Court Opinion

ID: 9379975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 19:06:03.266757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:02.706400
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                                     03/16/2023

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                Case Number: OP 23-0168

                                        OP 23-0168
                                                                            FILED
ZACHARY NORMAN,
                                                                             MAR 1 6 2023
                                                                           Bowen Greenwood
               Petitioner,                                               CIE:rk of Supreme Court
                                                                            State of fvlontana

        v.
                                                                      ORDER
 EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
 GALLATIN COUNTY, HONORABLE JOHN C.
 BROWN, Presiding,

               Respondent.

        By petition filed March 15, 2023, Petitioner Zachary Norman, via counsel, seeks a
writ of supervisory control to reverse an oral ruling of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court
in Gallatin County Cause No. DC-22-35C in which that court ordered that Norman's trial,
set to commence on March 21, 2023, be continued. Norman asserts the court did not
determine that Norman violated § 46-15-323, MCA, and therefore the court erred in
sanctioning Norman by continuing the trial.
        According to Norman's petition, he timely disclosed his expert in accordance with
the controlling Omnibus Order.         Norman later requested, and received, additional
information from the State Crime Lab for his expert's consideration. Norman's expert then
created a PowerPoint presentation that Norman provided to the State. With a jury trial set
to commence on March 21, 2023, the State moved on March 6, 2023, to either continue the
trial, with the time to count against Norman, or exclude Norman's expert's testimony
because it alleged the disclosure of the PowerPoint presentation was "extraordinarily late"
and that it had insufficient time to review the presentation and prepare its witnesses ahead
of trial.
        The District Court held a hearing on the State's motion on March 8, 2023. While
the court's ruling has not been thus far reduced to written order, Norman has provided us
a transcript of the hearing. As discussed in Norman's petition for writ, the court concluded
that the defense had made proper disclosures and had acted in conformance with the
requirements of the Omnibus Order and applicable statutes. However, given the short
amount of time between the PowerPoint production and the trial date, the court determined
that the State needed a "fair chance to respond" and it therefore vacated the March 21, 2023
trial date but indicated that it would set the case to begin July 17, 2023.
         We have considered Norman's petition on an expedited basis given the time
constraints involved as the remedy requested would set trial to commence in less than a
week.
         Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when
urgency or emergency factors exist making the norrnal appeal process inadequate, when
the case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a
mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide
importance are involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a
motion to substitute a judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Supervisory control is appropriate when
the district court is proceeding based on a mistake of law which, if uncorrected, would
cause significant injustice for which an appeal is an inadequate remedy. Truman v. Mont.
Eleventh Judicial Dist. Court, 2003 MT 91, ¶ 13, 315 Mont. 165, 68 P.3d 654 (citing Park
v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 1998 MT 164, ¶ 13, 289 Mont. 367, 961 P.2d 1267). Whether
it is appropriate for this Court to assume supervisory control is a "case-by-case decision
that depends on the presence of extraordinary circumstances and a particular need to
prevent an injustice from occurring." Truman, ¶ 13 (citing Park, ¶ 13).
         In this instance, Norman asserts the norrnal appeal process cannot adequately
address the District Court's decision to continue his trial as he will likely remain
incarcerated until the new trial date since he cannot afford the bond. He maintains the court
erred as a matter of law by sanctioning hirn via a continuance under § 45-15-329(2), MCA,
when the court concluded that he had not failed to comply with any statute or order of the
court.

                                              2
       However, while a court may grant a continuance as a sanction, it also has the
discretion to order a continuance if the interests ofjustice so require. Section 46-13-202(2),
MCA. Here, the provided hearing transcript manifests that the District Court granted the
continuance in the interests of justice rather than as a sanction against Norman.
       This court reviews a trial court's ruling on a motion for continuance under an abuse
of discretion standard. State v. Fields, 2002 MT 84,     ¶ 20, 309 Mont. 300, 46 P.3d 612
(citing State v. Borchert, 281 Mont. 320, 324, 934 P.2d 170, 173 (1997)). A petition for
writ that does not raise an issue that is purely one of law but involves a matter of discretion
fails to satisfy the standards for supervisory control. Henderson v. Mont. Third Judicial
Dist., No. OP 22-0069, 408 Mont. 540, 507 P.3d 140 (Feb. 15, 2022). Norman has not
shown that the District Court is proceeding under a manifest error of law, that ordinary
appeal will be inadequate to remedy any abuse of discretion, or that extraordinary review
is otherwise warranted on an emergency basis to prevent a gross miscarriage justice.
       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ of supervisory control is
DENIED and DISMISSED.
       The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for
Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County,
Cause No. DC-22-35C, and to the Honorable John C. Brown, presiding Judge.
       DATED this /Vkday of March, 2023.

                                                                 Chief Justice

                                                        A' xi 444...

                                               3
    Justices

4