State v. Egdorf

• Decision Date: 25 September 2003
• Docket Number: No. 01-895.,01-895.
• Citation: 2003 MT 264,77 P.3d 517,317 Mont. 436
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. August D. EGDORF, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

77 P.3d 517

2003 MT 264

317 Mont. 436

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. August D. EGDORF, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 01-895.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs June 20, 2002.

Decided September 25, 2003.

For Appellant: Bruce F. Fain, Murphy, Kirkpatrick & Fain, Billings, Montana.

For Respondent: Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jim Wheelis, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Catherine Truman, County Attorney, Roundup, Montana.

Justice JIM RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 August D. Egdorf (Egdorf), an outfitter, was charged and convicted in the Justice Court of Musselshell County of five misdemeanor offenses involving violations of Montana's fish and wildlife laws and the laws pertaining to outfitters. Specifically, Egdorf was convicted of two counts of failing to report the unlawful taking of wildlife by a client, in violation of §§ 37-47-344 and 37-47-404, MCA (1999); possession of unlawfully taken game, in violation of § 87-3-112, MCA; conspiracy to kill a mule deer without a special permit, in violation of §§ 45-4-102 and 87-2-103, MCA; and solicitation to hunt without a license, in violation of §§ 45-4-101 and 87-2-103, MCA.

¶ 2 On March 5, 2001, Egdorf timely appealed his convictions to the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Musselshell County, for a trial de novo. There, he moved to dismiss all counts pending against him, arguing that the extended statute of limitations for commencing prosecution of misdemeanor fish and game offenses usurped his rights to equal protection and due process of law and that mandatory forfeiture of licenses was unconstitutional. The District Court denied Egdorf's motion to dismiss. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the conspiracy and solicitation charges were dismissed, and Egdorf thereafter pled guilty to two instances of failing to report a game violation by a client, in violation of §§ 37-47-344 and 37-47-404, MCA, and possessing unlawfully taken game, in violation of § 87-3-112, MCA. Egdorf, however, reserved his right to appeal the District Court's denial of his motion to dismiss. Egdorf appeals. We affirm.

¶ 3 Egdorf raises two issues on appeal which we combine and restate as follows:

¶ 4 Does Montana's three-year statute of limitations for misdemeanor violations of fish and game laws, set forth in § 45-1-205(5) and (6), MCA (1999), violate equal protection and due process of law?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 5 At all times relevant to this appeal, Egdorf worked as an outfitter. Defined generally, an outfitter is one who, for consideration, provides facilities or personal services to anyone wishing to hunt game, and who generally accompanies that person on the expedition. See § 37-47-101(11), MCA.

¶ 6 In April 2000, Egdorf was charged with five misdemeanor offenses involving violations of Montana's fish and wildlife laws and the laws pertaining to outfitters. The facts giving rise to these charges, misdemeanor violations, took place nearly two years earlier in November 1998.

¶ 7 Generally, prosecutions for misdemeanors must be commenced within one year after the offense is committed. Section 45-1-205(2)(b), MCA. However, prosecutions for misdemeanor "fish and game offenses" (offenses defined under Title 87 and Title 37, chapter 47 of the Montana Code Annotated) may be commenced within three years from the date of commission. See § 45-1-205(5) and (6), MCA. Title 87 pertains generally to restrictions and regulations relating to fish and wildlife while Title 37 governs the activities of outfitters.

¶ 8 Following his conviction in Justice Court, Egdorf appealed to the District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, Musselshell County, for a trial de novo. In his motion to dismiss all counts, Egdorf argued that the three-year statute of limitations imposed by § 45-1-205(5) and (6), MCA, when compared to the one-year statute of limitations for most other misdemeanors, unconstitutionally deprived him of his fundamental rights to pursue basic necessities, enjoy liberties, and seek health and happiness, thereby violating his right to equal protection. In support of his position, Egdorf asserted that he was only able to pursue such basic necessities through employment as an outfitter.

¶ 9 Although acknowledging that the right to practice a particular profession is important, the District Court disagreed that the right was a fundamental right. The court therefore employed a rationality review to determine whether the extended time for prosecution beared "a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose so as not to be deemed arbitrary." State v. Jack (1975), 167 Mont. 456, 461, 539 P.2d 726, 729.

¶ 10 After reviewing the legislative history of § 45-1-205(5) and (6), MCA, the District Court concluded that the extended statute of limitations for misdemeanor violations of fish and game statutes served a reasonable relation to the proper legislative purpose of protecting wildlife, citing the testimony presented by K.L. Cool, Director of the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, to the Senate Fish and Game Committee on February 12, 1991:

Many times investigations into serious wildlife violations take longer than a year to discover or complete and prosecution is not possible within the current one-year limitation. This is compounded by the fact that many sportsmen and sportswomen are from out-of-state.

¶ 11 The District Court concluded therefrom that in order to effectively enforce fish and game laws, the State must have time to discover the alleged violations and complete a competent investigation. With this legitimate governmental interest in mind, the District Court denied Egdorf's motion to dismiss on both equal protection and due process grounds, forming the basis of this appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 12 We review a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss to determine whether the court's conclusions of law are correct. State v. Dixon, 2000 MT 82, ¶ 10, 299 Mont. 165, ¶ 10, 998 P.2d 544, ¶ 10. With respect to questions of constitutional law, this Court's review is plenary, and we examine the district court's interpretation of the law for correctness. State v. Bedwell, 1999 MT 206, ¶ 4, 295 Mont. 476, ¶ 4, 985 P.2d 150, ¶ 4; In the Matter of S.L.M. (1997), 287 Mont. 23, 32, 951 P.2d 1365, 1370. In reviewing constitutional challenges to legislative enactments, the "`constitutionality of a legislative enactment is prima facie presumed, and every intendment in its favor will be made unless its unconstitutionality appears beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Renee, 1999 MT 135, ¶ 21, 294 Mont. 527, ¶ 21, 983 P.2d 893, ¶ 21 (citing State v. Lorash (1989), 238 Mont. 345, 347, 777 P.2d 884, 886, quoting T & W Chevrolet v. Darvial (1982), 196 Mont. 287, 292, 641 P.2d 1368, 1370). Thus, the party challenging a statute bears the burden of proving that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt and, if any doubt exists, it must be resolved in favor of the statute. State v. Price, 2002 MT 229, ¶¶ 27-28, 311 Mont. 439, ¶¶ 27-28, 57 P.3d 42, ¶¶ 27-28.

DISCUSSION

¶ 13 Does Montana's three-year statute of limitations for misdemeanor violations of fish and game laws, set forth in § 45-1-205(5) and (6), MCA, violate equal protection and due process of law?

¶ 14 Egdorf asserts that § 45-1-205(5) and (6), MCA, unconstitutionally infringes upon his rights to equal protection and due process of law by expanding the period of time allowed for commencing prosecution of misdemeanor violations of fish and game laws. Egdorf notes that while prosecutions for misdemeanors generally must be commenced within one year after commission, § 45-1-205(5) and (6), MCA, extends this period to three years for prosecutions of misdemeanor fish and game violations under Title 87 and Title 37, chapter 47. Egdorf argues that because these statutes allow prosecutions for fish and game violations to be commenced within three years, instead of one year, as for other misdemeanors, the statutes violate both principles of equal protection and substantive due process.

A. Equal Protection

¶ 15 The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article II, Section 4, of the Montana Constitution guarantee equal protection of the law. State v. Davison, 2003 MT 64, ¶ 10, 314 Mont. 427, ¶ 10, 67 P.3d 203, ¶ 10. The basic rule of equal protection is that persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate governmental purpose of the law must receive like treatment. Renee, ¶ 27. That being said, however, the equal protection clause does not preclude different treatment of different groups or classes so long as all persons within a group or class are treated the same. Powell v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 2000 MT 321, ¶ 22, 302 Mont. 518, ¶ 22, 15 P.3d 877, ¶ 22. Thus, to prevail on an equal protection challenge, the injured party must demonstrate that the law at issue discriminates by impermissibly classifying individuals and treating them differently on the basis of that classification. Davison, ¶ 10. If the classes at issue are not similarly situated, then the first criterion for proving an equal protection violation is not met, and we need look no further. Powell, ¶ 22.

¶ 16 Egdorf correctly notes that the first step in an equal protection analysis is to determine whether similarly situated groups are treated differently. From there he asserts that all misdemeanor offenders form a single similarly situated class for equal protection purposes. However, in Renee we noted that "persons convicted of different crimes are not similarly situated and, therefore, may be subjected to different penalties without implicating equal protection concerns." Renee, ¶ 31 (sentencing statutes applicable only to nonviolent felony offenders found not violative of misdemeanants' right to equal protection). We stated that while persons convicted of the same criminal offense cannot be subjected to grossly disparate sentences...