Opinion ID: 889543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court err by denying Roan's motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial?

Text: ¶ 9 Pursuant to § 46-13-401(2), MCA, the City was required to prosecute the misdemeanor charge against Roan within six months of the entry of his not guilty plea unless there was good cause for not doing so. That section provides: After the entry of a plea upon a misdemeanor charge, the court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the prosecution to be dismissed, with prejudice, if a defendant whose trial has not been postponed upon the defendant's motion is not brought to trial within 6 months. Section 46-13-401(2), MCA. We have previously explained that misdemeanor charges will be dismissed pursuant to this provision only if two conditions are met: (1) the defendant has not asked for a postponement; and (2) the State has not shown good cause for the delay. State v. Pollack, 1998 MT 105, ¶ 11, 288 Mont. 436, 958 P.2d 75 (citing State v. Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. 162, 165, 940 P.2d 108, 110 (1997)). The statute itself serves as the sole standard of whether `good cause' for the delay has been shown. Martz, ¶ 30 (quoting Bertolino, ¶ 13). ¶ 10 Regarding the first condition, we held in Fitzgerald that any pretrial motion for continuance filed by a defendant which has the incidental effect of delaying the trial beyond the six month time limit could be said to `postpone trial' for purposes of § 46-13-401(2), MCA. Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. at 166-67, 940 P.2d at 111. Roan first contends that he committed no action which delayed the trial beyond the six-month time limit. Although the City notes that Roan delayed the trial by requesting a jury trial two weeks before the scheduled bench trial, it concedes the issue, arguing only under the second condition that it established good cause for the delay. ¶ 11 Roan argues that good cause did not exist for the delay because, first, Nick Norton would have testified at the October trial, as stated in his affidavit. Further, because the City did not call Megan Miller to testify at the January trial, Roan argues that Miller was not a necessary witness. Therefore, because the City did not need Miller's testimony and Norton was available to testify at the October trial, Roan asserts that the City did not have good reason to delay his trial beyond the statutory six-month time limit. ¶ 12 The City responds that it demonstrated good cause for the delay for three reasons: (1) Megan Miller's unavailability to testify in October was sufficient to constitute good cause, even if she did not later testify; (2) the prosecutor believed Miller was an essential witness at the time he requested the continuance of the October trial date, given that she was one of two eye witnesses; and (3) requiring Norton to appear for the October trial would have created a significant hardship for him. ¶ 13 Good cause is generally defined as a legally sufficient reason and referred to as the burden placed on a litigant (usu. by court rule or order) to show why a request should be granted or an action excused. Black's Law Dictionary 251 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 9th ed., West 2009); see State v. Rozzell, 157 Mont. 443, 450, 486 P.2d 877, 881 (1971); Jackson v. U.S., 295 F. 620, 623 (9th Cir.1924). Good cause will necessarily depend upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In State v. Ronningen, 213 Mont. 358, 362-63, 691 P.2d 1348, 1350-51 (1984), we held that the State failed to demonstrate good cause when it took no action to prosecute the defendant when the presiding district court judge retired, and the docket was rescheduled. Similarly, in Bertolino, ¶¶ 12-16, the State failed to demonstrate good cause for delaying the defendant's trial beyond the six-month time when it blamed the delay on the defendant's failure to comply with court orders but failed to request sanctions for the defendant's actions. ¶ 14 Failure by the State to timely prosecute the defendant, as in Ronningen and Bertolino, is not present here. The City requested the continuance because Megan Miller was undergoing a difficult pregnancy. This clearly constitutes good cause for delaying the trial. At the time the City requested the continuance, it was the City's intention to call Miller as a witness, being one of two eye-witnesses. The fact that Miller did not ultimately testify at the trial does not retroactively negate the good cause that existed at the time of the continuance. ¶ 15 Although, according to his affidavit, Nick Norton was available and could have testified in the October trial, it nonetheless was evident that requiring his attendance would have created a significant hardship for him. Norton's fiancée was experiencing a difficult pregnancy at the time, and was expecting to undergo a cesarean operation. Norton was caring for Miller and the couple's two children, as well as continuing to work and run errands. ¶ 16 Considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the City demonstrated good cause for the delay, and Roan's motion to dismiss was properly denied. ¶ 17 Affirmed. We concur: MICHAEL E. WHEAT, PATRICIA O. COTTER, BRIAN MORRIS, and JAMES C. NELSON, JJ.