444 P.3d 1025
Mont.2019Background
- John Michael Crites was reported missing in June 2011; his dismembered remains were found later in 2011. No one has been charged with his murder.
- Connie Crites, as personal representative of the Estate, sought the County investigative file (CCJI) in 2018 to defend an ongoing civil suit and pursue a wrongful-death claim.
- The County refused, asserting release would jeopardize an active homicide investigation and provided an affidavit from Detective O’Malley describing a voluminous, active file.
- The Estate petitioned the district court under § 44-5-303(6), MCA and Article II, § 9 of the Montana Constitution for in camera review and limited disclosure; the district court denied the petition without in camera review, reasoning § 44-5-303(2) barred release when a prosecutor says disclosure would jeopardize prosecution.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court erred by denying the petition without conducting an in camera review and affirmed denial on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court must conduct in camera review before denying CCJI under § 44‑5‑303(6) | Estate: § 44‑5‑303(6) requires court to review and balance right to know vs. privacy; in camera review mandatory. | County: Prosecutor’s determination that disclosure would jeopardize an active investigation prevents release; district court need not review. | Court: § 44‑5‑303(6) does not automatically require in camera review; but court may always conduct one. Here denial affirmed because record showed disclosure would jeopardize active investigation. |
| Whether § 44‑5‑303(2) allows prosecutor to preclude court-ordered dissemination when prosecutor says disclosure would jeopardize investigation | Estate: N/A (challenging County refusal) | County: § 44‑5‑303(2) permits prosecutor to withhold CCJI from victims if it would jeopardize investigation. | Court: § 44‑5‑303(2) is an exception permitting prosecutors to disseminate to victims when they determine it won’t jeopardize investigation; it does not strip courts of authority to order dissemination. District court misinterpreted § 44‑5‑303(2), but result affirmed on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bozeman Daily Chronicle v. City of Bozeman, 859 P.2d 435 (Mont. 1993) (courts must balance public right to know and privacy; public exposure of ongoing investigations can harm law enforcement)
- Engrav v. Cragun, 769 P.2d 1224 (Mont. 1989) (public exposure of files relating to ongoing investigations would have disastrous effects on law enforcement)
- In re Lacy, 780 P.2d 186 (Mont. 1989) (judiciary must balance competing rights to determine disclosure)
- Nelson v. City of Billings, 412 P.3d 1058 (Mont. 2018) (Article II, § 9’s right to know is substantive but subject to balancing against other societal interests, including police power)
- Billings Gazette v. City of Billings, 313 P.3d 129 (Mont. 2013) (standard of review for district court conclusions of law)