Title: STATE v CONRAD
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-314
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: April 11, 1982

No. 81-314 I N T H E S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, VS. GERMAINE D. CONRAD and ROBERT F. PALMER, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: 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 , I n and f o r t h e County of Missoula Honorable Gordon Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps, I11 argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondents: Moses Law Firm, B i l l i n g s , Montana Charles F. Moses argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Edward A. Curnmings argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: October 19, 1981 .APR 1 2 198 F i l e d . Decided: I\$R 1 2 1982 Clerk Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . T h i s is a11 a p p e a l from an o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e S t a t e ' s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a n i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s w i t h o f f i c i a l m i s c o n d u c t . W e a f f i r m . The f a c t s d i s c l o s e t h a t d e f e n d a n t R o b e r t Palmer was sworn i n a s a M i s s o u l a County Commissioner on t h e morning o f J a n u a r y 5 , 1981. D e f e n d a n t Germaine Conrad was a l r e a d y a County Comrnissioner . The t h i r d County Commissioner was B a r b a r a Evans. C h a r l e s Brooke was t h e C o ~ n m i s s i o n ' s a d m i n i s - t r a t i v e o f f i c e r . L a t e r on t h a t same d a y , a f t e r Palmer had been sworn i n , he and Conrad met t o d i s c u s s a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n p l a n f o r s t a f f p e r s o n n e l . F o l l o w i n g t h e m e e t i n g , Brooke was d i r e c t e d t o make up documents t o o u t l i n e and implement t h e p l a n t h a t had been approved by Conrad and Palmer. Brooke was t o h a v e t h e s u p p o r t i n g documents p r e p a r e d i n t i m e f o r t h e commis- s i o n e r s ' m e e t i n g s c h e d u l e d f o r t h e n e x t d a y , J a n u a r y 6. A t t h a t t i m e t h e p l a n was t o be p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t h i r d commis- s i o n e r , B a r b a r a Evans. Evans d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n a n y o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n s . Both r e s p o n d e n t s a d m i t t h e y c o n s c i o u s l y e x c l u d e d Evans from t h e d i s c u s s i o n s and d i d n o t want h e r t o know a b o u t them o r t h e r e o r g a n i z a t i o n p l a n p r i o r t o t h e J a n u a r y 6 b o a r d m e e t i n g . T h e r e a f t e r , t h e i n c i d e n t was i n v e s t i g a t e d by t h e M i s s o u l a County A t t o r n e y and t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l . They c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e was p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e had been a v i o l a t i o n of Montana's open m e e t i n g law and t h e o f f i c i a l m i s c o n d u c t s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 45-7-401 (1) ( e ) , MCA. The p e r t i n e n t open m e e t i n g s t a t u t e s and t h e o f f i c i a l m i s c o n d u c t s t a t u t e a r e s e t o u t below: "OPEN MEETINGS "2-3-201. L e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t - - l i b e r a l con- s t r u c t i o n . The l e g i s l a t u r e f i n d s and d e c l a r e s t h a t p u b l i c boards, commissions, c o u n c i l s , and o t h e r p u b l i c a g e n c i e s i n t h i s s t a t e e x i s t t o a i d i n t h e conduct of t h e peoples' busi- n e s s . I t is t h e i n t e n t of t h i s p a r t t h a t a c t i o n s and d e l i b e r a t i o n s o f a l l p u b l i c a g e n c i e s s h a l l be conducted openly. The people of t h e s t a t e do n o t wish t o a b d i c a t e t h e i r s o v e r e i g n t y t o t h e a g e n c i e s which s e r v e them. Toward t h e s e ends, t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e p a r t s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d . "2-3-202. Meeting d e f i n e d . A s used i n t h i s p a r t , 'meeting' means t h e convening of a quorum of t h e c o n s t i t u e n t membership of a p u b l i c agency, whether c o r p o r a l o r by means of e l e c t r o n i c equipment, t o h e a r , d i s c u s s , o r a c t upon a m a t t e r over which t h e agency h a s s u p e r v i s i o n , c o n t r o l , j u r i s d i c t i o n , o r a d v i s o r y power. "2-3-203. Meetings of p u b l i c a g e n c i e s t o be open t o public--exceptions. (1) A l l meetings of p u b l i c o r governmental b o d i e s , boards, bureaus, commissions, a g e n c i e s of t h e s t a t e , o r any p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n of t h e s t a t e o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s o r a g e n c i e s supported i n whole o r i n p a r t by p u b l i c funds o r expending p u b l i c funds s h a l l be open t o t h e p u b l i c . "45-7-401. O f f i c i a l misconduct. (1) A p u b l i c s e r v a n t commits t h e o f f e n s e o f o f f i c i a l misconduct when i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y he commits any of t h e following a c t s : " ( e ) knowingly conducts a meeting of a p u b l i c agency i n v i o l a t i o n of 2-3-203." On March 6 , 1981, t h e County A t t o r n e y f i l e d an a f f i - d a v i t and motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e an i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s with o f f i c i a l misconduct. The a f f i d a v i t s e t f o r t h f a c t s e s s e n t i a l l y a s o u t l i n e d above. O n A p r i l 27, 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e S t a t e ' s motion by an opinion and o r d e r . This appeal followed. The i s s u e s on appeal a r e : 1. Whether t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e a f f i d a v i t e s t a b - l i s h p r o b a b l e c a u s e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s committed t h e crime c h a r g e d . 2. Whether s e c t i o n 45-7-481(1) ( e ) , MCA, is v o i d f o r v a g u e n e s s . W e a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n and f i n d t h e S t a t e ' s motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e an i n f o r m a t i o n was p r o p e r l y d e n i e d . I n i t i a l l y , we f i n d t h e a f f i d a v i t e s t a b l i s h e s p r o b a b l e c a u s e o f a v i o l a t i o n of M o n t a n a ' s open m e e t i n g law. The a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e a f f i d a v i t must b e t a k e n a s t r u e . S e e , L i t t l e v. Hhay ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 809 Wash.App. 725, 509 P.2d 9 2 , and S t a t e v. Wolfe ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 156 Conn. 1 9 9 , 239 A.2d 509. These a l l e g a t i o n s d i r e c t l y a l l e g e t h a t B r o o k e ' s p l a n was a p p r o v e d b y Palmer and Conrad on J a n u a r y 5 and t h a t " b o t h [ P a l m e r and Conrad] a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e y c o n s c i o u s l y e x c l u d e d Evans from t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n s and d i d n o t want h e r t o know a b o u t them o r t h e i r r e o r g a n i z a t i o n p l a n p r i o r t o t h e J a n u a r y 6 t h Board Meeting." W e h a v e p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t a c o u n t y commis- s i o n e r s ' m e e t i n g c o n d u c t e d between two c o m m i s s i o n e r s b y t e l e p h o n e i n which t h e t h i r d commissioner had no n o t i c e and d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e v i o l a t e d M o n t a n a ' s open m e e t i n g law. Board o f T r u s t e e s e t c . v. Board of County C o ~ u m i s s i o n e r s (1980) Mont . , 606 P.2d 1069, 37 St.Rep. 175. I n Board o f T r u s t e e s , s u p r a , we h e l d : "The r e c o r d a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t d u e t o t h e framework i n which t h e m e e t i n g was h e l d , i . e . , b y means of t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n , and d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t Commissioner McClintock was n o t informed o f t h e m e e t i n g , i t was n o t a n ' o p e n m e e t i n g ' a s r e q u i r e d i n Montana. . . " T h i s t y p e o f c l a n d e s t i n e m e e t i n g v i o l a t e s t h e s p i r i t and l e t t e r o f t h e Montana Open lqeeting Law.'' 606 P.2d a t 1073, 37 St.Rep. a t 180. Having found t h a t probable cause e x i s t e d under t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e a f f i d a v i t , we n e x t c o n s i d e r whether s e c t i o n 45-7-401 (1) ( e ) , MCA, is void f o r vagueness, I n doing so we n o t e t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y of t h e open meeting law c o n t a i n e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e ' s s c h o l a r l y o p i n i o n and o r d e r : "Montana's ' open meeting law' ( S e c t i o n s 2-3- 210, e t seq.) was passed i n 1963 (Chapter 1 5 9 ) . Its f i r s t s e c t i o n s t a t e d : " ' S e c t i o n 1. The l e g i s l a t u r e f i n d s and d e c l a r e s t h a t p u b l i c b o a r d s , c o m m i s s i o n s , c o u n c i l s , and o t h e r p u b l i c a g e n c i e s i n t h i s s t a t e e x i s t t o a i d i n t h e conduct of t h e p e o p l e ' s b u s i n e s s . I t is t h e i n t e n t of t h i s a c t t h a t a c t i o n s and d e l i b e r a t i o n s of a l l pub1 i c a g e n c i e s s h a l l be conducted openly. The people of t h e s t a t e do n o t wish t o a b d i c a t e t h e i r s o v e r e i g n t y t o t h e a g e n c i e s which s e r v e then?. Toward t h e s e ends, t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e a c t s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d . T h i s s e c t i o n , h e a v i l y p l a g a r i z e d from a 1953 a l i f o r n i a s t a t u t e ( S e c t i o n 54950) , added t o h a t s t a t u t e t h e r e f e r e n c e t o ' d e l i b e r a - t i o n s . ' The second s e c t i o n of our s t a t u t e (now S e c t i o n 2-3-203) provided i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " ' A l l m e e t i n g s o f p u b l i c o r governmental bodies . . . a t which any a c t i o n is t a k e n . . . s h a l l be open t o t h e p u b l i c ' ( w i t h e x c e p t i o n s ) . " T h i s mandatory s e c t i o n d i d n o t d e a l w i t h ' d e l i b e r a t i o n s ' a t a l l . The s t a t u t e d i d n o t d e f i n e such t h i n g s a s ' a c t i o n , ' ' d e l i b e r a - t i o n , ' 'meeting' o r 'open' and it provided f o r no n o t i c e requirements. ldo s a n c t i o n s were suggested, " S a n c t i o n s were added by t h e 1975 l e g i s l a - t u r e (Chapter 474) by t h e a d d i t i o n of a sub- s e c t i o n ( e ) t o R.C.M. S e c t i o n 94-7-401 (now 45-7-401, t h e o f f i c i a l misconduct c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e passed a s p a r t of t h e 'new' c r i m i n a l c o d e i n 1 9 7 3 ( C h a p t e r 5 1 3 ) ) , which t h e n provided i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "'A p u b l i c s e r v a n t commits t h e o f f e n s e of o f f i c i a l misconduct when, i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y , he . . . knowingly conducts a meeting of a p u b l i c agency i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 82-3402 [2-3-2031 . ' "Having i n 1975 i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e mandatory p r o v i s i o n of t h e open meeting law i n t h e c r i m i n a l code by s e c t i o n numbered r e f e r e n c e , t h e r e b y making its v i o l a t i o n c r i m i n a l and providing a p e n a l t y t h e r e f o r , t h e l e g i s l a - t u r e i n 1977 (Chapter 567) g o t t o t i n k e r i n g w i t h t h e open meeting law and t h e incorpor- a t e d s e c t i o n . A s t o t h a t s e c t i o n , t h e y removed t h e words ' a t which any a c t i o n is taken' from t h e language quoted above. Thus, w h i l e t h e o r i g i n a l s e c t i o n r e q u i r e d t h a t meetings a t which a c t i o n was taken be open, t h e s e c t i o n a s amended r e q u i r e d t h a t a l l p u b l i c meetings be open, whether a c t i o n was t a k e n o r n o t . But i n t h e same c h a p t e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e provided, f o r t h e f i r s t time, a d e f i n i t i o n of t h e term 'meeting' i n a newly d e s i g n a t e d and numbered R.C.M. S e c t i o n (83- 3404, now 2-3-202): " ' A S used i n t h i s c h a p t e r , "meeting" means t h e convening of a quorum of t h e c o n s t i t u e n t inembership o f a p u b l i c a g e n c y , w h e t h e r c o r p o r a l o r by means of e l e c t r o n i c equipment, t o h e a r , d i s c u s s o r a c t upon a m a t t e r over which t h e agency h a s s u p e r v i s i o n , c o n t r o l , j u r i s d i c t i o n o r a d v i s o r y power,' " I t w i l l be noted, i n t e r a l i a , t h a t a quorum was r e q u i r e d and t h a t t h e purpose of t h e meeting could be t o hear o r d i s c u s s a s w e l l a s t o a c t , T h i s Chapter a l s o made v o i d a b l e any d i s c u s s i o n made i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e a c t , I n t h i s amendment of t h e open meeting law, no r e f e r e n c e was made t o t h e c r i m i n a l code, e i t h e r i n t h e t i t l e o r t h e body of t h e a c t , " I n Connally v. General C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. ( 1 9 2 6 ) , 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 7!3 L,Ed. 322, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court e s t a b l i s h e d a s t a n d a r d f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of vagueness which h a s been followed t o t h i s day: "That t h e terms of a penal s t a t u t e c r e a t i n g a new o f f e n s e must be s u f f i c i e n t l y e x p l i c i t t o inform t h o s e who a r e s u b j e c t t o it what con- d u c t on t h e i r p a r t w i l l render them l i a b l e t o its p e n a l t i e s , is a well-recognized r e q u i r e - ment, consonant a l i k e with o r d i n a r y n o t i o n s of f a i r p l a y and t h e s e t t l e d r u l e s of law," 269 U.S, a t 391, 46 S.Ct. a t 127, 70 L.Ed. a t 328. The Court r e i t e r a t e d t h i s s t a n d a r d i n Winters v. New York ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 333 U.S. 507, 68 S.Ct. 665, 92 L.Ed. 848, quot- ing from S t a t e v. Diamond ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 27 N.M. 477, 202 P. 988, "'Where t h e s t a t u t e u s e s words of no d e t e r - m i n a t i v e m e a n i n g , o r t h e l a n g u a g e is s o g e n e r a l and i n d e f i n i t e a s t o embrace n o t o n l y a c t s commonly recognized a s r e p r e h e n s i b l e , b u t a l s o o t h e r s which i t is unreasonable t o presume were intended t o be made c r i m i n a l , it w i l l be d e c l a r e d void f o r u n c e r t a i n t y . ' " 333 U.S. a t 516, 68 S,Ct. a t 670-71, 92 L.Ed. a t 850. T h i s Court h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a s t a n d a r d s i m i l a r t o t h a t used i n Connally and Winters. I n S t a t e v. P e r r y ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mon t . - , 590 P.2d 1129, 36 St.Rep. 291, quoting from S t a t e ex r e l . G r i f f i n v. Greene ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 104 Mont. 460, 67 P.2d 995, w e h e l d t h a t " u n l e s s [ a s t a t u t e ] is s u f f i c i e n t l y e x p l i - c i t so t h a t a l l t h o s e s u b j e c t t o t h e p e n a l t i e s may know what t o a v o i d , it v i o l a t e s t h e e s s e n t i a l s of due process." 590 I t is a l s o c l e a r t h a t no person should be r e q u i r e d t o g u e s s a t whether a contemplated a c t i o n is c r i m i n a l . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court h a s s t a t e d t h e p r i n c i p l e i n t h e following language: " A s a m a t t e r of due p r o c e s s , 'no one may be r e q u i r e d a t p e r i l of l i f e , l i b e r t y o r prop- e r t y t o s p e c u l a t e a s t o t h e meaning of penal s t a t u t e s . A l l a r e e n t i t l e d t o be informed a s t o what t h e S t a t e commands o r f o r b i d s . ' " Hynes v. Mayor of O r a d e l l ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 425 U.S. 610, 620, 96 S.Ct. 1755, 1760, 48 L.Ed.2d 243, 253. S i ~ n i l a r l y , i n Connally, s u p r a , t h e Court s a i d : "And a s t a t u t e which e i t h e r f o r b i d s o r r e q u i r e s t h e doing of an a c t i n terms so vague t h a t men of common i n t e l l i g e n c e must n e c e s s a r i l y g u e s s a t its meaning and d i f f e r a s t o its a p p l i c a t i o n v i o l a t e s t h e f i r s t e s s e n t i a l of due p r o c e s s of law," ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d , ) 269 U.S. a t 391, 46 S.Ct. a t 127, 70 L,Ed. a t 328. W e h o l d t h a t s e c t i o n 45-7-4161 (1) ( e ) , MCk, v i o l a t e s t h e s e s t a n d a r d s . I t is u n c l e a r w h e t h e r t h e 1977 l e g i s l a t u r e , i n e n a c t - ing its broad d e f i n i t i o n of "meeting" t o i n c l u d e d i s c u s s i o n s a s w e l l a s a c t i o n s ( s e c t i o n 2-3-2162, MCA), i n t e n d e d t o amend t h e c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e under which t h e s e commissioners were c h a r g e d ( s e c t i o n 45-7-401(1) ( e ) , M C A ) , t o encompass t h e expanded s c o p e o f t h e open m e e t i n g law. T h e r e is no e x p r e s s l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o do s o . Men o f common i n t e l l i g e n c e c o u l d d i f f e r i n t h e i r o p i n i o n a s t o whether t h e broad " m e e t i n g " d e f i n i t i o n e n a c t e d i n 1977 was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e 1975 amendment t o t h e c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e . The f a c t t h a t a l a w s u i t h a s a r i s e n o v e r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s s t a t u t e u n d e r s c o r e s t h i s d i f f e r - b e n c e of o p i n i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , any a t t e m p t a t r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s d i f f e r e n c e o f o p i n i o n would n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e g u e s s - work a n d s p e c u l a t i o n , a f a t a l d e f e c t i n a n y c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e . I t is s i m p l y n o t c l e a r what c o n s t i t u t e s t h e p r o h i b i t e d c o n d u c t . The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t s e c t i o n 2 - 1 0 8 2 , MCA, d i s p o s e s of t h e problem. T h a t s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s : " ( 2 ) A s p e c i f i c o r presumed r e f e r e n c e t o a t i t l e , c h a p t e r , p a r t , s e c t i o n , o r s u b s e c t i o n o f t h e Montana Code A n n o t a t e d is presumed t o be a r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t t i t l e , c h a p t e r , p a r t , s e c t i o n , o r s u b s e c t i o n a s it may b e amended o r changed from time t o t i m e . T h i s presump- t i o n may b e overcome o n l y by a c l e a r showing t h a t a s u b s e q u e n t amendment o r change i n t h e t i t l e , c h a p t e r , p a r t , s e c t i o n , o r s u b s e c t i o n is i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c o n t i n u e d p u r p o s e o r meaning o f t h e s e c t i o n r e f e r r i n g t o it." The above s t a t u t e was e n a c t e d i n 1979 and i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d e s s e c t i o n 1-2-109, MCA, which s t a t e s t h a t no Montana law is r e t r o a c t i v e u n l e s s e x p r e s s l y d e c l a r e d s o . The d i f f i c u l t y with t h e S t a t e 1 s argument becomes obvious i n l i g h t of s e c t i o n 1-2-109, MCA. To a p p l y a 19 79 enactment t o a law passed i n 1977 ( t h e "meeting" d e f i n i t i o n ) would c l e a r l y be r e t r o a c t i v e . Every r e a s o n a b l e doubt is r e s o l v e d a g a i n s t r e t r o a c t i v e o p e r a t i o n of a s t a t u t e . Penrod v. Hoskinson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 277, 552 P.2d 325. For t h e above r e a s o n s we hold t h a t s e c t i o n 45-7- 4 0 1 ( 1 ) ( e ) , MCA, is v o i d f o r v a g u e n e s s and a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e S t a t e ' s motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e an information. ? A d @ , % & \ . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur : - . . ono or able 'B. W. Thomas, D i s - t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly: I concur in the result. Justice ,