No. 80-385 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant,
vs. WILLIAM F. WILLIAMS, Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: DistrictCourt of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Jefferson Honorable Frank Blair, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana CecilWoodgate, Deputy County Attorney, Boulder, Montana For Respondent: Small, Hatch & Doubek, Helena, Montana

Filed: 

## AUG

## G

# - Submitted on briefs: June 12, 1981 Decided: August 6, 1981 

# p.&"ic
ClerkMr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, 

### Jr., delivered the Opinion of the Court.
The State of Montana (State) appeals from an order of the DistrictCourt of the FifthJudicial District, Jefferson County, granting defendant's motion for a new trial. Linda Tittleton and Debra Cunningham reported that their house inBasin, Montana, had been broken into during the lateevening of November 9, 1979. 

### Itemsreported missing included a stereo tape player, stereo tapes, a small black and white television, $85 incash and $18 worth of food stamps. The defendant was subsequently charged with burglary and felony the£

### t inconnection with this incident. Defendant was brought to trial on the charges inAugust 1980. Prior to trial, the District Court granted defendant's motion in limine excluding evidence of: 

### (I-) defendant'

### s prior criminal record; 

### (2) defendant's use of or familiarity with marijuana; and (3) defendant's marital problems. Trial was held on August 27, 28, 1980. The prosecution's main witness was a Jerry Wilk, a friend of both of the victims and the defendant. Wilk had been charged with other thefts inJefferson County and as a part of a plea negotiation on such charges, agreed to assist the prosecution by testifying against the defendant. Wilk testified that he was atthe defendant's house after the alleged burglary and saw some of the stolen goods. He also testified that the defendant told him how the break-in of the Tittleton/Cunningham residence had occurred. Tittleton and Cunningham testified that they had been friends of the defendant and that he had visited their house several times. The two women also testified that they had been with the defendant ata bar inBoulder, Montana, on thenight of the break-in, but that the defendant had left early. Additional testimony was given by police officers and alsoby a Suzanne Campbell. Ms. Campbell testified that the defendant sold her a tape player and tapes which turned out tobe 

### items taken from the Tittleton/Cunningham residence. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of burglary and felony theft. Sentencing
was 

### set for September 3, 1980. About ten minutes before the sentencing hearing, the defendant gave the State a copy of a motion for new 

### trial, supported by a brief. The motion for a new trial stated four grounds. The firstwas numerous violations by the State of the motion in limine. Secondly, defendant alleged that Debra Cunningham had perjured herself when she falsely said she had never been arrested for shoplifting. Third, defendant argued that the prosecuting attorney had violated his attorney-client relationshipwhen he attempted to impeach the testimony of the defendant's wife. The fourth and finalbasis for a new trialwas that the Statehad violated the defendant's fifth amendment right toremain silentwhen the prosecuting attorney pointed a finger athim during trial and indirectly challenged him to deny the charges against him. Minutes after the Statehad received 

### a copy of the defendant's motion on September 3, 1980, the motion 

### was argued before the court. The State objected that 

### ithad not received reasonable notice inadvance of the motion, and it asked for a chance tobrief 

### its side. The DistrictCourt denied the State's request for 

### time tobrief the motion. Several hours after argument on defendant's motion, the DistrictCourt granted the defendant a new trial. No reasons
were given specifying the basis for the DistrictCourt'sdecision. The DistrictCourt filecontains a minute entry which reads: "On motion of the defendant filed herein, and by express agreement, heard this 3rd day of September, 1980 argued by counsel for the State and the defendant and good cause being shown 

### it 

### is ordered that theMotion of the defendant to 

### set aside the verdict and grant a new trial 

### is hereby granted." The State's single issue on appeal 

### is that the District Court erred ingranting a new trialwhen the county attorney had not been given advance notice of the motion and an opportunity to brief the question. Defendant contends on appeal that the DistrictCourt erred infailing to setaside the jury verdict asbeing based on insufficientevidence. Section 46-16-702, MCA, establishes the procedural guidelines for granting a defendant a new trial. This provision states: "(1)Following a verdict or finding of guilty, the courtmay grant the defendant a new trial if required inthe interest of justice. 

### "(2) The motion for a new trialmust be in

### writing and must specify the grounds therefor. It must be filedby the defendant within 30 days following a verdict or finding of guilty. Reasonable notice of 

## -- the motion must 

### -- be served 

### - on the state. 

### "(3) On hearing the motion for a new trial, if justified by law and the weight of the evidence, the courtmay:

"(a)deny the motion; 

### "(b) grant a new trial; or

"(c)modify or change the verdict or finding by finding the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense or finding the defendant not guilty." (Emphasis added.)

### Here the Statehad no effectivenotice of defendant's motion and no opportunity forreply. The DistrictCourt granted the motion on the same day that the Statewas served. Such action clearlydenied the State "reasonable notice" as required by section 46-16-702, MCA. 

### Additionally, thisCourt 

### isconcerned with the manner inwhich the District Court granted the defendant's motion. Inneither the District

### Court's order granting the motion,
nor inthe minute entry of the court file, aregrounds for granting the motion specified. As

### previously noted, the governing statuteregarding motions for new trial, section 46-16-702, MCA, 

### requires only that the moving party specifically state

### its grounds for such motion. This statutedoes not require that the District Court expressly state

### its
reasons for taking whatever action it deems appropriate regarding such motions. However, incivilproceedings, the trial courtmust, when granting a motion for a new trial, 

# ".


# .

# . specify the grounds therefor with sufficientparticularity as to apprise the parties and the appellate court of the rationale underlying the ruling

# . .

# ." Rule 59(f),M.R.Civ.P. The purposes behind this rule are to narrow the issues on appeal and to obviate the need to read an entire record to determine the DistrictCourt's rationale for issuing 

### itsdecision. Such considerations areequally necessary regarding appeals from criminal cases. Therefore, this Court holds that the mandates of Rule 59(f),M.R.Civ.P., are applicable tomotions for new trialmade pursuant to section 46-16-702, MCA. erea after,the DistrictCourt must setforth 

### itsreasons indeciding such motions. The defendant here contends that the DistrictCourt should have granted a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the jury verdict because of insufficient evidence. This matter 

### willhave tobe presented to the DistrictCourt after giving reasonable notice to the State. The order of the District Court 

### isreversed and this
case 

### isremanded for further proceedings inaccordance with this decision.

We concur:

6' Justices /