Case Title: STATE v DeGEORGE KENNEDY HOLMA

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13562 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiffs and Respondents, ED DeGEORGE, WILLIAM KENNEDY and E. J. HOLMAN, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District, Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judqe presiding. Counsel ofbRecord: For Appellants: Mark P. Sullivan argued, Butte, Plontana For Respondents: John G. Winston argued, County Attorney, Butte, Montana Jack Parker argued, Deputy County Attorney, Butte, P4ontana For Amicus Curiae: Terry Cosgrove argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: May 23, 1977 Decided: .lull 2 3 W" Honorable J o e l G. Roth, s i t t i n g i n place of M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea, delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an appeal from convictions of t h r e e S i l v e r Bow County Commissioners of two counts of o f f i c i a l misconduct, each a misdemeanor, under s e c t i o n 94-7-401 (1) ( a ) and (b) , R.C.M. 1947, which provides : "A public servant commits t h e o f f e n s e of o f f i c i a l misconduct when, i n h i s o f f i c i a l capacity, he commits any of t h e following a c t s : " ( a ) purposely o r n e g l i g e n t l y f a i l s t o perform any mandatory duty as required by law * * * o r " ( b ) knowingly performs an act i n h i s o f f i c i a l capacity which he knows i s forbidden by l a w * * *." A twelve person jury reached unanimous g u i l t y v e r d i c t s i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t , S i l v e r B o w County, on September 29, 1976. Judge James D. Freebourn pronounced sentence on October 4 , 1976, and t h e commis- s i o n e r s f i l e d n o t i c e of appeal on October 7, 1976. One count charges t h a t t h e commissioners purposely o r n e g l i g e n t l y f a i l e d t o perform a mandatory duty of a d v e r t i s i n g a county road c o n t r a c t of over $10,000 f o r bid, as required by s e c t i o n 16-1803 (1) , R.C.M. 1947, which provides: "No c o n t r a c t s h a l l be entered i n t o by a county governing body * * * f o r t h e construction of any * * * road * * * f o r which must be paid a sum i n excess of t e n thousand d o l l a r s ($10,000), without f i r s t publishing a n o t i c e c a l l i n g f o r b i d s f o r furnishing t h e same, which n o t i c e must be published a t l e a s t once a week, f o r t h r e e (3) consecutive weeks before t h e d a t e f i x e d t h e r e i n f o r receiving bids, i n t h e o f f i c i a l newspaper of t h e county, and every such c o n t r a c t s h a l l be l e t t o t h e lowest and b e s t responsible bidder * * *." The o t h e r count charges t h a t t h e commissioners knowingly performed forbidden a c t s by d i v i d i n g a s i n g l e road c o n t r a c t i n t o p a r t s s o as t o circumvent t h e bidding requirements. The p r o h i b i t i o n is contained i n s e c t i o n 16-1803.1, R.C.M. 1947, and provides: "Whenever any l a w of t h i s s t a t e provides a l i m - i t a t i o n upon t h e amount of money t h a t a county can expend upon any public work o r construction p r o j e c t without l e t t i n g such public work o r construc- t i o n p r o j e c t t o c o n t r a c t under competitive bidding procedures, a county s h a l l not circumvent such provision by dividing a public work o r con- s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t o r quantum of work t o be per- formed thereunder which by its n a t u r e o r c h a r a c t e r i s i n t e g r a l t o such public work o r construction p r o j e c t , o r serves t o accomplish one of t h e b a s i c purposes o r functions thereof, i n t o s e v e r a l con- t r a c t s , s e p a r a t e work o r d e r s o r by any similar device. " The s o l e i s s u e on appeal i s whether t h e r e w a s s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u s t a i n t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t s . W e b e l i e v e t h e r e was and a f f i r m t h e v e r d i c t s and judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The f a c t s a s developed a t t r i a l w e r e b r i e f l y as follows: a new elementary public school ( t h e Margaret Leary School), ded- i c a t e d , September 1975, near Butte, w a s serviced by a d i r t county road which was inadequate f o r t h e increased vehicular t r a f f i c occasioned by t h e opening of t h e school. There had been discussions from June u n t i l September 12, 1975, between t h e commissioners and t h e county surveyor r e l a t i n g t o c u t t i n g , graveling, and paving 1800 f e e t of t h e road. When t h e road work was not commenced, t h e commissioners issued a memo dated September 1 2 , 1975, t o t h e county road department t o c u t , g r a v e l and pave t h e road i n question. Again t h e road work was not commenced and t h e commis- s i o n e r s then signed a c o n t r a c t dated October 1, 1975, with a Butte c o n t r a c t o r , Dugdale Construction Co., Inc . , t o grade, g r a v e l and s t r a i g h t e n t h e road f o r an agreed p r i c e of $2,898. Subsequently, on October 3 0 , 1975, another c o n t r a c t w a s signed by t h e same p a r t i e s t o pave t h e road f o r an agreed p r i c e of $9,901. The t o t a l c o n t r a c t p r i c e to grade, g r a v e l , s t r a i g h t e n and pave t h e road was $12,799, l e t on two c o n t r a c t s which were not a d v e r t i s e d f o r bids. Commissioner Kennedy t e s t i f i e d during t r i a l t h a t t h e commissioners on October 1, 1975, d i d not expect any paving t o be done until Spring 1976, thereby justifying dividing the work into two separate contracts each for less than $10,000. The jurors resolved the conflict between the commissioners' memo, dated September 12, 1975, contemplating one undivided job, and Commissioner Kennedy's testimony, justifying two separate con- tracts, against the commissioners, and under proper instructions from the court, found the commissioners had purposely and negli- gently failed to advertise a county road project of over $10,000 for bid, and had knowingly divided a single road contract into two parts so as to circumvent the bidding requirements. The scope of this Court's review is to determine whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts and the court's judgment. Section 95-2404 and 95-2425, R.C.M. 1947. This Court has frequently observed that disputed questions of fact and the credibility of witnesses will not be considered on appeal but that determination of such matters is within the province of the jury. As long as there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, it will not be disturbed on appeal. State v . Bouldin, 153 Mont. 276, 456 P.2d 830; State v. Lagge, 143 Mont. 289, 388 P.2d 792. Where there is sufficient substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilty, it must stand. State v. Feeley, Mont. , 522 P.2d 66, 33 St.Rep. 648. From a review of the record we find that there was suffi- cient substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts of guilty. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. sitting in place of Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea. Chief T u s t i c e n