CITY OF HAMILTON v HAYDEN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 85-232 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 C I T Y OF HAMILTON, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsBYRON CRAIG HAYDEN, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t 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 , I n a n d F o r t h e C o u n t y of R a v a l l i , T h e H o n o r a b l e John S . H e n s o n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O F RECORD: For Appellant: J u d i t h A. Loring, Hamilton, Montana F o r Respondent: Koch, McKenna, Goheen & Boggs; Montana D.W. McKenna, S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: NUI/ 1 4 1985 Clerk Oct. Hamilton, 3, 1985 November 1 4 , 1985 M r . J u s t i c e Franlr B. t h e Court. Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f D e f e n d a n t B y r o n Hayden a p p e a l s h i s A p r i l 2 9 , conviction District, in District the for driving Court under the of the Fourth influence reverse t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t j u d g m e n t 1985, j u r y of Judicial alcohol. We and d i s m i s s t h e cause. D e f e n d a n t w a s a r r e s t e d a n d c h a r g e d w i t h D U I on J u l y 2 , 1983, i n Hamilton, Montana. speedy t r i a l a t the c i t y court Subsequently, January 26, Defendant waived h i s r i g h t t o a he was 1984. tried l e v e l on November and Defendant convicted filed a in n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w a s f i l e d o n March 1 5 , 1984, t h e C i t y o f Hamilton a s being untimely. 1983. C i t y Court on defective a p p e a l t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on February 2 , 10, notice of 1 9 8 4 ; a n amended 1984. On A p r i l 5, ( C i t y ) moved t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l An o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s was e n t e r e d on May 11, 1 9 8 5 . Defendant trial on f i l e d a motion August 21, 1984. t o dismiss f o r lack o f speedy T h i s was denied on August 30, 1 9 8 4 , and d e f e n d a n t a p p l i e d t o t h e Montana Supreme C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l on September 4, 1984. w a s d e n i e d on O c t o b e r the District 22, Court. 1984, Defendant The w r i t and t h e m a t t e r r e t u r n e d t o filed a second motion to d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f s p e e d y t r i a l on M a r c h 6 , 1 9 8 5 , w h i c h w a s d e n i e d A p r i l 5 , 1985. Defendant on April 1985. 8, 1985, and t h e m a t t e r was T r i a l was h e l d on A p r i l 29, defendant whether f a i l e d t o appear a t t h e jury t r i a l scheduled guilty of DUI. d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d speedy t r i a l . On reset for April 1985, and t h e j u r y appeal., the sole h i s constitutional 29, found issue is right t o a In S t a t e - v . Knox ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 675 P . 2 d 4 1 St.Rep. 950, 126, w e h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t who a p p e a l s a l o w e r c o u r t d e c i s i o n t o t h e d i s t r i c t court level has a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l . Whether o r n o t a d e f e n d a n t h a s been d e p r i v e d of involves this length right of delay; a balancing reason 2) for of the four delay; factors: 3) 1) defendant's a s s e r t i o n o f h i s r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l ; and 4 ) p r e j u d i c e t o t h e defendant. Applying t h e s e f a c t o r s t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , w e f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l e v e l . D e f e n d a n t ' s amended n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w a s f i l e d March 1 5 , 1984, over and h i s one first year later. sufficient to reason the for defendant. trial A delay and the S t a t e v . Tiedemann of nearly 8, 1985, 1 3 months is to the City t o explain the s h i f t t h e burden delay set f o r April d a t e was absence of prejudice to the ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 8 Mont 3 9 4 , 584 P.2d 1284. The cites City defendant's motion District the to dismiss for Court lack of opinion denying speedy t r i a l in a s s e r t i n g t h e major reasons f o r delay w e r e t h e motions f i l e d by the defendant. District The Court opinion is not s u p p o r t e d b y t h e f a c t s , i n t h a t it i g n o r e s t h e " d e a d t i m e " i n t h i s c a s e from May 11, 1 9 8 4 t o A u g u s t 2 1 , 23, to 1984, institutional March delay 6, of 1985. 236 days We find 1984, and O c t o b e r an unintentional i s unacceptable where the C i t y h a s o f f e r e d no r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y . The C i t y a r g u e s t h e r e h a s b e e n n o s h o w i n g o f p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t c a u s e d by t h e d e l a y i n g e t t i n g t h e c a s e to trial. where I n T i e d e m a n n , we s a i d p r e j u d i c e would b e p r e s u m e d there is excessive delay between the date of the occurrence and the time of trial. at 1292. 178 Mont. at 407, 584 P.2d In this case, the City has presented no substantial credible evidence showing that the delay has not prejudiced the defendant. The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the

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.