Case Title: STATE v HOUSER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 80-419 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE 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, V S . JAMES ALBERT HOUSER, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth 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 G a l l a t i n . Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: McKinley T. Anderson, Bozeman, Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : March 3 , 1981 Decided :APH 8 - j:-\~, Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s is an appeal from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , G a l l a t i n County, g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s . On A u g u s t 26, 1 9 8 0 , t h e d e p u t y G a l l a t i n C o u n t y a t t o r n e y f i l e d an i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e o f f e n s e of c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 4 5 - 6 - 1 0 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA. The f a c t s a l l e g e d were t h a t on o r about August 21, 1980, d e f e n d a n t p u r p o s e l y or knowingly i n j u r e d and damaged a 1980 Mercury automobile belonging t o John Unwin by using t h e v e h i c l e he was d r i v i n g , a 1979 C h e v r o l e t , t o s t r i k e and f o r c e Unwin's c a r i n t o a parked AMC Hornet, causing damage t o t h e v e h i c l e s i n e x c e s s of $150. Based upon t h e above f a c t s , on August 22, 1980, t h r e e t r a f f i c c i t a t i o n s were i s s u e d d e f e n d a n t charging him w i t h f a i l i n g t o r e p o r t an a c c i d e n t i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 61-7-108, MCA; f a i l i n g t o s t o p a t an a c c i d e n t i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 61-7-106, MCA; and r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 61-8-301, MCA. On August 26, 1980, d e f e n d a n t appeared i n Bozeman C i t y Court and pleaded g u i l t y t o t h e f i r s t two c h a r g e s and n o t g u i l t y t o t h e charge of r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g . Defendant was f i n e d $50 f o r each g u i l t y p l e a e n t e r e d a n d , s u b s e q u e n t l y , was t r i e d and c o n v i c t e d o f r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g . On September 5 , 1980, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f charge on t h e grounds t h a t (1) t h e information does n o t s t a t e a p u b l i c o f f e n s e ; ( 2 ) t h e D i s t r i c t Court does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e m a t t e r ; and ( 3 ) t h a t t h e S t a t e of Montana is b a r r e d from any f u r t h e r p r o s e c u t i o n by reason of s e c t i o n 46-11-504, MCA. Without s t a t i n g a r e a s o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion. The S t a t e a p p e a l s . The f i r s t two grounds upon which d e f e n d a n t based h i s motion a r e w i t h o u t m e r i t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e q u e s t i o n on appeal is l i m i t e d t o whether t h e S t a t e of Montana is b a r r e d from p r o s e c u t i n g t h e c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f c h a r g e by r e a s o n o f s e c t i o n 46-11-504, MCA. The S t a t e contends s e c t i o n 46-11-504, MCA, d e a l s w i t h conduct c o n s t i t u t i n g an o f f e n s e w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of two or more c o u r t s . S t a t e ex r e l . Rasmussen v. D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont . , 615 P.2d 231, 37 St.Rep. 1498, h e l d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n over an o r d i n a r y misdemeanor connected t o g e t h e r i n its commission w i t h a f e l o n y . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e f e l o n y c h a r g e is w i t h i n t h e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and t h e misdemeanors a r e w i t h i n t h e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e J u s t i c e Court. D i f f e r e n t conduct was a l l e g e d i n both c o u r t s and, t h u s , t h e r e was no v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 46-11-504, MCA. I f t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is allowed t o s t a n d , t h e S t a t e would be p r e c l u d e d from e v e r o b t a i n i n g t h e c o n v i c t i o n of a d e f e n d a n t f o r b o t h f e l o n i e s and misdemeanors connected i n commission a s p a r t of t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n . D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e i s b a r r e d f r o m f u r t h e r p r o s e c u t i o n of him by reason of s e c t i o n 46-11-504, MCA, which p r o v i d e s : "When conduct c o n s t i t u t e s an o f f e n s e w i t h i n t h e c o n c u r r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s s t a t e and of t h e United S t a t e s o r a n o t h e r s t a t e or of two c o u r t s o f s e p a r a t e , o v e r l a p p i n g , o r c o n c u r r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s s t a t e , a p r o s e c u t i o n i n any such o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n is a bar t o a subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n i n t h i s s t a t e under t h e following circumstances: " ( 1 ) The f i r s t p r o s e c u t i o n r e s u l t e d i n an a c q u i t t a l o r i n a c o n v i c t i o n a s d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 46-11-503 and t h e s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n is based on an o f f e n s e a r i s i n g o u t of t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n . . ." Defendant e n t e r e d g u i l t y p l e a s i n C i t y Court t o f a i l i n g t o r e p o r t an a c c i d e n t and f a i l i n g t o s t o p a t an a c c i d e n t . The subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n of c r i m i n a l mischief by t h e S t a t e of Montana a r i s e s o u t of t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n t o which d e f e n d a n t h a s been found g u i l t y i n C i t y Court. T h e r e f o r e , d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t c o n v i c t i o n s o f t h e s e o f f e n s e s bar t h e subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n of c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f by t h e S t a t e . S e c t i o n 4 6 - 1 1 - 5 0 4 ( 1 ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f a c a s e is a bar t o a subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n i f t h e f i r s t p r o s e c u t i o n r e s u l t e d i n a c o n v i c t i o n and t h e subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n is based on an o f f e n s e a r i s i n g o u t of t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n . S e c t i o n 46-11-501(a), MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e term "same t r a n s a c t i o n " i n c l u d e s conduct c o n s i s t i n g of a s e r i e s of a c t s or omissions which a r e motivated by a purpose t o accomplish a c r i m i n a l o b j e c t i v e and which a r e n e c e s s a r y o r i n c i d e n t a l t o t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f t h a t o b j e c t i v e . I n Yother v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 597 P.2d 7 9 , 82, 36 St.Rep. 1192, 1196, we s t a t e d : "The United S t a t e s Supreme Court h a s decided a subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n is b a r r e d by a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n i f t h e subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n is - b a s e d upon t h e same a c t s a s was t h e p r i o r ------- - - - - - - - - - c o n v i c t i o n , i f t h e subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n i s - - - f o r a n o f f e n s e o f w h i c h t h e o f f e n s e i n t h e - - c o n v i c t i o n i s a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d ELF2f-------------------------------- o f f e n s e , and i f t h e subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n is i n a c o u r t w h i c h i s p a r t o f t h e s a m e .................... --------------- s o v e r e i g n - - a s t h e c o u r t involved i n t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n . . ." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) See Waller v. F l o r i d a ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 397 U.S. 387, 390, 394-395, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435; s e e a l s o United S t a t e s v. Mechanic ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) , 454 F.2d 849, 855; T u r l e y v. Wyrick ( E . D . Mo. 1 9 7 6 ) , 415 F.Supp. 87, 88; S t a t e v. Rook ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 14 0r.App. 211, 511 P.2d 1245, 1246. According t o t h e s t a t u t e s , t o e s t a b l i s h t h e o f f e n s e of c r i m i n a l mischief it is n e c e s s a r y t o prove t h a t a d e f e n d a n t (1) p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly ( 2 ) i n j u r e d , damaged o r d e s t r o y e d ( 3 ) p r o p e r t y of another ( 4 ) w i t h o u t c o n s e n t . S e c t i o n 45-6-101, MCA. There may be some q u e s t i o n a s t o t h e f i r s t two o f f e n s e s charged. The charge of f a i l i n g t o r e p o r t an a c c i d e n t r e q u i r e s p r o o f t h a t t h e d r i v e r o f a v e h i c l e involved i n an a c c i d e n t f a i l e d t o immediately g i v e n o t i c e of such a c c i d e n t t o t h e l o c a l p o l i c e department. S e c t i o n 61-7-108, MCA. T h i s o f f e n s e is n o t p a r t of t h e o r i g i n a l t r a n s g r e s s i o n which a n t e c e d e s i t , b u t a second w i l l f u l a c t . To e s t a b l i s h f a i l i n g t o s t o p a t an a c c i d e n t , t h e S t a t e must prove t h e d r i v e r of a v e h i c l e involved i n an a c c i d e n t f a i l e d t o immediately s t o p and l o c a t e o r n o t i f y t h e owner or o p e r a t o r of such v e h i c l e of t h e name and a d d r e s s of t h e d r i v e r and owner of t h e v e h i c l e c a u s i n g t h e a c c i d e n t . S e c t i o n 61-7-106, MCA. T h i s charge h a s t h e same problems a s a charge of f a i l i n g t o r e p o r t an a c c i d e n t . However, t o e s t a b l i s h t h e crime of r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g t h e S t a t e must prove d e f e n d a n t o p e r a t e d a v e h i c l e i n a w i l l f u l or wanton d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e s a f e t y of p e r s o n s o r p r o p e r t y . S e c t i o n 61-8-301, MCA. I n t h i s charge t h e a c t s t h a t a r e concerned w i t h t h e r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g a r e a l s o t h o s e n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f e l o n y c r i m e o f c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f . A c l o s e s c r u t i n y of t h e evidence i n each c a s e w i l l e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e "same t r a n s a c t i o n test" h a s been met. The subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n of t h e c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f charge is barred by s e c t i o n 46-11-504(1), MCA. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is a f f i r m e d . W e concur: % & . G & g & G e Chief J u g t i c E