STATE v DUNCAN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-191 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . NORMAN B. DUNCAN, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin. Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Larry W. Moran, Bozeman, Montana Marchiondo & Berry, Albuquerque, New Mexico Charles Berry argued, Albuquerque, New Mexico For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Mark Murphy argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Decided: January 16, 1981 FEB 11 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d the Court. Defendant Norman Duncan appeals a t h e Opinion of denial of post- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f by a G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Norman Duncan was c o n v i c t e d o f d e c e p t i v e p r a c t i c e s and the sale District years of unregistered Court, and for three securities which years he in received respectively. Gallatin sentences County of five c o n v i c t i o n was His a f f i r m e d by t h i s C o u r t on A p r i l 1 9 , 1 9 7 9 , i n S t a t e v . Duncan (1979)I May 23, matter . Mont , 593 P.2d 1 0 2 6 , 36 S t . R e p . 748. On 1 9 7 9 , Duncan moved f o r c o n t i n u a n c e o f b a i l and t h e was set Honorable Jack submitted for hearing on May Shanstrom. D. that At his written petition p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 46-21-101, 29, for 1979, hearing, before the defendant post-conviction relief MCA. On J u n e 1 8 , 1 9 7 9 , Duncan p e t i t i o n e d f o r a new j u d g e on t h e s t a t e d ground t h a t t h e " i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n m a t t e r s , and p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s would i n d i c a t e appointment of a judge than the trial judge whose t o hear such m a t t e r s o t h e r decision is involved." No a f f i d a v i t was o f f e r e d by d e f e n d a n t r e p r e s e n t i n g t h a t J u d g e S h a n s t r o m , o r t h e H o n o r a b l e W. had any p e r s o n a l b i a s o r p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t . August, case Lessley, also challenged, W. In t h e H o n o r a b l e N a t A l l e n assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e but withdrew his acceptance one week later on the g r o u n d t h a t t h e " c a u s e was f i l e d i n 1976 and t h a t S e c t i o n 6 o f t h e new D i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n R u l e s d o e s n o t a p p l y i n c a u s e s t o March 1, 1 9 7 7 . " filed prior Judge Shanstrom reassumed jurisdiction. On A u g u s t concluding that 31, 1979, he d i d not defendant feel he filed could an affidavit receive a fair hearing on h i s p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n Shanstrom. relief p e t i t i o n from J u d g e 1979, Judge L e s s l e y r e q u e s t e d On S e p t e m b e r 2 8 , t h a t t h e H o n o r a b l e Gordon B e n n e t t a s s u m e l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear the d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n issue. Judge Bennett held a h e a r i n g on t h e q u e s t i o n and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d no a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e on t h e p a r t o f J u d g e S h a n s t r o m . In his memorandum, J u d g e B e n n e t t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , c o n t r a r y t o J u d g e Allen's position, a new c i v i l a p e t i t i o n for post-conviction action, independent of the r e l i e f was original criminal cause. On F e b r u a r y 1 3 , serted jurisdiction, 1980, Judge Shanstrom, ordered that s e t for hearing i n h i s court. who had defendant's reas- petition be On F e b r u a r y 2 6 , Duncan f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e J u d g e S h a n s t r o m ' s o r d e r and s u b m i t t e d a motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of Court's newly a d o p t e d 34 S t . R e p . on both 26. a new j u d g e p u r s u a n t t o t h i s r u l e on d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f judges. Judge Shanstrom r u l e d a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t motions and heard the petition. After hearing, Judge Shanstrom denied Duncan's p e t i t i o n f o r post-conviction r e l i e f , and t h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w e d . Duncan r a i s e s n i n e i s s u e s f o r o u r r e v i e w , o n l y o n e o f which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n . that i t was conviction error relief for Judge petition Shanstrom t o hear under c a t i o n and s u b s t i t u t i o n o f j u d g e s . S e c t i o n 3-1-801, rule-making MCA, Defendant argues our rules of h i s postdisqua.lifi- W agree. e a d o p t e d by t h i s C o u r t under o u r authority, recites in applicable part: "Any j u d g e , o r j u s t i c e o f t h e p e a c e m u s t n o t s i t o r a c t i n any a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g : "6. When he h a s b e e n d i s q u a l i f i e d f o r c a u s e a s hereinafter described: "Whenever a p a r t y t o a n y p r o c e e d i n g i n any c o u r t makes and f i l e s a t i m e l y and s u f f i c i e n t a f f i d a v i t t h a t a j u d g e o r j u s t i c e of t h e p e a c e , b e f o r e whom t h e m a t t e r is pending h a s a p e r s o n a l b i a s o r p r e j u d i c e e i t h e r a g a i n s t him o r i n f a v o r o f a n y adverse p a r t y , such judge o r j u s t i c e of t h e peace s h a l l p r- e d n o - r t h e r t h e r e i n , b ------- h e r oce fu ut anot j u d g e -- r 3 u - t- c - o f t h e p e a c e s h a l l b e a s s i g n e d o -s- i- e t o h e a r s u c h d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n----- e e d i-y -t h e --~roc nb~ c h i e f j u s t i c e o f t h e Supreme C o u r t , o r by a d i s t r i c t judge, i f t h e a f f i d a v i t is a g a i n s t a just i c e of t h e peace, police or municipal court judge. The a f f i d a v i t s h a l l s t a t e t h e f a c t s and the reasons for the belief t h a t bias or prejudice e x i s t s , and s h a l l be f i l e d n o t l e s s t h a n 2 0 d a y s b e f o r e t h e o r i g i n a l d a t e o f t r i a . 1 , o r good c a u s e s h a l l be shown f o r f a i l u r e t o f i l e i t w i t h i n s u c h time. I t s h a l l be a c c o m p a n i e d by a c e r t i f i c a t e o f c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d s t a t i n g t h a t i t i s made i n good f a i t h . " p - W s t r i c t l y i n t e r p r e t t h i s r u l e and f i n d i t s p r o v i s i o n s e t o be p l a i n and unambiguous. J u d g e L e s s l e y was c o m p l e t e l y w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o p l a c e t h i s c a u s e under Judge B e n n e t t ' s jurisdiction. The power t o a s s i g n a d i s t r i c t j u d g e t o h e a r a motion f o r d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n is one s o l e l y g r a n t e d t o t h e Chief J u s t i c e of judge involved proceed t h i s Court. in in this this case It is our opinion t h a t no had proper jurisdiction to a c t i o n once t h e a f f i d a v i t a l l e g i n g a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e on t h e p a r t o f J u d g e S h a n s t r o m was f i l e d . point, the case j u r i s d i c t i o n of came under the singular A t that authority and t h i s Court. W e remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s - t e n t with t h i s opinion. W concur: e 34-4 $,a&~ Chief J u s t i c e

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.