STATE HWY COMM N v DUNKS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12712 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1974 THE STATE OF MONTANA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, . WILLIAM L DUNKS and CHARLOTTE M DUNKS, . husband and wife, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Jack A. Holstrom argued, Helena, Montana Harry C. Alley and Leo J. Kottas, Jr., Helena, Montana For Respondents: Burgess, Joyce, Prothero, Whelan and O'~eary, Butte, Montana Robert T. O'Leary argued, Butte, Montana Submitted: November 19, 1974 Decided : FEB Filed: FFF -- * ";75 1 3 1.975 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , J e f f e r s o n County, g r a n t i n g a m i s t r i a l . The o r i g i n a l a c t i o n was brought by t h e S t a t e Highway Commission f o r t h e condemnation of c e r t a i n land owned by William L. Dunks and C h a r l o t t e M. Dunks. On August 23, 1973, t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n t h e amount of $35,000. That j u r y c o n s i s t e d of twelve men and women, p l u s one a l t e r n a t e j u r o r , I r e n e Buhl. It was n o t e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h c e r t a i n t y when t h e j u r y began i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n , b u t when i t d i d I r e n e Buhl went i n t o t h e j u r y room w i t h t h e r e g u l a r members of t h e j u r y . I t was a l s o n o t e s t a b l i s h e d p r e c i s e l y how long she was i n t h e j u r y room and e x a c t l y It i s c e r t a i n t h a t i t a l l a t what time t h e b a i l i f f removed h e r . took p l a c e between 1 a.m. 1 and 1 2 noon. The S t a t e Highway Commission c l a i m s I r e n e Buhl was i n t h e j u r y room f o r o n l y f i v e t o t e n minutes. Dunks c l a i m t h e time was more l i k e twenty t o t h i r t y minutes. A f t e r Mrs. Buhl was removed from t h e j u r y room, s h e went t o lunch w i t h t h e j u r y members and s a t w i t h them d u r i n g lunch. l u n c h , she s a t o u t s i d e t h e j u r y room w i t h t h e b a i l i f f . After The evidence does n o t i n d i c a t e how long i t was a f t e r t h e r e t u r n from lunch before the jury returned the verdict. I n t h e i r b r i e f Dunks s t a t e i t was " s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r " . N one i s c e r t a i n what went on i n t h e j u r y room w h i l e I r e n e o Buhl was p r e s e n t . The S t a t e Highway Commission submitted t o t h e c o u r t an a f f i d a v i t from t h e foreman of t h e j u r y which s t a t e s i n p a r t : ** "* I r e n e L. Buhl, t h e a l t e r n a t e j u r o r , s a t i n o n l y a few minutes i n t h e j u r y room when t h e j u r y r e t i r e d around 11:30 a.m., and t h a t Mrs. Buhl, i n no way p a r t i c i p a t e d i n any d i s c u s s i o n o r d e l i b e r a t i o n concerning t h e a c t u a l a b o v e - e n t i t l e d c a s e a s t h e j u r y was dismissed f o r lunch, and when t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d from lunch s h e had been excused from t h e jury panel. "2. The A f f i a n t f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t t o t h e b e s t of h i s i n f o r m a t i o n and b e l i e v e t h e p r e s e n c e s of Mrs. Buhl, t h e a l t e r n a t e j u r o r i n no way p r e j u d i c e d o r i n any way s e r i o u s l y caused i n j u s t i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s . I I The b a i l i f f t e s t i f i e d t h a t he could n o t h e a r what went on w h i l e I r e n e Buhl was i n t h e j u r y room, b u t he thought t h e y t a l k e d about going t o lunch. A f t e r t h e r e t u r n of t h e v e r d i c t , defendant Dunks moved f o r a m i s t r i a l because Mrs. Buhl had been i n t h e j u r y room d u r i n g p a r t of t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n s . The c o u r t , a f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e motion, g r a n t e d t h e motion f o r m i s t r i a l . From t h a t o r d e r t h e Highway Commission a p p e a l s and a s s i g n s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review. However, we a r e of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t a l l t h r e e i s s u e s can be r e s o l v e d by answering t h e f i r s t i s s u e : "Whether t h e ~ e s p o n d e n t s 'Motion f o r a New T r i a l , g r a n t e d by an Order of t h e p r e s i d i n g t r i a l Judge, d a t e d t h e 1 7 t h day of October, 1973, was a m a n i f e s t abuse of d i s c r e t i o n ? " I n reviewing j u r y d e l i b e r a t i o n c a s e s i t can r e a d i l y be seen t h e solemnity placed on such d e l i b e r a t i o n s by t h e j u d i c i a r y and the legislature. Once t h e j u r y r e t i r e s t o t h e j u r y room, t h e judge i s n o t p e r m i t t e d t o t a l k t o t h e j u r y d i r e c t l y w i t h o u t t h e presence of b o t h c o u n s e l . S e c t i o n 93-5106, R.C.M. S t a t e s v. Agueci, 310 F.2d 817, c e r t . d e n . 10 L ed 2d 12. 1947; United 372 U.S. 959, 83 S.Ct. 1016, N e i t h e r i s t h e b a i l i f f allowed t o communicate w i t h t h e j u r y e x c e p t t o a s k i f t w o - t h i r d s of them have reached a d e c i sion. S e c t i o n 93-5105, R.C.M. 1947. N w we a r e c a l l e d upon t o o d e c i d e i f i t b e e r r o r t o have an a l t e r n a t e j u r o r communicate w i t h t h e jury a f t e r i t has r e t i r e d . Appellant Commission submitted an a f f i d a v i t from t h e foreman of t h e j u r y t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t I r e n e Buhl d i d n o t d e l i b e r a t e i n t h e c a s e , and h e r p r e s e n c e i n no way p r e j u d i c e d r e s p o n d e n t s . cannot a l l o w t h a t t o be t h e d e c i d i n g f a c t o r . W e The foreman does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y know a l l t h a t was s a i d i n t h e j u r y room and what prej u d i c i a l e f f e c t i t might have had on t h e o t h e r j u r y members. He cannot g u a r a n t e e I r e n e Buhl d i d n o t somehow i n f l u e n c e a j u r y member other than himself. Respondents c i t e s e v e r a l c a s e s which support t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t an a l t e r n a t e j u r o r i n t h e j u r y room a t t h e time of d e l i b e r a t i o n s i s reversible error: People v. King, 216 N.Y.S.2d 638; People v. B r i t t o n , 4 Cal.2d 622, 52 P.2d 217; People v. Bruneman, 4 Cal.App. 2d 75, 40 P.2d 891; Commonwealth v. Krick, 164 Pa.Super. A.2d 746. 516, 67 Appellant p o i n t s o u t t h a t a l l t h e above c i t e d c a s e s a r e c r i m i n a l c a s e s , t h e r e f o r e they a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i n s t a n t case. With t h a t argument we cannot concur. It i s t r u e l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s have been a p p l i e d l e s s s t r i n g e n t l y t o c i v i l j u r i e s than c r i m i n a l j u r i e s , however, we cannot conclude t h a t t h e r e i s a double s t a n d a r d t h a t can be a p p l i e d t o t h e s a n c t i t y of a j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s based on c r i m i n a l o r c i v i l p r o c e s s . There a r e c i v i l c a s e s d e a l i n g w i t h m i s t r i a l s because of t h e number of j u r o r s participating i n the deliberation. C i t y of F l a t I R i v e t v. Edgar, (Mf.'i"~67), 412 S.W.2d 537, d e a l t w i t h two j u r o r s who because of t h e i r r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s , r e f u s e d t o j o i n t h e jury deliberations. The c o u r t h e l d t h e defendant i n t h a t c a s e did not receive a f a i r t r i a l . 116 N.W.2d Johnson v. Holzemer, 263 Minn. 227, 673, concerned a v e r d i c t reached by t h e j u r y a f t e r a j u r o r , unable t o perform h e r d u t i e s a s a j u r o r , was dismissed and no a l t e r n a t e j u r o r r e p l a c e d h e r . was void. There t h e c o u r t h e l d t h e v e r d i c t True, t h e s e c a s e s concern fewer than t h e r e q u i r e d number of j u r o r s d e l i b e r a t i n g , r a t h e r than more, however t h e y do i l l u s t r a t e t h e importance of having t h e r e q u i r e d number o f j u r o r s d u r i n g deliberation. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court i n Schankweiler v. Penn.Lighting Co., 275 Pa.50, 118 A. 562, i n d e c i d i n g what c o n s t i t u t e d i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t h e j u r y d e c i s i o n making f u n c t i o n , s t a t e d : "That confidence i n t r i a l by j u r y may be preserved, and t h a t p a r t i e s may f e e l a v e r d i c t i s based on an honest * every appearance of c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e evidence e v i l must be avoided, and every p r e c a u t i o n taken t o guard a g a i n s t a l l m a t t e r s t e n d i n g i n t h e s l i g h t e s t degree t o corrupt o r influence the verdict. ** * * *" Rule 4 7 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "* * *An a l t e r n a t e j u r o r s h a l l n o t j o i n t h e j u r y i n i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n u n l e s s c a l l e d upon by t h e c o u r t t o r e p l a c e a member of t h e j u r y . 9 ~ *" * Here, t h e a l t e r n a t e j u r o r was n o t c a l l e d on t o r e p l a c e a member of t h e j u r y . The evidence i n t h i s m a t t e r i s i n c o n f l i c t r e g a r d i n g t h e time s p e n t i n t h e j u r y room by t h e a l t e r n a t e j u r o r . o f f e r e d an o p i n i o n t h a t no harm was done. t r o l l i n g considerations. The j u r y foreman has These a r e n o t t h e con- P u b l i c p o l i c y , a s s t a t e d by t h e Pennsylvania Court, r e q u i r e s t h a t t o m a i n t a i n c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e j u r y system II every appearance of e v i l must be a v o i d e d , and e v e r y p r e c a u t i o n taken t o guard a g a i n s t a l l m a t t e r s t e n d i n g i n t h e s l i g h t e s t d e g r e e t o (Emphasis added) corrupt or influence the verdict." I f u n a u t h o r i z e d persons i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h i s p r o c e s s we a r e n o t a t l i b e r t y t o make a r b i t r a r y e x c e p t i o n s based on time, a c t u a l harm, n o r t h e f a c t t h a t d u r i n g t h e t r i a l t h e person involved was a sworn a l t e r n a t e juror. I f such were t h e c a s e we would soon damage t h e solemnity a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e j u r y system and l o s s of f a i t h i n i t s u s e f u l n e s s would soon f o l l o w . The t r i a l judge d i d n o t abuse h i s d i s c r e t i o n . the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. Justice W Concur: e Chief J u s t i c e J .................................... Justices. The judgment of M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell, d i s s e n t i n g : I would r e v e r s e t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g defendants a new t r i a l and r e i n s t a t e t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . T h i s r e s u l t i s based on two grounds: (1) waiver; (2) harmless e r r o r . A f t e r d i s c o v e r y and removal of t h e a l t e r n a t e j u r o r from t h e j u r y room, defendants w i t h f u l l a mistrial. knowledge t h e r e o f d i d n o t move f o r I n s t e a d , defendants p e r m i t t e d t h e j u r y t o c o n t i n u e i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s and r e t u r n i t s v e r d i c t without o b j e c t i o n . When t h e v e r d i c t was n o t t o t h e i r l i k i n g , they moved f o r a new t r i a l 22 days l a t e r . Defendants a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o have t h e i r cake and e a t i t too. The r e c o r d i s b a r r e n of any o b j e c t i o n by defendants between t h e time of discovery of t h e presence of t h e a l t e r n a t e j u r o r i n t h e j u r y room and t h e time defendants moved f o r a new t r i a l . They d i d n o t o b j e c t when t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d i t s unanimous v e r d i c t i n open c o u r t on August 23. They d i d n o t o b j e c t on t h e v e r d i c t on September 5. p r i o r t o e n t r y of judgment ~ e f e n d a n t s ' f i r s t o b j e c t i o n was t h e i r motion f o r new t r i a l on September 14. Objections i n v o l v i n g i r r e g u l a r i t e s i n j u r y proceedings known t o a p a r t y a t t h e time and n o t o b j e c t e d t o a r e waived; they cannot be r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time upon motion f o r a new t r i a l following an adverse j u r y v e r d i c t . Seder v. P e t e r Kiewit s o n s ' Company, 156 Mont. 322, 479 P.2d 448. A d d i t i o n a l l y , I b e l i e v e t h e e r r o r was harmless under t h e circumstances of t h i s c a s e . except an N p r e j u d i c e t o defendants i s i n d i c a t e d o unfavorable v e r d i c t . The v e r d i c t was unanimous. The i n s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e e r r o r i s demonstrated more e l o q u e n t l y than a thousand words by d e f e n d a n t s ' f a i l u r e t o o b j e c t o r move f o r a m i s t r i a l . The m a j o r i t y hold t h a t t h e presence of t h e a l t e r n a t e j u r o r i n t h e j u r y room i n i t s e l f i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . I disagree with t h i s blanket holding. A new t r i a l can be g r a n t e d only f o r an e r r o r II materially a f f e c t i n g t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s " o f t h e aggrieved party. S e c t i o n 93-5603, R.C.M. 1947. P r e j u d i c e i s never presumed b u t must a f f i r m a t i v e l appear. M a r t e l l o v. Darlow e t a l . , 151 Mont. 232, 441 P.2d 175; Conway v. Fabian, 108 Mont. 287, 89 P.2d 1022. The e r r o r must b e of such c h a r a c t e r t h a t r e f u s a l t o g r a n t a new t r i a l "appears t o t h e court inconsistent with substantial justice". Rule 61, M.R.Civ.P. I n m view, none of t h e s e requirements f o r a new t r i a l i s p r e s e n t y i n t h i s case. A prima f a c i e c a s e of manifest abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding a new t r i a l i s made by d i s c r e d i t i n g t h e grounds s p e c i f i e d f o r a new t r i a l o r showing t h a t e x i s t i n g e r r o r d i d n o t m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e moving p a r t y . R e a l t y , 149 Mont. 358, 427 P.2d 57. Tigh v. College Park Such i s t h e c a s e h e r e , i n m y opinion. For t h e s e r e a s o n s , I m u l d deny defendants a new t r i a l and r e i n s t a t e t h e j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment e n t e r e d thereon. Justice.

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.