STATE v COOPER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12231 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A H OR F F OTN 1972 T E STATE OF MONTANA, H P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - W L E T O A COOPER, ATR HMS Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable M, James S o r t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Harrison, Loendorf and Poston, Helena, Montana. Jerome T. Loendorf argued, Helena, Montana. For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Jonathan B. Smith argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana. James A. McCann, County Attorney, argued, Wolf P o i n t , Montana. Submitted: September 25, 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Sene 3. Ualy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant, Walter Thomas Cooper, was c o n v i c t e d of t h e crime o f a s s a u l t i n t h e f i r s t degree i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e f i f t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Roosevelt County. Following t h e v e r d i c t of g u i l t y , t h e county a t t o r n e y f i l e d under s e c t i o n 94- $713, R.C.M. 1947, an i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g defendant w i t h p r i o r f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s t o seek i n c r e a s e d punishment beyond t h a t 1947, ( a s s a u l t i n t h e f i r s t p r e s c r i b e d by s e c t i o n 94-601, R.C.M. d e g r e e ) , of n o t l e s s t h a n f i v e y e a r s n o r more than twenty y e a r s . The p r o c e d u r a l p r o c e s s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 95-1506, R..C.M. 1947,Montana Code of Criminal Procedure, governing i n c r e a s e d punishment was followed. T h e r e a f t e r , defendant was sentenced under s e c t i o n 94-4713, R.C.M. 1947, t o an i n c r e a s e d term of t h i r t y years i n the s t a t e prison. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was appealed t o t h i s Court. The c o n v i c t i o n was a f f i r m e d . The i n c r e a s e d s e n t e n c e was s e t a s i d e and t h e c a u s e remanded t o Che d i s t r i c t c o u r c f o r f u r t h e r proceedings and s e n t e n c i n g . The r e c o r d d i d n o t c o n t a i n competent evidence t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i d e n t i t y of defendant a s t h e person a l l e g e d by t h e s t a t e t o have been c o n v i c t e d of p r i o r c r i m e s , s o a s t o permit t h e c o u r t t o proceed under s e c t i o n 94-4713, R.C.13. 1947. S t a t e v . Walter Thomas Cooper, 158 Mont. 102, 489 P.2d 99, 28 St.Rep. 835, On November 4 , 1 9 7 1 , a f t e r t h e c a u s e was r e t u r n e d t o t h e d i - s t r i c t c o u r t , t h e s t a t e a g a i n sought i n c r e a s e d punishment of d e f e n d a n t a s a p r i o r c o n v i c t e d f e l o n under s e c t i o n 94-4713, R.C.M. 1947. The s t a t e charged defendant by i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h two p r i o r c i l n v i c t i o n s (1) t h a t defendant was c o n v i c t e d d a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l a t Quincy, C a l i f o r n i a , on o r about January 25, 1965, and ( 2 ) t h a t defendant was c o n v i c t e d of grand l a r c e n y a t Sidney, Montana, on o r about November 1 5 , 1967. Following t h i s proceeding, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e s e n t e n c e d defendant t o t h i r t y y e a r s i n t h e Montana s t a t e p r i s o n . Defendant a p p e a l s from t h i s s e n t e n c e and p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review: I. Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g s t a t e ' s e x h i b i t "J" i n e v i d e n c e ? 2. bfi~ether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i.n a d m i t t i n g s t a t e ' s e x h i b i t "K" 3. i n evidence? Whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g by t h e c o u r t of a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n ? s t a t e ' s e x h i b i t "J" i s a l e t t e r t o t h e Roosevelt County A t t o r n e y from an i n v e s t i g a t o r f o r t h e s h e r i f f of P l u m s County, California. The l e t t e r was signed by Leonard Mosely, I n v e s t i g a - t o r , and was a l s o signed by Raynelle S l a t e n , Plumas County C l e r k and e x - o f f i c i o c l e r k of t h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t of t h a t county. l e t t e r was impressed w i t h t h e c l e r k ' s o f f i c i a l s e a l , The The s t a t e has a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e form of acknowledgment p r e s c r i b e d by t h e C a l i f o r n i a s t a t u t e s was n o t complete. E x h i b i t "J" s t a t e s t h a t t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r c e r t i f i e s t h a t t h e photographs a t t a c h e d t o t h e l e t t e r a r e t h o s e of Walter Thomas Cooper, who was found g u i l t y of v i o l a t i o n of S e c t i o n 245 of t h e C a l i f o r n i a Penal Code, a s s a u l t w i t h a d e a d l y weapon. When s t a t e ' s e x h i b i t "J" was o f f e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , defendant o b j e c t e d t h a t no a t t e m p t was made t o i d e n t i f y , a u t h e n t i c a t e o r prove i t and t h a t e x h i b i t "J" was merely h e a r s a y , b u t t h e c o u r t a d m i t t e d t h e e x h i b i t over t h e o b j e c t i o n . Defendant a r g u e s a g a i n i n t h i s a p p e a l t h a t s e c t i o n 94-7209, R.GM. 1947, p r o v i d e s t h e r u l e s of evidence i n c i v i l a c t i o n s a r e a l s o a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c r i m i n a l code r e g a r d i n g t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of s t a t e ' s e x h i b i t "J". Defendant a r g u e s t h a t Nontana law d i v i d e s w r i t i n g i n t o two k i n d s , p u b l i c and p r i v a t e . 3,C.M. the 1947. S e c t i o n s 93-1001-1, 1001-2,1001-3, He contends t h e s t a t e d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o comply w i t h law governing t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of e i t h e r type of w r i t i n g i n evidence. F u r t h e r , t h a t because none of t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r proving a w r i t i n g a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e above c i t e d s t a t u t e s were met, i t was e r r o r f o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o admit s t a t e ' s e x h i b i t "J" w i t h o u t any p r o o f . The second e x h i b i t o b j e c t e d t o by defendant i s s t a t e ' s e x h i b i t "K", which i s an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e c o r d maintained by t h e F e d e r a l Bureau of I n v e s t i g a t i o n . The s t a t e i n a t t e m p t i n g t o Lay a foundation f o r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o evidence of t h i s e x h i b i t , f i r s t c a l l e d Richard Lee, an FBI a g e n t , t o d e s c r i b e t h e p r o c e s s of o b t a i n i n g an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e c o r d . M. Lee r s t a t e d t h a t when a f i n g e r p r i n t c a r d i s forwarded t o t h e FBI i t i s compared t o t h e f i n g e r p r i n t c a r d s on f i l e and i f t h e f i n g e r p r i n t s forwarded match any of t h o s e on f i l e t h e n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e c o r d of t h e person whose p r i n t s were matched i.s r e t u r n e d t o t h e r e q u e s t i n g p a r t y . The r e c o r d r e v e a l s by way of testimony of t h e Roosevelt County Attorney and t h e Roosevelt County S h e r i f f t h a t n e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l knew who prepared t h e p a r t i c u l a r f i n g e r p r i n t c a r d t h a t was mailed t o t h e FBI, a l t h o u g h t h e Roosevelt County Attorney could t e s t i f y t h a t a f i n g e r p r i n t c a r d was forwarded t o t h e FBI. Defendant s t r o n g l y u r g e s t h a t no e v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e f i n g e r p r i n t s mailed t o t h e FBI a s t h o s e of d e f e n d a n t , Walter Thomas Cooper, Defendant s t a t e s t h a t no one was a b l e t o t e s t i f y a s t o whose f i n g e r p r i n t s were s e n t t o t h e ! % t h e County A t t o r n e y merely presumed they were ~ o o p e r ' s . and I , Defendant c i t e s De Gesualdo v . People, 147 Colo. 426, 364 P.2d 374, 86 kLR2d 1435, i n which t h e Colorado Supreme Court h e l d t h a t assumptions cannot be indulged i n t h i s s e n s i t i v e a r e a o f t h e law and p o i n t e d o u t t h a t i t s d e c i s i o n s c o n s i s t e n t l y r e q u i r e d s t r i c t proof. De Gesualdo i s a s i m i l a r c a s e i n which t h e defendant was charged wj-th having been c o n v i c t e d of f e l o n i e s on two p r i o r occasions, The o n l y evidence t o i d e n t i f y t h e defendant w i t h che person p r e v i o u s l y c o n v i c t e d was t h e testimony of an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n bureau e x p e r t who t e s t i f i e d from an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c a r d i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n a s t o h i s comparison of f i n g e r p r i n t s and t h e photograph on t h e c a r d w i t h f i n g e r p r i n t s on f i l e i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e l o c a l s h e r i f f . The c o u r t h e l d t h e evidence was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n charge because t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c a r d r e l i e d on a s a connecting l i n k was n o t i n t r o d u c e d i n e v i d e n c e , and no evidence was i n t r o d u c e d t o i d e n t i f y the f i n g e r p r i n t s i n the l o c a l s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e a s those of d e f e n d a n t . The s t a t e contends t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , i n a d o p t i n g t h e Montana Code of Criminal Procedure i n 1967, T i t l e 95, R.C.M, 1947, g r a n t e d i n s e c t i o n 95-1506 t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o t h e c o u r t a l o n e t o make t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e defendant t o be sentenced i-s g u i l t y of a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n a f t e r t h e i s s u e of g u i l t h a s It f u r t h e r contends t h e been decided i n a second p r o s e c u t i o n . s e n t e n c i n g procedure i s l e s s s t r i c t under t h e new Code, s e c t i o n s 95-2203 through 95-2205, R.C.M. 1947, which a l l o w s a c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r o u t s i d e r e p o r t s about t h e defendant when d e t e r m i n i n g h i s sentence. S e c t i o n 95-2206, R.C.M. 1947, i s o f f e r e d t o show t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s given wide d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e t y p e o f s e n t e n c e t o be imposed; and t h u s t h e s t a t e contends t h e r i g i d r u l e s of evidence r e q u i s i t e i n t h e t r i a l of t h e i s s u e of g u i l t should n o t be imposed on t h e c o u r t a t t h e p r e s e n t e n c e h e a r i n g . <-p 93 L ' e d The s t a t e c i t e s i n sup o r t Williams v. N w York, 337 U.S. e 69 S.Ct. 1079, 241, 2d 1337. The misconception demonstrated i n t h i s c a s e l i e s i n t h e assutnption t h a t t h e proceedings t o I' i n c r e a s e punishment" i s p a r t of t h e s e n t e n c i n g procedure; i t i s n o t and t h e s t a t u t e s The f a c t t h a t t h e judge under which we proceed a r e v e r y c l e a r . makes t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n under t h e new s e c t i o n 95-1506, R.C.M. II procedure" code, 1947, does n o t change t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e proceedings from t h e p r o c e d u r a l method p r i o r t o t h e new c~de when t h e m a t t e r was t r i e d t o t h e j u r y . When t h e s t a t e proceeds a g a i n s t a defendant and a l l e g e s a cri-me, i t must prove a l l t h e m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s by competent evidence a s r e q u i r e d by iaw beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt, and i f s u c c e s s f u l can impose t h e s e n t e n c e a s s i g n e d by s t a t u t e t o t h a t p a r t i c u l a r crime. I f the s t a t e e l e c t s t o allege further that Che defendant i s a p r i o r f e l o n and seeks an i n c r e a s e i n o r beyond t h a t s e n t e n c e a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e f o r c o n v i c t i o n of t h e p r i n d p a l c r i m e , t h e n t h e s t a t e must c a r r y t h e a d d i t i o n a l burden of proving t h e a l l e g a t i o n of t h e p r i o r o f f e n s e s i n t h e same manner a s t h e o t h e r m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s , r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , w i t h competent evidence. beyond a I f the s t a t e i s s u c c e s s f u l , t h e c o u r t i s then a u t h o r i z e d t o proceed under s e c t i o n 94-4713, R.C.M. 1947, and impose t h e i n c r e a s e d s e n t e n c e provided by t h a t s t a t u t e . A t t h i s p o i n t i n t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e s s when t h e t r i a l judge i s a u t h o r i z e d t o s e n t e n c e under s e c t i o n 94-4713, R.C.M. 1947, he h a s a l l of t h e l a t i t u d e provided by t h e s e n t e n c i n g s e c t i o n s 95-2203 through 95-2205, R.C.M. 1947, and may c o n s i d e r o u t s i d e r e p o r t s , p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , e t c e t e r a , t o inform t h e c o u r t a s t o t h e whole person a s s e t f o r t h p a r t i c u l a r l y i n s e c t i o n 95-2204, R.C.M. 1947. I n t h i s c a u s e t h e r e h a s been some comment concerning t h e e x h i b i t s t h a t were a d m i t t e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . W will e proceed t o examine t h o s e c e r t i f i e d t o us by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The o b j e c t i o n t o e x h i b i t "K", valid. t h e FBI "rap" sheer, i s The s t a t e m e n t by t h e s t a t e t h a t f i n g e r p r i n t evidence f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n h a s been accepted by t h i s and o t h e r c o u r t s a s proof of i d e n t i t y i s c o r r e c t . However, t h e f i n g e r p r i n t method of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e q u i r e s an i n c o u r t showing t h a t t h e f i n g e r p r i n t s r e l i e d upon f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a r e i d e n t i c a l t o t h e known p r i n t s of defendant. This i s b a s i c a l l y the holding i n De Gesualdo. W have exanlined e x h i b i t "J" and taken t o g e t h e r w i t h proper1.y e c e r t i f i e d documents from t h e same s o u r c e (1) e x h i b i t "F", tilinute e n t r y of arraignment and p l e a "E", of d e f e n d a n t ; ( 2 ) e x h i b i t r e p o r t of p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r s and judgment; (3) e x h i b i t " G " , o r d e r suspending e x e c u t i o n of s e n t e n c e ; and (4) e x h i b i t "I", r e l e a s e on p r o b a t i o n , we f i n d t h e same e x - o f f i c i o ' c l e r k of c o u r t Raynelle S l a t e n , c e r t i f i e d by t h e judge of t h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t a s b e i n g such, and t h e documents "F", "En, "G" and "I" being i n due form of law and p r a c t i c e of t h e s t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a , t o be t h e same person who signed and placed t h e a f f i x e d s e a l on e x h i b i t "3". That t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r f o r t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e made t h e a t t e s t i n g s t a t e m e n t r a t h e r than t h e e x - o f f i c i o c l e r k i s a claimed t e c h n i c a l e r r o r i n form. The b u s i n e s s r e c o r d k e p t by t h e s h e r i f f ' s department i s n o t a r e c o r d o r f i l e of t h e c l e r k ' s o f f i c e , a s were t h e accompanying e x h i b i t s . ~ e f e n d a n'ts o b j e c t i o n t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of e x h i b i t "J" was t h a t i t was merely h e a r s a y . I n s t r u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d i n c o u r t a r e a l l secondhand o r out of c o u r t a s s e r t i o n s , sworn o r n o t , and an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e h e a r s a y r u l e i s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e k i n d of document, i t s a u t h e n t i c i t y , t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of f r a u d b e i n g p r a c t i c e d on t h e c o u r t and whether o r n o t t h e genuineness of t h e o f f e r e d document h a s been c h a l l e n g e d . A u t h e n t i c i t y f o r a d m i s s i b i l i t y can be demonstrated by d i r e c t o r c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence and s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence f o r f o u n d a t i o n i s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l judge. A s discussed previously, the e x h i b i t s a l l being r e l a t e d and from t h e same s o u r c e and c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r , t h e y have t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n h e r e n t t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s s u f f i c i e n t t o move t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o g r a n t admission. From t h e s e documents, t h e t r i a l c o u r t had s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence upon which t o b a s e a f i n d i n g of commission and i d e n t i t y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o n v i c t i o n . W t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m t h i s f i n d i n g and based t h e r e o n , t h e e s e n t e n c e of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . We Concur: ................................ Associate Justices. Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison, deeming himself disqualified, took no part in this Opinion.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.