STATE v BUSH

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12559 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1974 THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, MRS. GLENN BUSH, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable E . Gardner Brownlee, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Garnaas, H a l l , R i l e y and P i n s o n e a u l t , M i s s o u l a , Montana J . Robert R i l e y a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r Respondent : Hon. R o b e r t L . Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana J. C. W e i n g a r t n e r , Deputy A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a p p e a r e d , Helena, Montana Douglas G . H a r k i n , County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Hamilton, Montana Submitted : J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1974 Decided Cf p F i l e d :- Clerk I t ; , Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T . Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendant was convicted i n the j u s t i c e court of Ravalli County of a s s a u l t in the t h i r d degree. On March 23, 1973, the j u s t i c e court imposed a penalty consisting of a f i n e i n the amount of $150 and 60 days in the county j a i l . The j a i l sentence was suspended. Following the imposition of sentence defendant f i l e d a written notice of appeal t o the d i s t r i c t court of t h e fourth judicial d i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e county of Ravalli. Defendant did not post an appeal bond. The Ravall i county attorney moved t o have the appeal dismissed on the grounds t h a t defendant's f a i l u r e t o post a bond meant t h a t t h e appeal had not been perfected. On May 11, 1973, the motion t o dismiss was heard by the d i s t r i c t court, Judge E. Gardner Brownlee, presiding. The d i s t r i c t court dismissed defendant's appeal from t h e j u s t i c e court decision f o r the reason t h a t defendant did not furnish the required bond. Defendant appeals t o t h i s Court from the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s dismissal. The s o l e issue presented f o r review i s whether an appeal bond i s necessary t o perfect an appeal from the j u s t i c e court t o the d i s t r i c t court. Section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947,governs appeals from the j u s t i c e of t h e peace court t o the d i s t r i c t court and provides in part: "(b) The defendant may appeal t o t h e d i s t r i c t court by giving written notice of h i s intention t o appeal within ten days (10) days ( s i c ) a f t e r judgment. ( c ) * * * I t shall be the duty of the defendant t o perf e c t the appeal. " The Revised Commission Comment t o section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947, indicates t h a t the burden i s on the defendant t o perfect an appeal from the j u s t i c e court and s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s : "This burden i s sustained when the defendant has posted the r e q u i s i t e bond * * *". This language indicates an i n t e n t t o require bond as a part of perfecting an appeal from t h e j u s t i c e court t o the d i s t r i c t court. Furthermore, since the code was adopted as one comprehensive piece of l e g i s l a t i o n i t should be considered in i t s e n t i r e t y t o determine the e f f e c t of any one section. most relevant. In the i n s t a n t case the sections on bail a r e Section 95-1109, R.C.M. 1947,adrnits t o bail as a matter of r i g h t a defendant who has been convicted i n j u s t i c e court and who intends t o appeal. Section 95-1118, R.C.M. 1947,imposes a s a condition of admission t o bail a f t e r conviction the due prosecution of the appeal. The s t a t e main- t a i n s t h a t the l e g i s l a t u r e was thinking of section 95-1118, R.C.M. i t enacted section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947~when 1947, thus giving the j u s t i c e of the peace broad d i s c r e t i o n in determining whether o r not t o require a bond on appeal. After reading the above-cited s t a t u t e s together and the Revised Commission Comment, i t i s this Court's opinion t h a t an appeal from the j u s t i c e court t o the d i s t r i c t court i s perfected when the defendant has posted the Since in this case required bond, i n addition t o the other requirements. defendant refused t o post a bond when requested by the j u s t i c e of the peace, t h e appeal was not perfected, and t h e d i s t r i c t court properly dismissed the appeal on the s t a t e ' s motion. Accordingly, the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s dismissal of defendanys appeal is affirmed. &\ 1 . W concur: e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.