STATE v SANFORD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. i3i45 I N 'fh6 3UPKhME d U T OF THE ATAIL 3F XOLTIANA O K 1977 THE STHTE OF NONTANk, P l a i n t i f f dnd Respondent, v. 'WLSON ''BUCK'' SANFORD, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . A p p e d l from; 3 i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l Distarict Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Moses, Kampfe, T o l l i v e r 6L Wright, B i l l i n g s , Montana Charles F. Moses, argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. For Respondent: ~n m Clayton R. Herron, Helena, Montana , J a c k Yardley , County A t t o r n e y , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana Mike G r e e l y , Attorney General, Helena, Montana Clayton R. Herron, argued, Helena, Montana. 4.I U . s, A . J submitted: Decided : Clerk. June 9 , 1977 JUN 2 2 797 ?Ir. J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d dhe dpirlion df he Z u u r t . T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a f i n a l judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t P a r k County, from a j u r y v e r d i c t of g u i l t y of l i t t e r i n g p u b l i c property. Nelson "Buck" Sanford was i s s u e d a c i t a t i o n by a s t a t e gdme warden on J u l y 1 7 , 1973, charging him w i t h t h e crime of l e a v i n g l i t t e r on p u b l i c p r o p e r t y i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 94- 3336, R.C.M. 1947, claimed t o have been committed a t "Wolverine Pass" on o r about October 20, 1972. S e c t i o n 94-3336 a t t h e time involved provided : " L i t t e r i n g p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e p r o p e r t i e s unlawful-e x c e p t i o n s . I t i s unlawful f o r any person o r persons t o dump, d e p o s i t , throw o r l e a v e , o r t o cause o r permit dumping, d e p o s i t i n g , p l a c i n g , throwing, o r l e a v i n g of l i t t e r on any p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y i n t h i s s t a t e , o r any w a t e r s i n t h i s s t a t e , u n l e s s : ' I ( I ) Such p r o p e r t y i s d e s i g n a t e d by t h e s t a t e o r by any of i t s a g e n c i e s o r p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s f o r t h e d i s p o s a l of such m a t e r i a l , and such person i s a u t h o r i z e d by t h e proper p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y t o use such p r o p e r t y ; "(2) Into a l i t t e r receptacle, o r container i n s t a l l e d on such p r o p e r t y ; " ( 3 ) He i s t h e owner o r t e n a n t i n l a w f u l possess i o n of such p r o p e r t y , o r h a s f i r s t o b t a i n e d c o n s e n t o f t h e owner o r t e n a n t i n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n o r u n l e s s t h e a c t i s done under t h e p e r s o n a l d i r e c t i o n of s a i d t e n a n t o r owner." A formal complaint was f i l e d i n t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana, b e f o r e t h e j u s t i c e of t h e peace on J u l y 1 7 , 1973, charging Sanford w i t h a misdemeanor on o r about October 1 5 , 1972, a t Nolverine P a s s , i n t h a t he d i d " w i l f u l l y , wrongfully and unlawf u l l y l e a v e l i t t e r on p u b l i c p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d i n S e c t i o n E i g h t ( 8 ) , Township Nine (9) South, Range Fourteen (14) E a s t , M.P.M., Park Coimty , Montana". L'rlal w a s 5el-d b e ~ o r eche justice jr :he peace w i t h o u ~d j u r y arid a v e r d i c t a £ g u i l t y e n t e r e d t h e r e i n . Appeal was p e r f e c t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Park County. T h e r e a f t e r a j u r y t r i a l was h e l d b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t Qn May 12 and 13, 1975, and a j u r y v e r d i c t of g u i l t y e n t e r e d . ,+ppeal was then p e r f e c t e d from t h e f i n a l judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o t h i s Court. The p r i n c i p a l f a c t s a r e l a r g e l y u n c o n t r a d i c t e d . Sanford has Seen a n o u t f i t t e r and l i c e n s e d f o r about 20 y e a r s ; he kept and maintained a camp i n Park County, Montana, known a s the "Wolverine Pass" campsite f o r over 25 y e a r s . For many y e a r s t h i s b u s i n e s s was conducted under h i s name a l o n e , b u t a f t e r h i s son, Ron S a n f o r d , r e t u r n e d from t h e s e r v i c e and s e cured an o u t f i t t e r ' s l i c e n s e , t h e b u s i n e s s was conducted under t h e name of Sanford and Sons; Buck Sanford and h i s t h r e e s o n s , Pori, Lon, and Rick. A t t h e time of t h e i n c i d e n t i n q u e s t i o n i n 1 9 7 2 , Sanford and Sons a p p l i e d f o r and was g r a n t e d a permit from t h e f o r e s t s e r v i c e f o r t h e use of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r Wolverine Pass campsite. A t d i f f e r e n t times d u r i n g t h e h u n t i n g season i n t h e F a l l of 1972, Suck Sanford and a l l t h r e e of h i s sons were t h e r e g u i d i n g and : ~ u t f i t t i n g unters. h Each a t d i f f e r e n t times took d i f f e r e n t p a r t i e s i n t o t h i s a r e a , and a t d i f f e r e n t t i m e s used t h e campsite. O October 2 , 1972, Vern Waples, a law o f f i c e r , s e r v e d n e r r t a f r i c i v i l papers on Buck Sanford a t t h e campsite. p a p e r s had no b e a r i n g on t h e p r e s e n t m a t t e r . Those While Waples was a t t h e c a m p s i t e , he made an i n s p e c t i o n of t h e premises which was ane o f h i s d u t i e s , 3crober 2 , 1972. He found no a c t i o n a b l e v i o l a t i o n s as of S e v e r a l days a r t e ~r e c e i p c 2L r h r p a p e r s , Buck Sanford Lekt t h e campsite and d i d n o t r e t u r n u n t i l t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r . T h e r e a f t e r h i s sons used t h e campsite and d i d s o u n t i l October 28, 1972. A t t h a t time w i n t e r storm c o n d i t i o n s and i n c r e a s i n g snow r e q u i r e d t h e camp be c l o s e d and s o Rick and Lon Sanford and t h r e e o t h e r p e r s o n s proceeded t o a r r a n g e t o remove a l l equipment, a r t i c l e s and l i t t e r from t h e campsite. When t h e sons r e t u r n e d t o t h e campsite w i t h a t r a c k e d v e h i c l e , t h e y found one person had s u f f e r e d a broken arm and they removed t h a t p e r s o n , t h e h o r s e s and what equipment t h e y :odd. They were unable t o r e t u r n because of weather c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e remainder of t h e i r p r o p e r t y and t h e l i t t e r . In justice c o u r t t h e s t a t e a d m i t t e d t h e defendant c a l l e d and e x p l a i n e d t h e riiacter t o t h e f o r e s t s e r v i c e and a p p a r e n t l y was a s s u r e d t h a t a l l was w e l l i f t h e remainder o f o t h e items were removed t h e n e x t summer. T h i s was denied i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . During t h e t r i a l i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i t was never e s t a b l i s h e d the defendant was p r e s e n t o r had a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e l i t t e r . T o t h e c o n t r a r y , one of h i s sons t e s t i f i e d he was t h e r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t y , i f t h e r e was a c r i m i n a l v i o l a t i o n , i n l i g h t of t h e circumstances. Defendant p r e s e n t e d e i g h t i s s u e s t o t h i s Court f o r review, which i n c l u d e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e ; improper evidence admitted and d e n i a l of a number of d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed j u r y instructions. W could burden t h i s o p i n i o n w i t h a d i s s e r t a t i o n on t h e e poi-ntls r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t , b u t t h e p e r t i n e n t p o i n t i s t h a t che s t a t e never proved i t s c a s e under any t h e o r y . The r e c o r d does n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t defendant d i d l i t t e r i l a y . The testimony of Vern Waples proves t h a t up t o October 2 , 1972, t h e r e was no l i t t e r . Defendant l e f t s e v e r a l days l a t e r and t h e r e i s no testimony t h a t he l i t t e r e d o r p e r m i t t e d l i t t e r i n g a t any time. n e a r l y t h e end of October 1972. The camp was i n o p e r a t i o n u n t i l Defendant i s charged w i t h w i l f u l l , wrongful, and unlawful l e a v i n g of l i t t e r on p u b l i c property. The s t a t e admits defendant i s only being prosecuted f o r t h e reasons he i s "a named p e r m i t t e e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e a r e a which became l i t t e r e d and was l e f t a s l i t t e r e d while i n t h e scope and mantle of h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . " This i s n o t even a proven f a c t . (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The permit was i s s u e d t o San- f o r d and Sons and one of t h e sons, i n c o u r t , admitted t o being t h e r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t y a f t e r h i s f a t h e r l e f t t h e campsite. The judgment of c o n v i c t i o n i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c a s e i s dismissed. , ' A - ~ k k i e fJ u s t i c 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.
