Radford v. Stewart, 71-1518.
Decision Date | 19 January 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 71-1518.,71-1518. |
Citation | 472 F.2d 1161 |
Parties | John Michael RADFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy R. STEWART, Sheriff of Yellowstone County, Montana, or any other person having custody of John Michael Radford, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Charles F. Moses (argued), of Sandall, Moses & Cavan, Billings, Mont., for petitioner-appellant.
Jonathan B. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen. (argued), Robert L. Woodahl, Atty. Gen., Helena, Mont., Harold F. Hanser, County Atty., Billings, Mont., for respondent-appellee.
Before MERRILL and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and CONTI,* District Judge.
Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder in a District Court of the State of Montana. Prior to trial he sought relief from the provisions of Section 95-1803(d) of the Revised Montana Code, 1947. That section provides:
Thus, in effect, the statute requires a defendant who intends to rely upon a defense of insanity, self-defense, or alibi, to serve notice upon the prosecution within ten days after plea, as well as to supply the prosecution with the names and addresses of witnesses to be called in support of those defenses. On its face the statute puts no corresponding duty on the prosecution.
Prior to trial, the defendant filed a writ with the Montana Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of the statute. The Montana Supreme Court held the statute constitutional in the case of State ex rel. Sikora v. Thirteenth Judicial District, 154 Mont. 241, 462 P.2d 897 (1969).
Defendant then went to trial after giving the requisite notice re insanity and self-defense. After sentence, defendant petitioned for habeas corpus to the Federal District Court for the District of Montana (Billings Division). That court denied his petition on December 22, 1970, in the case of Radford v. Stewart, 320 F.Supp. 826 (D.Mont.1970). This appeal is from that denial.
Appellant argues that compliance with the notice provisions re insanity and self-defense results in an admission that the acts charged in fact occurred. The prosecution is supplied with a "link in the chain of evidence" which tends to incriminate defendant. Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159, 71 S.Ct. 223, 95 L.Ed. 170 (1950). The state is thus assisted in its preparation of the case because it needs only to concentrate on rebuttal to these defenses.
In addition, it is argued that the case of Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970), which upheld the constitutionality of a similar st...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Carkulis v. District Court of Thirteenth Judicial Dist. of State of Mont., In and For Yellowstone County
...United States district judge upheld the notice of alibi statute and he was affirmed on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Radford v. Stewart (9th Cir.1973), 472 F.2d 1161, 1162. The circuit court The State operated in good faith in this action and did not use the discovery required merely to buil......
-
State v. Ross
...Following Williams, courts have upheld such provisions. See e.g., Radford v. Stewart, 320 F.Supp. 826 (D.Mont.1970), aff'd, 472 F.2d 1161 (9th Cir.1973); People v. District Court in & for County of Larimer, 187 Colo. 333, 531 P.2d 626 (1975); State v. Nelson, 14 Wash.App. 658, 545 P.2d 36 (......
-
State v. Hatfield
...515 P.2d 1312; Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446; Radford v. Stewart, D.C., 320 F.Supp. 826, aff. 9 Cir., 472 F.2d 1161; Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 93 S.Ct. 2208, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 The judgment of conviction is affirmed. JAMES T. HARRISON, C. J., and DALY, CA......