Case Title: STATE v HARRIS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 13876

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1978-03-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13876 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1978 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- R O N A L D HARRIS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Arnold Olsen, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Byron W. Boggs argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena Dennis Dunphy, I n t e r n , O f f i c e of Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana S h e r i K. Sprigg, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: January 2 5 , 1978 Decided: MAR 1 3 F i l e d : M m I f€&j M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. O n March 8, 1977, Ronald H a r r i s , an inmate of Montana s t a t e prison, was convicted by jury v e r d i c t f o r t h e crime of possession of a weapon by a p r i s o n e r , a felony i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 94-8-213, R.C.M. 1947. The D i s t r i c t Court, Powell County, subsequently sentenced H a r r i s t o a t e r m of f i v e years i n t h e Montana s t a t e prison, such term t o be served consecutive t o t h e sentence Harris i s now serving. Harris appeals from t h e judgment of conviction on t h e grounds t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n denying h i s motion t o suppress and i n admitting i n t o evidence a t h i s criminal t r i a l incrimi- nating statements made by H a r r i s a t an e a r l i e r d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing conducted a t Montana s t a t e prison. O n August 7, 1976, p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s a t Montana s t a t e prison discovered a handmade steel k n i f e i n a c e l l shared by H a r r i s and another p r i s o n e r , John Hendricks. The k n i f e had been concealed i n a hollowed o u t p o r t i o n of t h e wooden frame of a mirror. The mirror is supplied t o inmates by t h e prison a s p a r t of t h e standard f u r n i s h i n g s of each c e l l . Upon discovery of t h e k n i f e , Harris and Hendricks w e r e removed t o t h e maximum s e c u r i t y u n i t and charged f o r vio- l a t i n g t h e Montana S t a t e Prison Inmate Rules and Guidelines, s p e c i f i c a l l y Rule No. 215--"Possession o r i n t r o d u c t i o n of a gun, firearm, weapon, sharpened instrument, k n i f e o r unautho- r i z e d t o o l . " I n compliance with t h e Inmate Rules and Guidelines, p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y hearings were scheduled f o r August 1 2 , 1976. H a r r i s and Hendricks were provided an inmate "lay- advisor" of t h e i r choice who a s s i s t e d them i n preparation f o r t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing. Hendricks' d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing was conducted f i r s t and H a r r i s appeared a s a w i t n e s s . I n response t o q u e s t i o n s posed by t h e inmate lay-advisor, H a r r i s made statements tending t o admit h i s possession of t h e k n i f e . Following H a r r i s ' admissions, t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing w a s adjourned. H a r r i s was given h i s Miranda r i g h t s f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e and removed t o t h e maximum s e c u r i t y u n i t of t h e prison. On August 26, 1976, t h e county a t t o r n e y f o r Powell County f i l e d an Information charging H a r r i s and Hendricks w i t h v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 94-8-213, R.C.M. 1947. Charges a g a i n s t Hendricks w e r e subsequently dismissed. H a r r i s e n t e r e d a p l e a of n o t g u i l t y and moved t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o suppress t h o s e statements made by H a r r i s a t t h e p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing. H a r r i s ' motion t o suppress was denied and t h e District Court allowed t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o i n t r o d u c e evidence of statements made by H a r r i s a t t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing. Subsequent t o i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e evidence, d e f e n s e counsel e n t e r e d a motion t o s t r i k e , which was a l s o denied by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. I n t h i s appeal, w e w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e of t h e p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y committee's u s e of H a r r i s ' admission. Our i n q u i r y i s l i m i t e d t o t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h e incrimi- n a t i n g statements a t H a r r i s ' c r i m i n a l t r i a l . H a r r i s contends t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o evidence a t h i s c r i m i n a l t r i a l of i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s made by him when a w i t n e s s a t t h e p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing, without a c a u t i o n of h i s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t and h i s r i g h t t o l e g a l counsel, v i o l a t e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n guaranteed by t h e F i f t h Amendment, United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . Miranda v. Arizona, (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L ed 2d 694; Mathis v. United S t a t e s , (1968), 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L ed 2d 381; United S t a t e s v. Redfield, ( 4 t h C i r . 1968), 402 F.2d 454. Miranda, Mathis and Redfield r e q u i r e d t h e exclusion of a d e f e n d a n t ' s admission where t h e immediate o b j e c t i v e of t h e o f f i c i a l s was n o t t o o b t a i n evidence f o r u s e i n c r i m i n a l t r i a l s , b u t l a t e r it w a s decided t o u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i n g answers i n prosecutions. W e conclude such a u t h o r i t y i s c o n t r o l l i n g over t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , even though t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s w e r e i n response t o t h e q u e s t i o n s of t h e inmate lay-advisor and n o t a p r i s o n o f f i c i a l . The p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing was conducted by p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s f o r t h e purpose of a s c e r - t a i n i n g i n n a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p r i s o n o f f e n s e s punishable under t h e Inmate Rules and Guidelines. N o n o t i c e of p o t e n t i a l c r i m i n a l prosecution was announced t o H a r r i s u n t i l a f t e r he u t t e r e d t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g statements a t Hendricks' d i s c i - p l i n a r y hearing. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l guarantees of t h e F i f t h Amendment, a s announced i n Miranda, Mathis and Redfield, cannot be subverted under t h e g u i s e H a r r i s knowingly and v o l u n t a r i l y u t t e r e d t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g statements. F u r t h e r , t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n Inmate Rules and Guidelines s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o t e c t a g a i n s t t h e very procedures which occurred i n t h e p r e s e n t case: "SECTION D "RULES O F INMATE OFFENSES "D-11. Application and Prosecution Thereunder , I * * * "2. Whenever a misdemeanor o r felony is a l l e g e d t o have been committed: " a . I t w i l l be t h e duty of t h e Warden o r h i s d e s i g n a t e t o r e p o r t any v i o l a t i o n of a f e d e r a l , s t a t e o r l o c a l l a w t o a p p l i c a b l e law enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s . "b. After a v i o l a t i o n of t h i s nature has been reported t o law enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s , t h e inmate s h a l l n o t be questioned about t h e i n c i d e n t u n t i l a f t e r it has been determined t h a t no prose- c u t i o n w i l l occur o r u n t i l a f i n d i n g s of g u i l t i s made. "c. I f a v i o l a t i o n has been reported t o law enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s , no i n s t i t u t i o n a l charges p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e same charge s h a l l be f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e inmate u n t i l completion of t h e in- v e s t i g a t i o n and prosecution, i f any, o r i f prose- cuted, u n t i l t h e inmate has been found g u i l t y of t h e charge." Since our holding i s c o n t r o l l e d by t h e above d i s c u s s i o n , those i s s u e s r a i s e d by defendant which challenge t h e jury i n s t r u c t i o n s need n o t be considered. The judgment of conviction i s vacated and t h e case dismissed. %?? W e Concur: Acting Chief J u s t i c e M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d i s s e n t i n g : I d i s s e n t t o t h e opinion and would a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court. // J u s t i c e