80-165 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980

STATE OF MONTANA ex rel., ROBIN DeWAYNE WARD, Petitioner,

NORMA A. SCHMALL, Justice of the Peace for Gallatin County, Montana, Respondent.

Appeal from: District Court of the -i Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin. Honorable Joseph Gary, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Petitioner: Goetz and Madden, Bozeman, Montana James Goetz argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent :

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Dennis Dunphy argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Michael Lilly argued, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana

Submitted: September 8, 1980 Decided: - 30 SEP 1 w Filed: & 8 6 t$@O p Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a f i n a l c i v i l judgment of t h e

G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t C o u r t .

This c a s e o r i g i n a t e d as a c r i m i n a l cause i n t h e J u s t i c e

of t h e Peace C o u r t of Norma Schmall. R e l a t o r , Robin DeWayne

Ward, was a r r e s t e d on March 31, 1979, f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e

intoxicated. Ward r e f u s e d t o t a k e a c h e m i c a l t e s t and

i n i t i a t e d a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e t o s e c t i o n 61-8-404 ( 2 ) , MCA, which a u t o m a t i c a l l y approves t h e a d m i s s i o n i n t o e v i -

d e n c e of t h e f a c t t h a t a d e f e n d a n t r e f u s e d t o s u b m i t t o a

c h e m i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n . Ward f i l e d a c i v i l p e t i t i o n i n t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l , w r i t of

habeas corpus, o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t . Ward a r g u e d t h a t

b e c a u s e of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v e d , a non-

lawyer j u s t i c e of t h e p e a c e would be i l l - e q u i p p e d t o d e a l

w i t h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a s p e c t s of h i s c a s e . The p e t i t i o n

t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u p e r i n t e n d w a s accompanied by a

r e q u e s t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a y t h e J u s t i c e of t h e

Peace C o u r t c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s pending d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e

c i v i l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .

The S t a t e i n i t i a l l y r e s i s t e d t h e c i v i l p e t i t i o n f o r

o r i g i n a l r e l i e f i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. However, i t w i t h -

drew i t s o p p o s i t i o n a f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s C o u r t ' s

d e c i s i o n s i n B a i l e y v . S t a t e ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 163 Mont. 380, 517 P.2d 708, and F o r s y t h e v . Wenholz ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 496, 554 P.2d 1333. I n a b r i e f f i l e d on J u l y 1 7 , 1979, t h e S t a t e

e x p r e s s l y conceded t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n

t o g r a n t a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l i n c a s e s such a s t h i s ,

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e p e t i t i o n , s t a y e d t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace C o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s , and h e a r d t h e w r i t on t h e m e r i t s . On A p r i l 11, 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r u l e d

a g a i n s t Ward. H e now a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t judgment. R e l a t o r Ward p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s review:

1. Whether a s t a t e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t w r i t s o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l o v e r J u s t i c e of t h e Peace

Courts . 2. Whether s e c t i o n 61-8-404(2), MCA, a l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e

of r e f u s a l t o s u b m i t t o a b r e a t h a l y z e r t e s t upon a r r e s t f o r

d r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d , i s a v i o l a t i o n of t h e F i f t h Amendment p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n . 3. Whether i t i s a v i o l a t i o n of a d e f e n d a n t ' s due

p r o c e s s r i g h t s i f p o l i c e o f f i c e r s do n o t i n f o r m him t h a t t h e

f a c t of h i s r e f u s a l t o s u b m i t t o a b r e a t h a l y z e r t e s t w i l l be used a g a i n s t him a t t r i a l .

With r e g a r d t o r e l a t o r ' s f i r s t i s s u e , w e a r e g u i d e d by 1972 Mont. C o n s t . , A r t . VII, S 2 . That c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provi-

s i o n e x p r e s s l y g r a n t s t h i s C o u r t t h e power t o e x e r c i s e

supervisory j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l o t h e r c o u r t s i n t h i s

state. Absent a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n o r s t a t u t e bestow-

i n g upon t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t w r i t s of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l o v e r J u s t i c e of t h e Peace C o u r t s , w e a r e

o b l i g a t e d t o i n f e r t h a t D i s t r i c t C o u r t s do n o t have such

power. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t o u r d e c i s i o n s i n B a i l e y and

Forsythe, supra, lend t o l e r a n t approval t o t h e District C o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e o f s u p e r v i s o r y power, t h e y a r e e x p r e s s l y overruled. Ward h a s r e q u e s t e d t h a t i n t h e e v e n t w e do n o t f i n d t h a t the ~ i s t r i c Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n , w e convert h i s t

a p p e a l t o a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l s o t h a t t h i s C o u r t

may s u p e r i n t e n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t below. W conclude, a s e w e d i d i n S t a t e e x r e l . Kober & Kyriss v. D i s t r i c t Court

( 1 9 6 6 ) , 147 Mont. 1 1 6 , 4 1 0 P.2d 945, t h a t a w r i t of s u p e r -

v i s o r y c o n t r o l i s n o t t o b e used a s a means t o c i r c u m v e n t

t h e appeal process. Only i n t h e most e x t e n u a t i n g circum- s t a n c e s w i l l such a w r i t be g r a n t e d . I n t h i s c a u s e , no s u c h

circumstances e x i s t .

The r e q u e s t f o r a s u p e r v i s o r y w r i t i s d e n i e d . The

c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace C o u r t f o r pro-

c e e d i n g s on t h e m e r i t s .

W concur: e

PChief A Justice /1

Justices