Title: STATE v BERGUM
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12606
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: March 7, 1974

No. 12606 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T OF THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1974 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - JANET BERGUM , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Bernard W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas J. Beers, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Ronald W. Smith appeared, County Attorney, Havre, Montana For Respondent : Morrison, E t t i e n and Barron, Havre, Montana Robert D. Morrison argued, Havre, Montana Submitted : February 28, 1974 Decided: M R - ' 1974 Filed : = ' j g t l ~ Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. In May of 1973 the defendant, Janet Bergum, was charged in the justice court of Hill County with the offense of furnish- ing beer to a minor. A motion to suppress evidence (a statement made to the arresting officers) was made and on May 29, 1973 the justice court ordered the suppression of the statement as evidence. On July 23, 1973, fifty-five days following the suppression order, the state filed a notice of appeal to district court. A motion to dismiss the appeal was granted, and this case is before us on appeal from the dismissal order of the district court. There are two issues presented for determination: (1) Whether the state may, under the Montana Code of Criminal Procedure, appeal the interlocutory order of the justice court in a criminal case; and (2) Whether, if such an appeal is permissible, the pro- visions of section 95-2405, R.C.M. 1947, as to time are applic- able to such appeal. A question regarding appeals from justice courts was be- fore us recently in State v. Bush, Mont . P.2d - 1 - I 31 St.Rep. 188 (February 1974) . In that case the issue was whether an appeal bond was required to perfect appeals from jus- tice courts. There the argument was that since section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947, does not require an appeal bond, none was required. However we held that an appeal bond was required in another chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Bush - at p . 189: " * * * since the code was adopted as one comprehensive piece of legislation it should be considered in its entirety to determine the effect of any one section. * * *" The Montana Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted by the Fortieth Legislative Assembly in 1967 as a comprehensive Act governing t h e conduct of criminal cases i n our courts. Chapter 196, Laws of 1967. Chapter 20 of t h a t Act governs j u s t i c e and police c o u r t proceedings, and Chapter 24 of t h e Act makes provision f o r appeals by t h e state and defendants. " * * * A s t a t u t e is passed a s a whole and not i n p a r t s o r s e c t i o n s and is animated by one general purpose and i n t e n t . Consequently, each p a r t o r s e c t i o n should be construed i n connec- t i o n with every other p a r t o r s e c t i o n so a s t o produce a harmonious whole. * * *" 2 A Sutherland Statutory Construction, § 46.05 (4th Ed.) While section 94-2009, R.C.M. 1947, provides f o r appeals of t h e f i n a l decision of j u s t i c e and p o l i c e c o u r t s , it makes no mention of t h e appeal of i n t e r l o c u t o r y orders of those c o u r t s by t h e s t a t e . However, s e c t i o n 95-2403 (3) (5) c l e a r l y provides f o r appeals by t h e s t a t e from any court order suppressing evidence. Viewing t h e a c t as a whole, it i s c l e a r t h a t t h e s t a t e may appeal from i n t e r l o c u t o r y orders. The appeal provision of Chapter 20 of t h e a c t was meant only t o d e f i n e and d e l i m i t t h e defendant's r i g h t of appeal. Therefore we hold t h a t i n t e r l o c u t o r y appeals by t h e s t a t e i n j u s t i c e c o u r t proceedings a r e permitted and a r e governed by Chapter 24 of T i t l e 95, R.C.M. 1947. The appeal of t h e s t a t e i n t h i s case was timely f i l e d under s e c t i o n 95-2405 ( a ) ( e ) , R.C.M. 1947. The order dismissing t h e appeal of t h e s t a t e is reversed and t h e cause remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. -- T I - - _ Is- ,-,---k--k*-,-,--;------------' Chief J u s t i c e d u s t ices - 3 -