STATE v HOUSER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-419 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1981 STATE O M N A A F O T N , Plaintiff VS and A p p e l l a n t , . JAMES ALBERT HOUSER, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f G a l l a t i n . Honorable W . W. L e s s l e y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : 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 , Montana Donald White, County A t t o r n e y , Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: McKinley T . Anderson, Bozeman, Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : Decided March 3 , :APH 8 - 1981 j:-\~, Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . T h i s is a n a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , G a l l a t i n C o u n t y , g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s . On August attorney filed offense of an 1980, August mischief The MCA. 21, the deputy Gallatin County information charging defendant with criminal 45-6-101(1)(a), about 26, 1980, in facts violation alleged defendant of were purposely the section that or on or knowingly i n j u r e d and damaged a 1980 Mercury a u t o m o b i l e b e l o n g i n g t o John Unwin by using the vehicle he was driving, a 1979 C h e v r o l e t , t o s t r i k e and f o r c e U n w i n ' s c a r i n t o a p a r k e d AMC H o r n e t , c a u s i n g damage t o t h e v e h i c l e s i n e x c e s s o f $150. Based upon t h e a b o v e f a c t s , on A u g u s t 2 2 , 1 9 8 0 , t h r e e t r a f f i c c i t a t i o n s were issued failing accident to 61-7-108, report section appeared in charging violation him w i t h of section f a i l i n g t o s t o p a t an a c c i d e n t i n v i o l a t i o n MCA; o f s e c t i o n 61-7-106, of an defendant MCA; 61-8-301, i n Bozeman and r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g i n v i o l a t i o n On A u g u s t MCA. C i t y Court 26, 1980, defendant and p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o f i r s t two c h a r g e s and n o t g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e o f driving. entered Defendant and, was fined subsequently, $50 was for tried each and the reckless guilty plea convicted of reckless driving. On S e p t e m b e r 5, 1980, defendant filed a motion to d i s m i s s t h e c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f c h a r g e on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t ( 1 ) the information does not s t a t e a public offense; (2) the D i s t r i c t C o u r t d o e s n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e m a t t e r ; and (3) that t h e S t a t e of p r o s e c u t i o n by Montana reason of is b a r r e d from any s e c t i o n 46-11-504, MCA. further Without stating a reason, the District motion. Court granted defendant's The S t a t e a p p e a l s . The f i r s t two g r o u n d s upon which d e f e n d a n t b a s e d h i s motion a r e w i t h o u t m e r i t . is l i m i t e d t o w h e t h e r prosecuting the T h e r e f o r e , t h e q u e s t i o n on a p p e a l t h e S t a t e of criminal s e c t i o n 46-11-504, is b a r r e d Montana mischief charge by from reason of MCA. The S t a t e c o n t e n d s s e c t i o n 46-11-504, d e a l s with MCA, conduc t c o n s t i t u t i n g an o f f e n s e w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of two o r more courts. S t a t e ex - Mont Court (1980), . , rel. Rasmussen v . District 615 P.2d 231, 3 7 S t . R e p . 1498, h e l d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d o e s n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a n o r d i n a r y misdemeanor c o n n e c t e d t o g e t h e r i n i t s c o m m i s s i o n with a felony. In exclusive this case, the jurisdiction misdemeanors of are within J u s t i c e Court. felony the the charge District exclusive is within Court and jurisdiction the of the D i f f e r e n t c o n d u c t was a l l e g e d i n b o t h c o u r t s a n d , t h u s , t h e r e was no v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 46-11-504, If the MCA. t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is allowed t o s t a n d , the State would be a precluded conviction of defendant misdemeanors connected in from ever obtaining the for both felonies and commission as part of the same barred from transaction. Defendant argues f u r t h e r p r o s e c u t i o n of MCA, that the State him b y r e a s o n o f is s e c t i o n 46-11-504, which p r o v i d e s : "When c o n d u c t c o n s t i t u t e s a n o f f e n s e w i t h i n t h e c o n c u r r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s s t a t e and of t h e United S t a t e s o r another s t a t e or of two c o u r t s o f s e p a r a t e , o v e r l a p p i n g , o r concurrent jurisdiction i n t h i s s t a t e , a p r o s e c u t i o n i n any s u c h o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s a bar t o a subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n i n s t a t e under t h e f o l l o w i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s : this " ( 1 ) The f i r s t p r o s e c u t i o n r e s u l t e d i n a n acquittal or i n a conviction a s defined in section 46-11-503 and the subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n i s b a s e d on a n o f f e n s e a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n . . ." Defendant failing to accident. entered report an guilty accident pleas and failing The s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n o f by t h e S t a t e o f Montana a r i s e s o u t o f to which in defendant Therefore, has defendant been found argues that City to stop a t to Court an criminal mischief t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n guilty in City Court. convictions of these o f f e n s e s bar t h e subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n of c r i m i n a l mischief by t h e S t a t e . Section 46-11-504(1), MCA, p r o s e c u t i o n o f a c a s e is a bar if the f i r s t prosecution provides that the t o a subsequent prosecution resulted i n a c o n v i c t i o n and t h e s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n i s b a s e d on a n o f f e n s e a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n . S e c t i o n 46-11-501(a), provides MCA, t h a t t h e t e r m "same t r a n s a c t i o n " i n c l u d e s c o n d u c t c o n s i s t i n g of a s e r i e s of purpose to necessary a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s w h i c h a r e m o t i v a t e d by a accomplish or a incidental criminal to the objective and which accomplishment of are that objective. I n Yother v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 7 9 , 8 2 , 36 S t . R e p . Mont. , 597 P.2d 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 6 , we s t a t e d : "The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s d e c i d e d a s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n i s b a r r e d by a p r i o r is conviction i f the subsequent prosecution b a s e d u p -n -t h e s a m e a c t s -a - w a s t h e p r i o r o- s ------- c o n v i c t i o n , i f t h e s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c - t- o n i s u- i f o r a n o f f e n s e o f w h i c- t h e o f f e n s e i n t h e hconviction is a lesser ELF2f--------------------------------i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e , and i f t h e s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n i s i n a c o u r t which a r t of t h e same .................... i s p --------------s o v e r e i g- a s t h e c o u r t involved i n t h e p r i o r nconviction. (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) . ." S e e W a l l e r v . F l o r i d a ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 397 U.S. S.Ct. 1184, Mechanic Wyrick 25 L.Ed.2d Mo. 454 also F.2d 2 1 1 , 511 P.2d According criminal see 1 9 7 6 ) , 415 F.Supp. ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 14 0r.App. of 1971), (8th Cir. (E.D. 435; it is United 849, 87, States v. Turley 855; 88; 90 v. S t a t e v. Rook 1245, 1246. t o the statutes, mischief 387, 390, 394-395, t o establish the offense necessary to prove that a d e f e n d a n t ( 1 ) p u r p o s e l y o r k n o w i n g l y ( 2 ) i n j u r e d , damaged o r destroyed (3) property S e c t i o n 45-6-101, There of another (4) without consent. MCA. may be offenses charged. accident requires some question as to the first two The charge of failing to report proof that the driver of a an vehicle i n v o l v e d i n an a c c i d e n t f a i l e d t o i m m e d i a t e l y g i v e n o t i c e o f such accident 61-7-108, to the local police is n o t p a r t of This offense MCA. department. Section the original t r a n s g r e s s i o n which a n t e c e d e s i t , b u t a s e c o n d w i l l f u l a c t . To S t a t e must establish prove failing to stop driver of a the at an vehicle accident, involved the in an a c c i d e n t f a i l e d t o i m m e d i a t e l y s t o p and l o c a t e o r n o t i f y t h e owner o r o p e r a t o r o f s u c h v e h i c l e o f t h e name and a d d r e s s o f the driver and owner S e c t i o n 61-7-106, MCA. of the vehicle causing the accident. T h i s c h a r g e h a s t h e same p r o b l e m s a s a c h a r g e o f f a i l i n g t o r e p o r t an a c c i d e n t . However, the State willful or property. must t o e s t a b l i s h t h e crime of prove defendant wanton d i s r e g a r d for S e c t i o n 61-8-301, MCA. operated the reckless driving a safety vehicle of in persons a or I n t h i s charge t h e a c t s t h a t a r e concerned with t h e r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g a r e a l s o t h o s e necessary to establish the felony crime of criminal mischief. will met. A close establish that s c r u t i n y of the "same the evidence transaction The s u b s e q u e n t p r o s e c u t i o n of the c h a r g e i s b a r r e d by s e c t i o n 4 6 - 1 1 - 5 0 4 ( 1 ) , i n each c a s e test" has criminal mischief MCA. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W concur: e %&.G&g&Ge Chief J u g t i c E been

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.