Title: DEPT OF REVENUE v LANE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 79-12 IN THE SUPREME: COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, WALDEMAR W. and EVEDINE L. LANE, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and For the County of Lewis and Clark Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: R. Bruce McGinnis, Dept. of Revenue, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Waldemar W. Lane and Evidine L. Lana, Pro Se, Plentywood, Montana Filed: Submitted on briefs: January 25, 1980 Decided: ~ P R g a 1980 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered 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 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 , i n and f o r t h e County of Lewis and Clark, g r a n t i n g a change of venue i n a criminal prosecution. Defendants i n t h i s a c t i o n w e r e charged with t h e o f f e n s e of i n t e n t i o n a l l y f a i l i n g t o make o r render a properly com- p l e t e d Montana Individual Income Tax Return. Defendants i n i t i a l l y appeared on August 1 6 , 1979, and t h e i r arraignment was set f o r August 23, 1979. O n t h a t day, defendants f a i l e d t o appear. The D i s t r i c t Court contacted defendants by telephone and accepted an o r a l motion f o r a change of venue. Pursuant t o t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r , t h e S t a t e f i l e d its b r i e f i n opposition t o t h i s motion on September 11, 1979. The motion was granted on September 26, 1979, and t h e S t a t e b r i n g s t h i s appeal. The S t a t e pror2erly f i l e d i t s b r i e f on appeal with t h i s Court on November 9, 1979. Respondents f a i l e d t o f i l e a b r i e f within t h e appropriate t i m e a s set by Rule 2 6 ( a ) , M.R.App.Civ.P., and t h e S t a t e f i l e d a motion with t h i s Court asking t h a t t h e c a s e be decided on i t s b r i e f . W e granted respondents an a d d i t i o n a l t e n days t o f i l e t h e i r b r i e f . Respondents again f a i l e d t o f i l e a b r i e f , and on January 25, 1980, t h i s Court issued an order submitting t h i s case f o r d e c i s i o n on a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f . The s o l e i s s u e presented f o r review i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n changing t h e venue of t h i s a c t i o n from Lewis and Clark County t o Sheridan County. Section 46-3-101(1), MCA, provides: " I n a l l criminal prosecutions t h e t r i a l s h a l l be i n t h e county where t h e offensf? was committed unless otherwise provided by law." Section 46-3-102, MCA, provides: "Where two o r more a c t s are r e q u i s i t e t o the com- mission of any offense, t h e t r i a l may be i n any county i n which any of such a c t s occur." The commission comment t o s e c t i o n 46-3-102, MCA, reads: "This provision allows t h e t r i a l t o take place i n t h e most convenient county where an element of t h e offense occurred. I t does n o t matter i f t h e f i n a l consummation of t h e offense occurred i n another county. The only elements of t h e crime which a r e of i n t e r e s t a r e those a c t s con- s t i t u t i n g o r r e q u i s i t e t o t h e consummation of t h e offense; t h e t r i a l of t h e case may be held i n any county i n which such a c t s occur." The S t a t e contends t h a t under s e c t i o n 15-30-144, MCA, income t a x r e t u r n s a r e required t o be f i l e d with t h e Depart- ment of Revenue, which i s f u r t h e r required t o be located a t Helena, Montana, by s e c t i o n 2-15-112, MCA. Consequently, it argues t h e offense of f a i l i n g t o f i l e a r e t u r n o r t o provide information as set o u t i n s e c t i o n 15-30-321, MCA, i s com- mitted i n Lewis and Clark County, and t h e r e f o r e , venue properly lies i n L e w i s and Clark County under s e c t i o n 46-3- 101, MCA. The D i s t r i c t Court concluded: "To c o n s t i t u t e a v i o l a t i o n of t h e income t a x law, t h e i n d i v i d u a l so charged must have had gross income i n excess of $750.00 per year. Thus t h e a c t of earning more than $750.00 per year becomes an element of t h e offense and s i n c e t h e defendants' income was earned i n Sheridan Count-y, Section 46-3-102, MCA i s applicable." The c o u r t c i t e d s e c t i o n s 25-2-201 and 25-2-108, MCA (dealing with changing t h e place of c i v i l t r i a l when convenience of witnesses and ends of j u s t i c e would be promoted by t h e change and preference a s t o defendants' place of residence f o r c i v i l t r i a l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , and t h e commission comment t o s e c t i o n 46-3-102, MCA, and held: ' I . . . it i s t h e opinion of t h i s Court t h a t t h e ends of j u s t i c e a r e promoted by having t h e t r i a l i n t h e county of t h e residence of t h e defendants where t h e jury would be from t h e i r immediate peers and would provide a t r i a l i n a place t o o b v i a t e t h e n e c e s s i t y of t h e defendants t r a v e l i n g 500 miles from t h e i r home and business a f f a i r s . " W e agree with t h e S t a t e and t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t venue would l i e i n e i t h e r Lewis and Clark County o r Sheridan County. This Court has had occasion under s i m i l a r circum- stances t o decide t h i s question before. I n S t a t e v. Bretz (1975), 166 Mont. 4 4 4 , 534 P.2d 496, w e c i t e d Shields v. Shields (1943), 115 Mont. 146, 139 P.2d 528, and s t a t e d : ". . . i f t h e county i n which t h e a c t i o n is brought and t h e one t o which it i s sought t o have it t r a n s f e r r e d are both counties of proper venue, the a c t i o n must s t a y where t h e complaint w a s f i l e d . That same p r i n c i p l e a p p l i e s i n a criminal case. I f no prejudice o r o t h e r l e g a l reason i s shown and t h e complaint o r informa- t i o n i s f i l e d i n a county of proper venue t h a t i s where t h e t r i a l i s t o be held. . ." 534 P.2d a t 497. (Emphasis supplied.) See a l s o , S t a t e v. Bretz (1976), 169 Mont. 505, 548 P.2d 949, 951. Here, no prejudice o r o t h e r l e g a l reason was shown f o r t h e change t o Sheridan County. The case was f i l e d i n Lewis and Clark County, a county of proper venue. The D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n ordering t h e t r i a l moved t o Sheridan County. Reversed. W e concur: n & & g Chief J u s t i c e I M r . ~ u s t i c e John C . Sheehy d i s s e n t i n g : ~ e f e n d a n t s a r e charged with t h e misdemeanor o f f e n s e of f a i l i n g t o f i l e s t a t e income t a x r e t u r n s , a s such o f f e n s e is d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 15-30-321(3), MCA. S e c t i o n 15-30-321 does not s p e c i f i c a l l y d e f i n e t h e p l a c e of commission of an o f f e n s e of f a i l u r e t o f i l e s t a t e income t a x r e t u r n s . I n t h a t c a s e , o r d i n a r i l y , t h e site of t h e crime i s determined from t h e n a t u r e of t h e crime and t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e a c t s o r omissions c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e o f f e n s e . United S t a t e s v. Anderson (1946), 328 U.S. 699, 66 S.Ct. 1213, 90 L.Ed.1529. I cannot a g r e e t h a t merely because t h e o f f i c e o f t h e Department of Revenue is i n Helena, where a l l s t a t e income t a x r e t u r n s are c o l l e c t e d , t h a t persons a c t i n g o u t s i d e t h e county of Lewis and Clark a r e s u b j e c t t o c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n i n Lewis and Clark County because t h e r e s u l t of t h e i r a c t s o r omissions o u t s i d e t h a t county is t h a t t h e persons' r e t u r n s have n o t been c o l l e c t e d i n Lewis and Clark County. The n a t u r e of t h e crime and t h e a c t s o r omissions con- s t i t u t i n g t h e crime a l l occurred i n Sheridan County. Only t h e r e s u l t , t h e f a i l u r e t o have a r e t u r n i n t h e mail f o r t h e department t o c o l l e c t , occurred i n ~ e w i s and Clark County. But on t h a t b a r e ground, t h e s e defendants a r e r e q u i r e d t o t r a v e l 500 m i l e s t o defend themselves. To be s u r e , t h e r u l e i n t h e Ninth C i r c u i t i s d i f f e r e n t . F a i l u r e t o f i l e a f e d e r a l income t a x r e t u r n i s an o f f e n s e a t t h e defendants r e s i d e n c e , o r a t t h e c o l l e c t i o n p o i n t where t h e r e t u r n is t o be c o l l e c t e d . U.S. v. Clinton (C.A. 1 9 7 8 ) , 574 F.2d 464, cert.den. 99 S.Ct. 106. However, i n t h e Ninth C i r c u i t c a s e , t h e D i s t r i c t Court had a l r e a d y t r a n s f e r r e d venue t o t h e d i s t r i c t of d e f e n d a n t ' s residence. I f i n d no c a s e where t h e f e d e r a l government has i n s i s t e d t h a t a n o n f i l e r of r e t u r n s be t r i e d 500 m i l e s from home Since t h e Department of Revenue i s t h e i n i t i a t o r of a l l prosecutions f o r t h i s offense, what t h e majority has done i n e f f e c t i s t o require a l l persons charged with income t a x v i o l a t i o n s t o f a c e t r i a l i n Helena regardless of residence. The D i s t r i c t Court ruled on d i f f e r e n t grounds, but I agree with i t s r e s u l t , and would affirm. $"-&--;""I J u s t i c e ------- I agree with t h e foregoing d i s s e n t . Pd?-&-- J ice