Case Title: State Ex Rel. Hart v. District Court

Citation: 485 P.2d 698

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1971-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
485 P.2d 698 (1971) STATE of Montana ex rel. Neil H. HART, Relator, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF the THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT of the State of Montana, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF YELLOWSTONE, and the Honorable Robert H. Wilson, as Judge thereof, Respondents. No. 12068. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted May 12, 1971. Decided May 20, 1971. *699 Arnold A. Berger, argued, Billings, for relator. G. Todd Baugh, argued, Billings, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Original proceeding. Relator Neil H. Hart petitions this Court for an appropriate writ to permit him to make a showing in the respondent district court that he is not and was not a fugitive from Wyoming justice. From the record it appears that on March 10, 1971, relator was arrested at Billings, Montana, upon a warrant issued by the Governor of this state upon request from the Governor of Wyoming, the extradition papers asserting that relator stands charged with the crime of grand larceny, committed in the state of Wyoming, that he had fled from Wyoming and was a fugitive from the justice thereof. On March 10, 1971, relator and his counsel appeared before the district court at Billings and requested an extension of time for hearing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and this was granted. Relator then petitioned for such writ of habeas corpus and therein contended that the Governor of this state had not complied with the provisions of section 94-501-4, R.C.M. 1947, prior to the issuance of the warrant in that no hearing was held; that by reason thereof the arrest of petitioner was and is unlawful and illegal. The writ of habeas corpus was issued and the hearing thereon set for April 22, 1971. Return thereto was filed contending that the requisition papers were in conformity with the applicable statutes; that the Governor's warrant was properly issued; that petitioner's arrest was and is lawful. Among the supporting papers annexed to the requisition in the extradition papers is the affidavit of the complaining witness setting forth the contended facts as to the crime charged against relator in Wyoming. It is there averred that at approximately 12:05 p.m. on February 11, 1971, two witnesses observed a man take at least two fur coats and run from a store in Sheridan, Wyoming; that the man was identified by them as Neil H. Hart; that the coats were of the value of $2,325.00; that said offense constitutes a felony, grand larceny, under the laws of Wyoming. At the habeas corpus hearing relator was sworn and testified that at 9:00 a.m. on February 11, 1971, he was at the city hall in Billings, Montana, which is across the street from the courthouse, paying a traffic ticket that he had received. The deputy county attorney objected to this line of questioning and the objection was sustained by the court. Relator then made an offer of proof to show by the relator Hart that at 9:00 a.m. he was in the police court at Billings, Montana, and while in such court received a fine for a traffic offense and paid such fine in the amount of $18.00. Verification of this would be made by a clerk of the police court. Relator then would further testify that from the police court he got into his pickup, a green Chevrolet, and went to the home of one Gus Aipperspach and borrowed $20 from said Aipperspach at the approximate hour of 10:00 a.m., which will be verified by Aipperspach as to the time and also that said witness is acquainted with relator's pickup and recognized it in front of the house; that Hart then got in his pickup and left. Hart will then testify that he went a distance of approximately 320 miles to Browning, Montana, and that in the same pickup he went to a ranch where he met a rancher and his wife and they executed *700 at the approximate hour of 3:00 p.m. a contract for the purchase and sale of some cattle. That thereafter and at the approximate hour of 4:00 p.m. he met with Rowland Harper, who is the government brand inspector for the Blackfoot Tribe, with reference to the inspection of the cattle to be sold. Further, that by the testimony of the rancher, his wife, and the brand inspector Hart will prove he was in Browning, Montana, between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. Following argument to the court, the court observed that it must follow the statute, section 94-501-20, R.C.M. 1947, which reads: The court, on this authority, denied the offer of proof. Upon this application to this Court for an appropriate writ the county attorney's office of Yellowstone County appears by counsel and such counsel and counsel for the relator have stipulated that the matter be heard and decided by this Court without requiring the issuance of an order to show cause, and both counsel were heard in oral argument and the matter submitted. Relator here contends that this quotation from 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 39, p. 554, states the general rule: This is the general rule in Montana. We stated in State v. Booth, 134 Mont. 235, 328 P.2d 1104, that: Apparently the emphasis given to the last sentence of the quote, though applicable to the fact situation appearing in Booth, has caused confusion and results in overlooking the exception "* * * assuming that such proof does not negative the presence of the prisoner within the demanding state" which is clearly applicable to the fact situation in this case. *701 There is a wealth of authority for this position throughout the federal and state courts of this country and while we do not wish to unduly extend this opinion we will clarify the matter further by reference to some of these appropriate decisions. In Smith v. State of Idaho, 373 F.2d 149, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated: Colorado has the same ruling, stating: Delaware expresses the same view in Dickerson v. State, Del.Super., (1970), 267 A.2d 881: *702 Minnesota also follows the general rule in State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31, 142 N.W.2d 563, stating: Most of the states supporting this rule require proof beyond a reasonable doubt as expressed by the Maryland court in Solomon v. Warden, 256 Md. 297, 260 A.2d 68: Since the district court erred, as hereinbefore pointed out, let an appropriate writ issue to the respondent district court and judge reversing the denial of the offer of proof and permitting relator to make his showing in the respondent court that he is not and was not a fugitive from Wyoming justice in accordance with the standards we have heretofore set forth. It is so ordered.