Title: STATE EX REL WOODAHL v DISTRICT C

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 131-28 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1975 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A on t h e Relation of ROBERT L. W O O D A H L , Attorney General of the S t a t e of l"lntana, Relator, T H E DISTRICT C O U R T O F T H E FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , i n and f o r the County of Lewis and C h r k and the HON. N A T ALLEN, Presiding Judge, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel of Record: For Relator : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Richard Dzivi, Special A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Thomas Beers, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Knlght, Dahood, Mackay and McLean, Anaconda, Montana Wade Dahood argued, Anaconda, Montana Submitted: August 21, 1975 Decided: SEP 5 1975 Filed : , < Q $ a m PER CURIAM: This i s an application f o r a W r i t of Supervisory Control or other appropriate w r i t . The s t a t e of Montana, through i t s Attorney General, Robert L. Woodahl, requests t h a t the w r i t be directed t o the d i s t r i c t court of the F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , and the presiding judge, Hon. Nat Allen, with respect t o the causes e n t i t l e d State of Montana v. John J . Carden, a.k.a. James J. Carden, Cause No. 3937, and S t a t e of Montana v. John J. Carden, a.k.a. James J. Carden and Gloria ( ~ u s e k ) Carden, Cause No. 3938. The f a c t s leading up t o the p e t i t i o n f o r the w r i t show t h a t on December 20, 1974, the s t a t e of Montana made application f o r leave t o f i l e Informations i n causes No. 3937 and No. 3938. O n December 20, 1974, leave was granted i n cause No. 3938. O n January 9, 1975, the Ilon. Nat Allen assumed jurisdiction of both causes No. 3937 and No. 3938 a f t e r Judges Gordon R. Bennett and Peter Meloy of the F i r s t Judicial D i s t r i c t voluntarily withdrew from those cases. O n January 14, 1975, the Hon. Nat Allen granted leave t o f i l e t h e Information in cause No. 3937. The i n i t i a l defense motions of both cases were f i l e d on February 10, 1975, and the defense b r i e f was f i l e d on February 28, 1975. Oral argument was heard on the issue of the p e t i t i o n f o r judgment of contempt against the Attorney General, e t , a l . , and the p e t i t i o n f o r judgment of contempt against the defendant, John J. Carden. O n March 24, 1975, Judge Allen ruled upon these issues. O n March 19, 1975, the court extended the time f o r f i l i n g of b r i e f s f o r defendant u n t i l April 21, 1975, and the s t a t e u n t i l May 21, 1975, and defendant u n t i l May 30, 1975, t o reply. A l l b r i e f s were f i l e d within the time extensions of the court. O n August 4, 1975, pursuant t o section 95-1709, R.C.M. 1947, the Attorney General moved the d i s t r i c t court f o r an order t o s u b s t i t u t e judge i n causes No. 3937 and No. 3938. O n August 11, 1975, by written order, the Hon. Nat Allen ordered the Attorney General's motion f o r substitution of judge on both causes No. 3937 and No. 3938 be denied and ordered stricken from the record. The court s t a t e d t h i s reason: h he attempt by the Attorney General t o s u b s t i t u t e a judge a f t e r t h e matter was submitted and pending decision by the Court is deliberate abuse of the disqualifying s t a t u t e , and i f allowed would destroy the efficiency of a l l D i s t r i c t Courts." Therefore, the Attorney General has petitioned t h i s Court f o r a Writ of Supervisory Control o r other appropriate w r i t instructing the Hon. Nat Allen t o issue the order of sub- s t i t u t i o n . Petitioner presents these three issues f o r t h i s c o u r t ' s review: 1) Whether the motion of substitution of judge, submitted by the s t a t e of Montana was proper and whether it comported with a11 conditions precedent t o section 95-1709, R.C.M. 2) Whether, looking t o the reasoning of Judge Allen above, t h e cause had been i n f a c t submitted t o him; and 3) Whether the Hon. Nat Allen must relinquish a l l j u r i s - diction t o the above cases effective upon the f i l i n g of the motion. Petitioner contends t h a t he has complied with a l l of the requirements of section 95-1709. That section i n pertinent part provides : "(a) The defendant o r the prosecution may move the court i n writing f o r a substitution of judge on t h e ground t h a t he cannot have a f a i r and impartial hearing or t r i a l before said judge. The motion s h a l l be made a t l e a s t f i f t e e n (15) days p r i o r t o the t r i a l of the case, o r any r e t r i a l thereof a f t e r appeal, except f o r good cause shown. Upon the f i l i n g of such a motion the judge against whom the motion i s f i l e d s h a l l be without authority t o a c t further i n the criminal action, motion or proceeding but the provisions of t h i s section do not apply t o the arrangement of the ialendar, the regulation of the order of business, izhe power of transferring the criminal action o r proceeding t o some other court, nor t o the power of c a l l i n g i n another judge t o s i t and a c t i n such criminal action or proceeding, providing t h a t no judge s h a l l so arrange the calendar a s t o defeat the ourposes of t h i s section. Not more than one (1) iudge can be disqualified i n the criminal action o r proceeding, a t the instance of the prosecution and not more than (1) judge a t the instance of the defendant or defendants. I P e t i t i o n e r ' s motion f o r substitution was made i n writing beiore any t r i a l date was s e t . The grounds and reasons upon which the motion was based was t h a t the s t a t e "cannot have a f a i r and impartial hearing o r t r i a l before said judge. I ' There- fore, having reviewed a l l the f a c t s of t h i s case a t the date of the hearing, we find petitioner has complied with a l l the conditions precedent t o section 95-1709. The second issue then i s whether t h e reasoning of Judge A l l e r l i n his order dated August 11, 1975, f o r not disqualifying himself: "The attempt by the Attorney General t o s u b s t i t u t e a judge a f t e r the matter was submitted and pending decision by the Court is deliberate abuse of the disqualifying s t a t u t e , and i f allowed would destroy che efficiency of a l l D i s t r i c t Courts. 11 was a valid reason which would allow Judge Allen t o maintain jurisdiction over the two causes before him. Respondent argues : I I J u s t i c e and fairness requires t h a t a judge cannot be disqualified a s t o a motion before the court where the hearing on the matter had been held, a l l b r i e f s were submitted by both sides, and the matter had been deemed submitted t o the judge f o r h i s de- cision. I I This Court has reviewed t h e e n t i r e record of causes No. 3937 and !jo. 3938 and nowhere can we find any entry i n the record which would show t h a t any motion was pending before the court o r deemed submitted by the court a t the time the motion f o r sub- s t i t u t i o n of judge was made t o the d i s t r i c t court by the petitioner. W e w i l l not consider representations of p a r t i e s a f t e r the f a c t o r representations dehors t h e records. W e therefore find respondent's argument t h a t a judge cannot be disqualified when a motion i s submitted t o t h a t judge, inapplicable t o the f a c t s i t u a t i o n now before us. The f i n a l issue presented t o t h i s Court i s whether the Hon. Mat Allen must relinquish a l l jurisdiction t o the causes i n question. W e find t h a t since petitioner has complied with a l l conditions precedent t o section 95-1709 and there has been no showing by respondent of any f a c t s which would e s t a b l i s h noncompliance with t h a t s t a t u t e , the Hon. Nat Allen must r e l i n - quish a l l jurisdiction t o the cases i n question e f f e c t i v e upon the date of the f i l i n g of the motion of substitution of judge. This opinion s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a W r i t of Supervisory Control ordering t h a t the heretofore mentirnd order of August 11, 1975, be s e t aside and annulled; and directing Hon. Nat Allen t o relinquish jurisdiction so t h a t another judge may be c a l l e d i n t o assume jurisdiction over criminal causes No. 3937 and No. 3938. Hon. Jack L. Green, D i s t r i c t Judge, s a t f o r N r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly i n the above e n t i t l e d o r i g i n a l proceeding.