State v. Benn
2012 MT 33
Mont.2012Background
- Benn was convicted by jury of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual assault in 2010 and sentenced to lengthy prison terms with a substantial parole ineligibility period and a restitution-related cost order.
- Benn died on July 26, 2011, prompting the State to move to dismiss/abate the appeal as moot or abate ab initio.
- The Supreme Court previously decided Holland (1998 MT 67) that a deceased defendant’s appeal abated, but Benn’s case prompted reconsideration.
- Benn’s counsel asked for substitution of Benn’s personal representative to continue the appeal, arguing against strict mootness.
- The Court analyzed whether abatement ab initio is appropriate, whether a personal representative can pursue the appeal, and whether issues remain live after death.
- Ultimately, the Court ruled that abatement ab initio is inappropriate and the appeal is moot and should be dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether death abates the criminal proceeding ab initio | State argues Holland controls; death abates entire case | Benn’s death requires reconsideration; proceed via representative | Abatement ab initio overruled; not appropriate in this context |
| Whether a deceased defendant’s personal representative may pursue the appeal | No provision for substitution; appeal moot | Representative may proceed if concrete, surviving interests exist | Proceeding may continue if a personal representative pursues concrete interests; otherwise moot |
| Whether Benn’s issues on conviction or trial counsel were mooted by death | Issues remain potentially reviewable | Issues are personal to Benn and become moot on death | Issues 1 and 2 are moot due to death; Issue 3 moot as to sentence; overall appeal dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holland, 1998 MT 67; 288 Mont. 164; 955 P.2d 1360 (Mont. 1998) (abates appeal upon death; policy questioned and later overruled here)
- Ex parte Estate of Cook, 848 So.2d 916 (Ala. 2002) (abatement ab initio explained)
- State v. Carlin, 249 P.3d 752 (Alaska 2011) (abiding concern for restitution and completion of proceedings)
- Surland v. State, 895 A.2d 1034 (Md. 2006) (preserves conviction validity concerns in mootness analysis)
- Korsen v. State, 111 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2005) (victim restitution and finality considerations in mootness)
- Wheat v. State, 907 So.2d 461 (Ala. 2005) (injury to victims and public policy against abating final judgments)
- Plan Helena, Inc. v. Helena Reg’l Airport Auth. Bd., 2010 MT 26; 355 Mont. 142; 226 P.3d 567 (Mont. 2010) (mootness and standing limitations in judicial review)