Court Opinion

ID: 9610016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:35:28.398851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:55.779744
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion and decision of the majority, except I remain concerned *279about the ineffectiveness of the Uniform Rules for the District Courts of the State of Wyoming. This ineffectiveness is like a disease and spreads by nonenforcement.
In 1968, under the administration of Chief Justice Harry S. Harnsberger, the Wyoming Supreme Court adopted the Rules of Criminal Procedure which were generally patterned after federal rules, but included, in addition, Rule 52:
The Wyoming Judicial Conference may from time to time make and amend rules governing practice in the district courts not inconsistent with the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure or applicable statutes. Copies of rules and amendments so made shall, upon their promulgation, be furnished to the Supreme Court.
The Wyoming Judicial Conference, created initially by agreement of the participants, was then and is now composed of the district judges and members of the Wyoming Supreme Court; that is today, seventeen district judges and five Supreme Court justices. For reasons not explainable by any written history but understandable from the independent status, real or perceived, of the district judges, the Uniform Rules for the District Courts, unlike any other state court rules, do not receive either direct Supreme Court consideration or require its approval for effectiveness.
The Uniform Rules for the District Courts, in present form, address the following subjects:
Rule No.
101. Appearances.
102. Appearance and withdrawal of counsel.
201. Continuances.
202. Time limits.
203. Default; dismissal for lack of prosecution.
204. Speedy trial.
301. Filing of motions.
302. Filing of discovery documents.
303. Proof of service.
304. Official court files.
305. Form of jury demands, orders, and notices of motion.
401. Captions on filed documents.
402. Citation of statutes.
403. Format of briefs and jury instructions.
404. Preparation of orders.
501. Interrogatories.
502. Audio-visual depositions.
601. Pretrial practice.
701. Voir dire of jurors.
702. Juror interrogation.
801. Courtroom decorum.
802. Use of telephone conference calls.
803. Use of recording equipment by counsel.
901. Sanctions.
902. Cases under advisement.
903. Disposition of exhibits.
I have a strong perception regarding the Uniform Rules for the District Courts. If one in their number is advisory only, then all are advisory. If advisory, such as speedy trial, they can be neither effective for benefit nor limiting for restriction and supervision. Specifically, if Rule 204 of the Uniform Rules for the District Courts on speedy trials exists somewhere in purgatory as advisory as we now state in this case, then each and every category of the Uniform Rules for the District Courts is advisory for whatever that might mean. I cannot conceptualize court rules to be advisory on either speedy trial or any of the other subjects addressed. My review and analysis as stated in Phillips v. State, 774 P.2d 118, 125 (Wyo.1989), Urbigkit, Justice, specially concurring, and Harvey v. State, 774 P.2d 87, 98 (Wyo.1989), Urbigkit, Justice, specially concurring, remain unchanged.
I am then led to a further concern that if the citizens of Wyoming cannot depend on the efficacy of our court adopted operational rules, what then is there about the judicial process that is justifiable for trust and reliance? A king’s-X aptitude is not acceptable to me because it leaves indeterminate whether there are rules which actually provide benefits and impose obligations upon the lawyers and the litigants or are only advisory concepts for whatever purpose they then serve.
Regarding the constitutional and practical issues of a speedy trial, there are, *280without question and within the exceptions provided in Rule 204 of the Uniform Rules for the District Courts, state court criminal trials that can and are being tried and completed to verdict. In fact, this is the predominate, if not the universal, status today after the shock of Phillips and Harvey has been defused. This court has at this time either the moral responsibility to do what is required to make the Uniform Rules for the District Courts firm and enforceable or to rescind and repeal what otherwise becomes a trap and snare for the unsophisticated litigant.
I concur in this case because it can be established that the extensions of time permitted were satisfactorily within the 120-day time frame application so that the schedule followed did not violate Rule 204 of the Uniform Rules for the District Courts. Despain v. State, 774 P.2d 77 (Wyo.1989).
I find in the factual events three circumstances which satisfy my concern about the timeliness of the trial. There was a weather delay for rescheduling on arraignment, Id., and then the case itself was set for trial on May 15, which was clearly within time. That scheduled date was struck by a request of Osborne’s counsel who, at the time of the request, did not seek a rescheduled date. Rescheduling was left to the prosecutor who followed-up to ask for trial reassignment. Trial was then scheduled for October 10, 1989, which fit within the trial court’s schedule for bench trial cases. No expeditious hearing request was made by Osborne or her counsel after the continuance request was granted by the trial court.
In the due administration of justice exception interjected by the request for continuance made by Osborne’s counsel, Rule 204(d)(2)(iii) of the Uniform Rules for the District Courts leaves more for the responsibility of Osborne’s counsel than just to initially obtain a trial continuance. I would perceive that if either prosecution or defense requests a continuance, the applying party should have the immediate or timely responsibility to arrange for a rescheduled trial date. That expeditious request permits the trial court to provide for a continuum of the speedy trial sequence and creates a realistic method to calculate total lapsed time for rule compliance. Consequently, as in this case where the request was seasonably made for reassignment not by the defense counsel but by the state’s attorney, I would assess a further duty of immediate objection if anxiety about the rescheduled date is to be converted into issues for claimed error on appeal.
It may be that Rule 204 of the Uniform Rules for the District Courts would be improved by a flexibility provision providing for a reasonable extension of time exception to accommodate crowded dockets after initial extension is requested by either litigant. I do not need to reach such an exception here, however, when no reschedule request was made by Osborne after the initial continuance obviously extended the time. It is not sufficient to establish a rule violation in trial progression if the rescheduling request is left to the prosecutor after defense counsel first gets the delay and, even when rescheduled, does not object on a “speedy trial” basis to the succeeding trial assignment.
After requesting a continuance through counsel, I find an independent duty on Osborne to be responsible for requesting a rescheduled trial assignment or, even within the facts of this case, to note immediate objection when the next set trial date is delayed by the trial court’s agenda. I do not intend, by my advocacy and adamancy about Rule 204 of the Uniform Rules for the District Courts and the constitutional obligation of the ■ trial court to provide speedy trial, to impress expeditious processing only upon the trial court or prosecution, since I believe that an equivalent responsibility rests with Osborne and her counsel. Robinson v. State, 627 P.2d 168 (Wyo.1981), as cited by the majority, is persuasive to me in responsibility of Osborne even if the implied repeal concept, see Estrada v. State, 611 P.2d 850 (Wyo.1980), is totally unacceptable. Common sense and reasonableness should attend trial court scheduling problems where an initial continuance is required in the interest of justice.
When the counted time stops by action of a defendant, it should start again by exercised affirmative responsibility of the de*281fendant; but only, of course, within reason since thereafter both the trial court and the prosecutor should also recognize the rule intent of 120 days is extended only by justified application of exceptions. The system, including all participants, serves the obligation and interest of speedy trial which benefits not only the community, but also the victims. Likewise, the other twenty-five uniform rules serve both society and participants in the search for fair and expeditious justice.
I conclude in both purpose and spirit that the applied text of Rule 204 of the Uniform Rules for the District Courts was not violated by the intervening time which passed before the trial was held. Until rescinded, the rule should be fully and effectively enforced. Consequently, I concur with the affirming decision.