Title: STATE EX REL LANE v DISTRICT COUR
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13006
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: May 12, 1975

No. 13006 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , ex re1 JERRY LEE LANE, Relator, T H E DISTRICT C O U R T O F T H E F O U R T H JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A , I N AND F O R T H E COUNTY O F MISSOULA, and T H E H O N O R A B L E GARDNER B R O W N L E E , a D i s t r i c t Court Judge thereof, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relator : Hon. Robert L . Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Lon Maxwell argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Goldman, McChesney and Eck, Missoula, Montana Harold L. McChesney argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondents: Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana Gary L. Graham argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: April 28, 1975 Decided : MAY ] 2 1975 a! ,fYf : T. 1 YJS Filed : M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding wherein the r e l a t o r seeks a w r i t of mandamus t o d i r e c t the d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t h e judge thereof, t h e Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, of t h e f o u r t h judi- c i a l d i s t r i c t , Missoula County, t o c a l l i n a d i s t r i c t judge t o preside and t o p r o h i b i t t h e respondent judge from presiding i n f u r t h e r matters i n Missoula County cause No. 40723, Lane v. New York L i f e Insurance Company. Relator, a s p l a i n t i f f , f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i - c a t i o n of t h e respondent judge. Judge Brownlee made an order quashing t h e a f f i d a v i t and se.t t h e case f o r t r i a l . I n t h e order quashing t h e a f f i d a v i t f o r d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n , insofar a s t h e i s s u e s here a r e concerned, t h e d i s t r i c t judge gave a s h i s reasons t h a t s e c t i o n 93-901(4), R.C.M. 1947, [ t h e so-called f a i r t r i a l l a w o r t h e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t a t u t e ] was unconstitutional under t h e 1972 Montana Constitution. Those reasons a r e t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h i s o r i g i n a l proceeding and may be s t a t e d : (1) Does t h e J u d i c i a l Standards Commission provided f o r by A r t i c l e V I I , Section 1 1 of t h e 1972 Constitution, supplant t h e f a i r t r i a l law i n t h a t Section 6 of t h e Transition Schedule provides : * * * A l l laws, ordinances, regulations and r u l e s of c o u r t not contrary t o , o r i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h , t h e provisions of t h i s Constitution s h a l l remain i n f o r c e , u n t i l they s h a l l expire by t h e i r own l i m i t a t i o n o r s h a l l be a l t e r e d o r repealed pursuant t o t h i s Constitution." Respondent then reasons t h a t t h e converse is t r u e and t h a t s e c t i o n 93-901(4) i s inconsistent with t h e 1 9 7 2 Constitution and thus repealed. ( 2 ) That A r t i c l e V I I , Section 2 of t h e 1972 Montana Con- s t i t u t i o n grants t h e Supreme Court power t o adopt r u l e s , and t h e Supreme Court has not done so. (3) That d i s t r i c t judges a r e without power t o c a l l i n o t h e r judges t o hear cases from which they have been d i s q u a l i - f i e d , i n t h a t only t h e Chief J u s t i c e under A r t i c l e V I I , Section 6(3) may do so. A s t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e , A r t i c l e V I I , Section 1 1 of t h e 1972 Montana Constitution provides: "Section 11. Removal and d i s c i p l i n e . (1) The l e g i s l a t u r e s h a l l c r e a t e a j u d i c i a l standards c o m ~ i s s i o n c o n s i s t i n g of f i v e persons and pro- vide f o r t h e appointment t h e r e t o of two d i s t r i c t judges, one attorney, and two c i t i z e n s who a r e n e i t h e r judges nor attorneys. " ( 2 ) The commission s h a l l i n v e s t i g a t e complaints, make r u l e s implementing t h i s s e c t i o n , and keep i t s proceedings c o n f i d e n t i a l . It may subpoena witnesses and documents. " (3) Upon recommendation of t h e commission, t h e supreme c o u r t may: " ( a ) R e t i r e any j u s t i c e o r judge f o r d i s a b i l i t y t h a t s e r i o u s l y i n t e r f e r e s with t h e performance of h i s d u t i e s and is o r may become permanent; o r " ( b ) Censure, suspend, o r remove any j u s t i c e o r judge f o r w i l l f u l misconduct i n o f f i c e , w i l l f u l and p e r s i s t e n t f a i l u r e t o perform h i s d u t i e s , o r habitual intemperance." Sections 93-718 through 93-728, R.C.M. 1947, implement Section 1 1 of A r t i c l e V I I of the 1 9 7 2 Constitution by c r e a t i n g a j u d i c i a l standards commission t o i n i t i a t e an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of any j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r of t h e s t a t e upon good cause shown by a v e r i f i e d written complaint f i l e d by any c i t i z e n of t h e s t a t e with t h e commission. The convention note t o Section 11, A r t i c l e V I I , s t a t e s t h e purpose of t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provision. "New provision. A j u d i c i a l standards commission may i n v e s t i g a t e whenever a judge, because of d i s a b i l i t y o r bad h a b i t s , does not perform h i s d u t i e s properly. The commission can recommend t o t h e supreme c o u r t t h a t t h e judge be r e t i r e d , censured, suspended o r removed." The presumption of v a l i d i t y a t t e n d s every l e g i s l a t i v e enactment and t h e burden of proving i n v a l i d i t y of a s t a t u t e rests upon one attacking t h e s t a t u t e . See S t a t e v. Henrich, 162 Mont. 1 1 4 , 509 P.2d 288; S t a t e v. Parker, 1 6 1 Mont. 394, 506 P.2d 850; and S t a t e Highway Commission v. Chapman, 152 Mont. 79, 446 P.2d Section 6 of t h e 1972 Montana Constitution t r a n s i t i o n schedule provides: "Section 6 . General t r a n s i t i o n . (I) * * * A l l laws, ordinances, regulations,and r u l e s of c o u r t not contrary t o , o r inconsistent with, t h e pro- v i s i o n s of t h i s Constitution s h a l l remain i n force, u n t i l they s h a l l expire by t h e i r own l i m i t a t i o n o r s h a l l be a l t e r e d o r repealed pursuant t o t h i s Constitution. 'I The following convention note s t a t e s : "Unless t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y changes a law it w i l l not a f f e c t any r i g h t s o r d u t i e s o r t h e v a l i d i t y of c o n t r a c t s , bonds, e t c . & * *I' Neither A r t i c l e V I I , Section 6 , of t h e 1972 Montana Con- s t i t u t i o n nor s t a t u t e s implementing it, specificallych.;fige t h e e x i s t i n g s t a t u t o r y o r decisional law upholding t h e r i g h t of a party o r l i t i g a n t , personally, o r through h i s attorney, t o d i s - q u a l i f y a d i s t r i c t judge by f i l i n g an a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a - t i o n . O n J u l y 16, 1973, t h i s Court adopted t h i s order: "Under A r t . V I I , Sec. 2 , Constitution of t h e S t a t e of Montana of June 6 , 1972, t h i s Court adopts a l l of i t s r u l e s of a p p e l l a t e procedure, p r a c t i c e and procedure f o r a11 o t h e r c o u r t s , admission t o t h e bar and t h e conduct of i t s members, those l e g i s - l a t i v e a c t s appearing i n R.C.M. 1947 and Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure and Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Rulesfor Admission t o t h e Bar and Canons of Ethics a s they were published, adopted and i n e f f e c t a s of J u l y 1, 1973, o r t o become e f f e c t i v e by l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n with approval of t h e Governor a t a l a t e r d a t e as those a c t i o n s appear i n t h e Session Laws of 1973." This Court's decision i n State ex rel. Peery v. D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , 145 Mont. 287, 400 P.2d 648, wherein Judge Brownlee was one of t h e respondents, confirms t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of section 93-901(4), R.C.M. 1947, i n l i g h t of t h e 1889 Montana Constitution. Montana cases a r e uniform i n holding t h a t upon t h e f i l i n g of a timely a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i - c a t i o n (15 days before d a t e s e t f o r t r i a l , pursuant t o s e c t i o n 93-901) t h e presiding judge must r e l i n q u i s h j u r i s d i c t i o n and c a l l i n another judge. See: Peery v . D i s t r i c t Court, supra; Washoe Copper Co. v. Hickey, 46 Mont. 363, 128 P. 584; Rowan v. Gazette P r i n t i n g Co., 69 Mont. 170, 2 2 0 P. 1 1 0 4 ; S t a t e ex r e l . OB-GYN Group v. D i s t . Court, 159 Mont. 1, 494 P.2d 931. Section 93- 901, R.C.M. 1947, f u r t h e r provides f o r t h e c a l l i n g i n of a judge from t h e same j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , upon t h e f i l i n g of t h e i n i t i a l a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . R e l a t o r ' s f i r s t and second i s s u e s have been answered con- t r a r y respondent's p o s i t i o n . A s t o t h e t h i r d i s s u e : The 1889 Montana Constitution provided, i n A r t i c l e V I I I , Section 12: " * * * Any judge of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may hold c o u r t f o r any o t h e r d i s t r i c t judge, and s h a l l do s o when required by law." The 1972 Montana Constitution provides, i n A r t i c l e V I I , Section 6 ( 3 ) : "The chief j u s t i c e may, upon request of t h e d i s t r i c t judge, a s s i g n d i s t r i c t judges and o t h e r judges f o r temporary s e r v i c e from one d i s t r i c t t o another, and from one county t o another." The i n t e n t of t h e framers, i n using t h e language quoted from t h e 1972 Montana Constitution, i s evidencedby t h e following excerpts from t h e Transcript of Proceedings: Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Convention, pp. 3344, 3349, 3350, 3351. [Bracketed m a t e r i a l s a r e supplied t o c l a r i f y references not apparent from t h e t e x t . ] "DELEGATE BERG: I should only comment upon that change [amendment which provided t h e above-quoted language i n subsection 31 t h a t it was f e l t t h a t a chief j u s t i c e ought not t o be a b l e t o assign d i s t r i c t judges, i n e f f e c t , w i l l y - n i l l y around t h e s t a t e ; t h a t it could be open t o possible abuse. The r e a l need a r i s e s when t h e r e is heavy congestion i n one d i s t r i c t c o u r t , and t h e r e f o r e , upon t h e re- quest of t h a t d i s t r i c t judge, t h e supreme c o u r t chief j u s t i c e may assign any o t h e r judge i n t h e r e t o a s s i s t him i n t h e clean up of h i s work. That i s t h e reason f o r t h i s ad hoc amendment. "DELEGATE McNEIL: M r . Berg, t h e a d d i t i o n a l language t h a t you've i n s e r t e d i n t h e l a s t paragraph t h a t t h e chief j u s t i c e may, upon request -- I question is, upon request of whom? "DELEGATE BERG: W e thought t h e amendment was q u i t e c l e a r t h a t it was upon t h e r e q u e s t of t h e d i s t r i c t judge, o r t h e judge t h a t may be asking f o r a s s i s t a n c e . That was t h e i n t e n t of t h e ad hoc committee. "DELEGATE McNEIL: Is t h a t upon t h e request of t h e judge t o be assigned, o r upon t h e r e q u e s t of t h e judge d e s i r i n g a s s i s t a n c e ? "DELEGATE BERG: The one d e s i r i n g a s s i s t a n c e . W e thought t h a t would be c l e a r from t h e nature of t h e language. ' I * * * "DELEGATE DAVIS: M r . Berg. The l a s t paragraph provides a chief j u s t i c e may, upon request, assign and etc. D o you thereby intend t o exclude t h e present system where t h e judge of a d i s t r i c t c o u r t may hold c o u r t f o r any o t h e r d i s t r i c t judge between themselves? "DELEGATE BERG: No, w e purposely l e f t t h i s with a permissive may. W e d i d not intend t o i n any way e f f e c t t h e present system, which is s t a t u t o r y , on t h e method of c a l l i n q i n o t h e r judqes upon d i s - q u a l i f i c a t i o n . [Emphasis supplied.] "DELEGATE DAVIS: For t h e sake of t h e journal we're making, and t h e record now, they can still do it a s they a r e p r e s e n t l y doing it, i f they wish. "DELEGATE BERG: Y e s , we consider t h e present voluntary system t o be very adequate, but we f e l t t h a t t h e r e may be a s i t u a t i o n a r i s e where t h e judge i n one c i t y o r another, may be overwhelmed, and he could request appointment by t h e supreme c o u r t . "DELEGATE DAVIS: Thank you, M r . Berg. "CHAIRMAN GRAYBILL: M r . Melvin. "DELEGATE MELVIN: For t h e information of Delegate Davis and t h e l a y people, t h e c o u r t indicated t h a t t h i s was e n t i r e l y proper, and t h a t t h e present system was working very well." The members of t h e Committee of t h e Whole then unanimously voted t o recommend t h e s e c t i o n , a s amended, f o r adoption. I t i s apparent then t h a t a w r i t should i s s u e d i r e c t i n g Judge Brownlee t o c a l l i n another judge. Attorney f e e s i n t h e amount of $500 and c o s t s a r e allowed pursuant t o s e c t i o n 93-9112, R.C.M. 1947, a s a c o s t a g a i n s t Missoula County. od.' ~ b b e r t Nelson, District J 'ge d i t t i n g i n place of M r . J{;i&F'rank I. Haswell.