STATE v HARRIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13876 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F O T N 1978 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vsR N L HARRIS, O AD Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: District Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Arnold Olsen, Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: Byron W. Boggs a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana F o r Respondent : Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a Dennis Dunphy, I n t e r n , O f f i c e o f A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana S h e r i K. S p r i g g , 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 , H e l e n a , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: Mm I f ¬&j January 2 5 , MAR 1 3 1978 Mr. 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 C o u r t . On March 8, 1977, Ronald H a r r i s , a n i n m a t e of Montana s t a t e p r i s o n , was c o n v i c t e d by j u r y v e r d i c t f o r t h e c r i m e of p o s s e s s i o n of a weapon by a p r i s o n e r , a f e l o n y i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 94-8-213, R.C.M. 1947. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Powell County, s u b s e q u e n t l y s e n t e n c e d H a r r i s t o a t e r m of f i v e y e a r s i n t h e Montana s t a t e p r i s o n , s u c h term t o be s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e t o t h e s e n t e n c e H a r r i s i s now s e r v i n g . Harris a p p e a l s from t h e judgment of c o n v i c t i o n on t h e grounds t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n denying h i s motion t o s u p p r e s s and i n a d m i t t i n g i n t o e v i d e n c e a t h i s c r i m i n a l t r i a l i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s made by H a r r i s a t a n e a r l i e r d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g conducted a t Montana s t a t e p r i s o n . On August 7, 1976, p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s a t Montana s t a t e p r i s o n d i s c o v e r e d a handmade s t e e l k n i f e i n a c e l l s h a r e d by H a r r i s and a n o t h e r p r i s o n e r , John H e n d r i c k s . The k n i f e had been c o n c e a l e d i n a hollowed o u t p o r t i o n of t h e wooden frame of a m i r r o r . The m i r r o r i s s u p p l i e d t o i n m a t e s by t h e p r i s o n a s p a r t of t h e s t a n d a r d f u r n i s h i n g s of each c e l l . Upon d i s c o v e r y of t h e k n i f e , Harris and Hendricks w e r e removed t o t h e maximum s e c u r i t y u n i t and c h a r g e d f o r v i o l a t i n g t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n Inmate R u l e s and G u i d e l i n e s , s p e c i f i c a l l y Rule No. 215--"Possession o r i n t r o d u c t i o n of a gun, f i r e a r m , weapon, sharpened i n s t r u m e n t , k n i f e o r unauthorized tool." I n compliance w i t h t h e Inmate Rules and G u i d e l i n e s , p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g s were s c h e d u l e d f o r August 1 2 , 1976. H a r r i s and Hendricks were p r o v i d e d a n i n m a t e " l a y a d v i s o r " of t h e i r c h o i c e who a s s i s t e d them i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing. Hendricks' d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g was c o n d u c t e d f i r s t and H a r r i s a p p e a r e d a s a w i t n e s s . I n r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n s posed by t h e i n m a t e l a y - a d v i s o r , H a r r i s made s t a t e m e n t s t e n d i n g t o a d m i t h i s p o s s e s s i o n o f the knife. Following H a r r i s ' admissions, t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing w a s adjourned. H a r r i s was g i v e n h i s Miranda r i g h t s f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e and removed t o t h e maximum s e c u r i t y u n i t of t h e p r i s o n . On August 26, 1 9 7 6 , t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f o r P o w e l l County f i l e d a n I n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g H a r r i s and H e n d r i c k s w i t h v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 94-8-213, R.C.M. 1947. a g a i n s t Hendricks w e r e subsequently dismissed. Charges Harris e n t e r e d a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y and moved t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o s u p p r e s s t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s made by H a r r i s a t t h e p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g . H a r r i s ' m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s was d e n i e d and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l l o w e d t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e o f s t a t e m e n t s made by H a r r i s a t t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing. Subsequent t o i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e evidence, d e f e n s e c o u n s e l e n t e r e d a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e , which was a l s o d e n i e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. I n t h i s a p p e a l , w e w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e of t h e p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y committee's use of H a r r i s ' admission. Our i n q u i r y i s l i m i t e d t o t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e i n c r i m i nating statements a t Harris' criminal t r i a l . Harris contends t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e a t h i s c r i m i n a l t r i a l of i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s made by him when a w i t n e s s a t t h e p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g , w i t h o u t a c a u t i o n of h i s r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t and h i s r i g h t t o l e g a l c o u n s e l , v i o l a t e d the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination g u a r a n t e e d by t h e F i f t h Amendment, U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . Miranda v . A r i z o n a , ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. L e d 2d 694; M a t h i s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 436, 86 S . C t . 1602, 16 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. Cir. 1503, 2 0 L ed 2d 381; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R e d f i e l d , 1 9 6 8 ) , 402 F.2d 454. (4th Miranda, M a t h i s and R e d f i e l d r e q u i r e d t h e e x c l u s i o n o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s a d m i s s i o n where t h e immediate o b j e c t i v e o f t h e o f f i c i a l s was n o t t o o b t a i n evidence f o r u s e i n c r i m i n a l t r i a l s , b u t l a t e r it w a s decided t o use t h e defendant's self-incriminating answers i n prosecutions. W e conclude such a u t h o r i t y i s c o n t r o l l i n g over t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , e v e n though t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s w e r e i n response t o t h e q u e s t i o n s of t h e inmate lay-advisor and n o t a p r i s o n o f f i c i a l . The p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g was c o n d u c t e d by p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a s c e r t a i n i n g i n n a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r prison offenses punishable u n d e r t h e I n m a t e R u l e s and G u i d e l i n e s . No n o t i c e o f p o t e n t i a l c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n was announced t o H a r r i s u n t i l a f t e r h e u t t e r e d t h e incriminating statements a t Hendricks' d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s of t h e F i f t h Amendment, a s announced i n Miranda, M a t h i s and R e d f i e l d , c a n n o t b e s u b v e r t e d u n d e r t h e g u i s e H a r r i s knowingly and voluntarily uttered t h e incriminating statements. F u r t h e r , t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n I n m a t e R u l e s and Guidelines s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o t e c t a g a i n s t t h e very procedures which o c c u r r e d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e : "SECTION D "RULES O INMATE OFFENSES F "D-11. A p p l i c a t i o n and P r o s e c u t i o n T h e r e u n d e r , I * * * " 2 . Whenever a misdemeanor o r f e l o n y i s a l l e g e d t o have b e e n committed: I t w i l l b e t h e d u t y o f t h e Warden o r h i s "a. d e s i g n a t e t o r e p o r t a n y v i o l a t i o n of a f e d e r a l , s t a t e o r l o c a l l a w t o a p p l i c a b l e law e n f o r c e m e n t authorities. "b. A f t e r a v i o l a t i o n of t h i s n a t u r e h a s been r e p o r t e d t o law enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s , t h e inmate s h a l l n o t be questioned about t h e i n c i d e n t u n t i l a f t e r i t h a s been d e t e r m i n e d t h a t no p r o s e c u t i o n w i l l o c c u r o r u n t i l a f i n d i n g s of g u i l t i s made. " c . I f a v i o l a t i o n h a s been r e p o r t e d t o law e n f o r c e m e n t a u t h o r i t i e s , no i n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a r g e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e same c h a r g e s h a l l be f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e i n m a t e u n t i l c o m p l e t i o n of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and p r o s e c u t i o n , i f a n y , o r i f p r o s e c u t e d , u n t i l t h e i n m a t e h a s been found g u i l t y of t h e charge." S i n c e o u r h o l d i n g i s c o n t r o l l e d by t h e above d i s c u s s i o n , t h o s e i s s u e s r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t which c h a l l e n g e t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s need n o t be c o n s i d e r e d . The judgment of c o n v i c t i o n i s v a c a t e d and t h e c a s e dismissed. % ? ? W e Concur: A c t i n g Chief J u s t i c e Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d i s s e n t i n g : I d i s s e n t t o t h e o p i n i o n and would a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court. // 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.
