Case Title: STATE EX REL WARD v SCHMALL

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-165

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-09-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
80-165 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 STATE OF MONTANA ex rel., ROBIN DeWAYNE WARD, Petitioner, NORMA A. SCHMALL, Justice of the Peace for Gallatin County, Montana, Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the i - Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin. Honorable Joseph Gary, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Petitioner: Goetz and Madden, Bozeman, Montana James Goetz argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Dennis Dunphy argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Michael Lilly argued, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: September 8, 1980 Decided: - SEP 3 0 1 w Filed: & p 8 6 t$@O M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a f i n a l c i v i l judgment of t h e G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t Court. This case o r i g i n a t e d as a criminal cause i n t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace Court of Norma Schmall. Relator, Robin DeWayne Ward, was a r r e s t e d on March 31, 1979, f o r d r i v i n g while intoxicated. Ward refused t o take a chemical test and i n i t i a t e d a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenge t o s e c t i o n 61-8-404 ( 2 ) , MCA, which automatically approves t h e admission i n t o evi- dence of t h e f a c t t h a t a defendant refused t o submit t o a chemical examination. Ward f i l e d a c i v i l p e t i t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l , w r i t of habeas corpus, o r o t h e r appropriate w r i t . Ward argued t h a t because of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l questions involved, a non- lawyer j u s t i c e of t h e peace would be ill-equipped t o d e a l with t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a s p e c t s of h i s case. The p e t i t i o n t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court superintend w a s accompanied by a r e q u e s t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court s t a y t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace Court criminal proceedings pending d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e c i v i l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l question by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The S t a t e i n i t i a l l y r e s i s t e d t h e c i v i l p e t i t i o n f o r o r i g i n a l r e l i e f i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. However, it with- drew i t s opposition a f t e r consideration of t h i s Court's decisions i n Bailey v. S t a t e (1974), 163 Mont. 380, 517 P.2d 708, and Forsythe v. Wenholz (1976), 170 Mont. 496, 554 P.2d 1333. I n a b r i e f f i l e d on J u l y 1 7 , 1979, t h e S t a t e expressly conceded t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l i n cases such a s t h i s , The D i s t r i c t Court granted t h e p e t i t i o n , stayed t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace Court proceedings, and heard t h e w r i t on t h e merits. On April 11, 1980, the D i s t r i c t Court ruled a g a i n s t Ward. H e now appeals the District Court judgment. Relator Ward presents t h r e e i s s u e s f o r t h i s Court's review: 1. Whether a state D i s t r i c t Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t w r i t s of supervisory control over J u s t i c e of t h e Peace Courts . 2. Whether s e c t i o n 61-8-404(2), MCA, allowing evidence of r e f u s a l t o submit t o a breathalyzer test upon a r r e s t f o r driving while intoxicated, i s a v i o l a t i o n of the F i f t h Amendment protection a g a i n s t self-incrimination. 3 . Whether it i s a v i o l a t i o n of a defendant's due process r i g h t s i f p o l i c e o f f i c e r s do n o t inform him t h a t the f a c t of h i s r e f u s a l t o submit t o a breathalyzer test w i l l be used a g a i n s t him a t t r i a l . With regard t o r e l a t o r ' s f i r s t i s s u e , w e a r e guided by 1972 Mont. Const., A r t . VII, S2. That c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provi- s i o n expressly g r a n t s t h i s Court t h e power t o exercise supervisory j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l other c o u r t s i n t h i s s t a t e . Absent a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provision o r s t a t u t e bestow- i n g upon t h e D i s t r i c t Courts the a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t w r i t s of supervisory control over J u s t i c e of t h e Peace Courts, w e a r e obligated t o i n f e r t h a t D i s t r i c t Courts do n o t have such power. To the e x t e n t t h a t our decisions i n Bailey and Forsythe, supra, lend t o l e r a n t approval t o t h e District Court's exercise of supervisory power, they a r e expressly overruled. Ward has requested t h a t i n t h e event w e do n o t f i n d t h a t the ~ i s t r i c t Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n , w e convert h i s appeal t o a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l so t h a t t h i s Court may superintend t h e D i s t r i c t Court below. W e conclude, a s w e d i d i n S t a t e ex rel. Kober & Kyriss v. D i s t r i c t Court (1966), 147 Mont. 116, 410 P.2d 945, t h a t a w r i t of super- visory control i s n o t t o be used as a means t o circumvent t h e appeal process. Only i n the most extenuating circum- stances w i l l such a w r i t be granted. I n t h i s cause, no such circumstances e x i s t . The request f o r a supervisory w r i t i s denied. The cause i s remanded t o t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace Court f o r pro- ceedings on the m e r i t s . W e concur: P A / 1 Chief J u s t i c e J u s t i c e s