Title: STATE EX REL LANCE v DIST COURT
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13167
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 12, 1975

No. 13167 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE OF M O N T A N A T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A ex r e 1 STEPHEN W A L T E R LANCE, Relator, T H E DISTRICT C O U R T OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , i n and f o r t h e County of Yellowstone, and t h e HON. ROBERT H. WILSON, Presiding Judge, ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relator : Moses, Kampfe, T o l l i v e r & Wright, B i l l i n g s , Montana D. Frank Kampfe argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents: Hon. Robert I.,. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser appeared, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Amicus Curiae: Thomas Honzel argued, Helena, Montana Submitted : October 29, 1975 Decided: h!@vlz lw5 l e r k M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an application f o r a w r i t of supervisory control or other appropriate w r i t . Relator Stephen Walter Lance was charged by Information with one felony count of criminal s a l e of dangerous drugs (marijuana), and one felony count of possession of dangerous drugs (marijuana), i n t h e d i s t r i c t court, Yellowstone County. A motion t o dismiss was f i l e d , heard and denied. Relator then petitioned t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of supervisory control directing the d i s t r i c t court t o dismiss the Information. A n adversary hearing was held before t h i s Court. R.elator challenges t h e two s t a t u t e s under which he was charged, sections 54-132 and 54-133, R.C.M. 1947. Relator contends t h a t both sections f a i l t o s t a t e a crime and the attempted enforce- ment of such s t a t u t e s is i n violation of the due process clause i n the Fourteenth Amendment t o the United States Constitution and Article 11, Section 17, 1972 Montana Constitution. Section 54-132 reads i n part: "(a) A person commits the offense of a criminal s a l e of dangerous drugs i f he s e l l s , b a r t e r s , ex- changes, gives away, o r o f f e r s t o s e l l , b a r t e r , exchange or give away, manufactures, prepares, cul- t i v a t e s , compounds o r processes any dangerous drug a s defined i n t h i s act." (Emphasis added.) Section 54-133 reads i n part: "(a) A person commits the offense of criminal possession of dangerous drugs i f he possesses any dangerous drug a s defined i n t h i s a c t . " (~mphasls added.) Sections 54-132 and 54-133 were enacted on Pilarch 11, 1969, a s part of the Montana Dangerous Drug Act. Also included i n t h a t a c t was section 54-129, which defined the term "dangerous drug". Thereafter, on March 21, 1973, the l e g i s l a t u r e enacted further drug l e g i s l a t i o n borrowing heavily from the Uniform Con- t r o l l e d Substances Act. A s part of t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n , it repealed section 54-129. It a l s o amended sections 54-132 and 54-133 t o t h e i r present form. The new l e g i s l a t i o n was codified a s sections 54-301 through 54-327, R. C.Y. 1947. The *-IonLana 9angerous Drug Act remained i n T i t l e 54, Chapter 1, Revised Codesof Montana. F i r s t , r e l a t o r presents f o r t h i s Court's consideration the argument t h a t there a r e now two separate drug a c t s i n force i n the s t a t e of Montana : (1) the Montana Dangerous Drug Act, and (2) what r e l a t o r l a b e l s the "Controlled Substances Act". Relator argues t h a t by repealing section 54-129 the Montana Dangerous Drug Act no longer has a d e f i n i t i o n of a dangerous drug, therefore r e l a t o r cannot be charged with e i t h e r the s a l e or possession of a dangerous drug under sections 54-132 and 54-133 f o r both s t a t u t e s use the phrase "dangerous drug as defined i n t h i s act". Relator argues t h a t there i s no such definition. With t h a t argument t h i s Court cannot agree. House B i l l No. 128, 43rd Legislative Assembly, was e n t i t l e d : "AN ACT TO AMEND THE D A N G E R O U S DRUG ACT, BY ADOPTING SUBSTANTIALLY THE DEFINITIONS, PRO- CEDURES, S T A N D A R D S AND SCHEDULES AND THE R E G U L A T O R Y PROVISIONS O F T H E U N I F O R M C O N T R O L L E D SUBSTANCES ACT A S RECOMMENDED BY THE N A T I O N A L C O N F E R E N C E O F C O M M I S - SIONERS ON U N I F O R M STATE L A W S ; BY E X C L U D I N G F R O M S U C H SCHEDULES NON-NARCOTIC D R U G S WHICH MAY BE L A W F U L L Y S O L D OVER T H E C O U N T E R WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION; BY REPEALING SECTIONS 54-129, 54-130, 54-131 and 66-1504.1, R.C.M.1947; * * * PROVIDING F O R SEVERABILITY IF ANY PART O F THIS ACT IS DETERMINED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; AND REPEALING A L L A C T S AND PARTS O F A C T S I N CONFLICT HERE- WITH. " From its t i t l e , it i s c l e a r t h a t t h e 1973 l e g i s l a t i o n was intended only t o amend the existing Dangerous Drug Act and not t o c r e a t e a separate ontr trolled Substances Act". The problem here i s obviously an oversight on the part of t h e c o d i f i e r i n making the l e g i s l a t i o n look l i k e two separate a c t s i n the Revised Codes of Montana. The a c t s of t h e c o d i f i e r cannot change the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e . Nor does the adoption of definitions and format from the Uniform Controlled Substances Act make the l e g i s l a t i o n a separate a c t from the Montana Dangerous Drug Act. Therefore, the 1973 drug l e g i s l a t i o n now codified under sections 54-301 through 54-327, R.C.M. 1947, was intended t o amend and be included a s p a r t of the Montana Dangerous Drug Act; t h e term 11 dangerous drug" a s used i n sections 54-132 and 54-133 i s defined i n section 54-301, R.C:M. 1947. Relator's second argument i s t h a t the federal Controlled Substances Act preempted ~ o n t a n a ' s Dangerous Drug Act. Relator acknowledges t h a t t h e federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.. $903, reads: "No provision of t h i s t i t l e s h a l l be construed a s indicating an i n t e n t on the p a r t of t h e Congress t o occupy t h e f i e l d i n which t h a t provision operates, in- cluding criminal penalties, t o the exclusion of any S t a t e law on the same subject matter which would other- wise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive c o n f l i c t between t h a t provision of t h i s t i t l e and t h a t S t a t e law so t h a t the two cannot con- s i s t e n t l y stand together. I I Relator concedes there was no o v e r a l l plan t o preempt the s t a t e s i n the f i e l d of a drug control when Congress enacted the federal Controlled Substances Act, Relator points out however t h a t there i s a substantial difference i n t h e penalty f o r possession of marijuana between the federal Controlled Substances Act and the Montana Dangerous Drug Act. There is a "vast difference" i n the penalties provided i n the two a c t s f o r t h e s a l e of dangerous drugs, but the difference is not conflicting i n view of the specific inclusion of criminal penalties i n the federal s t a t u t e . Relator argues t h a t one of the s t a t e d purposes of the enactment of the federal s t a t u t e was t o provide f o r an overall balanced scheme of criminal penalties f o r offenses involving drugs; t h a t t h e s t a t e and federal a c t s provide such a positive c o n f l i c t a s t o penalties t h a t the two cannot stand together; and t h a t , therefore, the federal law preempted the s t a t e . W e find no merit t o r e l a t o r ' s argument. Nowhere is there evidence t h a t the federal a c t was i n any way meant t o preempt the s t a t e ' s r i g h t t o drug control, In Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497, 76 S.Ct. 4 5 7 , LO0 L ed 640, 652, the United States Supreme Court s e t out three t e s t s , two of which a r e important t o our consideration here, t o determine whether a federal a c t has superseded a s t a t e a c t : " ~ i r s t , ' [ t ]he scheme of federal regulation [ i s ] so pervasive a s t o make reasonable t h e inference t h a t Con r e s s l e f t no room f o r t h e States t o supple- ment it. ? * , , "second, t h e federal s t a t u t e s 'touch a f i e l d i n which t h e e r a l i n t e r e s t i s so dominant t h a t t h e federal system [must] be assumed t o preclude enforcement of s t a t e laws on the same subject.' * * * "Third, enforcement of s t a t e * * ; k a c t s presents a serious danger of c o n f l i c t with t h e administration of the federal program. I I Applying these standards, it cannot be s a i d t h e states have no authority t o regulate i n the f i e l d of drugs o r narcotics, including the authority t o specify the punishment t o be imposed. Furthermore, the Congress made c l e a r , a s heretofore quoted, t h a t it did not intend "to occupy the f i e l d * * * including criminal penalties, t o the exclusion of any S t a t e law * * *." (Emphasis added.) Nothing could be more c l e a r . The p e t i t i o n of r e l a t o r i s denied and t h i s proceeding i s dismissed. G f&/€ / Chief JCstice I . ! 4 : - * 4 4 A d ' ' Justices. / I