STATE EX REL WOODAHL v DISTRICT C

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 131-28 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1975 THE STATE O M N A A on t h e R e l a t i o n F OTN of ROBERT L. WOODAHL, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l of t h e S t a t e of l"lntana, Relator, THE DISTRICT COURT O THE FIRST JUDICIAL F F DISTRICT O THE STATE O MONTANA, i n and F f o r t h e County o f Lewis and C h r k and t h e HON. N T ALLEN, P r e s i d i n g Judge, A Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel o f Record: For Relator : 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 Richard Dzivi, S p e c i a l A s s i st a n t Attorney General, a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Thomas Beers, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , Helena, Montana F o r Respondent : K n l g h t , Dahood, Mackay and McLean, Anaconda, Montana Wade Dahood a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed : , < Q$ a m August 21, 1975 SEP 5 1975 PER CURIAM: This i s an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a W r i t of Supervisory Control or other appropriate w r i t . The s t a t e of Montana, through i t s Attorney General, Robert L. Woodahl, r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e w r i t be d i r e c t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , and t h e p r e s i d i n g judge, Hon. Nat Allen, w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e causes e n t i t l e d S t a t e of Montana v. John J . Carden, a.k.a. James J. Carden, Cause No. 3937, and S t a t e of Montana v. John J. Carden, a.k.a. James J. Carden and Gloria ( ~ u s e k )Carden, Cause No. 3938. The f a c t s l e a d i n g up t o t h e p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t show t h a t on December 20, 1974, t h e s t a t e of Montana made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e Informations i n causes No. 3937 and No. 3938. O December 20, 1974, l e a v e was g r a n t e d i n cause No. 3938. n O n January 9, 1975, t h e Ilon. Nat Allen assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n o f both causes No. 3937 and No. 3938 a f t e r Judges Gordon R. Bennett and P e t e r Meloy of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t v o l u n t a r i l y withdrew from t h o s e c a s e s . O January 14, 1975, t h e Hon. Nat Allen granted n l e a v e t o f i l e t h e Information i n c a u s e No. 3937. The i n i t i a l defense motions of both c a s e s were f i l e d on February 10, 1975, and t h e defense b r i e f was f i l e d on February 28, 1975. Oral argument was heard on t h e i s s u e of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r judgment of contempt a g a i n s t t h e Attorney General, e t , a l . , and t h e p e t i t i o n f o r judgment of contempt a g a i n s t t h e defendant, John J. Carden. O March 24, 1975, Judge Allen r u l e d upon t h e s e i s s u e s . n O March n 1 9 , 1975, t h e c o u r t extended t h e time f o r f i l i n g of b r i e f s f o r defendant u n t i l A p r i l 21, 1975, and t h e s t a t e u n t i l May 21, 1975, and defendant u n t i l May 30, 1975, t o r e p l y . A l l b r i e f s were f i l e d w i t h i n t h e time e x t e n s i o n s o f t h e c o u r t . O August 4 , 1975, pursuant t o s e c t i o n 95-1709, R.C.M. n 1947, t h e Attorney General moved t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r an o r d e r t o s u b s t i t u t e judge i n causes No. 3937 and No. 3938. O August 11, 1975, by w r i t t e n o r d e r , t h e Hon. Nat Allen n ordered t h e Attorney General's motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge on both causes No. 3937 and No. 3938 b e denied and ordered s t r i c k e n from t h e r e c o r d . The c o u r t s t a t e d t h i s reason: h he attempt by t h e Attorney General t o s u b s t i t u t e a judge a f t e r t h e m a t t e r was submitted and pending d e c i s i o n by t h e Court i s d e l i b e r a t e abuse of t h e d i s q u a l i f y i n g s t a t u t e , and i f allowed would d e s t r o y t h e e f f i c i e n c y of a l l D i s t r i c t Courts." Therefore, t h e Attorney General has p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r a Writ of Supervisory Control o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t i n s t r u c t i n g t h e Hon. Nat Allen t o i s s u e t h e o r d e r of substitution. Petitioner presents these three issues f o r t h i s c o u r t ' s review: 1) Whether t h e motion of s u b s t i t u t i o n o f judge, submitted by t h e s t a t e of Montana was proper and whether i t comported w i t h a 1 1 c o n d i t i o n s precedent t o s e c t i o n 95-1709, R.C.M. 2) Whether, looking t o t h e r e a s o n i n g of Judge Allen above, t h e cause had been i n f a c t submitted t o him; and 3) Whether t h e Hon. Nat Allen must r e l i n q u i s h a l l j u r i s - d i c t i o n t o t h e above c a s e s e f f e c t i v e upon t h e f i l i n g of t h e motion. P e t i t i o n e r contends t h a t he has complied w i t h a l l of t h e requirements of s e c t i o n 95-1709. That s e c t i o n i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t provides : "(a) The defendant o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n may move t h e c o u r t i n w r i t i n g f o r a s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge on t h e ground t h a t he cannot have a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g o r t r i a l b e f o r e s a i d judge. The motion s h a l l be made a t l e a s t f i f t e e n (15) days p r i o r t o t h e t r i a l of t h e c a s e , o r any r e t r i a l t h e r e o f a f t e r a p p e a l , except f o r good cause shown. Upon t h e f i l i n g of such a motion t h e judge a g a i n s t whom t h e motion i s f i l e d s h a l l be without authority t o a c t f u r t h e r i n the criminal action, motion o r proceeding b u t t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s s e c t i o n do n o t a p p l y t o t h e arrangement of t h e i a l e n d a r , t h e r e g u l a t i o n of t h e o r d e r of b u s i n e s s , izhe power of t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r proceeding t o some o t h e r c o u r t , nor t o t h e power of c a l l i n g i n a n o t h e r judge t o s i t and a c t i n such c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r proceeding, providing t h a t no judge s h a l l s o a r r a n g e t h e c a l e n d a r a s t o d e f e a t t h e ourposes of t h i s s e c t i o n . Not more than one (1) iudge can be d i s q u a l i f i e d i n t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r proceeding, a t t h e i n s t a n c e of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n and n o t more than (1) judge a t t h e i n s t a n c e of t h e defendant or defendants. I P e t i t i o n e r ' s motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n was made i n w r i t i n g b e i o r e a n y t r i a l d a t e was s e t . The grounds and r e a s o n s upon which t h e motion was based was t h a t t h e s t a t e "cannot have a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g o r t r i a l b e f o r e s a i d judge. I' There- f o r e , having reviewed a l l t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e a t t h e d a t e of t h e h e a r i n g , we f i n d p e t i t i o n e r has complied w i t h a l l t h e c o n d i t i o n s precedent t o s e c t i o n 95-1709. The second i s s u e then i s whether t h e r e a s o n i n g of Judge A l l e r l i n h i s o r d e r d a t e d August 11, 1975, f o r n o t d i s q u a l i f y i n g himself: "The a t t e m p t by t h e Attorney General t o s u b s t i t u t e a judge a f t e r t h e m a t t e r was submitted and pending d e c i s i o n by t h e Court i s d e l i b e r a t e abuse of t h e d i s q u a l i f y i n g s t a t u t e , and i f allowed would d e s t r o y che e f f i c i e n c y of a l l D i s t r i c t Courts. 11 was a v a l i d r e a s o n which would a l l o w Judge Allen t o maintain j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e two c a u s e s b e f o r e him. Respondent a r g u e s : II J u s t i c e and f a i r n e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t a judge cannot b e d i s q u a l i f i e d a s t o a motion b e f o r e t h e c o u r t where t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r had been h e l d , a l l b r i e f s were submitted by b o t h s i d e s , and t h e m a t t e r had been deemed submitted t o t h e judge f o r h i s dec i s i o n . II This Court has reviewed t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d of c a u s e s No. 3937 and !jo. 3938 and nowhere can we f i n d any e n t r y i n t h e r e c o r d which would show t h a t any motion was pending b e f o r e t h e c o u r t o r deemed submitted by t h e c o u r t a t t h e time t h e motion f o r sub- s t i t u t i o n of judge was made t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t by t h e p e t i t i o n e r . W will e n o t c o n s i d e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of p a r t i e s a f t e r t h e f a c t o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s dehors t h e r e c o r d s . W therefore find e r e s p o n d e n t ' s argument t h a t a judge cannot be d i s q u a l i f i e d when a motion i s submitted t o t h a t judge, i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n now b e f o r e u s . The f i n a l i s s u e presented t o t h i s Court i s whether t h e Hon. Mat Allen must r e l i n q u i s h a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e causes i n q u e s t i o n . W f i n d t h a t s i n c e p e t i t i o n e r has complied e w i t h a l l c o n d i t i o n s precedent t o s e c t i o n 95-1709 and t h e r e has been no showing by respondent of any f a c t s which would e s t a b l i s h noncompliance w i t h t h a t s t a t u t e , t h e Hon. Nat Allen must r e l i n q u i s h a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e c a s e s i n q u e s t i o n e f f e c t i v e upon t h e d a t e of t h e f i l i n g o f t h e motion of s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge. This opinion s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a W r i t of Supervisory Control o r d e r i n g t h a t t h e h e r e t o f o r e mentirnd o r d e r of August 11, 1975, b e s e t a s i d e and a n n u l l e d ; and d i r e c t i n g Hon. Nat Allen t o r e l i n q u i s h j u r i s d i c t i o n so t h a t a n o t h e r judge may b e c a l l e d i n t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n over c r i m i n a l causes No. 3937 and No. 3938. Hon. Jack L. Green, D i s t r i c t Judge, s a t f o r Nr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly i n t h e above e n t i t l e d o r i g i n a l proceeding.

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.