STATE EX REL ANGEL v WOODAHL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13509 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA 1 9 76 T h e S t a t e of M o n t a n a on t h e R e l a t i o n of CHARLES F. ANGEL, Relator, VS. ROBERT L . WOODAHL, Respondent. O R I G I N A L PROCEEDING: C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For R e l a t o r : C h a r l e s F. A n g e l a r g u e d , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : H o n . R o b e r t L . W o o d a h l appeared, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana R o b e r t A. Poore a r g u e d , B u t t e , M o n t a n a J a m e s H. M o r r o w argued and E d m u n d P . Sedivy a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana Submitted: ( i - .,,i i .." . , 8, " , i ' , I f)\: ! -3 Filed: erk O c t o b e r 8, 1 9 7 6 PER CURIAM: This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding a g a i n s t t h e Attorney G e n e r a l o f Montana f o r contempt o f c o u r t by r e a s o n of h i s a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n of a n o r d e r of t h i s C o u r t p r o h i b i t i n g a l l public out-of-court " * * * s t a t e m e n t s t h a t may c o n c e i v a b l y i n f l u e n c e p u b l i c o p i n i o n f o r o r a g a i n s t any p e r s o n o r i s s u e * * *" in pending c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s i n v o l v i n g workmen's compensation matters. The background o f t h e p r e s e n t p r o c e e d i n g i n d i c a t e s t h a t f o r some t i m e p r i o r t o J u n e 11, 1976, many c h a r g e s and c o u n t e r c h a r g e s by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r s on t h e o n e hand and v a r i o u s d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y s on t h e o t h e r r e l a t i n g t o pending c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s i n v o l v i n g workmen's compensation m a t t e r s were b e i n g w i d e l y d i s s e m i n a t e d t h r o u g h o u t Montana by means of o u t - o f - c o u r t s t a t e m e n t s t o t h e d e t r i m e n t of f a i r and j u s t l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s t h e r e i n and t h a t s u c h a c t i o n s were r a p i d l y approaching a c r i s i s . On J u n e 11, 1976, t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l c a l l e d a p r e s s c o n f e r e n c e i n which he c h a r g e d t h r e e named d i s t r i c t judges i n pending c a s e s w i t h v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n s r e s u l t i n g i n " s u b s t a n t i a l d e l a y s " i n b r i n g i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o t r i a l and t h a t t h e workmen's compensation i n v e s t i g a t i o n and p r o s e c u t i o n " i s one of t h e s a d c h a p t e r s i n Montana h i s t o r y a n d , i f n o t t u r n e d a r o u n d , i s g o i n g t o be a s a d c h a p t e r i n t h e h i s t o r y of t h e j u d i c i a r y " b e c a u s e of d i l a t o r y a c t i o n s by l a w y e r s f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s and t h e l a c k o f f i r m n e s s by many of t h e judges. A t t h i s p r e s s c o n f e r e n c e one o f t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r s announced t h a t h e was r e s i g n i n g because o f " s u b s t a n t i a l d e l a y s " r e s u l t i n g i n h i s p r o s e c u t i n g o n l y o n e c a s e i n 1 0 months and c h a r g i n g t h e r e was a l m o s t "an i n c e s t u o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p " between a s m a l l number o f judges and some l a w y e r s . A t s a i d p r e s s c o n f e r e n c e t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l c a l l e d upon t h i s C o u r t " t o t a k e h o l d of t h e m a t t e r " by c a l l i n g i n t h e j u d g e s , d e f e n s e l a w y e r s and p r o s e c u t o r s and making i t c l e a r t o them " t h a t t h e y s h o u l d g e t on w i t h t h e b u s i n e s s of t h e day which i s t o g e t these cases t o t r i a l . " That i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s c o m p l a i n t s and r e q u e s t and i n view of t h e r a p i d l y d e t e r i o r a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l and h i s p r o s e c u t o r s on one s i d e , d e f e n d a n t s and d e f e n s e c o u n s e l on a n o t h e r s i d e , w i t h a number of t r i a l judges i n t h e m i d d l e , t h i s C o u r t c a l l e d a c o n f e r e n c e of p r o s e c u t o r s , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , and p r e s i d i n g judges by i t s o r d e r of J u n e 1 4 , 1976, and p r o v i d e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s : "That i n o r d e r t o prevent f u r t h e r i n j u r y t o t h e r i g h t s of t h e p u b l i c , t h e s t a t e , t h e d e f e n d a n t s and t h e j u d i c i a r y pending t h e c o n f e r e n c e h e r e i n provided, a l l counsel, t h e i r s t a f f s , c l e r k s , s t e n o g r a p h e r s and a t t a c h e s a r e o r d e r e d and d i r e c t ed t o r e f r a i n d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y from p u b l i c comment i n any way r e l a t i n g t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n heretofore described." and "Any v i o l a t i o n of t h i s o r d e r s h a l l s u b j e c t t h e o f f e n d e r t o p r o c e e d i n g s f o r contempt o f c o u r t . " The c o n f e r e n c e was h e l d i n t h e courtroom of t h i s C o u r t on J u n e 21, 1976. The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l and members of h i s s t a f f were p r e s e n t and p a r t i c i p a t e d . A t s a i d c o n f e r e n c e , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h i s C o u r t , t h r o u g h t h e Chief J u s t i c e , e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d : " F i n a l l y , t h e o b j e c t i v e s t h a t we a r e p r e p a r e d t o i n s i s t upon c a n be s t a t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r g e t o e a c h of you. F i r s t , accord t h i s l i t i g a t i o n i t s r i g h t f u l paramount p r i o r i t y . Second, b r i n g t h e s e c a s e s t o t r i a l with a l l d e l i b e r a t e speed. Third, c e a s e and d e s i s t from a l l p u b l i c o u t - o f - c o u r t s t a t e m e n t s t h a t may c o n c e i v a b l y i n f l u e n c e p u b l i c o p i n i o n f o r o r a g a i n s t any p e r s o n o r i s s u e r e l a t i n g t o t h i s pending l i t i g a t i o n . F o u r t h , e a c h of you w i l l be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r your own c o n d u c t i n accomplishing t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s . * * * " O August 1 2 , 1976, a t a m e e t i n g of t h e Kiwanis Club i n n S i d n e y , Montana, t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l , a c a n d i d a t e f o r g o v e r n o r , spoke f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 m i n u t e s a t which t i m e he made no remarks c o n c e r n i n g t h e workmen's compensation c r i m i n a l p r o s e cutions. T h a t t h e r e a f t e r c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s from t h e a u d i e n c e were d i r e c t e d t o him r e g a r d i n g t h e workmen's compensation T h a t t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l asked i f t h e r e w e r e any litigation. members o f t h e p r e s s p r e s e n t and t h e n proceeded t o p u b l i c l y blame t h r e e o t h e r d i s t r i c t judges from t h o s e named a t h i s p r e s s c o n f e r e n c e o f J u n e 1 f o r some of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s d i f f i c u l t i e s ; 1 t h a t a l l t h r e e judges w e r e a p p o i n t e d by former Governor F o r r e s t Anderson; i m p l i e d t h a t t h e s e judges were l o o k i n g o u t f o r t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e former d e m o c r a t i c g o v e r n o r and h i s f r i e n d s ; and went on t o t e l l how he was t r y i n g t o g e t t h e c a s e s t r i e d q u i c k l y b u t t h e t h r e e judges and t h e l a w y e r s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s had been f i l i n g numerous unwarranted m o t i o n s and dragging t h e i r f e e t t o s t a l l t h e t r i a l s p a s t e l e c t i o n t i m e . The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t he r e a l i z e d he was making t h e t y p e o f comments t h a t a r e frowned upon by t h e Supreme C o u r t and mentioned t h i s C o u r t ' s o r d e r a g a i n s t p u b l i c comment on t h e cases. A f t e r t h i s m a t t e r came t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h i s C o u r t , we i s s u e d a n o r d e r and c i t a t i o n t o t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l t o a p p e a r and show c a u s e why contempt p r o c e e d i n g s s h o u l d n o t be i n s t i t u t e d a g a i n s t him. The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l a p p e a r e d , a d m i t t e d t h e sub- s t a n c e o f e v e n t s and s t a t e m e n t s g i v i n g r i s e t o o u r o r d e r and c i t a t i o n , b u t d e n i e d t h a t t h e y were i n t e n d e d t o o r d i d c o n s t i t u t e contempt. Following h e a r i n g , t h i s C o u r t by o r d e r of September 7 , 1976, d i r e c t e d t h a t contempt p r o c e e d i n g s be i n s t i t u t e d a g a i n s t t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l and d e s i g n a t e d a t t o r n e y C h a r l e s F. Angel t o i n s t i t u t e such proceedings. On September 2 8 , 1976, contempt p r o c e e d i n g s w e r e i n s t i t u t e d by t h e f i l i n g o f a n a f f i d a v i t f o r contempt by M r . Angel. The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l responded on October 7 , by f i l i n g a motion t o quash and d i s m i s s t h e p r o c e e d i n g and a n answer t o t h e a f f i d a v i t f o r contempt. B r i e f s were f i l e d , t e s t i m o n y was t a k e n , e x h i b i t s were o f f e r e d i n e v i d e n c e , o r a l argument was had and t h e m a t t e r w a s s u b m i t t e d f o r d e c i s i o n on October 1 4 , 1976. The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l a t t a c k s t h e contempt p r o c e e d i n g on t h e s e p r i n c i p a l grounds: (1) T h a t t h e r e was no c o u r t o r d e r i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e he made h i s s t a t e m e n t s a t t h e Sidney Kiwanis m e e t i n g ; ( 2 ) i f a c o u r t o r d e r d i d e x i s t , it was uncon- s t i t u t i o n a l l y vague, i n d e f i n i t e , and ambiguous; (3) t h a t t h e c o u r t o r d e r he i s accused of v i o l a t i n g i s i n i t s e l f a v i o l a t i o n of t h e f r e e speech, due p r o c e s s , e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n and s e p a r a t i o n of powers p r o v i s i o n s of t h e f e d e r a l and s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n s . To r e a c h t h e m e r i t s o f t h i s c a s e , we make t h e f o l l o w i n g p r e l i m i n a r y r u l i n g s h e r e t o f o r e t a k e n under advisement: (1) Rela- t o r ' s e x h i b i t A ( t h e newspaper a r t i c l e of J u n e 11, 1976, i n t h e Independent Record) i s a d m i t t e d i n e v i d e n c e ; ( 2 ) respondent's e x h i b i t s B t h r o u g h F (newspaper a r t i c l e s ) a r e a d m i t t e d i n e v i d e n c e ; ( 3 ) a l l motions t o quash o r d i s m i s s t h i s p r o c e e d i n g a r e d e n i e d . W e make t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s of u l t i m a t e f a c t : (1) T h i s C o u r t ' s o r d e r s of J u n e 1 4 and J u n e 2 1 and t h e c o n f e r e n c e o f J u n e 2 1 were made and h e l d on t h e b a s i s of c o m p l a i n t s and a t t h e s p e c i a l i n s t a n c e and p u b l i c r e q u e s t of t h e a t t o r n e y general. ( 2 ) That a t no t i m e h a s t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l a p p l i e d t o t h i s Court f o r r e l i e f from t h e o r d e r s of J u n e 1 4 and J u n e 2 1 on any grounds. ( 3 ) That t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l w i l l f u l l y , knowingly and d e l i b e r a t e l y v i o l a t e d t h e o r d e r o f t h i s C o u r t o f J u n e 21 d i r e c t i n g him, among o t h e r s t o " c e a s e and d e s i s t from a l l p u b l i c o u t - o f c o u r t s t a t e m e n t s t h a t may c o n c e i v a b l y i n f l u e n c e p u b l i c o p i n i o n f o r o r a g a i n s t any p e r s o n o r i s s u e r e l a t i n g t o t h i s pending litig a t i o n " by r e a s o n of h i s s t a t e m e n t s and remarks a t t h e Kiwanis meeting of August 12 in Sidney, Montana. (4) That the circumstances existing on June 14 and June 21 presented a clear and present danger to the proper functioning of the judicial processes of this state and the rights of its citizens, the defendants, and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases involving workmen's compensation matters, and that remedial action was necessary and required of this Court. (5) That the orders of this Court of June 14 and June 21 were made in response thereto. We conclude as a matter of law: (1) That the orders of this Court on June 14 and June 21 were within its jurisdiction and authority pursuant to Art. VII, Section 2 of the 1972 Montana Constitution and were in all respects valid and legal; (2) That the due process, equal protection, separation of powers and freedom of speech provisions of the state and federal constitutions were not violated by the order of this Court of June 14 and June 21, 1976, under the unique and compelling circumstances of this case. (3) That the remedy for any alleged prejudice to the attorney general's political campaign lies in applying to this Court for relief from its order of June 21, which remedy has never been sought. (4) That the attorney general is guilty of contempt of court pursuant to section 93-9801(5), R.C.M. 1947, by reason of his willful, knowing and deliberate violation of this Court's order of June 21 commanding him, among others, to cease and desist from all public out-of-court statements that may conceivably influence public opinion for or against any person or issue involved in pending criminal prosecutions involving workmen's compensation matters. On t h e b a s i s o f t h e f o r e g o i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w , w e e n t e r judgment a s f o l l o w s : (1) The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i s h e r e b y a d j u d g e d g u i l t y o f contempt o f c o u r t . ( 2 ) T h a t a f i n e o f $250 i s a s s e s s e d a s a p e n a l t y . ( 3 ) T h a t t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l may p u r g e h i m s e l f o f con- t e m p t o f c o u r t by a g r e e i n g i n open c o u r t w i t h i n 1 0 d a y s o f t h e d a t e h e r e o f t h a t i n t h e f u t u r e h e w i l l a b i d e by t h e o r d e r o f t h i s C o u r t o f J u n e 2 1 u n t i l t h e same i s a l t e r e d , amended o r r e v o k e d by p r o p e r l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s and a c c o ~ d i n g fo ,/ * law. Chief J u s t i c e J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s i s a b s e n t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s O p i n i o n and h a s t a k e n no p a r t t h e r e i n . H e w i l l have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p r e s s h i s v i e w s l a t e r . Mr.

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.