STATE v BERGUM

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12606 I N THE SUPREME C U T OF THE STATE O M N A A O R F OTN 1974 STATE O M N A A F O T N , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - JANET BERGUM , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Bernard W . Thomas, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y General, Helena, Montana Thomas J . B e e r s , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y General, argued, Helena, Montana Ronald W. Smith appeared, County A t t o r n e y , Havre, Montana F o r Respondent : Morrison, E t t i e n and Barron, Havre, Montana Robert D. Morrison argued, Havre, Montana Submitted : Decided: Filed : =' jgtl~ February 28, 1974 M - ' 1974 R Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. In May of 1973 the defendant, Janet Bergum, was charged in the justice court of Hill County with the offense of furnishing beer to a minor. A motion to suppress evidence (a statement made to the arresting officers) was made and on May 29, 1973 the justice court ordered the suppression of the statement as evidence. On July 23, 1973, fifty-five days following the suppression order, the state filed a notice of appeal to district court. A motion to dismiss the appeal was granted, and this case is before us on appeal from the dismissal order of the district court. There are two issues presented for determination: (1) Whether the state may, under the Montana Code of Criminal Procedure, appeal the interlocutory order of the justice court in a criminal case; and (2) Whether, if such an appeal is permissible, the provisions of section 95-2405, R.C.M. 1947, as to time are applicable to such appeal. A question regarding appeals from justice courts was be- fore us recently in State v. Bush, 31 St.Rep. 188 (February 1974) . Mont . 1 P.2d - I In that case the issue was whether an appeal bond was required to perfect appeals from justice courts. There the argument was that since section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947, does not require an appeal bond, none was required. However we held that an appeal bond was required in another chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure. " * * * since comprehensive be considered the effect of See Bush at p. 189: - the code was adopted as one piece of legislation it should in its entirety to determine any one section. * * * " The Montana Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted by the Fortieth Legislative Assembly in 1967 as a comprehensive Act g o v e r n i n g t h e c o n d u c t of c r i m i n a l c a s e s i n o u r c o u r t s . 1 9 6 , Laws of 1967. Chapter C h a p t e r 20 of t h a t Act g o v e r n s j u s t i c e and p o l i c e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s , and C h a p t e r 24 of t h e Act makes p r o v i s i o n f o r a p p e a l s by t h e s t a t e and d e f e n d a n t s . " * * * A s t a t u t e i s p a s s e d a s a whole and n o t i n p a r t s o r s e c t i o n s and i s animated by one g e n e r a l p u r p o s e and i n t e n t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , e a c h p a r t o r s e c t i o n s h o u l d be c o n s t r u e d i n connect i o n with every o t h e r p a r t o r s e c t i o n s o a s t o produce a harmonious whole. * * * " 2 S u t h e r l a n d A S t a t u t o r y C o n s t r u c t i o n , § 46.05 ( 4 t h Ed.) While s e c t i o n 94-2009, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s f o r a p p e a l s of t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n of j u s t i c e and p o l i c e c o u r t s , i t makes no mention of t h e a p p e a l of i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r s of t h o s e c o u r t s by the state. However, s e c t i o n 95-2403 (3)( 5 ) c l e a r l y p r o v i d e s f o r a p p e a l s by t h e s t a t e from any c o u r t o r d e r s u p p r e s s i n g e v i d e n c e . Viewing t h e a c t as a whole, i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e s t a t e may a p p e a l from i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r s . The a p p e a l p r o v i s i o n o f C h a p t e r 20 of t h e a c t was meant o n l y t o d e f i n e and d e l i m i t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t of a p p e a l . T h e r e f o r e we h o l d t h a t i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l s by t h e s t a t e i n j u s t i c e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s a r e p e r m i t t e d and a r e governed by 1947. C h a p t e r 24 o f T i t l e 95, R.C.M. The a p p e a l of t h e s t a t e i n t h i s c a s e was t i m e l y f i l e d under s e c t i o n 95-2405 ( a ) ( e ) , R.C.M. 1947. The o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e a p p e a l of t h e s t a t e i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . -T I ,-,---k--k*-,-,--;------------' Chief J u s t i c e d u s t ices - 3 - - -_ Is-

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.