Case Title: STATE v CARDEN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-09-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13502 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - JOHN J. CARDEN, a !k/a JAMES J. CARDEN, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert H. IJilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Jock. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Albert Meloling, Special Prosecutor appeared, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Wade J. Dahood argued, Anaconda, Montana Submitted: September 16, 1976 Decided : 5Ep 2 7 1 9 7 6 Filed: $ ! ? p 2 7 ;2id M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal by t h e S t a t e of Montana from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Lewis and Clark County dismissing 38 counts of a 43 count amended Information f i l e d a g a i n s t defend- a n t . I n view of t h e imminent t r i a l d a t e , w e entered our Order and Judgment on September 17, 1976, v a c a t i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e r of d i s m i s s a l , ordered 10 counts dismissed a s conceded by t h e S t a t e , and ordered t h e remaining 33 counts remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r t r i a l . S t a t e v. Carden, Mont . - 1 - P.2d - 1 - St.Rep. , Cause No. 13502. I n our Order and Judgment of September 17, 1976, w e i n d i c a t e d t h a t a formal w r i t t e n opinion would follow, which w e now i s s u e . This c a s e began on December 20, 1974, when t h e S t a t e f i l e d i t s motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a d i r e c t Information i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t charging defendant Carden with 118 counts of c r i m i n a l o f - fenses. Twenty-five days and two judges later, t h e Hon. N a t Allen granted t h e S t a t e l e a v e t o f i l e t h i s Information. Fourteen and one-half months and two judges l a t e r , t h e Hon. Paul H a t f i e l d ordered 75 counts dismissed and granted t h e S t a t e l e a v e t o f i l e an Amended Information covering t h e remaining 43 counts. Four months and 10 days l a t e r , t h e s i x t h judge i n t h e c a s e , t h e Hon. Robert H. Wilson, dismissed 38 counts of t h e 43 count Amended Information by o r d e r of August 10, 1976. The S t a t e has appealed from Judge Wilson's o r d e r dismiss- i n g t h e 38 counts. However, t h e S t a t e concedes d i s m i s s a l of 10 of t h e s e counts. The i s s u e on appeal is whether t h e remaining 28 counts should have been dismissed. W e note t h a t both t h e o r i g i n a l Information and t h e Amended Information contained t h e 28 counts i n i s s u e . Judge Allen granted l e a v e t o f i l e t h e o r i g i n a l Lnformation c o n t a i n i n g t h e s e 28 counts and Judge H a t f i e l d granted l e a v e t o f i l e t h e Amended Information containing t h e s e 28 counts. Such l e a v e could n o t have been granted except on a f i n d i n g of probable cause. The c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 95-1301(a), R.C.M. 1947, provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "The county a t t o r n e y may apply d i r e c t l y t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r permission t o f i l e an i n f o r - mation a g a i n s t a named defendant. The applica- t i o n must be by a f f i d a v i t supported by such evidence a s t h e judge may r e q u i r e . I f it appears t h a t t h e r e is probable cause t o b e l i e v e t h a t an o f f e n s e has been committed by t h e defendant t h e judge s h a l l q r a n t l e a v e t o f i l e t h e information, otherwise t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l be denied." (Emphasis added. ) Two judges had a l r e a d y found probable cause f o r f i l i n g t h e 28 counts a t i s s u e i n t h i s appeal. The "law of t h e c a s e " on probable cause f o r f i l i n g t h e s e 28 counts had a l r e a d y been con- s i d e r e d , determined and e s t a b l i s h e d . Although some c o u r t s l i m i t a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e "law of t h e case" d o c t r i n e t o f i n a l d e c i s i o n s of t h e h i g h e s t a p p e l l a t e c o u r t (Filanowski v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 439 Pa. 360, 266 A.2d 670; Kuchinic v. McCrory, 4 2 2 Pa. 620, 222 A.2d 897), w e consider t h e b e t t e r r u l e permits a p p l i - c a t i o n of t h i s p r i n c i p l e t o p r i o r r u l i n g s of a t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e same case a s w e l l ( S t a t e v. H a l e , 127 N.J.Super. 407, 317 A.2d 731; Chain Locations of America, Inc. v. E a s t Hudson Parkway A . , 280 F.Supp. 396). Under t h e "law of t h e case" p r i n c i p l e , judges of coordinate j u r i s d i c t i o n s s i t t i n g i n t h e same c o u r t and i n t h e same c a s e may n o t o r d i n a r i l y o v e r r u l e t h e d e c i s i o n s o f each o t h e r . United S t a t e s v. Baynes, 400 F.Supp. 285. I t is simply a r u l e of prac- tice t h a t a r t i c u l a t e s t h e sound p o l i c y t h a t when an i s s u e is once j u d i c i a l l y determined, t h a t should be t h e end of t h e m a t t e r a s f a r a s judges and c o u r t s of coordinate j u r i s d i c t i o n a r e concerned. Martin v. C i t y of Cohoes, 371 N.Y.S.2d 687, 37 N.Y.2d 162, 332 N.E.2d 867. The "law of t h e c a s e " is n o t a n imperative (Schonfeld v. Raftery, 359 F.Supp. 380); does n o t go t o t h e power of t h e court (People v. Medina, 99 Cal.Rptr. 630, 492 P.2d 686); and does not mean that a court does not have discretion to reconsider a ruling made by another judge in the same case. Chain Locations of America, Inc. v. East Hudson Parkway Authority, supra. What factors are present in this case that would move the discretion of Judge Wilson to reconsider the prior determin- ations of Judge Allen and Judge Hatfield? None have been brought to our attention and we perceive none. Defendant argues that because the prior determinations of Judge Allen and Judge Hatfield were ex parte determinations, a later adversary hearing on prob- able cause was not precluded. But were they? Judge Allen's determination of probable cause on the original 118 count Inform- ation may fall in this category, but this does not apply to Judge Hatfield's determination of probable cause. This matter was fully briefed and argued by both the State and defendant. An adversary hearing was held on defendant's motions on February 4, 1976, at which counsel for both the State and the defendant were present. Thereafter Judge Hatfield entered an order dismissing 75 counts of the original Information and granting leave to the State to file an Amended Information on the remaining 43 counts. On the other hand, there are factors in this case against the exercise of discretion to reconsider the prior rulings. There is an absence of anything to indicate Judge Hatfield's prior rul- ing was in error. The case had dragged along for a year and a half, six different judges had been involved, and the trial date had not yet been set. To go back and relitigate the issue of probable cause for the 28 counts filed at the commencement of the action would permit endless manipulation of the judicial system and thwart its proper operation and objectives. It would also permit a judge of coordinate jurisdiction to perform appellate functions, in effect, over the decisions of another district judge, a p r a c t i c e which t h i s Court has previously condemned. S t a t e ex rel. S t a t e Highway Comrn'n v. Kinman, 150 Mont. 1 2 , 430 For t h e foregoing reasons we hold t h a t it was an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n f o r Judge Wilson t o reconsider t h e p r i o r r u l i n g of Judge H a t f i e l d on probable cause f o r f i l i n g t h e 28 counts a t i s s u e i n t h i s appeal. Judge Wilson's order of dismissal is vaca- t e d and s e t a s i d e ; Counts 1 2 , 13, 16, 17, 26, 27, 30, 31, 36 and 37 of t h e Amended Information a r e s t r i c k e n as conceded by t h e S t a t e ; and t h e remaining 33 counts of t h e Amended Information a r e remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r t r i a l ; and r e m i t t i t u r s h a l l i s s u e forthwith; a l l a s provided i n our previous Order and Judg- ment herein dated September 17, 1976. / J u s t i c e /, chief J u s t i c e I N THE SUPREME C O U R T OF T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A T H E STATE O F MONTANA, VS. N o . 13502 P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, ED JOHN J. CARDEN, a/k/a SEPH71976 J A M E S J. CARDEN, 3 i @ , % , $ gRFf? @? Defendant and Respondent. alx CLZAK Qii-. SUPREME COu;:*r STATE OF MONTANA ORDER AND JUDGMENT PER CURIAM: The appeal of t h e S t a t e of Montana from t h e Judgment and Order of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e f i r s t j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of Lewis and Clark, dated August 10, 1976, dismissing 38 counts of t h e 43 count Amended Information herein having been f u l l y b r i e f e d , argued and submitted t o t h i s Court f o r d e c i s i o n , I T IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: (1) That s a i d Order dated August 1 0 , 1976, i s vacated and set a s i d e . (2) That counts 12, 13, 16, 17, 26, 27, 30, 31, 36 and 37 of t h e Amended Information a r e hereby s t r i c k e n and dismissed a s conceded by t h e S t a t e . (3) That t h e remaining 33 counts i n t h e Amended Information are remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r t r i a l commencing September 28, 1976, as heretofore s e t by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . ( 4 ) That t h i s Order and Judgment i s issued a t t h i s t i m e t o give t h e p a r t i e s and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t n o t i c e of our decision f o r t h w i t h i n view of t h e t r i a l d a t e . A formal w r i t t e n opinion will follow in due course. (5) Let remittitur issue forthwith. DATED this 17th day of September, 1976. The Honorable W. W. Lessley, district judge, sat for Mr. Justice Wesley Castles. The Honorable Edward T. Dussault, district judge, sat for Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly.