STATE v RYAN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12845 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1975 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - D N L E. RYAN, O AD Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R o b e r t Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : Michael Whalen a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent : Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: -9 !$n March 7, 1975 ARR - 9 1E 9 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. O J u l y 27, 1973, Donald E. Ryan pleaded g u i l t y t o t h r e e n counts of grand l a r c e n y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County. The c o u r t d e f e r r e d imposition of s e n t e n c e f o r one y e a r , p l a c i n g defendant on p r o b a t i o n under t h e s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e S t a t e Board of Pardons. One of t h e terms of t h e p r o b a t i o n , accepted by de- fendant a s a c o n d i t i o n of t h e sentence d e f e r r a l , was a requirement that: "3. The defendant s h a l l conduct himself i n a law a b i d i n g manner and s h a l l n o t v i o l a t e any law of t h e United S t a t e s o r o f t h e S t a t e of Montana o r t h e ordinance of any c i t y o r town d u r i n g s a i d term * * *. 'I O J u l y 8 , 1974, p e t i t i o n was f i l e d f o r r e v o c a t i o n of t h e n d e f e r r a l o r d e r ; t h e grounds f o r r e v o c a t i o n were t h a t defendant a l l e g e d l y s t o l e a t y p e w r i t e r from a bus t e r m i n a l i n B i l l i n g s . On t h e same day, an Information was f i l e d which charged defendant w i t h t h e f t (a f e l o n y ) , a l l e g i n g t h e same a c t contained i n t h e p e t i t i o n f o r revocation. Following arraignment and d e f e n d a n t ' s plea of n o t g u i l t y , t r i a l was s e t f o r September 16, 1974. A h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v o c a t i o n was s e t f o r J u l y 12, 1974. On t h a t d a t e , defendant moved f o r a continuance u n t i l a f t e r t h e t r i a l on t h e c r i m i n a l charge o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r d i s m i s s a l of t h e c r i m i n a l charge w i t h p r e j u d i c e . The grounds f o r t h e motion were s t a t e d a s : ** "* That t h e i d e n t i c a l f a c t s w i t h which he i s charged i n t h e P e t i t i o n f o r Revocation a r e a l l e g e d i n t h e Information c h a r g i n g him w i t h t h e crime f o r which he i s y e t t o s t a n d t r i a l and h i s g u i l t o r innocence h a s n o t y e t been determined and t o r e q u i r e him t o go t o h e a r i n g a t t h i s time upon t h e P e t i t i o n f o r Revocation would e f f e c t i v e l y d e p r i v e him o f h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s t o remain s i l e n t a s t o t h e f a c t s i n t h e f e l o n y c a s e pending a g a i n s t him i n Cause No. 9335, and i n e f f e c t would amount t o s u b j e c t i n g him t o double jeopardy i f he were r e q u i r e d t o t e s t i f y a s t o t h e f a c t s a t t h i s time and then subsequently appear i n a t r i a l b e f o r e a j u r y i n Cause No. 9335. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h a t i t would put t h e Court i n a p o s i t i o n whereby he could be c o n v i c t e d on t h e p r e s e n t f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n witho u t t h e b e n e f i t of a j u r y t r i a l , and a t a time when a c r i m i n a l charge has i n f a c t been f i l e d upon t h e same s e t of f a c t s . " The motion was denied and t h e h e a r i n g proceeded w i t h t h e s t a r e ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n of w i t n e s s e s t o t h e a l l e g e d crime. These w i t n e s s e s were cross-examined by defense c o u n s e l , b u t defendant d i d n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d i n h i s own d e f e n s e n o r p r e s e n t any evidence. Defendant was found i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s p r o b a t i o n and was subsequently sentenced t o terms of t e n y e a r s on each of t h e t h r e e p r i o r counts. concurrently. The s e n t e n c e s were t o b e served Following r e v o c a t i o n and s e n t e n c i n g , t h e new c r i m i n a l charge was dismissed on t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s motion. ~ e f e n d a n t ' sa p p e a l from t h e judgment r a i s e s a s i n g l e i s s u e : Should t h e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g have been continued u n t i l a f t e r t r i a l of t h e c r i m i n a l charge o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , should t h e c r i m i n a l charge have been dismissed w i t h p r e j u d i c e ? Defendant contends he was denied due process by being f o r c e d t o e l e c t between e i t h e r e x e r c i s i n g h i s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t ( r i s k i n g p o s s i b l e r e v o c a t i o n of h i s d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e ) o r waiving t h a t r i g h t ( r i s k i n g p o s s i b l e s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e c r i m i n a l c h a r g e , y e t t o be t r i e d ) . He a r g u e s t h e s t a t e ' s only motive f o r compelling t h i s e l e c t i o n by holding t h e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g f i r s t , was t o c o e r c e him i n t o t a k i n g t h e s t a n d . I f he had done s o , he would have been a v a i l a b l e f o r cross-examination which could be used by t h e s t a t e a s a d i s c o v e r y technique, Although t h i s argument i s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time b e f o r e t h i s Court, o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s have been p r e s e n t e d w i t h s i m i l a r issues. For r e c e n t examples s e e : People v. C a r r , (Colo.1974), 524 P.2d 301; Gonsalves v. Howard, (R.I.1974), v. Cruz, 14 Ill.App.3d 513, 302 N.E.2d 702. 324 A.2d 338; People The most complete d i s - c u s s i o n on t h e s e i s s u e s can be found i n t h e s e t h r e e r e l a t e d opinions: F l i n t v. Howard, 110 R.I.223, 291 A.2d 625, c e r t , d e n . 409 U.S. 93 S e c t . 694, 34 L ed 2d 667; F l i n t v. Mullen, 372 F.Supp. 1078, 213 (D.R.I. 1974), r e v e r s e d i n F l i n t v , Mullen, 499 F.2d 100 ( 1 s t C i r . 1974). These c a s e s hold t h a t due process i s n o t v i o l a t e d by h o l d i n g a r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g p r i o r t o t r i a l o f a c r i m i n a l charged based on t h e same f a c t s a l l e g e d a s grounds f o r t h e r e v o c a t i o n . I n McGautha v. C a l i f o r n i a , 402 U.S. 183, 91 S.Ct. 1454, 28 L ed 2d 711, 729, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court decided a q u e s t i o n s i m i l a r t o the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenge r a i s e d i n t h e i n s t a n t case. There defendant was t r i e d b e f o r e a j u r y which decided b o t h t h e quest i o n of g u i l t o r innocence, a s w e l l a s t h e q u e s t i o n of s e n t e n c e , i f guilty. Defendant a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o f due p r o c e s s a r i s i n g from t h e n e c e s s i t y of c h o o s i n g w h e t h e r t o remain s i l e n t ( r i s k i n g a h a r s h e r s e n t e n c e ) o r waiving t h a t r i g h t ( r i s k i n g p o s s i b l e s e l f incrimination). Recognizing defendant's predicament, t h e Court said: "The c r i m i n a l p r o c e s s , l i k e t h e rest of t h e l e g a l system, i s r e p l e t e w i t h s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r i n g ' t h e making of d i f f i c u l t judgments' a s t o which c o u r s e t o follow. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S., a t 769, 25 L Ed 2d a t 772. Although a defendant may have a r i g h t , even o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l dimensions, t o f o l l o w whichever c o u r s e he chooses, t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n does n o t by t h a t token always f o r b i d r e q u i r i n g him t o choose." Under t h e f a c t s of McGautha no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n was found. Here, a s i n McGautha, defendant was p r e s e n t e d w i t h a s t r a t e g i c c h o i c e - - s i l e n c e , which he c l a i m s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e r e v o c a t i o n of h i s d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e , o r speaking o u t a t t h e r i s k of p o s s i b l e s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e s u b s t a n t i v e c r i m i n a l charge. The c h o i c e of whether o r n o t t o waive h i s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t was one which defendant n e c e s s a r i l y would have t o make, sooner o r l a t e r . His p o s i t i o n a t t h e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g and a t t h e t r i a l would be subs t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r , m a i n t a i n i n g h i s innocence of t h e a l l e g e d t h e f t of t h e t y p e w r i t e r . The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l i d i t y of r e q u i r i n g e a r l i e r d i s c l o s u r e of c e r t a i n d e f e n s e s was upheld by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n Williams v. F l o r i d a , 399 U.S. 26 L ed 2d 446. 78, 90 S.Ct. It has a l s o been upheld by t h i s Court. 1893, S t a t e ex r e l . Sikora v. D i s t r i c t Court, 154 Mont. 241, 462 P.2d 897. W e hold t h a t t h e e a r l i e r c h o i c e a s t o e x e r c i s e of t h e r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t , under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , i s n o t repugnant t o e i t h e r United S t a t e s o r Montana c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s . The t h r u s t of t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d i s p l a i n . A defendant, i n t h e c o u r s e of d e f e n s e , must n e c e s s a r i l y make a number of hard d e c i s i o n s many of which b e a r on t h e e x e r c i s e o r waiver of c o n s t i tutional rights. Often, as h e r e , t h e c h o i c e i s a d i f f i c u l t one. However, i t does n o t f o l l o w t h a t such c h o i c e s cannot be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y required. I n f i n d i n g no v i o l a t i o n o f due p r o c e s s requirements we have n o t d i s c u s s e d t h e j u r y t r i a l and double jeopardy i s s u e s r a i s e d by defendant i n h i s motion f o r continuance i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . O appeal defend an^ c i t e d no a u t h o r i t y i n support of t h e s e c h a l l e n g e s , n and t r e a t m e n t of t h e s e i s s u e s i n t h e b r i e f s and o r a l argument was cursory. W e note t h a t a revocation hearing i s j u s t that--- hearing, n o t a t r i a l . a I t s f u n c t i o n i s t o determine whether o r n o t t h e terms of probation have been v i o l a t e d . c r i m i n a l charge i s s t i l l a s s u r e d . T r i a l by j u r y on t h e W f i n d no m e n t i n d e f e n d a n t ' s e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenges. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed. i ! I . . .................................. Justice // /' /{ Chief J u s t i c e 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.