Case Title: STATE v WILLIAMS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-385

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-08-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 80-385 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T OF T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, vs. WILLIAM F. WILLIAMS, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of J e f f e r s o n Honorable Frank B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana C e c i l Woodgate, Deputy County Attorney, Boulder, Montana For Respondent: Small, Hatch & Doubek, Helena, Montana Filed: AUG G - Submitted on b r i e f s : June 1 2 , 1981 Decided: August 6 , 1981 p. &"ic Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The S t a t e of Montana ( S t a t e ) appeals from an order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , J e f f e r s o n County, granting defendant's motion f o r a new t r i a l . Linda T i t t l e t o n and Debra Cunningham reported t h a t t h e i r house i n Basin, Montana, had been broken i n t o during t h e l a t e evening of November 9, 1979. I t e m s reported missing included a s t e r e o tape player, s t e r e o tapes, a small black and white t e l e v i s i o n , $85 i n cash and $18 worth of food stamps. The defendant was subsequently charged with burglary and felony the£ t i n connection with t h i s i n c i d e n t . Defendant was brought t o t r i a l on t h e charges i n August 1980. P r i o r t o t r i a l , t h e D i s t r i c t Court granted defendant's motion i n limine excluding evidence o f : (I-) defendant' s p r i o r criminal record; ( 2 ) defendant's use of o r f a m i l i a r i t y with marijuana; and ( 3 ) defendant's m a r i t a l problems. T r i a l was held on August 27, 28, 1980. The prosecution's main witness was a Jerry Wilk, a f r i e n d of both of t h e victims and the defendant. Wilk had been charged with other t h e f t s i n J e f f e r s o n County and a s a p a r t of a p l e a negotiation on such charges, agreed t o a s s i s t t h e prosecution by t e s t i f y i n g a g a i n s t t h e defendant. Wilk t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was a t t h e defendant's house a f t e r t h e alleged burglary and saw some of t h e s t o l e n goods. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t the defendant t o l d him how t h e break-in of the Tittleton/Cunningham residence had occurred. T i t t l e t o n and Cunningham t e s t i f i e d t h a t they had been f r i e n d s of t h e defendant and t h a t he had v i s i t e d t h e i r house s e v e r a l times. The two women a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t they had been with t h e defendant a t a bar i n Boulder, Montana, on t h e n i g h t of t h e break-in, b u t t h a t t h e defendant had l e f t e a r l y . Additional testimony was given by p o l i c e o f f i c e r s and a l s o by a Suzanne Campbell. M s . Campbell t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e defendant sold her a tape player and tapes which turned o u t t o be i t e m s taken from t h e Tittleton/Cunningham residence. Following t r i a l , t h e jury returned a v e r d i c t f i n d i n g t h e defendant g u i l t y of burglary and felony t h e f t . Sentencing was set f o r September 3, 1980. About t e n minutes before t h e sentencing hearing, t h e defendant gave t h e S t a t e a copy of a motion f o r new t r i a l , supported by a b r i e f . The motion f o r a new t r i a l s t a t e d four grounds. The f i r s t was numerous v i o l a t i o n s by t h e S t a t e of t h e motion i n limine. Secondly, defendant a l l e g e d t h a t Debra Cunningham had perjured h e r s e l f when she f a l s e l y s a i d she had never been a r r e s t e d f o r s h o p l i f t i n g . Third, defendant argued t h a t t h e prosecuting a t t o r n e y had v i o l a t e d h i s a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p when he attempted t o impeach t h e testimony of t h e defendant's wife. The f o u r t h and f i n a l b a s i s f o r a new t r i a l was t h a t t h e S t a t e had v i o l a t e d t h e defendant's f i f t h amendment r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t when t h e prosecuting a t t o r n e y pointed a f i n g e r a t him during t r i a l and i n d i r e c t l y challenged him t o deny the charges a g a i n s t him. Minutes a f t e r t h e S t a t e had received a copy of t h e de- f e n d a n t ' s motion on September 3, 1980, t h e motion w a s argued before the court. The S t a t e objected t h a t it had n o t r e - ceived reasonable n o t i c e i n advance of t h e motion, and it asked f o r a chance t o b r i e f i t s s i d e . The D i s t r i c t Court denied the S t a t e ' s r e q u e s t f o r t i m e t o b r i e f t h e motion. Several hours a f t e r argument on defendant's motion, t h e D i s t r i c t Court granted t h e defendant a new t r i a l . N o reasons were given specifying t h e b a s i s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s decision. The D i s t r i c t Court f i l e contains a minute e n t r y which reads: "On motion of t h e defendant f i l e d herein, and by express agreement, heard t h i s 3rd day of September, 1980 argued by counsel f o r the S t a t e and t h e de- fendant and good cause being shown it i s ordered t h a t t h e Motion of the defendant t o set a s i d e t h e v e r d i c t and g r a n t a new t r i a l i s hereby granted." The S t a t e ' s s i n g l e i s s u e on appeal i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n granting a new t r i a l when t h e county a t t o r n e y had n o t been given advance n o t i c e of t h e motion and an opportunity t o b r i e f t h e question. Defendant contends on appeal t h a t the D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e jury v e r d i c t a s being based on i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence. Section 46-16-702, MCA, e s t a b l i s h e s t h e procedural g u i d e l i n e s f o r granting a defendant a new t r i a l . This provision s t a t e s : " ( 1 ) Following a v e r d i c t o r finding of g u i l t y , t h e c o u r t may g r a n t t h e defendant a new t r i a l i f required i n t h e i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e . " ( 2 ) The motion f o r a new t r i a l must be i n w r i t - i n g and must s p e c i f y t h e grounds t h e r e f o r . I t must be f i l e d by t h e defendant within 30 days following a v e r d i c t o r finding of g u i l t y . R e a - sonable n o t i c e of -- t h e motion must -- be served - on t h e s t a t e . " (3) O n hearing t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l , i f j u s t i f i e d by law and t h e weight of t h e evidence, t h e c o u r t may: " ( a ) deny t h e motion; " (b) g r a n t a new t r i a l ; o r " ( c ) modify o r change the v e r d i c t o r finding by finding t h e defendant g u i l t y of a l e s s e r included offense or finding t h e defendant n o t g u i l t y . " (Emphasis added. ) Here t h e S t a t e had no e f f e c t i v e n o t i c e of defendant's motion and no opportunity f o r reply. The D i s t r i c t Court granted t h e motion on t h e same day t h a t t h e S t a t e was served. Such a c t i o n c l e a r l y denied the S t a t e "reasonable n o t i c e " a s required by s e c t i o n 46-16-702, MCA. Additionally, t h i s Court i s concerned with t h e manner i n which t h e D i s t r i c t Court granted t h e defendant's motion. I n n e i t h e r the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s order granting t h e motion, nor i n t h e minute e n t r y of t h e c o u r t f i l e , a r e grounds f o r granting the motion s p e c i f i e d . A s previously noted, t h e governing s t a t u t e regarding motions f o r new t r i a l , s e c t i o n 46-16-702, MCA, r e q u i r e s only t h a t the moving p a r t y s p e c i f i - c a l l y s t a t e its grounds f o r such motion. This s t a t u t e does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court expressly s t a t e i t s reasons f o r taking whatever a c t i o n it deems appropriate regarding such motions. However, i n c i v i l proceedings, t h e t r i a l c o u r t must, when granting a motion f o r a new t r i a l , ". . . s p e c i f y t h e grounds t h e r e f o r with s u f f i c i e n t p a r t i c u l a r i t y a s t o a p p r i s e t h e p a r t i e s and t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t of t h e r a t i o n a l e under- l y i n g the r u l i n g . . ." Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P. The purposes behind t h i s r u l e a r e t o narrow t h e i s s u e s on appeal and t o obviate the need t o read an e n t i r e record t o determine t h e D i s t r i c t Court's r a t i o n a l e f o r i s s u i n g i t s decision. Such considerations a r e equally necessary regarding appeals from criminal cases. Therefore, t h i s Court holds t h a t t h e mandates of Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P., a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o motions f o r new t r i a l made pursuant t o s e c t i o n 46-16-702, MCA. erea after, t h e D i s t r i c t Court must s e t f o r t h i t s reasons i n deciding such motions. The defendant here contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court should have granted a judgment of a c q u i t t a l notwithstanding t h e jury v e r d i c t because of i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence. This matter w i l l have t o be presented t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court a f t e r giving reasonable n o t i c e t o t h e S t a t e . The order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s reversed and t h i s case i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings i n accordance with t h i s decision. W e concur: 6 ' J u s t i c e s /