Blodgett v. Justice Court, Missoula Cnty., Twp. No. 2
| Citation | 2012 MT 134,365 Mont. 290,280 P.3d 904 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. OP 12–0182.,OP 12–0182. |
| Parties | Emily BLODGETT, Petitioner, v. JUSTICE COURT, MISSOULA COUNTY, TOWNSHIP NO. 2, Judge Karen A. Orzech, Presiding, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
¶ 1 On March 20, 2012, Emily Blodgett filed with this Court a Petition for a Writ of Supervisory Control wherein she alleged that the Missoula County Justice Court violated §§ 3–10–231 through –234, MCA; Article VII, Sections 1 and 5 of the Montana Constitution; and several of this Court's prior decisions, when it allowed a retired District Court Judge to preside over her jury trial. Blodgett contended that the presiding Justice of the Peace Karen Orzech improperly called in retired District Court Judge Douglas Harkin to preside over Blodgett's jury trial, even though Judge Orzech was present in her court, but otherwise involved with another case.
¶ 2 Because Judge Orzech had not had an opportunity to respond to Blodgett's petition, we issued an Order on March 21, 2012, granting Judge Orzech, or her designee, time to prepare, file and serve her response to Blodgett's petition. We also ordered that all further proceedings in Blodgett's underlying case be stayed pending our decision in this matter. In addition, we invited the Attorney General to participate in this case, should he choose to do so, because our decision in this matter may affect other justice courts in the State.1 On May 8, 2012, the Montana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers moved for leave of this Court to appear as amicus curiae in this matter.
¶ 3 Judge Orzech has now filed her response in this case wherein she states that § 3–10–231, MCA, provided the authority for her to call in Judge Harkin as a substitute justice of the peace. Judge Orzech also asserts in her response that Blodgett has not shown that § 3–10–231, MCA, was not complied with or that Blodgett was prejudiced by having Judge Harkin preside over her jury trial.
¶ 4 On August 11, 2011, Blodgett was charged with a violation of § 45–5–624, MCA, minor in possession of alcohol, a third or subsequent offense. The charge was filed in the Justice Court of Missoula County, and was assigned to Judge Orzech in department two. Blodgett made her initial appearance and pled not guilty. After rejecting a plea agreement in the case, Judge Orzech set the case for trial on February 27, 2012.
¶ 5 Because Judge Orzech had another case with a speedy trial deadline close to Blodgett's, Judge Orzech set both cases for trial on the same date with the hope that at least one of the cases would be resolved prior to trial. However, neither case was resolved, and both cases proceeded to trial as scheduled.
¶ 6 John Odlin, the Justice of the Peace for department one in Missoula County, was holding his regular court that day, and was not available to preside over either of Judge Orzech's jury trials. Rather than postpone one of the trials, Judge Orzech called in Judge Harkin, who had retired from the bench some time previously, to preside over Blodgett's jury trial while Orzech presided over the other jury trial.
¶ 7 Before the jury was sworn in her case, Blodgett objected to Judge Harkin's authority to proceed, but Judge Harkin overruled the objection and proceeded with trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Blodgett guilty. Judge Harkin set sentencing for March 20, 2012, and ordered the State to file a sentencing memorandum detailing Blodgett's criminal history and whether she had followed the terms of any prior sentences.
¶ 8 Blodgett filed this Petition for a Writ of Supervisory Control prior to sentencing. Blodgett also filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to bring the record of the Justice Court to this Court. We stayed the proceedings in Justice Court pending our decision in this matter.
¶ 9 This Court has general supervisory control over all other courts and may, on a case-by-case basis, supervise another court by way of a writ of supervisory control. State v. Dist. Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Dist., 2010 MT 263, ¶ 29, 358 Mont. 325, 246 P.3d 415 (citing Mont. Const. art. VII, § 2(2); M.R.App. P. 14(3)). Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy which we exercise only when (1) urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, (2) the case involves purely legal questions, and (3) one or more of the following circumstances exist: (a) the other court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, (b) constitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved, or (c) the other court has granted or denied a motion for substitution of a judge in a criminal case. Lamb v. Dist. Court of the Fourth Judicial Dist., 2010 MT 141, ¶ 10, 356 Mont. 534, 234 P.3d 893.
¶ 10 Having reviewed Blodgett's petition and Judge Orzech's response wherein Judge Orzech concedes that, under these circumstances, Blodgett's Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control is an appropriate remedy for the issue at hand, we conclude that Blodgett's petition implicates the factors set out above that would militate in favor of this Court accepting supervisory control in this case. In particular, we conclude that the Justice Court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice. Thus, we accept supervisory control in this matter, and we proceed to address the main issue in this case which is: Whether Judge Harkin was vested with authority under the provisions set forth in § 3–10–231, MCA, to act as a substitute justice of the peace and preside over Blodgett's jury trial.
¶ 11 “The term ‘judge’ (which includes municipal and city court judges and justices of the peace, § 3–1–1501(2), MCA), means a person who is ‘vested by law’ with the power to perform judicial functions....” Potter v. Dist. Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Dist., 266 Mont. 384, 393, 880 P.2d 1319, 1325 (1994). And, one is vested with the authority to act as a substitute justice of the peace only if all of the criteria of the authorization procedure are followed. State v. Vickers, 1998 MT 201, ¶ 18, 290 Mont. 356, 964 P.2d 756.
¶ 12 The judicial power of this State derives from Article VII of the Montana Constitution. Section 5 of that Article provides for justices of the peace:
(1) There shall be elected in each county at least one justice of the peace with qualifications, training, and monthly compensation provided by law. There shall be provided such facilities that they may perform their duties in dignified surroundings.
(2) Justice courts shall have such original jurisdiction as may be provided by law. They shall not have trial jurisdiction in any criminal case designated a felony except as examining courts.
(3) The legislature may provide for additional justices of the peace in each county.
Under the power granted it by Article VII, Section 5 of the Montana Constitution, the Legislature has enacted the following statutory scheme to appoint an individual to lawfully exercise the powers and authority of a judge as a substitute for a duly elected justice of the peace:
Circumstances in which acting justice called in—by whom. (1) Whenever a justice of the peace is disqualified from acting in any action because of the application of the supreme court's rules on disqualification and substitution of judges, 3–1–803 and 3–1–805, the justice of the peace shall either transfer the action to another justice's court in the same county or call a justice from a neighboring county to preside.
(2)(a) The following requirements must be met to qualify a substitute for a justice of the peace:
(i) Within 30 days of taking office, a justice of the peace shall provide a list of persons who are qualified to hold court in the justice's place during a temporary absence when another justice or city judge is not available. The persons listed must be of good moral character and have community support, a sense of community standards, and a basic knowledge of court procedure.
(ii) The sitting justice of the peace shall request and obtain from the commission on courts of limited jurisdiction established by the supreme court a waiver of training for the substitutes.
(iii) Each person on the list, provided for in subsection (2)(a)(i), shall subscribe to the written oath of office as soon as possible after the person has received a waiver of training from the supreme court. The oath may be subscribed before any member of the board of county commissioners or before any other officer authorized to administer oaths.
(b) The list of qualified substitutes, the written oath, and the commission's written approval and waiver of training for those substitutes, pursuant to subsection (2)(a)(ii), must be filed with the county clerk as provided in 3–10–202.
(c) A county clerk may provide a current list of qualified and sworn substitutes to local law enforcement officers.
(3) Whenever a justice is sick, disabled, or absent, the justice may call in another justice, if there is one readily available, or a city judge or a person from the list provided for in subsection (2) to hold court for the absent justice until the absent justice's return. If the justice is unable to call in a substitute, the county commissioners shall call in another justice, a city judge, or a person from the list provided for in subsection (2).
(4) During the time when a justice of the peace is on vacation or attending a training session, another justice of the peace of the same county is authorized to handle matters that otherwise would be handled by the absent justice. When there is no other justice of the peace in the county, the justice of the peace may designate another person in the same manner as if the justice were sick or absent.
(5) A justice of the peace of any county may hold the court of any other justice of the peace at that justice's request.
Section 3–10–231, MCA.2
¶ 13 This Court held in Vickers, that before an acting justice of the peace may exercise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Gianforte
...appointments in a number of previous cases; our reasoning and analysis of those matters is instructive here. In Blodgett v. Orzech , 2012 MT 134, 365 Mont. 290, 280 P.3d 904, we considered whether a substitute justice of the peace was properly appointed according to statute and able to over......
-
Brown v. Gianforte
...appointments in a number of previous cases; our reasoning and analysis of those matters is instructive here. In Blodgett v. Orzech, 2012 MT 134, 365 Mont. 290, 280 P.3d 904, we considered whether a substitute justice of the peace was properly appointed according to statute and able to overs......