Title: STATE v TURK

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-341 IN THE SURPEME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 STATE OF MONTANA, e Plaintiff and Respondent, vs . DAVID TURK, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula Honorable James Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: David Turk, Pro Se, Missoula, Montana Jeffrey Shrom argued, Stevesville, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney, General, Helena, Montana Steve Johnson argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoala, Montana Submitted: January 11, 1982 Decided:March 25, 1982 ~iled: . MAR 2 5 1 9 8 2 1 1 Mr. C h i e f 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 C o u r t . D e f e n d a n t David Turk a p p e a l s f r o ~ n two c o n v i c t i o n s : (1) o p e r a t i n g a motor v e h i c l e w i t h o u t c u r r e n t r e g i s t r a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 61-3-315, MCA, and ( 2 ) o p e r a t i n g a motor v e h i c l e w i t h o u t l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 61-6-301, MCA. W e a f f i r m b o t h c o n v i c t i o n s . On J a n u a r y 1 4 , 1980, d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e two o f f e n s e s i n t h e J u s t i c e C o u r t o f M i s s o u l a County. A bench t r i a l was h e l d b e f o r e Justice J a n e t J e n s e n r e s u l t i n g i n d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n s and f i n e s o f $25.00 on e a c h c h a r g e . D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n s t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of lvlissoula County. The c a s e was s e t f o r j u r y t r i a l on J u n e 1 6 . O n May 30, d e f e n d a n t d i s q u a l i f i e d t h e p r e s i d i n g j u d g e . J u d g e W h e e l i s assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n on J u n e 3 and t h e c a s e was s e t f o r j u r y t r i a l on September 15. On O c t o b e r 2 d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a w a i v e r o f j u r y t r i a l i n h i s own h a n d w r i t - i n g a s f o l l o w s : " J u d g e W h e e l i e s , 9-30-80 "I David Turk wave t h e j u r y t o a r g ue by m o t i o n b e f o r e J u d g e W h e e l i e s c o n c e r n i n g l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e . "Thank you, "David Turk" T h e r e a f t e r , b r i e f s were f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t and t h e S t a t e . On March 9 , 1981, Judge W h e e l i s e n t e r e d an o p i n i o n and o r d e r c o n v i c t i n g d e f e n d a n t on b o t h c h a r g e s . On J u n e 1 2 , d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o pay a f i n e o f $25.00 f o r e a c h o f f e n s e . D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s . Throughout a l l p r o c e e d i n g s up t o t h e t i m e o f o r a l argument b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , d e f e n d a n t e l e c t e d t o p r o c e e d p r o se w i t n o u t an a t t o r n e y . By r e a s o n t h e r e o f , it is somewhat d i f f i c u l t t o f o l l o w t h e c o n t e n t i o n s advanced i n h i s b r i e f s . A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e l y upon t h e a r g u m e n t s advanced by h i s a t t o r n e y upon o r a l argument f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of t h e g i s t o f d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n s . Two b a s i c issues a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w i n t h i s a p p e a l a s w e u n d e r s t a n d them: 1. Are M o n t a n a ' s c o m p u l s o r y a u t o m o b i l e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e s t a t u t e s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ? 2. Is d e f e n d a n t ' s w a i v e r o f a j u r y t r i a l i n v a l i d ? D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t M o n t a n a ' s c o m p u l s o r y a u t o m o b i l e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e s t a t u t e s d e p r i v e him o f d u e p r o c e s s and e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e l a w s i n v i o l a t i o n o f U n i t e d S t a t e s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s . These s t a t u t e s r e q u i r e t h e owner of a motor v e h i c l e r e g i s t e r e d and o p e r a t e d i n Montana t o p r o c u r e a n d m a i n t a i n a n a u t o m o b i l e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i n s p e c i f i e d amounts, o r s e c u r e a c e r t i f i c a t e o f s e l f - i n s u r a n c e , o r p o s t a n i n d e m n i t y b o n d . S e c t i o n 61-6-301, MCA, H e m u s t c e r t i f y t h e same t o t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r b e f o r e h e c a n r e g i s t e r t h e v e h i c l e . S e c t i o n 61-6-302, MCA. C e r t a i n e x e m p t i o n s from t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s n o t p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s c a s e a r e p r o v i d e d . S e c t i o n 61-6-383, MCA. V i o l a t i o n o f t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s c o n s t i t u t e s a misdemeanor s u b j e c t i n g t h e v i o l a t o r t o a f i n e n o t e x c e e d i n g $25.00 p r i o r t o 1981. S e c t i o n s 61-6-304, 61-3-601, MCA. W e h o l d t h e s e s t a t u t e s do n o t d e p r i v e d e f e n d a n t o f d u e p r o c e s s of law. A s t a t e may e x e r c i s e its p o l i c e power t o p r o ~ n o t e t h e l ~ e a l t h , w e l f a r e and s a f e t y o f t h e p u b l i c . N e w O r l e a n s P u b l i c S e r v i c e v , N e w O r l e a n s ( 1 9 3 0 ) , 281 U.S. 682, 50 S.Ct. 449, 74 L.Ed. 1115; Dakota C e n t . T e l e p h o n e Co. v . S t a t e of South Dakota ( 1 9 1 9 ) , 250 U.S. 1 6 3 , 39 S.Ct. 507, 63 L.Ed. 910, A s t a t u t e e n a c t e d under a s t a t e ' s p o l i c e power must be r e a s o n a b l y r e l a t e d t o a p e r m i s s i b l e l e g i s - l a t i v e o b j e c t i v e t o s a t i s f y s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s q u a r a n t e e s . G o l d b l a t t v. Town o f Hernpstead ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 369 U.S, 590, 82 S e c t . 987, 8 L.Ed.2d 130; Y e l l o w s t o n e V a l l e y Elec. v . Ostermiller ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. , 608 P,2d 491, 37 - St.Rep. 536. Use of t h e highways is s u b j e c t t o r e a s o n a b l e r e g u l a t i o n f o r t h e p u b l i c good. H e n d r i c k v . Maryland ( 1 9 1 5 ) , 235 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 1 4 6 , 59 L.Ed. 379; C i t y o f B i l l i n g s v . Herold ( 1 9 5 6 ) , 130 Mont. 1 3 8 , 296 ~ . 2 d 263; Escobedo v . S t a t e Department o f Motor V e h i c l e s ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 35 C a l . 2 d 8 7 0 , 222 P.2d 1, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . A s t a t e c a n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y r e q u i r e t h e p r o c u r e m e n t o f l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e o r t h e d e p o s i t o f s e c u r i t y by owners o f motor v e h i c l e s a s a c o n d i t i o n f o r l i c e n s i n g them. Ex P a r t e P o r e s k y ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 290 U.S, 30, 54 S.Ct. 3, 78 L.Ed. 152; Escobedo, s u p r a ; Pianzanares v . B e l l ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 214 Kan. 589, 522 P.2d 1291; Andrew v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 238 Ga. 433, 233 S.E.2d 209. No less a u t h o r i t y t h a n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s s o s t a t e d : " I f t h e s t a t u t e b a r r e d t h e i s s u a n c e o f l i c e n s e s t o a l l m o t o r i s t s who d i d n o t c a r r y l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e o r who d i d n o t p o s t s e c u r i t y , t h e s t a t u t e would n o t , under o u r c a s e s , v i o l a t e t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment." B e l l v. Burson ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 402 U.S. 535, 539, 9 1 S.Ct. 1586, 1 5 8 9 , 29 L.Ed.2d 9 0 , 94. D e f e n d a n t ' s a r g u m e n t t o t h e c o n t r a r y b o r d e r s o n t h e f r i v o l o u s . Nor d o M o n t a n a ' s c o m p u l s o r y a u t o m o b i l e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e s t a t u t e s d e n y d e f e n d a n t e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e l a w s . M o n t a n a ' s s t a t u t e s a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e " s t r i c t s c r u t i n y " t e s t o f e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n b e c a u s e t h e y do n o t b u r d e n a f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t ( G . D. S e a r l e & Co. v. Cohn ( 1 9 8 2 ) U.S. -1 - S.Ct. - 1 - L.Ed.2d (No. 80-644, d e c i d e d F e b r u a r y 24, 1 9 8 2 ) ; Dunn v. B l u m s t e i n ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 405 U . S . 330, 92 S.Ct. 995, 3 1 L.Ed.2d 274) n o r c o n s t i t u t e i n v i d i o u s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t a s u s p e c t c l a s s (Graham v. R i c h a r d s o n ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 403 U.S. 365, 9 1 S.Ct. 1 8 4 8 , 29 L.Ed.2d 534; Loving v. V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1 8 1 7 , 1 8 L.Ed.2d 1 0 1 0 ) . The " r a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p " t e s t d e t e r m i n e s whether o u r s t a t u t e s s a t i s f y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s , i . e . , a r e M o n t a n a ' s cornpulsory i n s u r a n c e s t a t u t e s r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e a c h i e v e m e n t o f l e g i t i m a t e g o v e r n m e n t a l o b j e c t i v e s . G . D. S e a r l e & Co., s u p r a . The r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t m o t o r i s t s c a r r y a u t o m o b i l e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e c l e a r l y b e a r s a r a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o a l e g i t i m a t e g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r e s t , v i z . p r o t e c t i n g p e r s o n s u s i n g t h e p u b 1 i c h i g h w a y s f r o m f i n a n c i a l l y i r r e s p o n s i b l e , n e g l i g e n t m o t o r i s t s . I t is a r e a s o n a b l e r e g u l a t i o n t o c a r r y o u t t h i s o b j e c t i v e . While i t is t r u e t h a t o w n e r s o f a u t o m o b i l e s a r e burdened w i t h t h e c o s t o f p u r c h a s i n g a u t o m o b i l e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e t o which n o n m o t o r i s t s a r e n o t b u r d e n e d , t h i s d o e s n o t u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t t h e poor o r i n d i g e n t who c a n n o t a f f o r d i n s u r a n c e a n y more t h a n i t d i s c r i m i n a t e s a g a i n s t t h o s e who c a n n o t a f f o r d t o p u r c h a s e a u t o m o b i l e s t o o p e r a t e on p u b l i c highways. Escobedo, s u p r a ; liadden v. Aitkerl ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 5 6 Neb. 215, 55 N.W.2d 620. The f a l l a c y o f d e f e n d a n t ' s argument t h a t m o t o r i s t p r o t e c t i o n l a w s f a v o r t h e r i c h o v e r t h e poor " l i e s i n t h e f a i l u r e t o d i s t i n g u i s h between e q u a l i t y of o p p o r t u n i t y and a b i l i t y t o t a k e a d v d n t a g e of t h e o p p o r t u n i t y which is o f f e r e d t o a l l . " I n R e O p i n i o n of t h e J u s t i c e s ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 8 1 N.H. 566, 1 2 9 A. 117. A l a w t h a t c o n f e r s e q u a l r i g h t s and e q u a l d u t i e s on a l l c i t i z e n s o f a g i v e n c l a s s d o e s n o t o f f e n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n g u a r a n t e e s . S t a t e v . McCourt ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 3 1 N.J.Super. 283, 329 A.2d 577; W i l l i a m s v . Newton ( F l a . 1 9 7 0 ) , 236 So.2d 98; Escobedo, s u p r a ; I n R e Opinion o f t h e J u s t i c e s , s u p r a . The l e g i s l a t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n m u s t b e s u s t a i n e d u n l e s s it is p a t e n t l y a r b i t r a r y and b e a r s no r a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o a l e g i t i m a t e g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r e s t . F r o n t i e r o v. R i c h a r d s o n ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 411 U.S. 677, 93 S.Ct. 1 7 6 4 , 36 L.Ed.2d 583. D e f e n d a n t h a s acknowledged t h a t h e knows o f no c a s e s where a mandatory a u t o n ~ o b i l e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e l a w h a s been h e l d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , and w e h a v e found none. Such l a w s h a v e been u n i v e r s a l l y upheld a g a i n s t e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c h a l l e n g e s . See c a s e s c o l l e c t e d i n Annot., 39 ALR 1 0 2 8 (1925) , s u p p l e m e n t e d i n Annot., 69 ALR 397 ( 1 9 3 0 ) . D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t h i s w a i v e r o f a j u r y t r i a l is i n v a l i d b e c a u s e t h e j u d g e a d v i s e d him t h a t o n l y l e g a l q u e s t i o n s were i n v o l v e d i n h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a t t a c k and t h a t it was t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e j u d g e and n o t t h e j u r y t o d e c i d e q u e s t i o n s o f law. A c c o r d i n g l y , h e c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s w a i v e r was n o t v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e t h e j u d g e f a i l e d t o a d v i s e h i m t h a t t h e j u r y c o u l d r e n d e r a v e r d i c t a g a i n s t t h e law. W e h o l d t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s w a i v e r o f a j u r y t r i a l was v a l i d , e f f e c t i v e and o p e r a t i v e . The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t t h i s c a s e was t w i c e s e t f o r j u r y t r i a l . The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s a w r i t t e n w a i v e r o f a j u r y t r i a l by d e f e n d a n t i n h i s own h a n d w r i t i n g . The r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e r e a f t e r d e f e n d a n t s u b m i t t e d two b r i e f s and t h e j u d g e r u l e d a g a i n s t him on p u r e l y l e g a l g r o u n d s . The r e c o r d is b a r r e n o f a n y i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e j u d g e e i t h e r a d v i s e d him o r f a i l e d t o a d v i s e him c o n t r a r y t o law. I t is t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t , n o t t h e j u r y , t o d e c i d e q u e s t i o n s of law. S e c t i o n 46-16-103(2), MCA; s e c t i o n 46-17-201(3), MCA. Only q u e s t i o n s o f l a w a r e p r e s e n t e d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a t t a c k on t h e s t a t u t e s . A s s u m i n g , a r g u e n d o , t h a t e v e r y t h i n g d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h e j u d g e t o l d him o r f a i l e d t o t e l l him is t r u e , t h e e r r o r is h a r m l e s s beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . Any e r r o r w h i c h d o e s n o t a f f e c t s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s s h a l l b e d i s r e g a r d e d . S e c t i o n 46-20-702, MCA. No a c t i o n s h a l l be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e r e c o r d shows t h e e r r o r was p r e j u d i c i a l . S e c t i o n 46-20-701, MCA. T h i s c a s e p r e s e n t s o n l y q u e s t i o n s of law f o r t h e j u d g e ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o no s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t o f d e f e n d a n t h a s been p r e j u d i c e d . See S t a t e v . Howard ( 1 9 8 1 ) I - Mont . , 637 P.2d 1 5 , 38 St.Rep. 1980. A f f i r m e d . 7 ; ~ ~ ' , & C g Q c h i e f "Jusf i c e W e c o n c u r : n