reviewed by t h e Montana Supreme C o u r t . S t a t e ex
r e l . Woodahl v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 159 Mont. 1 1 2 , 495 P.2d 1 8 2 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ;
Art V I I , Sec . 1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n of Montana.
I n S t a t e v . S u p e r i o r C o u r t i n and f o r County of Pima,
4 Ariz.App. 562, 4 2 2 P.2d 393, t h e Arizona c o u r t reviewed t h e
d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t of one s u p e r i o r c o u r t judge empaneling and
d i s m i s s i n g a grand j u r y a f t e r t h e grand j u r y had been c a l l e d
a n o t h e r judge. The Arizona Court h e l d t h a t i t had t h e power t o
r e v i e w d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t s of t h e judge and r e v e r s e d . Citing
Pennsylvania a u t h o r i t y , t h e c o u r t s t a t e d c l e a r l y t h a t d i s c r e t i o n
of a lower c o u r t p e r t a i n i n g t o a grand j u r y i s s u b j e c t t o a p p e l -
l a t e r e v i e w a s t o a b u s e of t h a t d i s c r e t i o n .
T h i s Court on p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n s h a s reviewed and checked
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n a r y f u n c t i o n s by means of s u p e r -
v i s o r y c o n t r o l and h a s found a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o
invoke t h e s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l of t h i s C o u r t . S t a t e ex r e l .
John C . H a r r i s o n v . D i s t . C t . of F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , 135
Mont. 365, 340 P.2d 544 ( 1 9 5 9 ) ; S t a t e e x r e l . Thomas J . Hanrahan
v. D i s t . C t . of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , 145 Mont. 501, 4 0 1
'rhe L 3 7 L Montana Constitution, A r c . 11, Sec. 2 0 ( 2 ) , provides
t h a t d i s t r i c t judges may empanel a g r a n d j u r y :
"A grand j u r y s h a l l c o n s i s t of e l e v e n p e r s o n s ,
of whom e i g h t must concur t o f i n d a n i n d i c t -
ment. A grand j u r y s h a l l be drawn and summoned
o n l y a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n and o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t
judge. "
S t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o grand j u r i e s r e i t e r a t e
t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y a s p e c t of empaneling a grand j u r y . Section
95-1401, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s i n p a r t :
"A grand j u r y must o n l y be drawn and summoned
when t h e d i s t r i c t judge i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n c o n s i d -
e r s a grand j u r y n e c e s s a r y and s h a l l s o o r d e r .
* * *I1
However, a l t h o u g h j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i t y i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y ,
t h i s i s n o t an absolute, unbridled d i s c r e t i o n .
The q u e s t i o n t h e n becomes whether t h e d i s t r i c t judges
abused t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n . I n t h e language of S t a t e e x r e l . H a r r i s o n ,
s u p r a , and S t a t e e x r e l . Hanrahan, s u p r a , t h i s C o u r t i n q u i r e d a s
t o whether t h e r e was a m a n i f e s t a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . Since, a s
p r e v i o u s l y r e l a t e d , t h e two j u d g e s , a f t e r s i x weeks of d e l i b e r -
a t i o n and having b e f o r e them n o t o n l y t h e a p p l i c a t i o n r e c i t i n g
rnuch a l l e g e d c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y , b u t t h e f i l e s i n t h r e e c r i m i n a l
cases already f i l e d , c a r e f u l l y expressed t h e i r reasons f o r t h e
d e n i a l , a n e x a m i n a t i o n of t h o s e r e a s o n s w i l l be made. Such
e x a m i n a t i o n w i l l i l l u m i n a t e whether t h e r e h a s been a n a b u s e of
d i s c r e t i o n , and whether t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n were e r r o n e o u s a s a
m a t t e r of law.
1. The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i s " d i l i g e n t l y " i n v e s t i g a t i n g
and p r o s e c u t i n g a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s . This, i n a l e g a l sense, i s
no r e a s o n . The f a c t remains t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l made t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a grand j u r y b e c a u s e of h i s a s s e r t e d and c o n f e s s e d
i n a b i l i t y t o g e t a n s w e r s , c o o p e r a t i o n , and y e a - - r e s u l t s . To deny
t h e r e q u e s t on t h i s b a s i s would r e q u i r e a p r o s e c u t o r t o p l e a d
incompetence i n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a grand j u r y . Such a r e a s o n
would deny t h e u s e o f a g r a n d j u r y t o a " d i l i g e n t " p r o s e c u t o r .
S u r e l y it was n o t t h e i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , i n p l a c i n g t h e
g r a n d j u r y c h a p t e r i n M o n t a n a ' s s t a t u t e s , t o deny a g r a n d j u r y
t o a " d i l i g e n t " p r o s e c u t o r should t h e u s e of t h i s t o o l of c r i m -
i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , f o r o t h e r v a l i d r e a s o n s , be deemed n e c e s s a r y
t o enhance t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e p r o s e c u t o r i n h i s 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 .
2. c
The p r e v i o u s l y q u o t e d o r d e r s t a t e s t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i s t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e ' s " s p e c i a l a g e n t " and t h a t it i s a n " e x t r a o r d i n a r y
and p e c u l i a r f u n c t i o n " . W e a r e a t a l o s s t o f i n d wherein a
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c e r u n d e r A r t . V I , S e c . 4 , 1972 Montana Con-
s t i t u t i o n named a s t h e l e g a l o f f i c e r o f t h e s t a t e i n t h e e x e c u -
t i v e b r a n c h o f government t o have t h e d u t i e s and powers p r o v i d e d
by l a w , i s e i t h e r " s p e c i a l " o r d o i n g a " p e c u l i a r f u n c t i o n " .
R a t h e r , h e i s t h e p r o p e r o f f i c e r a n d d o i n g a p r o p e r and n e c e s s a r y
duty.
The o r d e r a l s o s t a t e s t h a t he may draw on t h e subpoena
power o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . Indeed! L e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u t i v e
f u n c t i o n s are d i s t i n c t . No p e r s o n c h a r g e d w i t h t h e e x e r c i s e o f
any power p r o p e r l y b e l o n g i n g t o t h e o t h e r s h a l l e x e r c i s e i t .
Art. 111, S e c . 1, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . The u s e o f l e g i s -
l a t i v e subpoena power would b e c l e a r l y a n d m a n i f e s t l y e r r o n e o u s .
The o r d e r t h e n s t a t e s t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l h a s f u l l
s t a t u t o r y powers t o subpoena u n d e r s e c t i o n s 95-1801 a n d 95-1802,
R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , and e v e n from o u t of s t a t e u n d e r s e c t i o n s 94-9001,
e t seq., R.C.M. 1947.
I n 1967 t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s p e c i f i c a l l y r e p e a l e d sec-
t i o n s 94-8901 t h r o u g h 94-8909. S e c t i o n 94-8901, s u b . 3 , had
provided :
" * * * It [ a subpoena] may be s i g n e d and
i s s u e d by * * *
. L'he z o u n t y dccorney, f o r w i t n e s s e s i n
t n e s c a t e , i n s u p p o r t of a n i n d i c t m e n t o r
information, t o appear before t h e c o u r t i n
which i t i s t o be t r i e d ; * * *. I'
In t h e y e a r 1916, t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e e x r e l . Wolfe
v. D i s t . Ct., 52 Mont. 556, 557, 160 P . 3 4 6 , i n t e r p r e t e d t h a t
s t a t u t e t o mean:
" I t i s p e r f e c t l y obvious t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e
r e p o s e s i n t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y a power which
i s s u b j e c t t o no r e s t r a i n t , s a v e h i s own
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y under t h e s a n c t i o n of h i s
o f f i c i a l o a t h , and subpoenas i s s u e d by him
oursuant t o t h i s s t a t u t e a r e i n para materia
w i t h t h o s e i s s u e d by t h e c l e r k . * * * "
That p r o v i s i o n was n o t c a r r i e d o v e r i n t o t h e new code of c r i m i n a l
p r o c e d u r e i n s e c t i o n 95-1801. T h e r e f o r e , even i f t h e a u t h o r i t y
existed f o r t h e prosecutor p r i o r t o indictment o r information,
t h i s c l e a r c u t p r o v i s i o n was s p e c i f i c a l l y r e p e a l e d . Accordingly,
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r i s m a n i f e s t l y wrong a s a m a t t e r of law.
F u r t h e r , s e c t i o n 95-1801 ( a ) p r o v i d e s :
"Upon t h e r e q u e s t of t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y
o r t h e defendant o r h i s attorney, t h e c o u r t
o r t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t s h a l l i s s u e subpoenas.
The subpoena s h a l l s t a t e t h e name of t h e c o u r t
and t h e t i t l e , i f any, of t h e p r o c e e d i n g , and
s h a l l command e a c h p e r s o n t o whom i t i s d i r e c t e d
t o a t t e n d and g i v e t e s t i m o n y and produce
o b j e c t s and documents a t t h e t i m e and p l a c e
specified therein. "
From a r e a d i n g of s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) , a l l of t h e l a n g u a g e ,
taKen t o g e t h e r , means t h a t a c a s e must be a c t u a l l y f i l e d . Re-
s p o n d e n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e words " t i t l e [ o f t h e c a u s e ] i f a n y , of
t h e proceeding, * * *" under s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) , i n d i c a t e s a l e g i s -
l a t i v e i n t e n t t o have subpoenas a v a i l a b l e i n o t h e r t h a n a c t u a l
cases. This does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y follow. The p o i n t i s t h a t i t
must be i s s u e d by a c o u r t and i s n o t a v a i l a b l e t o t h e a t t o r n e y
g e n e r a l o r o t h e r p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y s i n d e p e n d e n t of a c o u r t o r
grand j u r y .
Looking now t o o u t of s t a t e w i t n e s s e s under s e c t i o n s
34--9001, e t seq., i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e language r e q u i r e s more
t h a n j u s t a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n , it r e q u i r e s a " c r i m i n a l a c t i o n ,
p r o s e c u t i o n o r proceeding" and an a p p l i c a t i o n t o a c o u r t of
record. Accordingly, t h e reasoning of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a s a
m a t t e r o f l a w on t h e subpoena powers a v a i l a b l e t o t h e a t t o r n e y
general is i n error.
3. The i n f o r m a t i o n h a s been e v a l u a t e d by " e x p e r t s "
and o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s would "impede" t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r a t h e r
than "expedite" it. W need o n l y s a y h e r e t h a t t h e p e o p l e ,
e that
i s o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s , have r e s e r v e d t o t h e m s e l v e s t h e r i g h t o f
government.
L i t i g a n t s have l o n g p l a c e d t h e i r f a i t h i n o r d i n a r y
c i t i z e n s s i t t i n g a s a t r i a l jury. So g r e a t i s t h i s f a i t h i n t h e
competency o f o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s t h a t t h e r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y
h a s been g i v e n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a t u r e . The j u r y s y s t e m g e n e r a l l y
does, i n o u r view, an admirable j o b i n a system of a f r e e s o c i e t y .
W e cannot and do n o t a c c e p t t h e thought t h a t o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s
would "impede" t h e i n v e s t i g a . t i o n . The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l , whose
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d s t a t u t o r y d u t y i t i s , i s s e e k i n g t h e h e l p and
s c r u t i n y of t h e o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n . H e does n o t f e a r t h a t ordinary
c i t i z e n s w i l l impede h i s work--nor should t h e c o u r t s . T h i s was
n o t r a i s e d a s a l e g a l i s s u e , and t h e r e a s o n g i v e n i s n o t a l e g a l
reason.
4. A g r a n d j u r y would be a f i n a n c i a l b u r d e n o n t h e
p e o p l e of L e w i s and C l a r k County. A p r i c e t a g s h o u l d n o t be p u t
on j u s t i c e . A l s o , a g r a n d j u r y may n o t r e s u l t i n a n i n c r e a s e d
f i n a n c i a l burden. Lewis and C l a r k County i s where t h e s e a t o f
government i s by o u r C o n s t i t u t i o n ( A r t . 111, sec. 2 ) . Matters
a r i s i n g o u t of t h a t government's o p e r a t i o n w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y a f f e c t
L e w i s a n d C l a r k County. Criminal prosecutions involving a c t s
committed i n L e w i s and C l a r k County w i l l b e t r i e d h e r e . I t may
w e l l be t h a t a g r a n d j u r y would r e s u l t i n a b e t t e r c a s e b e i n g
prepared, thus resulting in less trial expense rather than more.
But, conceding that it may cost more, the same thoughts are
expressed by the citizens of other counties where state govern-
inental activities or institutions are located. Powell County,
where the state prison is located, has, and always has had, an
extra burden as well as some benefits. The legislature has, and
may well again, in good conscience attempted to equalize this
burden. In any event, district judges are judicial officers of
state government, and their considerations are to state govern-
ment. The cost of a grand jury is not a sufficient legal reason.
5. A county grand jury cannot investigate a state-
wide matter. This last reason is palpably erroneous. The appli-
cation made related to the practices of state officials and/or
ernployees of the Workmen's Compensation Division whose offices
are located in Lewis and Clark County. The application asked
that a grand jury be empaneled "for the purpose of inquiring into
public criminal offenses, committed or triable in Lewis and Clark
County * * * and also, for the purpose of inquiring into allega-
tions of willful and corrupt misconduct in office by public offi-
cers within the County of Lewis and Clark * * *." (Emphasis
added.) Obviously the seat of government and the headquarters
of the agency are the hub of the wheel. Crimes committed in a
county are crimes against the state and are proper subjects of a
grand jury convened in that county. Problems of venue and juris-
diction may arise, but that is no concern at this state.
During the oral presentation of counsel for the re-
spondent judges, the merits and demerits of the grand jury system
were alluded to. It, the grand jury, is a part of our govern-
mental structure. We need not debate its strengths and weaknesses.
'Then too, counsel for respondents argued that sufficient detailed
facts were not presented to the district judges to cause them to
cxerclse > h i
:er discretion. 7 - t is seen chat t h e order g i v e s
d e t a i l e d reasons f o r denial--not one o f which s u g g e s t s a l a c k
of f a c t s . Had t h e judges d e s i r e d f a c t s more t h a n t h e y had, it
seems c l e a r t h a t t h e y would have s a i d s o .
A r e a d i n g of t h e o r d e r , h e r e t o f o r e q u o t e d , seems
t o b r i n g f o r t h t h e t h o u g h t t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t judges b e l i e v e d
t h a t a showing of " n e c e s s i t y " had t o be made i n a s e n s e of
"absolute necessity". But a r e a d i n g of t h e e n t i r e C h a p t e r 1 4 ,
T i t l e 9 5 , R.C.M. 1947, and c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t grand j u r i e s a r e
c o n s t i t u t i . o n a 1 b o d i e s , A r t . 11, S e c . 2 0 , p r o v i d i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e
method of i n i t i a t i n g c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s , t h e word " n e c e s s a r y " d o e s
n o t mean a b s o l u t e l y " n e c e s s a r y " .
Now, h e r e t o f o r e we have examined e a c h of t h e r e a s o n s
g i v e n f o r denying t h e r e q u e s t f o r a grand j u r y ; w e have found
e a c h r e a s o n l e g a l l y wanting. But, b e c a u s e t h e r e a s o n s a r e wrong,
does i t f o l l o w t h a t t h e r e h a s been a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n s u f f i -
c i e n t t o i n v o k e t h e s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l of t h i s C o u r t ?
A s h e r e t o f o r e i n d i c a t e d , t h i s C o u r t h a s , on a t l e a s t
two p r i o r o c c a s i o n s , reviewed t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n a r y
f u n c t i o n s and found an a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o i n v o k e
t h e s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l of t h i s C o u r t . S t a t e ex r e l . Harrison v.
Dist. Ct., supra; S t a t e e x r e l . Hanrahan v . D i s t . C o u r t , s u p r a .
Respondents' c o u n s e l a r g u e d t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e man
t e s t s h o u l d be u s e d . The r e a s o n s g i v e n by t h e r e s p o n d e n t j u d g e s
a r e e r r o n e o u s a s a m a t t e r of law, and t h e " r e a s o n a b l e man" t e s t
does not apply. T h i s a p p l i c a t i o n by t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l e g a l
o f f i c e r of t h e s t a t e , a f t e r a y e a r of i n v e s t i g a t i v e e f f o r t , w i t h
3 w e a l t h of i n v e s t i g a t i v e f i n d i n g s and a s s e r t i o n s , e s t a b l i s h e s
t h e r i e c e s s i t y f o r a grand j u r y a s t h e t e r m " n e c e s s a r y " i s used
~ o n s t i t u t i o n a l l yand by s t a t u t e . The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l c o n f e s s e s
dn i n a b i l i t y t o a c h i e v e a s u c c e s s f u l i n v e s t i g a t o r y c o n c l u s i o n
whetner i t r e s u l t i n incriminations o r e x o n e r a t i o n s . This
a p p l i c a t i o n by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i n al-1 i t s d e t a i l , a l b e i t no
narnes were s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned, e s t a b l i s h e s a showing of t h e
need f o r a g r a n d j u r y .
On December 2 6 , 1974, t h e two r e s p o n d e n t j u d g e s f i l e d
a p r a e c i p e r e q u e s t i n g t h i s Court t o t a k e n o t e of Lewis and C l a r k
Zounty D i s t r i c t C o u r t Causes #3937 and 3938, e n t i t l e d r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
S t a t e v . John J . Carden and S t a t e v . John J . Carden and G l o r i a
Eusik Carden. The p r a e c i p e was t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n
of t h e a b i l i t y of t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l t o subpoena w i t n e s s e s
under s e c t i o n 95-1801 was now moot, and a p p a r e n t l y r e s p o n d e n t
j u d g e s f e l t t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n t h e i r o r d e r o f November 24, 1974,
h e r e t o f o r e q u o t e d , was even more j u s t i f i e d .
T h i s C o u r t h a s o b t a i n e d c o p i e s of a l l t h e p e r t i n e n t
p a p e r s i n t h e above mentioned d i s t r i c t c o u r t c a u s e s , i n c l u d i n g
t n e s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t s and t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t r e p o r t , t h i s
cime w i t h names, d a t e s and p l a c e s . A r e a d i n g of t h o s e p e r t i n e n t
p a p e r s r e v e a l s a s o r d i d web o f e t h i c a l and c r i m i n a l v i o l a t i o n s
involving numerous i n d i v i d u a l s , b o t h o f f i c i a l and u n o f f i c i a l .
I n c l u d e d t h e r e i n a r e a l l e g a t i o n s of involvement of t h e j u d i c i a l
b r a n c h of government, a judge and a t t o r n e y s a s o f f i c e r s of t h i s
Court. With p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o m a t t e r s a r i s i n g d u r i n g and
o u t of t h e c a s e of G a z e t t e P r i n t i n g Co. v . Carden, - .-
Mont I
517 P.2d 361, 30 St.Rep, 1 1 6 1 , d e c i d e d by t h i s C o u r t on December
26, 1973, i f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s be t r u e , even t h i s C o u r t h a s been
deceived; while w e w e r e deceived, we a r r i v e d a t t h e c o r r e c t r e s u l t
by r e v e r s i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r . These m a t t e r s - a r i s i n g
s i n c e t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s a p p l i c a t i o n
makes it even more i m p e r a t i v e t h a t t h e e n t i r e m a t t e r be s u b j e c t e d
t o t h e s c r u t i n y of a grand j u r y t o a i d t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i n
h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n ; and t h u s t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t judges
nua at be exercised f a v o r a b l y t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e a t t o r n e y
general.
F i n d i n g no l e g a l r e a s o n s f o r t h e d e n i a l of t h e
a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a grand j u r y , we f i n d t h a t
it was, i n law, a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
t o deny t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n .
A c c o r d i n g l y , a w r i t s h a l l i s s u e from t h i s Court
d i r e c t i n g the judges of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t t o empanel
a grand j u r y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s a p p l i c a t i o n
therefor.
.................................
Chief J u s t i c e