STATE v WILLIAMS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-385 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1981 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , vs. WILLIAM F. WILLIAMS, D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h 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 J e f f e r s o n Honorable F r a n k B l a i r , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : 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 C e c i l Woodgate, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , B o u l d e r , Montana F o r Respondent: S m a l l , Hatch & Doubek, H e l e n a , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : J u n e 1 2 , 1 9 8 1 Decided: August 6 , 1 9 8 1 Filed: AUG G - p.&"ic Clerk J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. The S t a t e of Montana ( S t a t e ) a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , J e f f e r s o n County, g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l . Linda T i t t l e t o n and Debra Cunningham r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e i r house i n B a s i n , Montana, had been broken i n t o d u r i n g t h e l a t e e v e n i n g of November 9 , 1979. I t e m s reported missing included a s t e r e o tape player, s t e r e o tapes, a small black and w h i t e t e l e v i s i o n , $85 i n c a s h and $18 w o r t h of food stamps. The d e f e n d a n t was s u b s e q u e n t l y c h a r g e d w i t h b u r g l a r y and f e l o n y t h e £ t i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s i n c i d e n t . Defendant was b r o u g h t t o t r i a l on t h e c h a r g e s i n August 1980. P r i o r t o t r i a l , t h e D i s t r i c t Court granted defendant's motion i n l i m i n e e x c l u d i n g e v i d e n c e o f : p r i o r criminal record; (I-) defendant' s ( 2 ) d e f e n d a n t ' s u s e of o r f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h m a r i j u a n a ; and ( 3 ) d e f e n d a n t ' s m a r i t a l problems. T r i a l was h e l d on August 27, 28, 1980. The p r o s e c u t i o n ' s main w i t n e s s was a J e r r y Wilk, a f r i e n d of b o t h of t h e v i c t i m s and t h e d e f e n d a n t . Wilk had been c h a r g e d w i t h o t h e r t h e f t s i n J e f f e r s o n County and a s a p a r t of a p l e a n e g o t i a t i o n on s u c h c h a r g e s , a g r e e d t o a s s i s t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n by t e s t i f y i n g a g a i n s t t h e defendant. Wilk t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s house a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d b u r g l a r y and saw some of t h e s t o l e n goods. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t t o l d him how t h e b r e a k - i n of t h e Tittleton/Cunningham r e s i d e n c e had o c c u r r e d . T i t t l e t o n and Cunningham t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y had been f r i e n d s of t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h a t he had v i s i t e d t h e i r house s e v e r a l times. The two women a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y had been w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t a t a b a r i n B o u l d e r , Montana, on t h e n i g h t of t h e b r e a k - i n , b u t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had l e f t early. A d d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y was g i v e n by p o l i c e o f f i c e r s and a l s o by a Suzanne Campbell. Ms. Campbell t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s o l d h e r a t a p e p l a y e r and t a p e s which t u r n e d o u t t o be i t e m s t a k e n from t h e Tittleton/Cunningham r e s i d e n c e . Following t r i a l , t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t f i n d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of b u r g l a r y and f e l o n y t h e f t . was s e t f o r September 3, 1980. Sentencing About t e n m i n u t e s b e f o r e t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , t h e d e f e n d a n t gave t h e S t a t e a copy of a motion f o r new t r i a l , s u p p o r t e d by a b r i e f . The motion f o r a new t r i a l s t a t e d f o u r grounds. The f i r s t was numerous v i o l a t i o n s by t h e S t a t e of t h e motion i n limine. Secondly, d e f e n d a n t a l l e g e d t h a t Debra Cunningham had p e r j u r e d h e r s e l f when s h e f a l s e l y s a i d s h e had n e v e r been a r r e s t e d f o r s h o p l i f t i n g . Third, defendant argued t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y had v i o l a t e d h i s a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p when he a t t e m p t e d t o impeach t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e defendant's wife. The f o u r t h and f i n a l b a s i s f o r a new t r i a l was t h a t t h e S t a t e had v i o l a t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f i f t h amendment r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t when t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y p o i n t e d a f i n g e r a t him d u r i n g t r i a l and i n d i r e c t l y c h a l l e n g e d him t o deny t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him. Minutes a f t e r t h e S t a t e had r e c e i v e d a copy of t h e def e n d a n t ' s motion on September 3, 1980, t h e motion w a s a r g u e d before the court. The S t a t e o b j e c t e d t h a t i t had n o t r e - c e i v e d r e a s o n a b l e n o t i c e i n advance of t h e motion, and i t a s k e d f o r a chance t o b r i e f i t s s i d e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e S t a t e ' s r e q u e s t f o r t i m e t o b r i e f t h e motion. S e v e r a l h o u r s a f t e r argument on d e f e n d a n t ' s motion, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t a new t r i a l . N r e a s o n s o were g i v e n s p e c i f y i n g t h e b a s i s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s decision. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f i l e c o n t a i n s a m i n u t e e n t r y which r e a d s : "On motion of t h e d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h e r e i n , and by e x p r e s s agreement, h e a r d t h i s 3rd day of September, 1980 argued by c o u n s e l f o r t h e S t a t e and t h e def e n d a n t and good c a u s e b e i n g shown i t i s o r d e r e d t h a t t h e Motion of t h e d e f e n d a n t t o s e t a s i d e t h e v e r d i c t and g r a n t a new t r i a l i s h e r e b y g r a n t e d . " The S t a t e ' s s i n g l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l when t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y had n o t been g i v e n advance n o t i c e of t h e motion and a n opportunity t o brief the question. Defendant c o n t e n d s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e jury v e r d i c t a s being based on i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e . S e c t i o n 46-16-702, MCA, e s t a b l i s h e s the procedural g u i d e l i n e s f o r g r a n t i n g a d e f e n d a n t a new t r i a l . This provision s t a t e s : " ( 1 ) Following a v e r d i c t o r f i n d i n g of g u i l t y , t h e c o u r t may g r a n t t h e d e f e n d a n t a new t r i a l i f r e q u i r e d i n t h e i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e . " ( 2 ) The motion f o r a new t r i a l must be i n w r i t i n g and must s p e c i f y t h e grounds t h e r e f o r . It must be f i l e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h i n 30 days f o l l o w i n g a v e r d i c t o r f i n d i n g of g u i l t y . Rea-on s o n a b l e n o t i c e - -e motion must be s e r v e d of t h the state. " ( 3 ) On h e a r i n g t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l , i f j u s t i f i e d by law and t h e w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e c o u r t may: " ( a ) deny t h e motion; " ( b ) g r a n t a new t r i a l ; o r " ( c ) modify o r change t h e v e r d i c t o r f i n d i n g by f i n d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d offense or finding the defendant not g u i l t y . " (Emphasis added. ) Here t h e S t a t e had no e f f e c t i v e n o t i c e of d e f e n d a n t ' s motion and no o p p o r t u n i t y f o r r e p l y . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e motion on t h e same day t h a t t h e S t a t e was s e r v e d . Such a c t i o n c l e a r l y d e n i e d t h e S t a t e " r e a s o n a b l e n o t i c e " a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 46-16-702, MCA. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s C o u r t i s concerned w i t h t h e manner i n which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion. I n n e i t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e motion, nor i n t h e minute e n t r y of t h e c o u r t f i l e , a r e grounds f o r g r a n t i n g t h e motion s p e c i f i e d . A s previously noted, the g o v e r n i n g s t a t u t e r e g a r d i n g motions f o r new t r i a l , s e c t i o n 46-16-702, MCA, r e q u i r e s o n l y t h a t t h e moving p a r t y s p e c i f i - c a l l y s t a t e i t s grounds f o r such motion. This s t a t u t e does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court expressly s t a t e i t s r e a s o n s f o r t a k i n g whatever a c t i o n i t deems a p p r o p r i a t e r e g a r d i n g such m o t i o n s . However, i n c i v i l p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t must, when g r a n t i n g a motion f o r a new t r i a l , ". . . specify the grounds t h e r e f o r w i t h s u f f i c i e n t p a r t i c u l a r i t y a s t o a p p r i s e t h e p a r t i e s and t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t of t h e r a t i o n a l e underlying the ruling . . ." Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P. The p u r p o s e s behind t h i s r u l e a r e t o narrow t h e i s s u e s on a p p e a l and t o o b v i a t e t h e need t o r e a d a n e n t i r e r e c o r d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e D i s t r i c t Court's rationale for issuing i t s decision. Such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e e q u a l l y n e c e s s a r y r e g a r d i n g a p p e a l s from criminal cases. T h e r e f o r e , t h i s C o u r t h o l d s t h a t t h e mandates of Rule 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P., a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o motions f o r new t r i a l made p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 46-16-702, MCA. erea after, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t must s e t f o r t h i t s r e a s o n s i n d e c i d i n g such motions. The d e f e n d a n t h e r e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d have g r a n t e d a judgment of a c q u i t t a l n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e j u r y v e r d i c t b e c a u s e of i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e . This m a t t e r w i l l have t o be p r e s e n t e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a f t e r giving reasonable n o t i c e t o the S t a t e . The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h i s c a s e i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s decision. W e concur: '6 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.
