Case Title: STATE EX REL ADAMS v DIST COURT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13254 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1976 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A on t h e r e l a t i o n of FRANK A D A M S , Relator, T H E DISTRICT C O U R T O F THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , i n and f o r t h e County of Powell, and t h e HON. ROBERT J. BOYD, Judge thereof, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record : For Relator: P h i l i p W. Strope argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: James J. Masar, County Attorney, Deer Lodge, Montana Albert W. Meloling, Special Deputy County Attorney, argued, Helena, Montana Submitted : January 23, 1976 4 ('-1' Decided: CFB 3 k idrb P E R CURIAM: This i s an application by a newspaper reporter f o r a w r i t of supervisory control t o quash a subpoena duces tecum served upon him i n a pending criminal case. Relator i s Frank Adams, a reporter f o r the Tribune, a d a i l y newspaper published i n Great F a l l s , Montana. O n October 21, 1975, he allegedly received a l e t t e r from L. R. Bretz, excerpts from which were quoted and a t t r i b u t e d t o Bretz i n a news a r t i c l e published i n the Tribune t h e following day. The news a r t i c l e d e a l t with charges by Bretz t h a t i n a number of instances h i s r i g h t s had been violated in t h e Missoula county j a i l where he had been trans- ferred a f t e r allegedly conspiring with others i n the s t a t e prison t o have Attorney General Robert Woodahl k i l l e d . According t o the news a r t i c l e , Bretz charged (1) denial of adequate access t o law books i n working on h i s defense, (2) denial of h i s r i g h t t o corres- pond with and be interviewed by representatives of t h e news media, (3) limitations on v i s i t a t i o n by h i s wife and the conduct of business a f f a i r s with h i s former personal secretary, (4) a search of h i s c e l l by t h e s h e r i f f ' s force f o r h i s personal legal f i l e s containing statements he had taken from various prisoners concerning a key prosecution witness, (5) reading and photostating h i s mail, ( 6 ) h i s t r a n s f e r t o the Missoula County j a i l without due process of law, (7) denial of medical care, (8) unsanitary j a i l f a c i l i t i e s , (9) in- s u f f i c i e n t food and exercise, and (10) taking prisoners t o court i n j a i l clothing consisting of a white coverall and rubber shower shoes. On October 23, 1975, the s t a t e f i l e d an amended Information against Bretz and Merrel J. Cline i n the d i s t r i c t court of Powell County charging them with a s e r i e s of crimes: (1) Conspiracy t o commit deliberate homicide. (2) Solicitation t o commit deliberate homicide. (3) Perjury. (4) Tampering with witnesses. (5) Fabricating physical evidence. O n November 13, 1975, the s t a t e served a subpoena duces tecum on r e l a t o r Adams commanding him t o produce the o r i g i n a l l e t t e r allegedly received by him from Bretz o r show cause f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o do so. Relator Adams appeared by motion t o quash the subpoena duces tecum. Following hearing the d i s t r i c t court of Powell County, the Hon. Robert J. Boyd, d i s t r i c t judge, entered an order denying Adams' motion t o quash together with a memorandum opinion. The g i s t of the memorandum opinion was t h a t the Bretz l e t t e r was not protected by the s t a t u t o r y newsman's privilege contained i n sections 93-601-1, 93- 601-2 and 93-701-4(8), R.C.M. 1947, because neither the w r i t e r nor the newsman intended t o protect the source of the information nor maintain i n confidence the contents thereof; the newsman waived the privilege i n any event by publication of portions of the l e t t e r and disclosure of the i d e n t i t y of the w r i t e r ; and t h a t neither the F i r s t Amendment t o the United States Constitution nor Article 11, Section 7, 1972 Montana Constitution was applicable t o the case. Relator Adams contends t h a t the d i s t r i c t court abused i t s discretion i n denying h i s motion t o quash the subpoena duces tecum. He r a i s e s three substantive issues underlying t h i s determination: (1) Are t h e contents of t h e l e t t e r material, relevant and necessary t o the t r i a l of the criminal case against Bretz and Cline? (2) Is the l e t t e r a privileged communication under the F i r s t Amendment t o the United States Constitution; A r t i c l e 11, Section 7, 1972 Nontana Constitution, o r the s t a t u t o r y newsman's privilege? (3) Did the reporter waive the privilege and i f so, t o what extent? W e a r e unable t o determine the merits of these issues on the record before us. N o court i s a b l e t o determine the relevancy, materiality, necessity o r a p p l i c a b i l i t y $of the s t a t u t e s o r consti- t u t i o n a l provisions of an item of evidence unless t h a t item i s f i r s t presented t o the court f o r examination. The applicable r u l e of law has been s t a t e d i n t h i s language by Professor Wigmore i n h i s t r e a t i s e on evidence, 8 Wigmore, Evidence 5 2200, pp. 127-129 (McNaughton rev. viouslv n u t for t h l f I $< - v . -1- . , it is abl e witness t o withhold t h e documents upon h i s mere a s s e r t i o n t h a t they a r e not relevant (92210 i n f r a ) o r t h a t they a r e privileged. It is h i s duty t o bring what t h e court requires. The court can then t o i t s own s a t i s f a c t i o n determine by inspection whet' her t h e documents ~ r o d u c e d a r e i r r e l e v a n t o r ~ r i v i l e ~ e ..----, - - - - . - . -. - - - - - - - - - - This does not deprive t h e witness unduly of any r i g h t s of privacy, s i n c e the c o u r t ' s determinatio; i s made by i t s own inspection, without submitting t h e documents t o t h e opponent's view." (Emphasis added). 'See a l s o : 81 Am J u r 2d Witnesses, 920; Ex P a r t e Monroe County Bank, 254 Ala. 515, 49 S.2d 161, 23 ALR2d 856. I n t h i s case t h e r e l a t o r has not produced t h e Bretz l e t t e r f o r inspection by the d i s t r i c t court i n order t o enable it t o properly r u l e on t h e i s s u e s he now raises. The application f o r a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l i s denied without prejudice. Relator i s d i r e c t e d t o d e l i v e r the o r i g i n a l Bretz l e t t e r t o t h e d i s t r i c t court of Powell County f o r inspection and determination of relevancy and p r i v i l e g e a s a condition precedent t o any f u r t h e r application f o r extraordinary r e l i e f from t h i s Court. ............................. M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly did n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s case.