Title: STATE v SANFORD
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13145
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 22, 1977

NO. i3i45 I N 'fh6 3UPKhME d O U K T OF THE ATAIL 3F XOLTIANA 1977 THE STHTE OF NONTANk, P l a i n t i f f dnd Respondent, v. 'WLSON ''BUCK'' SANFORD, Defendant and Appellant. Appedl from; 3 i s t r i c t Court of the Sixth J u d i c i a l Distarict Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Moses, Kampfe, Tolliver 6L Wright, Billings, Montana Charles F. Moses, argued, Billings, Montana. For Respondent: ~n s, 4.I U . A . J m , Clayton R. Herron, Helena, Montana Jack Yardley , County Attorney, Livingston, Montana Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Clayton R. Herron, argued, Helena, Montana. submitted: June 9, 1977 Decided : JUN 2 2 797 - Clerk. ?Ir. Justice Gene B . Daly delivered dhe dpirlion d f he Z u u r t . This i s an appeal from a f i n a l judgment of the d i s t r i c t court P a r k County, from a jury verdict of g u i l t y of l i t t e r i n g public property. Nelson "Buck" Sanford was issued a c i t a t i o n by a s t a t e gdme warden on July 1 7 , 1973, charging him with the crime of leaving l i t t e r on public property i n violation of section 94- 3336, R.C.M. 1947, claimed t o have been committed a t "Wolverine Pass" on o r about October 20, 1972. Section 94-3336 a t the time involved provided : "Littering public o r private properties unlawful-- exceptions. It i s unlawful f o r any person o r persons t o dump, deposit, throw o r leave, o r t o cause o r permit dumping, depositing, placing, throwing, o r leaving of l i t t e r on any public o r private property i n t h i s s t a t e , o r any waters i n t h i s s t a t e , unless: ' I ( I ) Such property i s designated by the s t a t e or by any of i t s agencies or p o l i t i c a l subdivisions for the disposal of such material, and such person i s authorized by the proper public authority t o use such property; "(2) Into a l i t t e r receptacle, o r container i n s t a l l e d on such property; "(3) He i s the owner o r tenant i n lawful posses- sion of such property, o r has f i r s t obtained consent of the owner o r tenant i n lawful possession o r unless the a c t is done under the personal direction of said tenant o r owner." A formal complaint was f i l e d i n the j u s t i c e court, Livingston, Montana, before the j u s t i c e of the peace on July 1 7 , 1973, charging Sanford with a misdemeanor on o r about October 15, 1972, a t Nolverine Pass, i n t h a t he did "wilfully, wrongfully and unlaw- f u l l y leave l i t t e r on public property located i n Section Eight (8), Township Nine (9) South, Range Fourteen (14) East, M.P.M., Park Coimty , Montana". L'rlal w a s 5el-d b e ~ o r e che justice jr :he peace w i t h o u ~ d j u r y arid a verdict a£ g u i l t y entered therein. Appeal was perfected t o the d i s t r i c t court, Park County. Thereafter a jury t r i a l was held before the d i s t r i c t court Qn May 12 and 13, 1975, and a jury verdict of g u i l t y entered. ,+ppeal was then perfected from the f i n a l judgment of the dis- t r i c t court t o t h i s Court. The principal f a c t s a r e largely uncontradicted. Sanford has Seen an o u t f i t t e r and licensed f o r about 20 years; he kept and maintained a camp i n Park County, Montana, known a s the "Wolverine Pass" campsite f o r over 25 years. For many years t h i s business was conducted under h i s name alone, but a f t e r h i s son, Ron Sanford, returned from the service and se- cured an o u t f i t t e r ' s license, the business was conducted under the name of Sanford and Sons; Buck Sanford and h i s three sons, Pori, Lon, and Rick. A t the time of the incident i n question i n 1972, Sanford and Sons applied f o r and was granted a permit from the f o r e s t service f o r the use of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r Wolverine Pass campsite. A t d i f f e r e n t times during the hunting season i n the F a l l of 1972, Suck Sanford and a l l three of h i s sons were there guiding and : ~ u t f i t t i n g hunters. Each a t d i f f e r e n t times took d i f f e r e n t parties i n t o t h i s area, and a t d i f f e r e n t times used the campsite. O n October 2, 1972, Vern Waples, a law o f f i c e r , served e r r t a f r i c i v i l papers on Buck Sanford a t the campsite. Those papers had no bearing on the present matter. While Waples was a t the campsite, he made an inspection of the premises which was ane of h i s duties, H e found no actionable violations as of 3crober 2 , 1972. Several days a r t e ~ receipc 2L r h r papers, Buck Sanford Lekt the campsite and did not return u n t i l t h e following year. Thereafter h i s sons used the campsite and did so u n t i l October 28, 1972. A t t h a t time winter storm conditions and increasing snow required the camp be closed and so Rick and Lon Sanford and three other persons proceeded t o arrange t o remove a l l equipment, a r t i c l e s and l i t t e r from t h e campsite. When the sons returned t o the campsite with a tracked v e h i c l e , they found one person had suffered a broken arm and they removed t h a t person, the horses and what equipment they :odd. They were unable t o return because of weather conditions for t h e remainder of t h e i r property and t h e l i t t e r . I n j u s t i c e court the s t a t e admitted the defendant called and explained the riiacter t o the forest service and apparently was assured t h a t a l l was well i f the remainder o f o t h e items were removed the next summer. This was denied i n the d i s t r i c t court. During the t r i a l i n d i s t r i c t court, it was never established the defendant was present o r had anything t o do with the l i t t e r . T o the contrary, one of h i s sons t e s t i f i e d he was the responsible party, i f there was a criminal violation, i n l i g h t of the circum- stances. Defendant presented eight issues t o t h i s Court f o r review, which include sufficiency of the evidence; improper evidence admitted and denial of a number of defendant's proposed jury instructions. W e could burden t h i s opinion with a d i s s e r t a t i o n on the poi-ntls raised by defendant, but the pertinent point i s t h a t che s t a t e never proved i t s case under any theory. The record does not e s t a b l i s h t h a t defendant did l i t t e r i l a y . The testimony of Vern Waples proves t h a t up t o October 2, 1972, there was no l i t t e r . Defendant l e f t several days l a t e r and there i s no testimony t h a t he l i t t e r e d o r per- mitted l i t t e r i n g a t any time. The camp was i n operation u n t i l nearly t h e end of October 1972. Defendant i s charged with w i l f u l l , wrongful, and unlawful leaving of l i t t e r on public property. The s t a t e admits defendant i s only being prosecuted f o r t h e reasons he i s "a named permittee responsible f o r the area which became l i t t e r e d and was l e f t a s l i t t e r e d while i n the scope and mantle of h i s responsibility." (Emphasis supplied.) This i s not even a proven f a c t . The permit was issued t o San- ford and Sons and one of the sons, i n court, admitted t o being the responsible party a f t e r h i s father l e f t the campsite. The judgment of conviction is reversed and the case i s dismissed. , ' A - ~kkief J u s t i c e