Case Title: STATE EX REL FORSYTHE v COATE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-07-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13268 TN T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 STATE ex rel., JOHN S. FORSYTHE, Relator, DISTRICT JUDGE ALFRED B. COATE, Judge of t h e Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County of Rosebud; MR. GENE HUNTLEY, Attorney a t Law; and JOHN DOE, F O R E M A N of the Rosebud County Grand Jury, ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel of Record : For Relator: Eugene A. Lalonde argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana ~ o h n d . Forsythe For Respondents : Hon. Alfred B. Coate, D i s t r i c t Judge, argued, Forsyth, Montana Gene Huntley argued, Baker, Montana Submitted : February 24, 1976 Decided : MAP 12 1976 PER CURIAM: This is an original application by the Rosebud County attorney for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate relief ( 1 ) to disqualify the district judge from sitting upon a grand jury investigation, and ( 2 ) to have a special prosecutor appointed from outside the sixteenth judicial district to assist the grand jury. Relator is John S. Forsythe, the county attorney of Rosebud County, Montana. Respondents are District Judge Alfred B. Coate, one of the district judges of the sixteenth judicial district; Gene Huntley, the special prosecutor, an attorney re- siding within the sixteenth judicial district in Fallon County, Montana; and Charles Eustice, foreman of the Rosebud County grand jury. On January 6, 1976, Judge Coate called and empaneled a grand jury in Rosebud County to examine the county's criminal justice system. Gene Huntley was named as special prosecutor be- cause the county attorney's office was one of the subjects of investigation. According to the special prosecutor's affidavit, he has proceeded with an investigation of several matters which he intends to present to the grand jury if permitted to do so, all of which involve the county attorney. It appears from state- ments made upon oral argument that no testimony or evidence has been taken by the grand jury to da te. On February 13, 1976, the instant proceeding was filed on behalf of the county attorney and an ex parte presentation made. The gist of the county attorney's application is that ( 1 ) Judge Coate acted in excess of his lawful authority in sitting upon the grand jury's investigation, and ( 2 ) the grand jury and Judge Coate acted in excess of their lawful authority in appointing Gene Huntley to serve as special prosecutor before the grand jury. This Court ordered an adversary hearing t o determine whether we would accept jurisdiction. W e ordered respondents t o answer, plead, and f i l e l e g a l memoranda. The adversary hearing was held on February 23, 1976. A t the o u t s e t , we declined jurisdiction of the f i r s t issue. W e accepted jurisdiction of the second i s s u e , v i z , the l e g a l i t y of the appointment of Gene Huntley a s special prosecutor. Relator contends the d i s t r i c t judge has no power and authority t o appoint a special prosecutor. H e argues t h a t here the d i s t r i c t judge substantially participated i n t h e selection of the special prosecutor and accordingly exceeded h i s lawful authority. H e seeks by w r i t of prohibition o r other appropriate r e l i e f t o have the grand jury request the attorney general t o appoint a special prosecutor from outside the sixteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t . The foundation of r e l a t o r ' s position i s h i s contention t h a t the s t a t u t o r y provisions r e l a t i n g t o t h e appointment of a special prosecutor a r e mandatory and exclusive. H e r e f e r s t h e Court t o sections 95-1405(e) and 95-'1406(c), R.C.M. 1947. Section 95-1405 r e l a t e s t o the powers and d u t i e s of a grand jury and provides i n pertinent p a r t : "(e) I f , i n the judgment of the grand jury, the services of an expert a r e necessary, the grand jury may employ one o r more a t an agreed compensation, t o be f i r s t approved by the court. I f , i n t h e judgment of t h e grand jury, t h e services of a s s i s t a n t s t o such expert a r e required, the grand jury may employ such a s s i s t a n t s , a t a compensation t o be agreed upon and approved by the court. I I Section 95-1406 r e l a t e s t o when and from whom the grand jury may ask advice and who may be present during i t s sessions. This s t a t u t e provides i n pertinent part: "(c) Where requested t o do so by the grand jury of any county, the attorney general or county attorney may employ special counsel and investigators, whose duty it s h a l l be t o investigate and present the evidence i n such investigation t o such grand jury. I I Section 95-1405(e) i s permissive and not mandatory. I l 1 1 I t s language i s may", not must" o r "shall". The comment of the Criminal Law Commission t o t h i s s t a t u t e supports t h i s construction: "The provision is substantially the same a s existing law, however it i s permissive r a t h e r than mandatory and it provides f o r a s s i s t a n t s and experts t o a i d t h e grand jury. " Being permissive, it c a n h a d l y b e construed a s the exclusive method of appointing a special prosecutor, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of the provisions of section 95-1406(c) r e l a t i n g t o the appoint- ment of a special prosecutor by the attorney general. The same can be said of section 95-1406(c). The language used i s permissive -- 11 the attorney general o r county attorney employ special counsel and investigators". (Emphasis added), This language i s neither mandatory nor exclusive. A request by the grand jury t o the attorney general o r county attorney i s a condition precedent t o the appointment of a special prosecutor by e i t h e r . This brings us t o the basic question -- May the d i s t r i c t judge appoint the special prosecutor? Admittedly no express power i s granted the d i s t r i c t judge t o appoint a special prosecutor. Is such power necessarily implied from the express power granted? The d i s t r i c t judge i s expressly granted these powers r e l a t i n g t o grand j u r i e s , among others, by s t a t u t e : (1) The discretionary power t o summon a grand jury when he considers it necessary, section 95-1401. (2) Appointment of a grand jury foreman, section 95-1403. (3) Instructing and charging t h e grand jury, sections 95-1404; 95-1406(d). (4) Approval of grand jury expenses and claims, section 95-1405 (e) , ( f ) . (5) Advising t h e grand jury when requested, section 95-1406(a). ( 6 ) Subpoena of witnesses, section 95-1407. (7) Hearing indictments of the grand jury, section 95-1410 (b) (1) and acting on them, section 95-1410. The intent of the l e g i s l a t u r e t o place the d i s t r i c t judge i n overall charge of grand jury proceedings i s apparent from the foregoing grant of powers. In the exercise of those express powers, t h e d i s t r i c t judge must have the implied power t o appoint a qualified special prosecutor where, a s here, the county attorney i s disqualified from acting a s prosecutor. Otherwise grand jury proceedings i n such case could be brought t o a h a l t and the e n t i r e grand jury investigation frustrated. Nothing i n t h i s case suggests i n any way an abuse of discretion by the d i s t r i c t judge. The grand jury here made the appointment whether recommended by t h e d i s t r i c t judge o r not. Whether t h e county attorney approves of t h i s choice i s e n t i r e l y beside t h e point because under the circumstances here he has no power of appointment. Accordingly, the p e t i t i o n of the county attorney i s dismissed.