STATE EX REL WARD v SCHMALL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

80-165 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 STATE OF MONTANA ex rel., ROBIN DeWAYNE WARD, Petitioner, NORMA A. SCHMALL, Justice of the Peace for Gallatin County, Montana, Respondent. Appeal from: -i Judicial District, District Court of the In and for the County of Gallatin. Honorable Joseph Gary, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Petitioner: Goetz and Madden, Bozeman, Montana James Goetz argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Dennis Dunphy argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Michael Lilly argued, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: & 8 6 t$@O p September 8, 1980 - 30 SEP 1 w J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a f i n a l c i v i l judgment of t h e G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t C o u r t . This c a s e o r i g i n a t e d as a c r i m i n a l cause i n t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace C o u r t of Norma Schmall. R e l a t o r , Robin DeWayne Ward, was a r r e s t e d on March 31, 1979, f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e intoxicated. Ward r e f u s e d t o t a k e a c h e m i c a l t e s t and i n i t i a t e d a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e t o s e c t i o n 61-8-404 ( 2 ) , MCA, which a u t o m a t i c a l l y approves t h e a d m i s s i o n i n t o e v i - d e n c e of t h e f a c t t h a t a d e f e n d a n t r e f u s e d t o s u b m i t t o a c h e m i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n . Ward f i l e d a c i v i l p e t i t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l , w r i t of habeas corpus, o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t . Ward a r g u e d t h a t b e c a u s e of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v e d , a nonlawyer j u s t i c e of t h e p e a c e would be i l l - e q u i p p e d t o d e a l w i t h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a s p e c t s of h i s c a s e . The p e t i t i o n t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u p e r i n t e n d w a s accompanied by a r e q u e s t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a y t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace C o u r t c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s pending d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e c i v i l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . The S t a t e i n i t i a l l y r e s i s t e d t h e c i v i l p e t i t i o n f o r o r i g i n a l r e l i e f i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. However, i t w i t h - drew i t s o p p o s i t i o n a f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s i n B a i l e y v . S t a t e ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 163 Mont. 380, 517 P.2d 708, and F o r s y t h e v . Wenholz ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 496, 554 P.2d 1333. I n a b r i e f f i l e d on J u l y 1 7 , 1979, t h e S t a t e e x p r e s s l y conceded t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l i n c a s e s such a s t h i s , The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e p e t i t i o n , s t a y e d t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace C o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s , and h e a r d t h e w r i t on t h e m e r i t s . a g a i n s t Ward. On A p r i l 11, 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r u l e d H e now a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t judgment. R e l a t o r Ward p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s review: 1. Whether a s t a t e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t w r i t s o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l o v e r J u s t i c e of t h e Peace Courts . 2. Whether s e c t i o n 61-8-404(2), MCA, a l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e of r e f u s a l t o s u b m i t t o a b r e a t h a l y z e r t e s t upon a r r e s t f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d , i s a v i o l a t i o n of t h e F i f t h Amendment p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n . 3. Whether i t i s a v i o l a t i o n of a d e f e n d a n t ' s due p r o c e s s r i g h t s i f p o l i c e o f f i c e r s do n o t i n f o r m him t h a t t h e f a c t of h i s r e f u s a l t o s u b m i t t o a b r e a t h a l y z e r t e s t w i l l be used a g a i n s t him a t t r i a l . With r e g a r d t o r e l a t o r ' s f i r s t i s s u e , w e a r e g u i d e d by 1972 Mont. C o n s t . , A r t . VII, S 2 . That c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provi- s i o n e x p r e s s l y g r a n t s t h i s C o u r t t h e power t o e x e r c i s e supervisory j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l o t h e r c o u r t s i n t h i s state. Absent a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n o r s t a t u t e bestow- i n g upon t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t w r i t s of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l o v e r J u s t i c e of t h e Peace C o u r t s , w e a r e o b l i g a t e d t o i n f e r t h a t D i s t r i c t C o u r t s do n o t have such power. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t o u r d e c i s i o n s i n B a i l e y and Forsythe, supra, lend t o l e r a n t approval t o t h e District C o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e o f s u p e r v i s o r y power, t h e y a r e e x p r e s s l y overruled. Ward h a s r e q u e s t e d t h a t i n t h e e v e n t w e do n o t f i n d t h a t the ~ i s t r i c Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n , w e convert h i s t a p p e a l t o a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l s o t h a t t h i s C o u r t may s u p e r i n t e n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t below. W conclude, a s e w e d i d i n S t a t e e x r e l . Kober & Kyriss v. D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 147 Mont. 1 1 6 , 4 1 0 P.2d 945, t h a t a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l i s n o t t o b e used a s a means t o c i r c u m v e n t t h e appeal process. Only i n t h e most e x t e n u a t i n g circum- s t a n c e s w i l l such a w r i t be g r a n t e d . I n t h i s c a u s e , no s u c h circumstances e x i s t . The r e q u e s t f o r a s u p e r v i s o r y w r i t i s d e n i e d . The c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace C o u r t f o r proc e e d i n g s on t h e m e r i t s . W concur: e PChief A Justice / 1 Justices

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.