Case Title: STATE v FETTERS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1973-05-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12420 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1973 STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -VS - . , 1 ,c t ; : , i [ , GLEN- FETTERS and STEVE LEAN, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable John B, McClernan, Judge presidi.ng , Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Lawrence Stimatz, County Attorney, Butte, Montana. Brian Tierney argued, Butte, Montana. For Respondents: Connors and Brolin, Anaconda, Nantana . Joseph C. Connors argued, Anaconda, Montana. William Brolin argued, Anaconda, Montana. Submitted: April 25, 1973 : MAY 1 5 1973 MAY 1 5 1973 Filed : M r , J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal by the State of Montana from an order of the d i s t r i c t court of Silver B o w County granting defendants' motion t o suppress evidence i n a criminal case. Two defendants, Steve Lean and Allen Fetters, were cha.rged i n t h a t court by Information i n four counts: interference with railroad property; interference with r a i l r o a d property caustng death; murder; and malicious destruction of property. The charges were based upon the a f f i d a v i t of the county attorney of Silver BOW County which s t a t e d in part: " O n Yarch 2 8 , 1972, a t approximately 8 : 3 0 o'clock P,M,, a runaway switch engine from t h e Butte Con- c e n t r a t o r , property of The Anaconda Company, smashed i n t o the r e a r of a Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Railway ore t r a i n i n the Rocker Yards, approximately s i x miles west af the Concentrator which is located i n East Butte. Two Eutte, Anaconda & Pacific employees, namely, Jack Weist and Vern Johnson were on t h e ore t r a i n a t t h a t time. M r , Weist was k i l l e d i n s t a n t l y by the crash and M r . Johnson suffered a broken leg when being thrown from the caboose which was shattered by the c o l l i s i o n . " ~ t approximately 8 : 0 0 P,M. on March 28, 1972, one J i m Hodges, engineer on the switch engine, and the three crewmen s e t the brakes, pulled the power and reverse lever was disengaged and laj-d upon the top of the control box i n the Concentrator Yard, The group went t o e a t t h e i r lunch and the f a c t s indicate the engine was coupled t o three acid c a r s with f u l l a i r connection t o the cars, A t approximately 8:05 P.M., the engine was seen leaving the Concentrator Yard and two men were spotted i n the engine by one James Lawrence, an employee of the Concentrator, I r Two employees were dispatched from the Concentrator area t o look f o r any signs of the engine t h a t had j u s t l e f t and a t approximately 8:10 P.M. a c a r driven by Defendant Alan F e t t e r s and registered t o the Defendant Alan F e t t e r s was seen parked on the south side of the Concentrator on a side road. The c a r was positively identified a s ~ e t t e r s ' from a check with r e g i s t r a t i o n through the City of Butte Police Department, The f a c t s further substantiate t h a t Steve Lean, the Co- Defendant herein, reported off work and F e t t e r s did not show up f o r work on the afternoon s h i f t , Both Defendants were familiar with and had driven the engine i n question on numerous occasions a s t h e i r employment required. Both Defendants were drinking i n Butte taverns f o r ap- proximately ten t o twelve hours p r i o r t o the engine leaving the yard, The f a c t s further show t h a t a t ap- proximately 8 : 4 0 o r 8 ~ 4 5 , o r thereabouts, the Cadillac c a r registered t o F e t t e r s was not a t the same place when the employees returned from t h e i r search f o r the engine, Witnesses w i l l further substantiate t h a t both Defendants came i n t o t h e Race Track Bar and t ordered dri.nk.s and a l s o requested salve' f o r F e t t e r s who had apparently burned h i s body. "The following day o r so, Defendant Fetters was ob- served i n the shower a t the Concentrator with multi.ple bruises over h i s body, "The S h e r i f f ' s Office was directed t o a r r e s t the Defendants i n t h e e a r l y morning hours of March 29, 1972, by Lawrence G. Stimatz, County Attorney f o r Silver B o w County, without warrant. Shoes and clothing were taken from the Defendants upon t h e i r a r r e s t and statements were taken from the Defendants a t t h a t time, a f t e r being advised of t h e i r r i g h t s . The shoes bore descriptive heel marks and these were matched by photo- graph and personal observation by the s h e r i f f ' s Deputies and by Security Officers f o r The Anaconda Company, The tracks were located across the Continental Drive roadway from where the F e t t e r s c a r was located and went up the bank i n t o the Concentrator and were tracked i n t o the Concentrator area. Sawdust samples taken from t h e Con- centrator switch engine were matched with those found on the clothing of Defendant Fetters. 1 r After leave t o f i l e the Information was granted, defendants appeared a t arraignment on August 14, 1972, and plead not guilty. The same day they f i l e d a j o i n t motion t o dismiss and motion t o suppress evidence. That motion was asserted on grounds of whether t h e o f f i c e r s had probable cause t o a r r e s t defendants and whether the e x i s t i n g circumstances required an immediate arrest, Judge James D. Freebourn ordered t h e motions s e t f o r hearing on September 8, 1972. Prior t o t h a t date, on August 24, a notice of intention t o r e l y upon the defense of a l i b i was f i l e d , O n September 8, 1972, the d i s t r i c t court Register of Actions shows : "This day, defendants motion t o dismiss and suppress evidence came on regularly f o r hearing. Defendants represented by counsel a s before, S t a t e of Montana a l s o represented by counsel a s before. Thereupon, arguments on the part of both p a r t i e s having been heard and concluded t h e court grants defendants ten days t o prepare a b r i e f and S t a t e of Montana ten days t o reply and defendant f i v e days t o reply thereafter, Thereupon, upon request of de- fendants counsel the case by the court temporarily postponed, I I O n the same day, the Register shows "Exhibits f i l e d , " Thereafter, on October 20, 1972, Judge John B. McCleman made an order granting the motion t o suppress a l l of the physical evi- dence and statements obtained from and a f t e r the a r r e s t s . Notice of appeal by the State was f i l e d t h a t same day, on October 20, 1972. Almost four months l a t e r , on February 13, 1973, defendants, respondents on appeal, f i l e d a motion under section 95-2408(e), R,C,M, 1947, t o enlarge the record on appeal. The a f f i d a v i t of col~nsel supporting the motion r e c i t e d t h a t since the S t a t e ' s appeal complained of the order suppressing the evidence contending t h a t there was a lack of a hearing or an improper hearing, the S t a t e ' s contentions were inaccurate and improper a s t o what took place a t t h e hearing. The s t a t e r s attorney was not given notice of the motion. The following day, on February 14, 1973, Judge McClernan without a hearing made an "ORDER ENLARGING RECORD Ol? APPEAL"; which stated: "STATEI~NT O F F A C T Pursuant t o t h e above-named De- fendants' Motion t o Suppress Evidence f i l e d herein, t h i s Court fixed the 8th day of September, 1972, a s the time f o r hearing t h i s Motion. A s a r e s u l t , t h i s Court announced a t t h e time and place s e t , t h a t it was ready t o proceed t o hear the Defendants' Motion, apprising both the Defendants and the P l a i n t i f f t h a t the Court Reporter was unavailable a t t h a t time, The necessity of a reporter was disposed of with the common consent of the Parties and both Parties thereupon announced t h e i r readiness t o proceed. The Defendants being t h e MovantS, proceeded t o o f f e r i n evidence what purported t o be a t r a n s c r i p t with attachments of the preliminary hearing i n t h i s matter. The S t a t e of Montana being present i n the person and represented by J, Brian Tierney, Deputy County Attorney, Silver ROTJ County, offered no objection t o the ~ e f e n d a n t s ' o f f e r of evidence and, i n f a c t , con- curred i n the offer. This Court thereupon received t h e t r a n s c r i p t s , with attachments, consisting of F.B.1, re- ports, a statement by James Hodges, and a map drawn by George Evans. The Defendants thereupon rested i n t h e i r presentation s f evidence. This Court then gave the opportunity t o the S t a t e of Montana t o present whatever evidence, e i t h e r o r a l o r documentary, it desired, However, the S t a t e signified i t s intention t o r e l y solely upon the evidence offered by the Defendants and the matter was deemed submitted, subject only t o o r a l arguments and b r i e f s from the Parties. The Court, a f t e r considering the t r a n s c r i p t with attachments a s submitted by the Defendants, and argu- ments and b r i e f s of the Parties, did thereupon on the 20th day of October, 1972, enter i t s Order finding f o r the De- fendants and suppressing evj.dence as prayed for. It i s from t h i s Order t h a t the State appeals, alleging t h a t an impro e r hearing was held upon which t o base an Order t o Suppress. E W e note t h a t no record was made, no reporter was present. W e note too, t h a t the d i s t r i c t judge's "Statement of Fact" from ~xeli~ory J£ the four aonth p r i o r event indicates the State declined t o o f f e r evidence other than the record of the preliminary hearing and c e r t a i n exhibits. I n b r i e f s and on o r a l argument, counsel f o r the State i n s i s t s t h a t no hearing was held nor was the S t a t e a l - It~wed t o introduce evidence. Here we have a c l a s s i c case where there i s no record of what other transpired /than the previously quoted Register of Acti.onsf minute +?ntry which on i t s face indicates t h a t only o r a l arguments were aade and exhibits f i l e d . l I O n appeal the State argues a s i t s sole issue t h a t no hearing" ,2s contemplated by section 95-1806, R.C.M. 1947, was i n f a c t held arid the S t a t e i s e n t i t l e d t o a proper hearing so t h a t a record 3 2 the proceedings can be made. W e agree. While we do not reach the merits of the reasonableness of :he l r r e s t and search, it i s apparent from a reading of the charges ndde, the a f f i d a v i t i n support of those charges, and the record .IF t h e preliminary hearing i n j u s t i c e court, t h a t j u s t i c e demands s proper legal hearing be had. Section 95-1806, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "Motion t o suppress evidence illegal]-y seized. (a) PI defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may nove the court t o suppress a s evidence anything so obtained, I I (h) The motion s h a l l be made before t r i a l unless f c r gaud cause sho~m the court s h a l l otherwise d i r e c t , "(c) The defendant shall give a t l e a s t ten (10) days' > a t i c e of such motion t o the attorney prosecuting o r such ~ t h e r time a s the court may d i r e c t . The defendant s h a l l :erve a copy of the notice and motion upon the attorney ~rosecuting. "(d) The motion s h a l l be i n writing and s t a t e f a c t s showing wherein the search and sef-zure were unlawful. " ( e ) I f the allegations o f the motion s t a t e f a c t s 9 ~ h i c h i f t r u e show t h a t the search and seizure were un- lawful the court s h a l l conduct a hearing i n t o the merits )f the motion, "(f) The burden of proving t h a t the search and seizure Nere unlawful. shall be on the defcndant. f l (g) I f the motion i s granted the evidence s h a l l not 5tl. ;iJmissible agatnst the mo~rant a t any t r i a l of the case. 1 I That- seciriorz L:orrtenpTa tcs a j u d i c i a l hezring in a court of record where a record i s made. Respondents argue t h a t section 95-1806, R.C,M, 1947, does not require a record be made of the hearing contemplated, While the section does not say i n so many ~ ~ o r d s that a record be made, a f t e r all, it i s a court of record, The only record made was t h a t of t h e c l e r k of court i n the hereto- Core quoted minute entry, I n State ex r e l , Harrison v , D i s t r i c t Court, 135 Mont. 365, 370, 340 P.2d 544, t h i s Court i n discussing a nunc pro tunc order cor- recting a previ-ous order said: 11 But, nevertheless, a c e r t a i n formality of pro- ceedings i s required by our laws. 11 The Court, i n order t h a t j u s t i c e be done t o correct a f a u l t y pro- ceeding, then went on t o expunge from the record what it termed: 1f;k J; t h e so-called findings of f a c t and conclu- sions of law * 9 : J:." Since Harrison i n 1959, the new Criminal Procedure Act has becdme effective. Section 95-2108, R.C.M. 1947, provides: I I The record on appeal. (a) Composition of the Record Qn Appeal. The original papers and exhibits f i l e d i n !:he d i s t r i c t court, the t r a n s c r i p t of proceedings, i f any, and a c e r t i f i e d copy of the docket e n t r i e s prepared iy the c l e r k of the d i s t r i c t court s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e the record on appeal i n a l l cases. '(c) Statement of the Evidence or Proceedings \&en N o Report was Made o r laen the Transcript i s Unavailable, ':f no report of the evidence o r proceedings a t a hearing or t r i a l was made, o r i f a t r a n s c r i p t i s unavailable, the appellant may, within ten (10) days from the heawingortwial or such time extended a s the d i s t r i c t court may f o r goon cause shorn permit, prepare a statement of the evidence o r proceedings from the best available means, including h i s recollection. The statement s h a l l be served on the respondent, who may serve objections o r propose amendments thereto withir, ten (1.0) days a f t e r service. Thereupon, the statement and any ob jectians o r proposed amendments s h a l l be submitted f o r settlement and approval t o the d i s t r i c t jtidge who handled the proceedings, and a s s e t t l e d and approved s h a l l be included by the c l e r k of the d i s t r i c t court i n the record on appeal, A judge may s e t t l e and ap- ?rove such records a f t e r he ceases t o be a judge. If such judge before the statement i s s e t t l e d and approved d i e s , i s renoved from o f f i c e , becomes disqualified, i s absent from che s t a t e , o r refuses t o s e t t l e and approve the statement, i t s h a l l be s e t t l e d and approved i.n such manner a s the supreme court may d i r e c t . "(d) Agreed Statement a s the Record on Appeal. I n l i e u of the record on appeal a s defined i n subsection (a) of t h i s section, t h e p a r t i e s may prepare and sign a s t a t e - ment of the case showing how the issues presented by the appeal arose and were decided i n the d i s t r i c t court and s e t t i n g f o r t h only so many of the f a c t s averred and proved o r sought t o be proved a s a r e e s s e n t i a l t o a decision of the issue presented. I f the statement conforms t o the t r u t h , it, together with such additions a s the court may consider necessary f u l l y t o present t h e issues raised by the appeal, s h a l l be approved by the d i s t r i c t court and s h a l l then be c e r t i f i e d t o the supreme court a s the record on appeal and transmitted thereto by the c l e r k of the d i s t r i c t court within the time provided by section 95-2409. Copies of the agreed statement may be f i l e d a s the appendix required by section 95-2418. "(e) Correction o r Modification of the Record. I f any difference a r i s e s a s t o whether the record t r u l y dis- closes what occurred i n the d i s t r i c t court, the difference s h a l l be submitted t o and s e t t l e d by t h a t court and the record made t o conform t o the truth. I f anything material t o e i t h e r party i s omitted from the record by e r r o r or accident o r is misstated therein, the p a r t i e s by stipula- t i o n , o r the d i s t r i c t court, e i t h e r before or a f t e r the record i s transmitted t o the supreme court, on proper suggestion o r of i t s otm i n i t i a t i v e , may d i r e c t t h a t the omission or misstatement be corrected, and i f necessary t h a t a supplemental record be c e r t i f i e d and transmitted. A l l other questions a s t o the form and content of the record s h a l l be presented t o t h e supreme court." In the instant case, respondents contend t h a t since no record was made of the proceedings a t the hearing, and since appellant intended t o make an issue of the f a c t s with regard t o t h a t hearing, appellant should have proceeded under subsection (c) o r (d) of section 95-2408. Respondents further s t a t e they did not know appellant contended t h a t no "hearingt1 a s such was had u n t i l the s t a t e ' s b r i e f was received. A t t h a t time respondents proceeded under subsection (e) , see tion 95-2408, claiming t h a t appellant mis- s t a t e d the record. However, under subsection (a), section 95-2408, appellant had before it the docket e n t r i e s of the clerk., heretofore quoted, Appellant had not misstated t h a t record. The motion t o enlarge the record on appeal was made on February 13, The judge, without notice or hearing, msde h i s order the f o l - lowing day, Thus we have a dispute which could and would have been resolved by a record. The t r i a l court did not make any attempt t o harmonize h i s recollection with the c l e r k of c o u r t ' s records nor with counsel f o r the State. That misunderstanding could occur i s obvious. One paramount f a c t stands out, In view of the serious charges and the evidence i n t h e preliminary hearing, a fu1.l hearing with a record made is required i n the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e , What we s a i d i n Harrison i s s t i l l pertinent: "* + C * nevertheless, a c e r t a i n formality of pro- ceedings is required by our laws, I f Accordingly, we s e t aside the order of February 14, 1973; vacate the order suppressing the evidence entered on October 20, 1972; and, remand the proceedings t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r a j u d i c i a l hearing on the motions heretofore discussed. IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 , - I < , (74.-ji,*L , , , , - , -4 -, , , , - - " , - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - ~ s s o c i a k e J u s t i c e / c h i e f J u s t i c e