City of Kalispell v. Gabbert
2014 MT 296
| Mont. | 2014Background
- Gabbert was charged in Kalispell Municipal Court with DUI, obstructing a peace officer, and driving while license suspended in June 2009.
- Gabbert pleaded not guilty; a public defender was appointed and release conditions were set, including personal appearance and weekly contact with counsel.
- The first trial date was set for September 16, 2009; pretrial motions deadline was August 14, 2009.
- Gabbert was required to wear a SCRAM bracelet; monitoring payments became delinquent, potentially triggering nonpayment consequences.
- A show-cause hearing was set for August 3, 2009 due to release-condition violations; Gabbert failed to appear, leading to an arrest warrant issued August 10, 2009.
- Gabbert’s trial was continued twice (to Oct. 21 and then Dec. 16, 2009) because a higher-priority case needed to be tried first; Gabbert was again ordered to appear personally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether six-month speedy-trial deadline was met or tolled. | Gabbert argues delay violated §46-13-401(2), MCA. | Gabbert argues City failed to show good cause; delay due to docket crowded and his noncompliance. | Delay supported by good cause due to Gabbert’s conduct; motion to dismiss denied. |
| Did Gabbert’s nonappearance justify delaying trial beyond six months? | City contends Gabbert’s failures caused delay. | Gabbert asserts City must bring him to trial; in absentia not required. | Gabbert’s repeated nonappearance and failure to maintain contact constituted good cause for postponement. |
| Was Gabbert entitled to trial in absentia under §46-16-122, MCA? | City opposed absentia; arrest warrant outstanding. | Gabbert argued for absentia to preserve speedy trial. | Not required; court appropriately declined absentia given failure to appear and warrant. |
| Was the later Ariegwe four-factor analysis applicable to 2012 delay? | State/district argued delay not unjust given Gabbert’s conduct. | Gabbert maintained he bore no duty to ensure prosecution; State must diligently prosecute. | Gabbert’s prolonged absence and knowledge of charges undermined timely prosecution; delay not a speedy-trial violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Zimmerman, 328 P.3d 1132 (Mont. 2014) (constitutional and statutory speedy-trial analysis applied; four-factor test guidance)
- State v. Luke, 321 P.3d 70 (Mont. 2014) (defendant’s duty and diligence in speedy-trial context; defendant’s obligations)
- City of Broadwater v. Broadwater, 329 P.3d 589 (Mont. 2014) (six-month deadline requires affirmative efforts to bring to trial; docket alone insufficient)
- State v. Ariegwe, 167 P.3d 815 (Mont. 2007) (four-factor Ariegwe test modeled on Barker balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (knowledge of pending charges affects Barker-type speedy-trial considerations)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor balancing test for speedy-trial violations)