1 CHRISTOPHER D. ABBOTTEDMUND F. SHEEHY, JR.

2 Assistant Public DefendersOffice of the State Public Defender

3 Major Crimes UnitP.O. Box 200145

4 Helena, MT 59620-0145(406) 444-9262

5

OF DiSTHIC;- COURTJENNIFER BRMWON

2011 APR ?6 PfT] 11 29FILED

BY J_C-- _DEPUTY

6 Attorneys for Defendant

BACKGROUND

The following is based on the court record and evidence that is expected to be

produced at an evidentiary hearing.

reasons given below.

Defendant requests that this motion be heard at the evidentiary hearing currently

set on all remaining motions for June 1,2011, at 1:30 p.m.

Defendant Shanara Rose Anderson (Anderson), through counsel, moves this Court

to dismiss the above-entitled matter for violation of Anderson's right to a speedy trial,

guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

and article II, section 24 of the Montana Constitution. This motion is made for the

Cause No. DC-09-33AX

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TODISMISS FOR VIOLATION OFHER SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS;SUPPORTING BRIEF; ANDREQUEST FOR HEARING

Plaintiff,

Defendant.

v.

SHANARA ROSE ANDERSON,

MONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, GALLATIN COUNTY

STATE OF MONTANA, )))))))

~

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Procedural History24 A.

25 1. Before This Court: February 4, 2009, to April 15, 2010

26 The State sought leave to file an infonnation, supported by motion and affidavit,

27

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPAGE 1 n....,.-"\

1 on February 4, 2009. (D.C. Doc. 1.)1) Shanara Anderson was charged by infonnation

2 with deliberate homicide on February 5, 2009. (D.C. Doc. 3.) After Anderson pleaded

3 not guilty, the Court set an omnibus hearing for April 13, 2009. (D.C.Doc. 15.) The

4 omnibus hearing was continued on Anderson's motion to May 11,2009. (D.C. Doc 22,

5 23.) At the omnibus hearing, the Court set, with the agreement of the parties, a trial date

6 for October 19,2009, and a briefing schedule on a number ofmotions. (D.C.Doc.43.)

7 It is counsel's understanding that in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, to

8 accommodate scheduling issues for prosecutors and defense attorneys, the three

9 departments rotate the months during which criminal trials before that department are

10 typically set. Department Two, for instance, typically conducts criminal trials in January,

11 April, July, and October.

12 On July 20, 2009, Anderson filed a motion to continue the trial and motions

13 deadlines in the case and filed a supporting waiver of speedy trial. (D.C. Doc. 69, 70.)

14 The motion recites that it was made to give counsel more time to prepare and "additional

15 time to consult with possible expert witnesses and continue to review and investigate the

16 discovery in this matter." (D.C. Doc. 70.) Anderson also requested an extension of the

17 motion deadlines to pennit more time to investigate and brief the legal issues in the case.

18 At a status hearing on August 10,2009, this Court set a trial date of April 19, 2010, with

19 the agreement of the parties, and a motions hearing of December 16,2009. (D.C. Doc.

20 85.) On December 3, 2009, Anderson filed a motion to continue the motions hearing,

21 and in response, the Court set a status hearing for February 8, 2010. (D.C. Doc. 178,

22 181.) At the status hearing, the motions hearing was re-set for March 11,2010. (D.C.

23 Doc. 197.) The trial date was unaffected. Following the motions hearing, the Court

24 issued orders granting Anderson's motion to suppress her statements to law enforcement

25 (on March 31, 2010), (D.C. Doc. 222), and sustaining Anderson's objections to the

26 State's Just Notice (on April 2, 2010), (D.C. Doc. 230).

27

I All references to D.C. Doc refer to the Court's document sequence number in the CaseRegister Report, which is attached as Exhibit A.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPAr-... ')

1 Following these orders, the State unsuccessfully attempted to dismiss the case on

2 April 9, 2010. (D.C. Doc. 231.) In its motion, the State indicated it did not have a

3 reasonable probability of conviction unless both Anderson's statements to law

4 enforcement and the Just Notice evidence were admitted, and that the State had no

5 remedy of appeal with respect to the Just evidence. (D.C. Doc. 231.) This Court denied

6 the motion on the grounds that if the State believed the Court made a mistake of law

7 causing a gross injustice when it sustained the Just Notice objections, the State could

8 petition for a writ of supervisory control. (D.C. Doc. 234.) At a pretrial conference held

9 on April 15, 2010, the State indicated its intent to appeal, at the least, the suppression

10 motion and the parties agreed the April 19, 2010, trial date was not viable in light of that

11 appeal. The Court accordingly vacated the trial date pending the State's appeal. (D.C.

12 Doc. 240.)

13

14

2. Before the Montana Supreme Court: April 14, 2010, through January18,2011

15 The State did not immediately file a petition for a writ of supervisory control with

16 respect to the Just Notice decision, but did appeal the denial of the suppression motion on

17 April 14,2010. (D.C. Doc. 238; State v. Anderson, Supreme Court Cause No. DA 10-

18 186, Docket, Ex. Bl Anderson filed on May 14, 2010, a petition for a writ of

19 supervisory control challenging this Court's denial of the State's motion to dismiss.

20 (Anderson v. 18th Jud. Dist. Court, Supreme Court Cause No. OP 10-235, Docket, Ex.

21 C.) On June 14,2010, the State voluntarily dismissed its appeal of the Court's

22 suppression order. (Supreme Court Docket, Ex. B.) On June 18,2010, more than two

23 months after the denial of the State's motion to dismiss, the State finally petitioned for a

24 writ of supervisory control challenging the Just Notice decision. (State v. 18th Jud. Dis!.

25

26

272 This Court can take judicial notice of the docket and papers filed in the Supreme Courtmatters related to this case. See Mont. R. Evid. 202(b)(6) (permitting this Court to takejudicial notice of the "[r]ecords of any court of this state"). The documents in theSupreme Court matters can be found on the Supreme Court's online docket athttp://courts.mt.gov.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPAICIi' '1.

1 Court, Supreme Court Cause No. OP 10-288, Docket, Ex. D.) On July 6, 2010, the

2 Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefing and requested that the district court record

3 be transmitted to the Supreme Court. (Ex. E.) After each side requested, without

4 opposition, a two-week extension for their respective briefs, briefing was concluded

5 October 4,2010. (Ex. D.)

6 The Supreme Court issued its decision granting the State a writ of supervisory

7 control on December 14, 2010. The decision, State v. 18th Judicial District Court, 2010

8 MT 263,358 Mont. 325, 246 P.3d 415, overruled State v. Just, 184 Mont. 262, 602 P.2d

9 957 (1979), and State v. Matt, 249 Mont. 136,814 P.2d 52 (1991), which together

10 established the procedural and substantive framework on which the parties in this case

11 had relied in the procedures and briefing before the district court. Specifically, the court

12 eliminated the requirement that particularized notice be given at or before the omnibus

13 hearing, even though that requirement had been subsequently codified by the legislature

14 and was in effect at the time of Anderson's arrest and throughout the initial proceedings

15 in this Court. The Supreme Court then set forth a new framework and used that

16 framework to rule on the admissibility of much of the evidence in dispute in this case.

17 Significantly, the Supreme Court did not adopt these substantial changes to the procedure

18 for addressing other acts violations prospectively, but applied them to Anderson's case as

19 well. After Anderson unsuccessfully filed a petition for rehearing, the case was

20 ultimately returned to the district court on January 18,2011. (Ex. D.)

21 3. Remand: January 18, 2011, to August 15, 2011

22 After the conclusion of the Supreme Court's proceedings, the Court set a status

23 hearing for February 18,2011. (D.C. Doc. 262,265.) Anderson appeared remotely. At

24 the hearing, the parties requested time to brief any issues that arose as a result of the

25 Supreme Court's decision. Anderson also noted that one of her two attorneys, Mr.

26 Sheehy, was unavailable to do a trial in the month of July because he had a competing

27 deliberate homicide case already scheduled. Counsel acknowledged that Anderson had

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEF

1 signed a speedy trial waiver in July 2009. With the agreement of the parties, the Court

2 set a trial date for August 15,2011. (D.C. Doc. 267.)

3 B. Anderson's Custody Status

4 Upon filing the information, the State arrested Anderson in Glendive, where she

5 resided at the time. Law enforcement transported her to Bozeman and booked her into

6 the Gallatin County Detention Center on February 6, 2009, on a $500,000 bond. With

7 but a few exceptions, Anderson had lived most of her life in Glendive, and nearly all of

8 her family lived in the Glendive area. When Anderson's child, V.A.C., originally died in

9 January 2008, Anderson had lived in Bozeman for a single day, and Anderson returned to

10 Glendive shortly thereafter. At the time of her arrest, Anderson had virtually no ties to

11 the Bozeman area. Glendive is 364 miles from Bozeman, and the drive between the two

12 takes at least five and a half hours. At one point, Anderson was placed into the

13 Broadwater County Detention Center, which is separated from Glendive by 391 miles

14 and approximately six and a half hours of driving time.

15 After the Court reduced Anderson's bond to $25,000, Anderson was ultimately

16 released from jail on May 7, 2009, and returned to live in Glendive. The Court, however,

17 imposed a number of conditions on Anderson's liberty. The order is in the district court

18 record at D.C. Doc. 32, and is attached as Exhibit F. In short, the order required

19 Anderson to live at Kari Harpster's residence and remain on continuous GPS monitoring

20 pending trial. (Ex. F.) The GPS monitoring system cost Anderson approximately $ 300

21 every month, which resulted ina significant financial burden, particularly as Anderson's

22 notoriety in Glendive (acquired largely as a result of this case) has limited her

23 employment opportunities there to fairly low-income jobs. In addition, on a number of

24 occasions Anderson had to travel to Bozeman to address issues with the GPS monitoring.

25 Anderson was also required to report to Pretrial Services.

26 Anderson's conditions of release were modified several times. Anderson

27 requested, and was ultimately permitted, to live with her parents instead ofKari Harpster.

(D.C. Doc. 179, 181.) After Anderson's brother moved back into her parents' home, the

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPAGE 5

1 tight living conditions caused tension, and Anderson successfully requested that this

2 Court let her reside at a place ofher choice, so long as she remained in Dawson County.

3 (D.C. Doc. 260, 261.) On November 16, 2010, the Court removed the requirement that

4 she be on GPS monitoring, though she was stilI obliged to report to Pretrial Services.

5 (D.C. Doc. 252, 258.)

6 Additional facts are provided where pertinent.

7 ARGUMENT

8 Anderson's right to a speedy trial has been violated. This case has lasted 922

9 days, more than four and a half times longer than the threshold for triggering speedy trial

10 analysis. The excessive delay in the case is primarily attributable to the State's appeal

11 and the unprecedented change in the procedural rules governing the case, which has

12 forced Anderson to alter her litigation strategy and to pick up the trial setting from where

13 she left off. The unjustifiably long delay occasioned by the midstream change in the

14 applicable law has prejudiced Anderson and warrants dismissal of the case.

Federal and State Speedy Trial Framework15 A.

16 1. Federal Speedy Trial Framework

17 The United States Constitution guarantees that "[i]n all criminal proceedings, the

18 accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy public trial." U.S. Const. amend. VI. This right

19 applies to state criminal proceedings by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See

20 Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 222 (1967). In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514

21 (1972), the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that the right to a speedy trial is

22 necessarily "amorphous" and that it is "impossible to determine with precision when the

23 right has been denied." 407 U.S. at 521-22. The Court, however, identified three

24 purposes the right to a speedy trial is designed to protect: "(i) to prevent oppressive

25 pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to

26 limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired." Barker, 407 U.S. at 532.

27 Moreover, the Court described four factors to be balanced when determining whether the

right to a speedy trial has been violated: "Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPA.t:1i' (:;

I defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant." Barker, 407 U.S. at

2 530. The Court held that no one factor was necessary or sufficient and must be

3 considered in light of all the circumstances. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 533.

4 In particular, prejudice need not be specifically demonstrated to establish a speedy

5 trial violation. See Doggett v. United Stales, 505 U.S. 647, 655 (1992). This is because

6 the passage of time often "compromises the reliability of a trial in ways that neither party

7 can prove or, for that matter, identify." Doggett, 505 U.S. at 655. Accordingly, in

8 Doggett, the government's negligence in locating the defendant resulted in a speedy trial

9 violation even though the defendant in that case was unable to persuasively demonstrate

10 prejudice. See Doggett, 505 U.S. at 658 nA.

11 2. State Speedy Trial Framework

12 The Montana Constitution provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions the accused

13 shall have the right to... a speedy public trial." Mont. Const. art. II § 24. The Montana

14 Supreme Court has adopted a procedure to comply with the state and federal

15 constitutional provisions that largely mirrors and expands on the Barker framework. In

16 State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204,338 Mont. 442,167 P.3d 815, the court set forth the

17 procedure to be followed to balance the four Barker factors.

18 Under Ariegwe, this Court is to first consider the length of delay. This factor has

19 two components. First, the interval between accusation and trial must exceed 200 days

20 for speedy trial analysis to be triggered at all. Ariegwe, ~ 41. Second, as the extent of the

21 delay beyond 200 days grows, the State's obligation to disprove prejudice to the accused

22 grows while the defendant's need to show specific evidence of prejudice diminishes.

23 Ariegwe, ~ 56.

24 The Court is to next consider the reasons for the delay. The Court is to apportion

25 responsibility for each action ofthe State or the defendant that has the effect of delaying

26 the trial date to either the State or the defendant. Ariegwe, ~ 64. Delays not

27 demonstrably attributable to the defense are instead attributable to the State by default.

Ariegwe, ~ 65. This includes delays brought about by the courts themselves. See State v.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPAGE 7

1 Couture, 2010 MT 201, ~~6-8, 84, 357 Mont. 398,240 PJd 987 (attributing delay

2 brought about by the district court's policy of limiting acceptance ofplea bargains

3 entered into after the omnibus hearing to the State); State v. Good, 2002 MT 59, ~ 26, 309

4 Mont. 113,43 P.3d 948. The Court is to then assign a weight to each delay based upon

5 the culpability of the conduct causing the delay. See Ariegwe, ~ 67.

6 The Court next considers the defendant's response to the delay. This factor serves

7 in part to determine whether the defendant actually wanted a speedy trial, Ariegwe, ~ 76,

8 and in part as an indirect means of determining the extent of harm to the defendant from

9 the delay, Ariegwe, ~ 78. When evaluating this factor, the Court is to look at the totality

10 of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's conduct in response to each delay­

11 whether the defendant acquiesced in the delay, the reasons for acquiescing in the delay,

12 the existence of any objections to delays in the case, and any other relevant

13 circumstances. Ariegwe, ~ 85. Failure to object to delays is insufficient, standing alone,

14 to establish the defendant did not actually want a speedy trial. Ariegwe, ~ 82.

15 Finally, the Court is to consider, as one factor among four, the extent to which the

16 defendant has been prejudiced by the delay. The Montana Supreme Court evaluated

17 prejudice in light of the three interests protected by the right to a speedy trial: (a)

18 preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration; (b) minimizing the accused's anxiety and

19 disruption of life; and (c) limiting impairment of the defense. Ariegwe, ~ 88. Impairment

20 of the defense is the most serious form of prejudice, but the Montana Supreme Court

21 recognizes it may not always be possible to articulate or measure the prejudice to the

22 defense. Ariegwe, ~ 99.

23 3. Waiver

24 This Court may also be called on to determine whether Anderson waived her right

25 to a speedy trial in its entirety. To be sure, Anderson signed a speedy trial waiver in July

26 2009 in support of her motion to continue the trial date and motions deadlines. To waive

27 a constitutional right, including the right to a speedy trial, however, the defendant must

have intentionally relinquished a known right, and waiver of a fundamental right is not

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEF

1 lightly presumed. See Barker, 507 U.S. at 525-26. At the time Anderson signed the

2 speedy trial waiver, it was in anticipation of delays brought about by the need to

3 investigate the case and to investigate and brief the substantial suppression and other acts

4 evidence issues in the case. Thus, it is fair to rely on the speedy trial waiver to waive any

5 speedy trial claim premised on the delay attributable to that motion to continue. The

6 waiver, however, was not made in anticipation of the unexpected one-year delay in the

7 case while the relief from the Supreme Court was sought, capped by the sudden reversal

8 of a then-extant procedural statute and decades-old precedents. Moreover, the Montana

9 Supreme Court has remarked that speedy trial waivers are largely superfluous: "[speedy]

10 trial waivers are somewhat inapt in any event given our approach under [the reasons for

11 delay factor], which is to analyze the specific cause and motive for each period of delay."

12 See Couture, ~ 78 n.5. Accordingly, while the Court should treat the waiver of speedy

13 trial as evidence of the reason for the delay between October 19, 2009, and April 19,

14 2010, it should not apply the July 2009 speedy trial waiver to the then-unanticipated

15 delays that followed the April 19, 2010, trial setting.

16 B.

17

Application of the Speedy Trial Framework Demonstrates that Anderson'sRight to a Speedy Trial Has Been Violated

18 Upon application of the factors articulated in Barker and Ariegwe, this Court

19 should conclude that Anderson's right to a speedy trial has been violated.

20 1. Length of Delay

21 The threshold delay in a speedy trial case is 200 days. The delay between the date

22 the State sought leave to file the Information in this case and the currently set trial date of

23 August 15,2010, is 922 days. Notably, this delay is but two days short of the delay in

24 Couture, and is over four and a halftimes the delay necessary to trigger the 200 day

25

26

27

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFVAr];'n

1 threshold. Thus, the State must make a "very persuasive showing" that the delay has not

2 prejudiced Anderson. Couture, ~ 49.3

3 2. Reasons for the Delay

4 The Court should apportion the delay in this case as follows:

5 a. February 4, 2009, to April 13, 2009: 68 days

6 The interval from February 5,2009, to the initial omnibus setting of April 13,

7 2009, is clearly attributable to the State as institutional delay.

8 b. April 13, 2009, to approximately July 15, 2009: 93 days

9 This interval is likewise attributable to the State as institutional delay. Although

10 Anderson moved to continue the omnibus hearing for one month, only delays that have

11 the effect of moving the trial date are factored into speedy trial analysis. See Couture, ~

12 71. Even if one assumes that, but for the delay, the Court would have set a trial date in

13 roughly mid-July, its next "trial month," there would have been a delay from April 13,

14 2009, to the middle of July regardless of the continued omnibus date.

15 c. July 15, 2009, to October 19, 2009: 96 days

16 Anderson submits that, in the absence of a justification from the State that a trial

17 could have feasibly been set in July even if the initial omnibus date had not been

18 continued, this time, too, is attributable to the State as institutional delay. See Ariegwe, ~

19 65. Anderson's motion to continue the omnibus hearing, however, cited the extensive

20 discovery in the case and the need to review those materials and investigate the case.

21 Moreover, Anderson needed time to consult experts: she reserved mental health defenses

22 at the omnibus pending an evaluation (which was subsequently conducted), and needed

23 time to obtain a forensic pathologist to meet the State's evidence. Accordingly, if the

24 Court does attribute this time to the defense, it should not weigh heavily against

25 Anderson because the delay was due to a legitimate need to prepare the case.

26

27 J Even if the Court had been able to set the trial date earlier on remand - a difficult feat,given the need to brief remaining issues left by the Supreme Court in its decision, to re­locate witnesses, and to accommodate counsels' schedules - a trial date as early as May15, 201 I, would still have resulted in a similarly significant delay of 829 days.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPAC-F. 11)

1 d. October 19, 2009, to April 19, 2010: 182 days

2 The interval between the first trial setting and the second trial setting is

3 attributable to Anderson. She filed a motion to continue supported by a speedy trial

4 waiver to have more time to investigate the case, locate experts, and brief the evidentiary

5 issues in the case. Anderson did indeed use that time to identify experts, having used the

6 extension to locate a experts in forensic pathology and forensic psychiatry. (See D.C.

7 Doc. 186.) The record demonstrates that the evidentiary issues were not frivolous -

8 indeed, Anderson prevailed on most of those issues before this Court - and so this time

9 should not be weighed heavily against Anderson.

10 Though this delay is attributable to Anderson, the delay is significantly tied into

11 the need to address the State's failure to file a proper Just Notice at the time set forth in

12 the omnibus order. As this Court is aware, Anderson's objections to the Just Notice,

13 which approached twenty pages in length, focused heavily on the insufficiency of the

14 notice and the procedural and substantive framework of Just and its progeny. Indeed, the

15 complexity of the Just rule was much of the impetus for the requests for briefing

16 extensions. In addition, the delays for filing a reply brief were also due in large part to

17 the need to address the State's invocation of the transaction rule and its filing of an

18 amended Just Notice. State v. 18th Judicial District Court, of course, erased the efficacy

19 of much of these efforts. Nevertheless, Anderson's reliance on the 30-year-old Just

20 precedents and section 46- 13-1 09, MCA, which had been in effect since the early 1990's,

21 significantly motivated the delay. As a consequence, the events that followed in the

22 Montana Supreme Court should diminish the weight of this delay against Anderson.

23 e. April 19, 20JO, to February J8, 20J J: 305 days

24 The interval between the original trial setting and this Court's status hearing is by

25 far the most significant delay in the case and is attributable to the State, for it occurred

26 without Anderson's consent and was outside her control. See United States v. Loud

27 Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 312-13 (observing that an unduly long appellate process can harm a

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPA.r-l<' 11

I defendant just as surely as trial court delays). The only question is the weight to be

2 given the delay.

3 As the United States Supreme Court has noted, there are a number of factors that

4 govern the weight to be accorded an interlocutory appeal because the State may very well

5 have a legitimate interest in an appeal. See Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 312-13 (1986).

6 Ordinarily, the relevant issues in assigning weight to the delay are the diligence in

7 pursuing appellate remedies, and the purpose and reasonableness of the appeal, with a

8 look at the seriousness of the case, the importance of the issue to the case, and the

9 strength of the State's position. See Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. at 315-16. By those measures,

10 the State's decision to petition for a writ of supervisory control, at least upon first glance,

II was arguably reasonable: from the State's perspective, the admissibility of the other acts

12 evidence was important to its case, this Court had denied the State's motion to dismiss

13 because of the theoretical availability of supervisory control, and the prosecution at issue

14 involved a deliberate homicide charge.

15 Nevertheless, significant barriers to the success of the State's claim for a petition

16 for a writ of supervisory control suggest the decision to seek a petition was not so

17 reasonable under settled law at the time. Supervisory control is only available when a

18 district court is "proceeding under a mistake oflaw." Mont. R. App. P. 14(3)(a). At the

19 time, Just had been settled law for 30 years, section 46-13 -109, MCA (codifying Just's

20 pretrial notice requirement), had been in effect for nearly 20 years, and the Montana

21 Supreme Court had relied on it numerous times to strike evidence for which proper notice

22 was not given, including cases as recently as 2009. See, e.g., State v. Campa, 2009 MT

23 251, ~ 33, 351 Mont. 504,213 P.3d 1102 (unanimously disallowing other acts evidence

24 not included in a properly filed Just Notice). Accordingly, there was no reason to believe

25 the State would prevail on a Rule 404(b) theory under the settled law then in effect.

26 Moreover, though the State asserted in its April 9, 20 I0, motion to dismiss this

27 matter that this Court's resolution of the transaction rule issues was contrary to the

subsequently decided State v. Guill, 2010 MT 69, 355 Mont. 490, 228 P.3d 1152, that

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPAGF.12

1 case involved admissibility of evidence in a sexual offense prosecution and merely

2 clarified the purpose of the transaction rule. In other words, Guill did not impact the

3 validity of this Court's decision on the other acts evidence. Thus, there was little reason

4 to believe that the State would prevail upon its petition assuming the law remained as it

5 was.

6 The unusual procedure followed by the State also protracted the appellate process.

7 It was the appeal of the suppression order that originally vacated the trial date in this

8 case. The State, however, did not ultimately pursue that appeal and instead voluntarily

9 dismissed it two months later. (State's Mtn. to Dismiss, D.C. Doc. 245.) And it was not

10 until June 18, also two months after the second trial setting had passed, that the State

11 submitted a petition for a writ of supervisory control. (Ex. D.)

12 The greater issue here, however, is not with the State's decision to appeal, but with

13 the Montana Supreme Court's watershed change in procedure. A person's right to a

14 speedy trial is held not just against the prosecution, but against all state actors in the

15 criminal justice system, including the judiciary. See People v. Johnson, 606 P.2d 738,

16 747 (Cal. 1980). In this case, Anderson relied heavily on a strategy of attacking the

17 sufficiency of the State's original Just Notice and the timeliness of the State's Amended

18 Just Notice. This position had support in caselaw stretching back decades. Indeed, the

19 Montana Supreme Court acknowledged that "certain facets of the District Court's

20 decision--in particular, those relating to the notice requirement--are supported by extant

21 precedent." 18th Jud. Dist. Court, ,-r 35. Rather, the court noted that "the problem is with

22 the precedent itself, which has resulted in the mistake of law and gross injustice that

23 prompted our exercise of supervisory control." 18th Jud. Dist. Court, ,-r 35. It then

24 proceeded to overrule those precedents even though they had been subsequently codified

25 into a statute and relied on for the entirety of that decades-long period. Counsel is not

26 aware of any case prior to 18th Jud. Dist. Court where a grant of supervisory control was

27 accomplished by overruling precedent.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFDArI<1'1

1 The Montana Supreme Court, though constrained by the doctrine of stare decisis,

2 has the power to revisit, alter, or overrule its earlier cases when it becomes convinced

3 those cases were wrongly decided. That proposition is unexceptional. What is

4 exceptional about this case is that the court did so in a pending criminal prosecution on a

5 very unusual procedural posture for doing so - a petition for a writ of supervisory control.

6 By doing so, the court changed the very procedural rules on which Anderson had been

7 relying up to within weeks of the second trial setting. The result is that much of the time

8 and energy expended by the parties, and Anderson's litigation strategy, were to waste.

9 Moreover, the change in procedure enabled the case to be remanded in a form that the

10 State could still pursue to trial. While the Montana Supreme Court certainly has the

11 prerogative to overrule precedent, Anderson submits that when it does so in the middle of

12 a live criminal proceeding causing substantial delay, that delay should be weighed

13 heavily against the State in the speedy trial analysis. This sort of change was deliberate

14 in the sense that the Supreme Court made a conscious decision to use this case to overrule

15 its prior Just precedents, and so changing procedures consciously should stand on a

16 higher level than ordinary institutional delay. See Ariegwe, ~ 67-71 (assigning greater

17 weight to intentional actions causing delay than to negligent actions causing delay).

18 In addition, the Supreme Court decision delayed the case in yet another significant

19 way. The Supreme Court took the unusual step in that case of requiring supplemental

20 briefing on a supervisory control petition on a very substantial issue: the scope and

21 applicability of Rule 404(b) versus the transaction rule. That not only expanded the time

22 needed to brief the issues, but also likely protracted the time from conclusion of briefing

23 to decision. By turning the case from an application of existing transaction rule and Just

24 rule principles into one that would resolve an important question of law, the court

25 extended the period of delay for the briefing and resolution of that question.

26 Accordingly, the 305 delay caused by the State's appeal and petition for a writ of

27 supervisory control is attributable to the State, and the weight accorded that delay should

be given a greater value than that of ordinary institutional delay.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPA.r-1i' u.

I f. February 18,2011 to approximately July 1,2011: 133 days

2 The delay between the status hearing and the next feasible trial month in which the

3 case could have been set is attributable to the State as institutional delay. This

4 approximates the delay that would have occurred simply by virtue of the remand, the

5 need to address the remaining issues left open by the Supreme Court, and the need to pick

6 an available trial date. This delay would have occurred regardless of the parties' need to

7 prepare.

8 g. July 1, 2011, to August 15, 2011: 45 days

9 The delay between the beginning of the next feasible trial month in which the case

10 could have been set and the actual trial date is attributable to Anderson. At the February

11 18, 2011, status hearing, Anderson requested that a trial not be set in July and requested a

12 later setting because of counsels' scheduling conflicts. Because Anderson's counsel

13 actively requested and acquiesced in this delay, it is clearly attributable to her.

14 h. Implications

15 Of the total 922-day delay in the case, Anderson submits that the State is

16 responsible for approximately 695 days of the delay, while Anderson is responsible for

17 227 days of the delay. Anderson notes that the district court did not act improperly prior

18 to the State's maneuvering before the Supreme Court. The delay prior to April 19, 2010

19 (a total delay of 43 9 days), was a combination of institutional delay and delay at

20 Anderson's request that would have weighed only slightly against the State.

21 Nevertheless, the delay after April 19, 2010, falls primarily on the State, and the Supreme

22 Court's decision to use Anderson's case to alter the Just Notice procedure Anderson

23 despite a year of litigation in reliance on the existence of those procedures should weigh

24 heavily against the State because that change in procedure in the middle of the game has

25 resulted in substantial delay.

26 3. Anderson's Response to the Delay

27 The next factor the Court is to consider is Anderson's response to the delay. In

this case, Anderson acquiesced in much of the delay from February 4,2009 to the second

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFP,H:1C lC;:

I trial setting in April 19, 2010. From this, it can be reasonably inferred that Anderson did

2 not have strong opposition to this portion of the delay in recognition of her attorneys'

3 need to prepare and the need to litigate the evidentiary issues in the case.

4 The State's appeal and petition for supervisory control, however, was something

5 to which Anderson could not object, for if the State can demonstrate circumstances

6 warranting Supreme Court jurisdiction, it has a right to appeal and to petition for

7 supervisory control. And Anderson did attempt to bring the appellate proceedings to a

8 halt, contending in her petition for a writ of supervisory control challenging this Court's

9 denial of the State's motion to dismiss that "she must now await the outcome of an appeal

10 that the State previously decided not to take, before she will even know whether she still

II has to stand trial." (Ex. G, at 6.) Likewise, Anderson noted that the appeal of the

12 suppression order "necessarily vacated Anderson's trial date, forcing her to wait on

13 restrictive bond conditions until some unspecified time in the future--after transcripts

14 have been produced, briefs written, the question decided, and the case remanded--to stand

IS trial." (Ex. G, at II.) And Anderson, of course, filed answer briefs objecting to the

16 State's petition for a supervisory control.

17 In short, in the limited capacity to which Anderson could voice her disapproval of

18 the appellate process, she did. Finally, there is no reason to conclude that Anderson has

19 gained any tactical advantage by virtue of the delay. And though Anderson did not file

20 repeated objections or speedy trial demands, that is not required to demonstrate that she

21 actually wanted a speedy trial. See Ariegwe, ~ 82. In this case, such efforts would have

22 been futile, for Anderson had no grounds to stop the State from even attempting to seek a

23 writ.

24 4. Prejudice to Anderson

25 Finally, the Court is to consider prejudice to Anderson. All three forms of

26 prejudice recognized by the cases are present here.

27 First, Anderson has had significant restrictions on her liberty. For the first several

months of the case, she was located in ajail far away from family and friends in a town to

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPAl::1i' 11::

1 which she had little ties. This Court did approve her release on bond in May 2009, but

2 she was to be on electronic monitoring and her residence was restricted. From May 2009

3 to November 2010, she remained on the electronic monitoring until it was finally lifted.

4 Second, though grateful for the opportunity to be released while the trial is

5 pending, Anderson has dealt with substantial disruption to her life as a result ofthe delays

6 in this case. The courts have recognized that disruption to one's life can be a significant

7 factor, noting that people facing serious charges might, while released, "be subjected to

8 public scorn, deprived of employment, and chilled in the exercise of his right to speak

9 for, associate with, and participate in unpopular political causes." Ariegwe, ~ 96 (quoting

10 Barker, 407 U.S. at 532 n.33). Anderson's case has been much more well-publicized in

11 Glendive than in Bozeman, and Glendive is a small community where many people know

12 her. She has endured taunts of "baby-killer." Because of the charges, Anderson has had

13 difficulty finding employment at any place but a minimum wage job at a local motel.

14 Anderson has had to live in tight quarters, first with Kari Harpster and then with her

15 family. In short, Anderson has experienced being a pariah in her own hometown, and

16 that stigma has remained while this case has pending.

17 Moreover, Anderson has dealt with excessive anxiety as a result of the

18 proceedings. She has often been emotional, crying and worrying about the pending

19 charges, which has been exacerbated by the long delay. It is believed testimony would

20 show that the roller-coaster ofpreparing for trial in April 2010 followed by a very long

21 wait before a trial date could even be set has carried its own emotional toll on her. The

22 delay has unduly aggravated her anxiety, both in its magnitude and duration, to a degree

23 beyond that which is "inherent in being accused of a crime." See Ariegwe, ~ 97.

24 Finally, this Court is to consider the impairment to Anderson's defense. The

25 courts have recognized that impairment to one's defense will not always be articulable.

26 See Ariegwe, ~ 99. Accordingly, it is appropriate to presume that the very lengthy delay

27 in this case has likely dimmed memories of witnesses and had other unidentifiable effects

on her defense. See Ariegwe, ~ 100 (the existence of other factors favoring a speedy trial

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPAr..1i' 1"7

1 violation enhance the concern that one's ability to prepare her defense has been

2 hampered).

3 5. Balance

4 The balance of these four factors demonstrates the following: Prior to April 19,

5 2010, Anderson agreed to some delay to enable her attorneys to prepare and to

6 investigate and brief the evidentiary issues in the case. At that time, it was believed that

7 the outcome of those evidentiary issues would have a substantial impact on the strength

8 of the State's case at trial. Although the case had been pending for quite some time and

9 Anderson was already suffering the effects ofpublic scorn as a result of the charges, the

10 delay at that point would likely not have established a speedy trial violation given the

11 complexity and nature of the case and her agreement to the continuances up to that point.

12 Indeed, had trial happened as planned on April 19,2010, it is unlikely Anderson would

13 be here today claiming a violation of her speedy trial right.

14 That changed, however, when the State sought relief from the Montana Supreme

15 Court and, significantly, when the Supreme Court granted relief by changing

16 longstanding procedural and evidentiary rules. Anderson's strategy of attacking the

17 sufficiency and timeliness of the State's various Just Notices was effectively rendered

18 moot, and much of the time spent litigating those issues went to waste. Moreover, as a

19 result of the decision, Anderson had to endure an unanticipated year-long delay in her

20 case, not to mention the additional time that would be added because of the logistical

21 issues with finding a trial date once the case finally made its way back to the district

22 court. Anderson did not consent or agree to this delay, and had no opportunity to object

23 because no continuances were involved. And the unexpected shift in trial dates from a

24 definite conclusion to the case to an indefinite trial date, possibly, some time far in the

25 future, aggravated Anderson's anxiety even further.

26 While the Supreme Court was within its prerogatives to revisit its caselaw, its

27 decision to do so on a writ of supervisory control in an ongoing criminal case should

factor into the speedy trial analysis where the result is a delay that prejudiced the

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPAGE 18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

defendant in that case. Anderson has had to bear the burden ofproviding a vehicle for

the Montana Supreme Court to resolve an issue that is, in truth, much larger than her

individual case: the ongoing struggle to develop a satisfactory test for the admissibility

of other acts evidence. That is a burden, however, that Anderson should not have had to

shoulder all on her own, nor is it a burden that Anderson voluntarily took on. Particularly

given the extreme delay the appeal has caused, the degree of delay now attributable to the

State, and the prejudice to Anderson, the balancing of these factors demonstrates that

Anderson's right to a speedy trial has been violated.

CONCLUSION

The unexpected appeals in this process and concomitant changes in the procedural

rules governing many of the key legal issues in this case have caused the delay in this

case to balloon into to a 922-day delay. To be clear, this motion is not intended as an

indictment of this Court's management of the case: this Court appropriately managed the

case from its outset to the second trial setting of April 19,2010. The Supreme Court

proceedings, however, have resulted in over a year of additional delay, plus the additional

time needed to respond to the Supreme Court's opinion. Though the prosecution has not

acted in bad faith, that fact does not alter Anderson's right to a speedy trial to minimize

pretrial incarceration and the anxiety and disruption of her life brought about by having

serious charges leveled against her. Unfortunately, the procedural posture of this case

has now evolved into a situation where those interests have been unduly violated.

Accordingly, Anderson respectfully requests that the Court grant her motion to dismiss.

DATED this~ay of April, 2011.

~jAttorney for Defendant

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPAC-F. 19

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I hereby certify that I caused to be mailed a true and accurate copy ofthe

3 foregoing, postage prepaid, by U.S. mail, to the following:

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Dated:

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

TODD WHIPPLEChief Deputy County Attorney1709 W. College St.Bozeman, MT 59715-4107

SHANARA ANDERSON117 S. Sargent, Apt. 4Glendive, MT 59330

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL & BRIEFPAGE 20

Exhibit A

~: 4/20/2011

~: 09:37 AM

~ 1 of 13

( atin County District CourtCase Register Report

DC-16-2009-0000033-IN

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

User: SERHARDT

2/4/2009

Information

I:

ype:

tus History)pen

secutorsNhipple, Todd Sennott

2/4/2009

(Primary attorney) Send Notices

endants

ef. no. 1 Anderson, Shanara

200608

Revision

JudgeBrown, Holly B.Brown, John C.Salvagni, Mike

Description

Deliberate Homicide - Felony

Do Not Send Notices

Do Not Send Notices

Send Notices

Do Not Send Notices

Send Notices

Reason for Removal

RecusedRecusedCurrent

(No longer on case)

(No longer on case)

(Primary attorney)

(No longer on case)

Statute

45-5-102 [1]

A.ttorneysPublic Defender's Office,

Norlin, Olivia Cherlynn

Abbott, Christopher David

Spencer, Scott B.

Sheehy, Edmund F.

harges

No.

1 Original:

ge History

late'/4/2009

'/6/2009

126/2009

ister of Actions

Doc. Seq. Entered Filed Text Judge

1.000 02/04/2009 02/04/2009 Affidavit of Probable Cause and Motion for Leave Brown, Holly B.to File Information

2000 02/05/2009 02/05/2009 Order Granting Leave to File Information Brown, Holly B.

3.000 02/05/2009 02/05/2009 Information Brown, Holly B.

4.000 02/06/2009 02/05/2009 State's Motion for Substitution of Judge Brown, Holly B.

5.000 02/06/2009 02/05/2009 Arrest Warrant Returned and filed Defendant Brown, Holly B.Anderson, Shanara

6.000 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 Order Calling in judge - Judge John Brown now Brown, Holly BAssumes Jurisdiction

7.000 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 Minute Entry - Hearing type Initial Appearance Brown, John C.Hearing date 216/2009 Time 200 pm Courtreporter Kristin Coil

8.000 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 Copy of Appointment of State Public Defender Brown, John C.

9.000 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 Conditional Release Order Brown, John C.

10000 02/10/2009 02/10/2009 State's Motion to Produce Discovery Brown, John C.

11000 02/10/2009 02/10/2009 Order to Produce Materials - re MT State Crime Brown, John C.Lab

12.000 02/12/2009 02/12/2009 Defendant's Substitution of Counsel - Olivia Brown, John C.Norlin PDO, Glendive now as counsel for theDefendant.

,. 4/20/2011 ( Jtin County District Court User: SERHARDT

~: 09:37 AM Case Register Report

~ 2 of 13 DC-16-2009-0000033-IN

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

Jister of Actions

{ Doc. Seq. Entered Filed Text Judge

1 13.000 02/13/2009 02/13/2009 Defendant's Motion to Substitute judge Brown, John C.

1 14.000 02/26/2009 02/25/2009 Order Calling in judge - JUdge Miike Salvagni Brown, John C.ASSUMES JURISDICTION

1 15.000 02/26/2009 02/25/2009 Order Setting Hearing - Omnibus Hearing set for Salvagni, Mike4/13/09 @ 9:00 a. m., Defendant shall be present

1 16.000 03/04/2009 03/04/2009 Olivia Norlin's Notice of Appearance and Salvagni, MikeAssignment of Co-Counsel - Olivia Norlin ascounsel, with Christopher Abbott as co-counselfor the Defendant

1 17.000 03/05/2009 03/04/2009 Copy of County Attorney's Letter to Public Salvagni, MikeDefender RE: Discovery

1 18.000 03/06/2009 03/05/2009 State's Discovery Receipt Salvagni, Mike

1 19.000 04/08/2009 04/08/2009 Motion to Modify Defendant's Bond and Salvagni, MikeMemorandum in Support

20.000 04/09/2009 04/09/2009 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Motion to Continue Salvagni, MikeOmnibus Hearing

21.000 04/09/2009 04/09/2009 Order Setting Hearing on Motion to Modify Bond - Salvagni, Mikeset for 4/27/09 @ 8:30 a. m.

22.000 04/09/2009 04/09/2009 Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Continue Salvagni, MikeOmnibus Hearing and Resetting Hearing - set for5/11/09 @ 9:00 a.m.

23.000 04/13/2009 04/10/2009 Defendant's Motion to Continue Omnibus Salvagni, MikeHearing

24.000 04/13/2009 04/10/2009 Discovery Receipt Salvagni, Mike

25.000 04/13/2009 04/13/2009 State's Response to Defendant's Motion to Modify Salvagni, MikeBond (loose paper)

26.000 04/23/2009 04/23/2009 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Motion to Appear Via Salvagni, MikeVideo Conference

27.000 04/24/2009 04/24/2009 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Amended Motion to Salvagni, MikeAppear Via Telephone (loose paper)

28.000 04/24/2009 04/24/2009 Order on Motion to Appear Via Telephone- Salvagni, MikeGRANTED

29.000 04/27/2009 04/27/2009 Defendant's Amended Motion to Appear Via Salvagni, MikeTelephone (loose paper)

30.000 04/27/2009 04/27/2009 Defendant's Motion to Appear Via Video Salvagni, MikeConference (loose paper)

31.000 04/27/2009 04/27/2009 Minute Entry Hearing type Bail Reduction Salvagni, MikeHearing date 4/27/2009 Time: 8:30 am Courtreporter Tami McNulty

32000 04/29/2009 04/27/2009 Conditional Release Order Salvagni, Mike

33.000 04/29/2009 04/27/2009 Agreement to Waive Extradition Proceedings Salvagni, Mike

34.000 05/04/2009 05/04/2009 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Motion to Amend Salvagni, MikeBond Conditions to Permit Contact with EricAnderson

35.000 05/06/2009 05/05/2009 Order on Defendant's Motion to Amend Bond Salvagni, MikeConditions to Permit Contact wlEric Anderson

36.000 05/07/2009 05/06/2009 Faxed COpy of Bail Bond .~:::ll\l:::lnni flA ivo

r 4/20/2011 c:. Jtin County District Court User SERHARDT~: 09:37 AM Case Register Report

~ 3 of 13 DC-16-2009-0000033-1N

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

Jister of Actions

~f. Doc. Seq. Entered Filed Text JUdge

1 37.000 05/07/2009 05/07/2009 Defendant's Motion to amend Bond Conditions to Salvagni, MikePermit Contact with Eric Anderson

1 38.000 05/08/2009 05/07/2009 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Notice to the Court Salvagni, Mikeand Motion to Allow Additional time to AcquireElectronic Monitoring Bracelet

1 39.000 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Amended Notice to Salvagni, Mikethe Court Regarding Ankle Monitoring Installationand Bond (loose paper)

1 40.000 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Allow Salvagni, MikeAdditional Time to Acquire Electric MonitoringBracelet

1 41.000 05/13/2009 05/11/2009 Original Notice to the Court and Motion to Allow Salvagni, MikeAdditional Time to Acquire Electronic MonitoringBracelet

1 42.000 05/11/2009 05/11/2009 Minute Entry * Hearing type: Omnibus Hearing Salvagni, MikeHearing date: 5/11/2009 Time: 9:00 am Courtreporter: Tami McNulty

1 43.000 05/11/2009 05/11/2009 Omnibus Hearing Order- Jury Trial is set for Salvagni, MikeOctober 19, 2009 at 9:00 am.

1 44.000 05/11/2009 05/11/2009 Original Amended Notice to the court Regarding Salvagni, MikeAnkle Monitoring Installation and Bond

45.000 05/13/2009 05/13/2009 Surety Bond Approved (Amount 25000.00 ) Salvagni, Mike

46.000 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 State's Just Notice, To Be Sealed Until Trial - Salvagni, MikeFILED IN SEALED & CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER

47.000 05/18/2009 05/15/2009 Discovery Receipt Salvagni, Mike

48.000 05/19/2009 05/18/2009 Copy of State's Letter to Olivia Norlin - re: Salvagni, Mikeadditional discovery

49.000 05/22/2009 05/21/2009 Additional Discovery Receipt Salvagni, Mike

50.000 06/02/2009 06/01/2009 Additional Discovery Receipt Salvagni, Mike

51.000 06/05/2009 06/05/2009 State's Motion for Discovery Salvagni, Mike

52.000 06/05/2009 06/05/2009 State's Motion for Court Order for Defendant's Salvagni, MikeDNA

53.000 06/08/2009 06/08/2009 Defendant's Amended Motion to Allow Defendant Salvagni, Miketo Travel (loose papers)

54.000 06/09/2009 06/08/2009 Order to Allow Defendant to Travel Salvagni, Mike

55.000 06/09/2009 06/08/2009 Order re: State's Motion for Discovery Salvagni, Mike

56.000 06/09/2009 06/08/2009 Order re DNA Salvagni, Mike

57.000 06/10/2009 06/10/2009 Defendant's Motion to Modify Defendant's Bond Salvagni, MikeConditions

58.000 06/12/2009 06/12/2009 Order Modifying Bond Conditions - see image Salvagni, Mike

59.000 06/18/2009 06/17/2009 Copy of State's Letter to Olivia Norlin - re Salvagni, MikeAdditional Discovery

60000 06/25/2009 06/24/2009 Copy of State's Letter to Olivia Norlin - re Salvagni, MikeDiscovery

61.000 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 Defendant's Motion to Extend Defense Notice Salvagni, MikeDeadlines

~: 4/20/2011

~: 09:37 AM

~ 4 of 13

( ltin County District CourtCase Register Report

DC-16-2009-0000033-IN

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

User: SERHARDT

Jister of Actions

~f. Doc. Seq. Entered Filed Text Judge

1 62.000 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 Order on Defendant's Motion to Extend Notice Salvagni, MikeDeadlines - now due 7/13/09

1 63.000 07/13/2009 07/13/2009 Defendant's Motion to Extend Defense Notice Salvagni, MikeDeadlines

1 64.000 07/13/2009 07/13/2009 Discovery Receipt Salvagni, Mike

1 65.000 07/13/2009 07/13/2009 Additional Discovery Receipt Salvagni, Mike

1 66.000 07/13/2009 07/13/2009 Order on Defendant's Motion to Extend Notice Salvagni, MikeDeadlines - see image

1 67.000 07/14/2009 07/14/2009 Copy of State's Letter to Regional Deputy Public Salvagni, MikeDefender re additional discovery

1 68.000 07/17/2009 07/16/2009 State's Praecipe to the Clerk to Issue 22 Salvagni, MikeSubpoenas

1 69.000 07/20/2009 07/20/2009 Defendant's Waiver of Speedy Trial Salvagni, Mike

1 70.000 07/20/2009 07/20/2009 Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial and Dates Salvagni, MikeAccompanying Trial Setting

1 71.000 07/21/2009 07/21/2009 Order Setting Status Hearing on Motion to Salvagni, MikeContinue Trial and Dates Accompanying TrialSetting - set for 8/10/09 @ 9:00 a.m.

72.000 07/22/2009 07/22/2009 Additional Discovery Receipt Salvagni, Mike

73.000 07/23/2009 07/23/2009 Defendant's Motion for Vision Net Appearance at Salvagni, MikeHearing on Motion to Continue Trial and DatesAccompanying Trial Setting

74.000 07/28/2009 07/28/2009 Copy of State's Letter to Olivia Norlin - re Salvagni, Mikeadditional discovery (loose paper)

75.000 07/28/2009 07/28/2009 State's Motion to Endorse Additional Witnesses Salvagni, Mike(loose paper)

76.000 07/30/2009 07/30/2009 Order Allowing Vision Net Appearance to Hearing Salvagni, Mikeon Motion to Continue Trial and DatesAccompanying Trial Setting (8/10/09 at 9:00am)

77.000 07/30/2009 07/30/2009 Order re Additional Witnesses Salvagni, Mike

78.000 08/03/2009 07/31/2009 Order Resetting Hearing Time Salvagni, Mike

79.000 08/05/2009 08/04/2009 Defendant's Motion to Vacate Currently Set Salvagni, MikeMotions Deadline

80.000 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 Defendant's Motion to File Defendant's Motion to Salvagni, MikeCompel Discovery and Supporting Exhibits UnderSeal (loose paper)

81.000 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 Order Vacating Currently Scheduled Motions Salvagni, MikeDeadline (loose paper)

82.000 08/07/2009 08/07/2009 Order re Motion to File Under Seal Salvagni, Mike

83000 08/07/2009 08/07/2009 Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery of Salvagni, MikeWitness Criminal History Information - FILED INSEALED & CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER

84.000 08/07/2009 08/07/2009 Defendant's Brief in Support of Motion to Compel Salvagni, MikeDiscovery of Witness Cnminal History - FILED INSEALED & CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER

=: 4/20/2011 G ltin County District Court User: SERHARDT=: 09:37 AM Case Register Report

=5 of 13 DC-16-2009-0000033-IN

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

~ister of Actions

~f Doc. Seq. Entered Filed Text Judge

1 85.000 08/10/2009 08/10/2009 Minute Entry Hearing type: Status Hearing Salvagni, MikeHearing date: 8/10/2009 Time: 11 :00 am Courtreporter: Tami McNulty

1 86.000 08/11/2009 08/10/2009 Additional Discovery Receipt Salvagni, Mike

1 87.000 09/01/2009 08/31/2009 Defendant's Motion and Brief to Dismiss for Lack Salvagni, Mikeof Probable Cause

1 88.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Copy of State's Letter to Olivia Norlin - re: Salvagni, Mikeadditional discovery

1 89.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Andy Knight Salvagni, Mike

1 90.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Lisa Young Salvagni, Mike

1 91.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Matthew Colbeth Salvagni, Mike

1 92.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Eric Anderson Salvagni, Mike

1 93.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Jeff Burris Salvagni, Mike

1 94.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Erin Leresch Salvagni, Mike

1 95.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Jessica Green Salvagni, Mike

1 96.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Amanda Sievers Salvagni, Mike

1 97.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Walter Kemp Salvagni, Mike

1 98.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Karen Hansen Salvagni, Mike

1 99.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Robin Beckley Salvagni, Mike

1 100.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Cassandra Salvagni, MikeHaywood-Sobczynski

101.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Ulrike Magdalenski Salvagni, Mike

102.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Jeffrey Rattey Salvagni, Mike

103.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Travis Munter Salvagni, Mike

104.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Gayle Frandsen Salvagni, Mike

105.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Marcus Giese Salvagni, Mike

106.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Ashley Cranston Salvagni, Mike

107.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Tom Weightman Salvagni, Mike

108000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Charley Gappmayer Salvagni, Mike

109.000 09/02/2009 09/0112009 Subpoena Returned - Holly Helstrom Salvagni, Mike

110.000 09/02/2009 09/01/2009 Subpoena Returned - Douglas Elson Salvagni, Mike

111.000 09/04/2009 09/04/2009 State's Response to Defendant's Motion to Salvagni, MikeDismiss

112.000 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Reply Brief in Support Salvagni, Mikeof Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause

113000 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 Additional Discovery Receipt Salvagni, Mike

114.000 09/16/2009 09/16/2009 Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Salvagni, MikeDismiss for Lack of Probable Cause

115000 09/25/2009 09/25/2009 State's Praecipe to Issue SUbpoenas - (50) Salvagni, Mikesubpoenas issued

116.000 09/30/2009 09/30/2009 Defendant's Motion to Suppress Defendant's Salvagni, MikeJanuary 11, 2008 Statements to Police (loosepaper)

::: 4/20/2011

::: 09:37 AM

=6 of 13

G Itin County District CourtCase Register Report

DC-16-2009-0000033-1N

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

User: SERHARDT

~ister of Actions

~f Doc. Seq. Entered Filed Text Judge

1 117.000 09/30/2009 09/30/2009 Defendant's Brief in Support of Motion to Salvagni, MikeSuppress Defendant's January 11, 2008Statements to Police (loose paper)

1 118.000 09/30/2009 09/30/2009 Defendant's Appendix to Defendant's Motion to Salvagni, MikeSuppress Defendant's January 11, 2008Statements to Police (loose paper)

1 119.000 09/30/2009 09/30/2009 Defendant's Motion to File Defendant's Salvagni, MikeObjections to the State's Just Notice andSupporting Appendix Under Seal

1 120.000 09/30/2009 09/30/2009 Defendant's Objections to The State's Just Notice Salvagni, Mike- FILED IN SEALED & CONFIDENTIALFOLDER

1 121.000 09/30/2009 09/30/2009 Defendant's Appendix to Defendant's Objections Salvagni, Miketo The State's Just Notice - FILED IN SEALED &CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER

1 122.000 09/30/2009 09/30/2009 Subpoena Returned - Melissa Scherman - Salvagni, MikeUNSERVED (loose paper)

123.000 09/30/2009 09/30/2009 State's Praecipe to issue SUbpoena - (1) issued Salvagni, Mike(loose paper)

124.000 10/02/2009 10101/2009 Subpoena and Return - James Hutchinson (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

125.000 10102/2009 10101/2009 Subpoena and Return - Dr Walter Kemp (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

126.000 10/02/2009 10/01/2009 Subpoena and Return - Elizabeth Smalley (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

127.000 10107/2009 10/06/2009 Subpoena Returned - Jessica Green (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

128.000 10/07/2009 10106/2009 Subpoena Returned - Howard Iron-Leggings Salvagni, Mike(loose paper)

129.000 10/07/2009 10/06/2009 Subpoena Returned - David Sievers (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

130.000 10/07/2009 10106/2009 Subpoena Returned - Matthew Colbeth (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

131.000 10107/2009 10/06/2009 Subpoena Returned - Lorae (Larae) Ulrich (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

132000 10/07/2009 10/06/2009 Subpoena Returned - Jeff Burris (loose paper) Salvagni, Mike

133.000 10107/2009 10/06/2009 Subpoena Returned - Kari Harpster Salvagni, Mike

134.000 10/07/2009 10/06/2009 Subpoena Returned - Robert Harpster (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

135.000 10/07/2009 10/06/2009 Subpoena Returned - Laura Moser (loose paper) Salvagni, Mike

136.000 10/07/2009 10/06/2009 Subpoena Returned - Lisa Young (loose paper) Salvagni, Mike

137.000 10/07/2009 10/06/2009 Subpoena Returned - Wally Peter (loose paper) Salvagni, Mike

138.000 10107/2009 1010612009 Subpoena Returned - Sara Hansen (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

139.000 10107/2009 10/06/2009 Subpoena Returned - Scott Schleuter (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

: 4/20/2011 G Itin County District Court User SERHARDT

': 09:37 AM Case Register Report

! 7 of 13 DC-16-2009-0000033-IN

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

lister of Actions

{ Doc. Seq. Entered Filed Text Judge

1 140.000 10/08/2009 10/07/2009 Subpoena Returned - Eric Anderson (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

141.000 10/08/2009 10/07/2009 SUbpoena Returned - Brett Hoagland (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

142.000 10/08/2009 10/08/2009 State's Praecipe to re-issue subpoena - (1) Salvagni, Mikeissued (loose paper)

143.000 10/08/2009 10/08/2009 Subpoena Returned - Erin Leresche (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

144.000 10/09/2009 10/09/2009 Order on Motion to File Under Seal - see image Salvagni, Mike(loose paper)

145.000 10/13/2009 10/13/2009 State's SUbpoena w/return - Melissa Scherman Salvagni, Mike(loose paper)

146.000 10/13/2009 10/13/2009 State's SUbpoena w/return - Dr. Karen Hansen- Salvagni, Mike(Loose paper)

147.000 10/13/2009 10/13/2009 State's SUbpoena w/return - Terry DalPiaz (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

148.000 10/13/2009 10/13/2009 State's Subpoena w/return - Maria Botsford (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

149.000 10/13/2009 10/13/2009 State's SUbpoena w/return - Robin Beckley (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

150.000 10/16/2009 10/15/2009 Subpoena Returned to Michael Hagenlock served Salvagni, Mike10/02/09 (loose papers)

151.000 10/16/2009 10/15/2009 Subpoena Returned to Kelly Gibson NOT Salvagni, MikeSERVED (loose papers)

152000 10/16/2009 10/16/2009 Copy of County Attorney's Letter to Olivia Norlin Salvagni, MikeRE: Additional Discovery (loose papers)

153.000 10/16/2009 10/16/2009 State's Response to Defendant's Motion to Salvagni, MikeSuppress Statement (loose papers)

154.000 10/19/2009 10/19/2009 Subpoena Returned - Erin Leresch (loose paper) Salvagni, Mike

155.000 10/21/2009 10/21/2009 Subpoena Returned - Gayle Frandsen (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

156.000 10/21/2009 10/21/2009 Subpoena Returned - Matthew Moog (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

157.000 10/21/2009 10/21/2009 Subpoena Returned - Douglas Elson (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

158000 10/21/2009 10/21/2009 Subpoena Returned - Sheila Idzerda (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

159.000 10/26/2009 10/23/2009 Subpoena w/return re Tom Weightman (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

160.000 10/26/2009 10/23/2009 Subpoena w/return re Mike Chestnut (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

161.000 10/26/2009 10/23/2009 Subpoena w/return re Charley Gappmayer (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

162.000 10/26/2009 10/23/2009 Subpoena w/return re Travos Munter (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

163000 10/26/2009 10/23/2009 Subpoena w/return re Andy Knight (loose paper) Salvagni, Mike

~: 4/20/2011~: 09:37 AM

=8 of 13

G !tin County District CourtCase Register Report

DC-16-2009-0000033-IN

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

User: SERHARDT

Jister of Actions

~f. Doc. Seq. Entered Filed Text Judge

1 164.000 10/26/2009 10/23/2009 Subpoena w/return re Marcus Giese (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

1 165.000 10/26/2009 10/23/2009 SUbpoena w/return re Ashley Cranston (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

1 166.000 11/02/2009 10/30/2009 State's Response to Defendant's Objection to Salvagni, MikeJust Notice (loose paper)

1 167.000 11/02/2009 11/02/2009 State's Amended Justice Notice - FILED IN Salvagni, MikeSEALED & CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER

1 168.000 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 Defendant's Motion to Extend Reply Brief Salvagni, MikeDeadlines (loose paper)

1 169.000 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Amend Bond Salvagni, MikeConditions to Permit Contact with MatthewColbeth (loose paper)

1 170.000 11/10/2009 11/09/2009 Order on Defendant's Motion to Amend Bond Salvagni, MikeConditions to Permit Contact with MatthewColbeth - granted, see image

1 171.000 11/12/2009 11/10/2009 Order on Defendant's Motion to Extend Reply Salvagni, MikeBrief Deadlines - GRANTED, due by 11/27/09 at5:00 p.m.

1 172.000 11/19/2009 11/18/2009 Subpoena and Return - Dr. Ned Tranel (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

173.000 11/30/2009 11/27/2009 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Reply Brief in Support Salvagni, Mikeof Motion to Suppress (loose paper)

1 174.000 11/30/2009 11/27/2009 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Reply Brief Objecting Salvagni, Miketo the State's Just Notice (loose paper) - FILEDIN SEALED & CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER

175.000 11/30/2009 11/27/2009 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Motion to Strike Salvagni, MikeState's Amended Just Notice as Untimely; andSupporting Brief - FILED IN SEALED &CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER (loose paper)

176.000 11/30/2009 11/30/2009 Defendant's Reply Brief Objecting to the State's Salvagni, MikeJust Notice - FILED IN SEALED &CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER (loose paper)

177000 11/30/2009 11/30/2009 Defendant's Motion to Strike State's Amended Salvagni, MikeJust Notice as Untimely; and Supporting Brief -FILED IN SEALED & CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER(loose paper)

178.000 12/03/2009 12/03/2009 Defendant's Motion to Continue Motions Hearing Salvagni, Mikeand Setting a Scheduling Hearing (loose paper)

179.000 12/03/2009 12/03/2009 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Amend Bond Salvagni, MikeConditions to Permit Defendant to Reside at theHome of Her Parents (loose paper)

180.000 12/03/2009 12/03/2009 Decision and Order - Defendant's Motion to Salvagni, MikeDismiss for Lack of Probable Cause is DENIED

,. 4/20/2011 G Atin County District Court User: SERHARDT

!: 09:37 AM Case Register Report

~ 9 of 13 DC-16-2009-0000033-1N

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

,ister of Actions

!f. Doc. Seq. Entered Filed Text JUdge

1 181.000 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 Order on Defendant's Motion to Amend Bond Salvagni, MikeConditions to Permit Defendant to Reside withParents

1 182.000 12/07/2009 12/07/2009 Copy of State's Letter to PDO - re: additional Salvagni, Mikediscovery

1 183.000 12/10/2009 12/10/2009 Order - Scheduling Hearing GRANTED, set for Salvagni, Mike2/8/10 @9:00 a.m. Motions Hearing 12/16/09 isVACATED

184.000 12/10/2009 12/10/2009 State's Response to Defendant's Motion to Strike Salvagni, MikeAmended Just Notice - FILED IN SEALED &CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER

185.000 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 Defendant's Notice of Witnesses and Exhibits Salvagni, Mike

186.000 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 Defendant's Notice of Expert Witnesses Salvagni, Mike

187.000 12/29/2009 12/29/2009 Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Salvagni, MikeStrike State's Amended Just Notice - FILED INSEALED &CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER

188.000 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 Subpoena Returned - Gary O'Brien Salvagni, Mike

189.000 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 SUbpoena Returned - Ray Johnson Salvagni, Mike

190.000 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 Subpoena Returned - Gary Clutter Salvagni, Mike

191.000 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 Subpoena Returned - Christopher Remely Salvagni, Mike

192.000 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 Subpoena Returned - Jeffrey Rattey Salvagni, Mike

193.000 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 SUbpoena Returned - Theodore John Goodwin Salvagni, Mike

194.000 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 Subpoena Returned - Holly Helstrom Salvagni, Mike

195.000 02/04/2010 02/04/2010 Defendant's Notice of New Authority Supporting Salvagni, MikeDefendant's Just Notice Objections - FILED INSEALED & CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER

196.000 02/05/2010 02/05/2010 Subpoena Returned-Lynn Kurtz Served Salvagni, Mike

197.000 02/10/2010 02/08/2010 Minute Entry * Hearing type: Omnibus Hearing Salvagni, MikeHearing date 2/8/2010 Time: 9:00 am Courtreporter Tami McNUlty

198.000 02/17/2010 02/12/2010 State's Praecipe to Clerk for Issuing SUbpoena - Salvagni, Mike(1) Issued to Andy Knight

199.000 02/23/2010 02/23/2010 Subpoena Returned-Andy Knight, Bozeman PO Salvagni, Mike

200000 02/26/2010 02/26/2010 State's Notice of Experts Salvagni, Mike

201.000 02/26/2010 02/26/2010 Copy of State's Letter to Chris Abbott Salvagni, Mike

202.000 03/02/2010 03/02/2010 Copy of State's Letter to PDO - reo additional Salvagni, Mikediscovery

203000 03/04/2010 03/03/2010 Additional Discovery Receipt Salvagni, Mike

204.000 03/05/2010 03/05/2010 Unopposed Motion to Modify Bono Conditions to Salvagni, MikePermit Travel

205.000 03/08/2010 03/05/2010 State's Praecipe to Issue (1) SUbpoena (loose Salvagni, Mikepaper)

~: 4/20/2011

~: 09:37 AM

~100f13

G ltin County District CourtCase Register Report

DC-16-2009-0000033-IN

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

User SERHARDT

Jister of Actions

~f. Doc. Seq. Entered Filed Text

1 206.000 03/08/2010 03/05/2010 State's Motion to Quash Subpoenas (loosepaper)

1 207.000 03/08/2010 03/05/2010 State's 2nd Motion to Endorse AdditionalWitnesses (loose paper)

1 208.000 03/08/2010 03/08/2010 Minute Entry Hearing type: Omnibus HearingHearing date: 3/8/2010 Time: 9:00 am Courtreporter: Tami McNulty

1 209.000 03/08/2010 03/08/2010 Order on Motion to Modify bond Conditions

judge

Salvagni, Mike

Salvagni, Mike

Salvagni, Mike

Salvagni, Mike

1 210.000 03/08/2010 03/08/2010 State's Proposed Findings of Fact and Salvagni, MikeConclusions of Law RE: Suppression ofStatement

211.000 03/09/2010 03/08/2010 Order Quashing SUbpoenas - Christopher Remel~ Salvagni, Mike

1 212.000 03/09/2010 03/08/2010 Order - State permitted to endorse expert witness Salvagni, Mike

1 213.000 03/09/2010 03/08/2010 Fax Filing: Defendant's Proposed Findings of Salvagni, MikeFact, Concluions of Law, and Order on Motion toSuppress

1 214.000 03/09/2010 03/09/2010 State's Proposed Order - RE: Just Notice- Salvagni, MikeFILED IN SEALED & CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER

1 215.000 03/10/2010 03/10/2010 Defendant's Porposed Findings of Fact, Salvagni, MikeConclusions of Law, and Order on Motion toSuppress (loose paper)

1 216.000 03/12/2010 03/11/2010 Minute Entry Hearing type: Pretrial Motions Salvagni, MikeHearing date: 3/11/2010 Time: 1:30 pm Courtreporter: Tami McNulty

217.000 03/12/2010 03/11/2010 Record of Exhibits Salvagni, Mike

1 218.000 03/12/2010 03/11/2010 Stipulations for Hearing (Admitted as an Exhibit; Salvagni, Mikehowever, as per Oral Order filed in the Court fileas a Document - DO NOT PURGE)

219000 03/19/2010 03/19/2010 Copy of State's Letter to Christopher Abbott - re Salvagni, Mikeadditional Discovery (loose paper)

1 220000 03/26/2010 03/25/2010 Additional Discovery Receipt (loose paper) Salvagni, Mike

1 221000 03/30/2010 03/30/2010 State's Praecipe to Issue SUbpoena - (1) issued Salvagni, Mike(loose paper)

222000 03/31/2010 03/30/2010 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Salvagni, Mikere: Defendant's Motion to Suppress

1 223.000 03/31/2010 03/31/2010 Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Salvagni, MikeEvidence of V. A.c. 's Funeral Arrangements; andSupporting Brief

224.000 03/31/2010 03/31/2010 Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Autopsy Salvagni, MikePhotographs and Powerpoint Pertaining to RibFractures; and Supporting Brief

4/20/2011 G !tin County District Court User: SERHARDT09:37 AM Case Register Report

! 11 of 13 DC-16-2009-0000033-IN

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

lister of Actions

f. Doc. Seq. Entered Filed Text judge

225.000 03/31/2010 03/31/2010 Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Salvagni, MikeEvidence Pertaining to Dr. Thomas Bennett; andSupporting Brief

226.000 03/31/2010 03/31/2010 State's Proposed List of Witnesses (loose paper) Salvagni, Mike

227.000 04/01/2010 04/01/2010 Defendant's Praecipe to Issue SUbpoenas - (5) Salvagni, Mikeissued (loose paper)

228.000 04/02/2010 04/01/2010 Order for Jury Panel-Trial is set for April 19, 2010 Salvagni, Mike

229.000 04/02/2010 04/02/2010 Minute Entry- Seating Order Salvagni, Mike

230.000 04/02/2010 04/02/2010 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion to Salvagni, MikeStrike Amended Just Notice and Objections toState's Just Notice - Filed Under Seal - SEEIMAGE

231.000 04/09/2010 04/09/2010 State's Motion to Dismiss (loose paper) - Filed Salvagni, MikeUnder Seal

232.000 04/09/2010 04/09/2010 Minute Entry Hearing type: Final Pre-Trial Salvagni, MikeConference Hearing date: 4/9/2010 Time: 1:30pm Court reporter: Tami McNulty

233.000 04/09/2010 04/09/2010 Copy of State's Motion to Dismiss Salvagni, Mike

234.000 04/09/2010 04/09/2010 Order Denying the State's Motion to Dismiss Salvagni, Mike

235.000 04/12/2010 04/12/2010 State's Withdrawal of Motion to Dismiss Salvagni, Mike

236.000 04/13/2010 04/13/2010 Order Setting Final Pre-Trial Conference - Set for Salvagni, MikeThursday, 4/15/10 @ 2:00 p.m SEE IMAGE

237.000 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 Plaintiff's Request for Production of Transcripts Salvagni, Mike(loose paper)

238.000 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal (loose paper) Salvagni, Mike

239.000 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 Minute Entry Hearing type Final Pre-Trial Salvagni, MikeConference Hearing date 4/15/2010 Time 200pm Court reporter: Tami McNUlty

240.000 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 Order Vacating Final Pre-Trial Conference and Salvagni, MikeVacating Jury Trial - previously set for April 15,2010 and April 19, 2010 respectively

241.000 04/19/2010 04/19/2010 Supreme Court's Notice of Filing - State's Appeal Salvagni, Miketo MT Supreme Court

242.000 05/19/2010 05/19/2010 Supreme Court's Transfer Receipt- files received Salvagni, Mike

243000 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Salvagni, MikeAmend Bond Conditions

244.000 06/16/2010 06/15/2010 Order on Unopposed Motion to Amend Bond Salvagni, MikeConditions

" 4/20/2011 G Itin County District Court User SERHARDT

~: 09:37 AM Case Register Report

~ 12 of 13 DC-16-2009-0000033-IN

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

lister of Actions

{ Doc. Seq. Entered Filed Text judge

1 245.000 06/16/2010 06/15/2010 Copy of (State) Appellant's Motion to Dismiss and Salvagni, MikeNotice to the Court

1 246.000 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 Emailed Copy of Supreme Court's Order - Salvagni, MikeDismissing appeal

1 247.000 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Amend Bond Salvagni, MikeConditions

1 248.000 07/07/2010 07/06/2010 Emailed Notice from Supreme Court Salvagni, Mike

1 249.000 08/20/2010 08/20/2010 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Salvagni, MikeAmend Bond Conditions

1 250.000 08/23/2010 08/23/2010 Order on Unopposed Motion to Amend Bond Salvagni, MikeConditions

251.000 08/24/2010 08/24/2010 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Amend Bond Salvagni, MikeConditions

252.000 10/29/2010 10/29/2010 Defendant's Motion to Amend Bond Conditions to Salvagni, MikeRemove GPS Monitoring; and Supporting Brief

253.000 11/04/2010 11/03/2010 Order - Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Amend Salvagni, MikeBond Conditions set for 11/15/10 @ 9:00 a.m.

254.000 11/15/2010 11/15/2010 State's Motion to Permit Witness Testimony by Salvagni, MikeVison Net

255.000 11/15/2010 11/15/2010 Order on Defendant's Motion to Permit Witness Salvagni, Miketo Testify by Vision Net

256.000 11/15/2010 11/15/2010 Minute Entry Hearing type: Bond Conditions Salvagni, MikeHearing date: 11/15/2010 Time: 9:00 am Courtreporter Tami McNulty

257.000 11/15/2010 11/15/2010 Amended Conditional Release Order Salvagni, Mike

258.000 11/16/2010 11/16/2010 Order on Defendant's Motion to Amend Bond Salvagni, MikeConditions to Remove GPS Monitoring - Seeimage, Defendant no longer subject tocontinuous GPS monitoring

259.000 11/18/2010 11/18/2010 Defendant's Notice of Substitution of Co-Counsel Salvagni, Mike- Edmund F. Sheehy Jr now co-counsel

260.000 01/24/2011 01/24/2011 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Amend Bond Salvagni, Mikeconditions to Permit Defendant to No LongerReside with Parents

261000 01/24/2011 01/24/2011 Order on Defendant's Motion to Amend Bond Salvagni, Mikeconditions to Permit Defendant to No LongerReside with Parents

262.000 02/10/2011 02/10/2011 Order Setting Hearing - status conference set for Salvagni, Mike2/18/11 @930am

263000 02/17/2011 02/17/2011 Faxed Copy of Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Salvagni, MikePermit Telephone Appearance

264.000 02/17/2011 02/17/2011 Order on Defendant's Motion to Appear by Salvagni, MikeTelephone - GRANTED

265000 02/18/2011 02/18/2011 Minute Entry Hearing type: Status Hearing date: Salvagni, Mike2/18/2011 Time 930 am Court reporter: TamiMcNulty

266.000 02/18/2011 02/18/2011 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Permit Salvagni, MikeTplpnhnnp Annp;::lr;:lnr.p {Innc::p n:::lnor\

: 4/20/2011

': 09:37 AM

~ 13 of 13

lister of Actions

{ Doc. Seq. Entered

1 267.000 02/24/2011

G ltin County District CourtCase Register Report

DC-16-2009-0000033-1N

State of Montana vs. Shanara Anderson

Filed Text

02/24/2011 Supplemental Omnibus Hearing Order - JuryTrial set for 8115111 @ 9:30 a. m.

User: SERHARDT

Judge

Salvagni, Mike

Exhibit B

Montana Supreme Court - Do"tret Search Page 1 of 1

FAOs Instructions

State of MontanaOffice of the Clerk of the Supreme Court

ED SMITHCLERK

PUBUC VIEW DOCKET

Case InformationCase Number: DA 10-D186Jurisdiction: Supreme CourtOriginal Court: Gallatin County District CourtCase Type: Direct Appeal - Homicide-Deliberate

Short Title: State v. Shanara AndersonFull Title: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant. v. SHANARA ANDERSON. Defendant and Appellee.Citation: -Case Filing Date: 04/14/2010

Origination Court Case Number: DC 09-33AX

Hide Party InformationCurrently Selected Parties

Appellate Role Party Name Comment Attorney(s)

Appellee

Appellant

Register of Action

Shanara Anderson

State of Montana

Joslyn M. Hunt

Mark W. Mattioli, SteveBullock

Document Description

Event - Case Closed

Record - DC Record Returned to District Court

Order - Final Disposition: Dismiss - the State's appeal is dismissed.

Motion - Unopposed - Dismiss - Appellant's/Petitioner's. copies to Court.

Notice - Outgoing - District Court Record Filed

Record - 3 red files. 2 sealed manilla envelopes; Original condensed Transcriptdated 3/11/10 with DVD

Notice - Incoming - Appearance (Appellate Defender Office)

Notice - Outgoing - Appeal Notice

Notice - Incoming - Notice of Appeal Filed

FilingDate

07/01/2010

07/01/2010

06/15/2010

06/14/2010

05/18/2010

05/17/2010

04/23/2010

04/19/2010

04/14/2010

Document

Document

Document

Document

[)ocument

DocuI'wnt

DOC;_!lliellt

DOCUIi;Cllt

Exhibit C

Montana Supreme Court - Dor1ret Search Page 1 of 1

FAOs Instructions

State of MontanaOffice of the Clerk of the Supreme Court

ED SMITHCLERK

PUBUC VIEW DOCKET

Case InformationCase Number: OP 10-0235Jurisdiction: Supreme CourtOriginal Court: Gallatin County District CourtCase Type: Original Proceeding - Supervisory ControlShort Title: Anderson v. Eighteenth Judicial District, et alFull Title: SHANARA ROSE ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. MONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, GALLATIN COUNTY, THEHONORABLE MIKE SALVAGNI, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondent.

Citation: -Case Filing Date: 05/14/2010

Origination Court Case Number: DC 09-33AX

't! Display Party Information

Register of Action

Document Description

Event - Case Closed

Order - Final Disposition: Deny; the petition for writ of supervisory control isDENIED and DISMISSED as moot.

Request for Order to File Reply Memorandum. (held for objection)

Event - Original Proceeding Sent to Court

Response/Objection - Petition for Writ (A.G.)

Order - Respondent District Court and/or counsel for State are granted 20 days torespond to the petition for writ of supervisory control.

Notice - Outgoing - Original Proceeding Filed

Petition - Writ - SuperviSOry Control; Atl copies to Court

FilingDate

07/22/2010

07/06/2010

06/18/2010

06/15/2010

06/14/2010

OS/25/2010

05/17/2010

05/14/2010

Document

Document

Document

Document

Docurnent

Document

Exhibit D

Montana Supreme Court - DOf'I'et Search Page 1 of2

FAOs Instructions

State of MontanaOffice of the Clerk of the Supreme Court

ED SMITHCLERK

PUBLIC VIEW DOCKET

Case InformationCase Number: OP 10-0288Ju risdiction: Supreme CourtOriginal Court: Gallatin County District CourtCase Type: Original Proceeding - Supervisory ControlShort Title: State v. 18th Judicial DistrictFull Title: STATE OF MONTANA, Petitioner, v. MONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, GALLATIN COUNTY, THE HONORA8LE MIKESAlVAGNI, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondent.Citation: 2010 MT 263Case Filing Date: 06/18/2010

Origination Court Case Number: DC 09-33AX

,;;.,; Hide Party InformationCurrentlv Selected Parties

Appellate Role Party Name Comment Attorney(s)

Respondent

Petitioner

Register of Action

Shanara Anderson

State of Montana

Christopher David Abbott

Jonathan Mark Krauss,Tammy Plubell

Document Description

Notice - Outgoing - opinion release issued.

Event - Case Closed

Record - DC Record Returned to District Court

Order - Deny-Petition for Rehearing

Event - Sent to Court-Pleading (petition for rehearing; objection)

Response/Objection - Rehearing

Petition - Rehearing, (Holding for ObJection)

Opinion - Opinion and Order - the petition for wnt of supervisory control isGRANTED; the DC 4/2/10 decision and order is reversed; this case is REMANDED tothe DC for further proceedings.

Event - Original Proceeding Sent to Court

Response/Objection - Petition for Writ. copies to Court.

Order - Grant - ExtenSion of Time until Oct. 4, 2010, to file Response.

FilingDate

01/19/2011

01/18/2011

01/18/2011

01/18/2011

01/11/2011

01/11/2011

12/29/2010

12/14/2010

10/0S/2010

10/04/2010

09/13/2010

Document

Document

[)OCUlllent

Montana Supreme Court - Dor1ret Search

Motion - Unopposed - Extension of nme - File Response/Objection. sent to court.

Brief - Supplemental to Petition for a writ of Supervisory control.

Order - Grant - Extension of nme until August 19, 2010, to file Supplemental Brief.

Motion - Unopposed - Extension of nme - Brief (Petitioner) sent to Court.

Record - DC Record Filed (4 folders, 1 manilla env. exhibits)

09/09/2010 Document

08/19/2010 Document

08/06/2010 Document

08/03/2010 Document

07/29/2010 Document

Page 2 of2

Order - the State is granted 30 days to file supplemental briefing. Respondentsand/or Shanara Rose Anderson, are granted 30 days to respond to the State'spetition and supp. briefing. The Dist. Court record shall be transmitted to this Clerkof this Court.

Notice - Outgoing - Original Proceeding Filed

Petition - Writ - Supervisory Control. Unredacted Exhibits filed Under Seal. Notice ofRelated Cases. copies to Court.

07/06/2010

06/18/2010

06/18/2010

Document

Document

Document

Exhibit E

FILEDJuly 62010

'Ed Smitli

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANAClERK OF THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF MONTANA

No. OP 10-0288

JUL 0 6 ZOID

ORDER

))))))))))))

Petitioner,

Respondents.

v.

'Ea SmitfiCLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT

STATiO OF MONTANA

The State of Montana has filed herein a petition for writ of supervisory control in

MONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUDICIALDISTRICT COURT, GALLATINCOUNTY, and THE HONORABLEMIKE SALVAGNI, Presiding Judge,

STATE OF MONTANA,

relation to Cause No. DC-09-033AX, Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County.

The petition challenges a pre-trial ruling by the District Court which suppressed certain

categories ofevidence which the State intended to introduce at trial in the prosecution ofthe

deliberate homicide charge filed in that case.

The petition notes that the State is not challenging the District Court's suppression of

certain other evidence. The State argues that the suppressed evidence challenged by the

petition is admissible under the transaction rule, and that this Court should issue an order

correcting the District Court's mistake oflaw to permit introduction of the evidence.

We have reviewed the petition and agree that the District Court's evidentiary ruling is

a significant matter. However, we perceive that the issue of admissibility also inevitably

raises the questions of the scope and applicability of M. R. Evid. 404(b), as well as the

transaction rule. We thus believe it is necessary to order "more extensive briefing" pursuant

to M. R. App. P. 14(7)(b). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State is granted thirty (30) days to file

supplemental briefing addressing the scope and applicability ofM. R. Evid. 404(b) to any of

the evidence it has challenged by the petition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents and/or Shanara Rose Anderson, the

Defendant in the District Court proceeding, are granted thirty (30) days thereafter to respond

to the State's petition and supplemental briefing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the District Court record shall be transmitted to the

Clerk of this Court for use in this proceeding.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to the Respondent District Court,

Honorable Mike Salvagni, District Judge, presiding, counsel for Shanara Rose Anderson in

Gallatin County Cause No. DC-09-033AX, and the Office ofthe Montana Attorney General.lib

DATED this _(0_ day ofJuly, 2010.

-2

Exhibit F

MONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, GALLATIN COUNTY

STATE OF MONTANAPlaintiff,

WIIKIJ !JAJUEFJtllDefendant. l009 APR 27 Pfll12 23

__1__1 at AMI PM

Qi\DEFENDANT §#zWLPostbailof$ ~r:~

I PUTYBe released on hislher own recognizance.

Comply with all Court Orders.

Obey all laws.

Retrieve personal basic necessities on Iywith law enforcement escort.

Follow rules of probation.

WMve extrapJtion. b'frfc, l-" r~ I'r'o r / -*..~l}r-lv..... t/ h .. f'cJ~

Actively seek.employment, maintainemployment, or regularly attend school.

Report to Court Services-Pretrial Officeimmediately upon release from custody orthe soonest working day after the date ofthis Order and follow rules.Supervision assigned: I 2 3 ~ 4 . ,<' ../.f/i'('!r';''lId /YI(H/ltr"ju} (~6P.Jf"JfIt"tf/~Be subject to random testirrn. ;

Make all Court appearances.

o

}Joo

Enter any casinos.

Possess a fireann, destructive device, or

other dangerous weapon.

Operate a motor vehicle without a valid

driver's license or insurance.

Sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of any

personal property of the alleged victim.

Contact in any way the alleged victim(s)or witness(es) listed on the complaint or "

i~o'P}3tion, o~ an~ of the followi~:~ I(/'''''0" 4"J,£ lv 11ft ,,-rjj.,Except: _

(No contact means phone, mail, electronicmeans, 3rd party, threats or intimidation.Shall avoid the person in public)

Reappearance

o

o

R ME~:,:::~:~~:~: _'E".. , without written pennission of the Court

•..• • ', except to return to Montana for this case.

L··E...·...••··.·. 0 Use alcohol, nor enter any bar or area. .. whose primary function is to serve alcohol

A ~. :~':'g-a-I-d-ru-g-S-.--------

S 0

~E·

oR,D"E•. ","' .

:R.

DATED: /0fJ I :2 7 ,20t!L ~fLWrr'"J~--'--.:e..---<--- Distri\Jft-J-u-dg....~c-----------

ACKNOWLEDGMENTI have read this Order and understand that my failure to appear or comply with these conditions may result in: (I) in thecase of a misdemeanor, trial without me being present; (2) revocation and/or forfeiture of my bond; (3) prosecution ofcontempt charges and/or bail jumping; and/or (4) a warrant for my arrest. I further understand all the dates andhearings that have been set in my case.

COPIES TO:

DATED: :tin 20 ~1.

DATED: ~ ;;Z 7' 20~.

Exhibit G

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. ORIGINALFILED

May 14 2010

'Ea SmitFiCLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF MQN'TAN,o\

SHANARA ROSE ANDERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

FII-I.EDMAY 1 4 2010

'It,f- 5nu t IiMONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT C<atLm'E.; JH~S~PREME ef1~~TGALLATIN COUNTY, THE HONORABLE ---·Fft+r: ... I-. 0l'!TA,,!~

MIKE SALVAGNI, DISTRICT JUDGE,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL

APPEARANCES:

CHRISTOPHER D. ABBOTTAssistant Public DefenderMajor Crimes Unit139 N. Last Chance GulchP.O. Box 200145Helena, MT 59620-0145

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

STEVE BULLOCKMontana Attorney GeneralMARK MATTIOLIAssistant Attorney General215 North SandersP.O. Box 201401Helena, MT 59620-1401

MARTY LAMBERTGallatin County AttorneyTODD WHIPPLEDeputy County Attorney1709 W. CollegeBozeman, MT 59715

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

supervisory control is the only available means to avert a gross injustice to

Anderson.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Supervisory Control is Appropriate.

Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is separate and distinct

from this Court's appellate jurisdiction. Mont. Const. art. VII, § 2(2); Mont. R.

App. P. 14(1). The Court may invoke its authority to supervise a district court

when "urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process

inadequate," the question at issue is "purely legal," and the district court "is

proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice." Mont. R. App.

P. 14(3). The Court determines the propriety of supervisory control on a case-by­

case basis. Miller v. J8th Jud. Dist. Court, 2007 MT 149, ~ 16, 337 Mont. 488,

162 P.3d 121.

This Court has, however, previously held these criteria established, and

supervisory control appropriate, where a district court improperly denies a State's

motion to dismiss. State ex reI. Fletcher v. Dist. Court, 260 Mont. 410,414,859

P.2d 992, 994 (1993). Here, the district court's improper interference in the State's

discretion to dismiss the case in lieu of appeal has essentially left the State with no

choice but to reverse course and instead pursue an appellate remedy. But for the

district court's intervention, Anderson would no longer be facing a deliberate

5

homicide charge. Instead, however, she must now await the outcome ofan appeal

that the State previously decided not to take, before she will even know whether

she still has to stand trial. As in Fletcher, the district court's denial of the State's

motion risks gross injustice to Anderson. Because the State's appeal would never

have been made but for the denial of its motion to dismiss, this is an injustice that

cannot be adequately remedied by an appeal.

B. The Separation of Powers Doctrine Requires that the District CourtDefer to the State's Charging Decisions.

The Montana Constitution establishes a separation ofpowers among the

three branches of government:

The power of the government of this state is divided into three distinctbranches--legislative, executive, and judicial. No person or personscharged with the exercise ofpower properly belonging to one branchshall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others,except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.

Mont. Const. art. III, § 1. One power squarely committed to the executive branch

is the power and discretion to charge a person with a criminal offense. Fletcher,

260 Mont. at 415,859 P.2d at 995. Thus, the judiciary's authority to supervise the

charging decisions of a prosecutor is sharply limited. Moreover, judicial review of

the prosecutor's exercise of discretion is focused on the affirmative use of the

charging power rather than the failure to exercise that power. For instance, while a

district court reviews charges brought by a prosecutor for the existence of probable

6

authority allowing a district court to review the State's decision not to bring a case

before this Court, whether it be by appeal or petition for a writ. Nor is there any

authority that would permit a district court to require the State to explain itself.

The State is not required to explain why it did not seek a writ of supervisory

control. There are many legitimate considerations that might have played into that

consideration, and the State is not obligated to seek review of every decision with

which it disagrees. It might, for example, result from a belief that a writ of

supervisory control is not an appropriate means ofcircumventing § 46-20-103's

restrictions on state appeals. Moreover, seeking review by this Court carries costs,

not only to the taxpayers of Gallatin County and the State ofMontana, but also to

Anderson. The State indicated in its motion that to have a reasonable chance of

conviction it need not only seek review of the Just Notice ruling but also appeal the

suppression order. (See Ex. 2 at 4.) The appeal of the suppression issue, however,

necessarily vacated Anderson's trial date, forcing her to wait on restrictive bond

conditions until some unspecified time in the future--after transcripts have been

produced, briefs written, the question decided, and the case remanded--to stand

trial. Nevertheless, no matter what reason the State had, there is no requirement

that it disclose those reasons to the Court.

The State's remark that the district court's Just Notice decision was

"arguably inconsistent" with Guill does not change the analysis. Though the State

I I