STATE v BEAUDETTE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 13039 I N THE SUPREME C U T (IF THE STATE OF M N A A OR OTN 1976 THE STATE O M N A A F OTN, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - BRYON PAUL BEAUDETTE, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Perry 3 . Moore argued and Robert J o Rice appeared, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John F. North, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Decided: October 14, 1976 NO\/261976 Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a j u r y v e r d i c t e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County. On December 31, 1974, two men robbed t h e Oakes Bar i n Bozeman, Montana. The men wore s t o c k i n g c a p s and s k i masks throughout t h e robbery. The t a l l e r of t h e two men w i t h a gun i n h i s l e f t hand c o n t r o l l e d t h e r o b b e r y , w h i l e t h e o t h e r man remained n e a r t h e back of t h e b a r i n t h e shadows, a l s o armed w i t h a gun. The s h o r t e r man was r e f e r r e d t o a s "Michael" by t h e t a l l e r man. The owner d e s c r i b e d t h e t a l l e r man a s 5 ' 1 0 " t o 6 ' t a l l , 185-220 l b s , brown, s h o u l d e r l e n g t h h a i r , wearing g l a s s e s , a b l u e o r g r e e n down j a c k e t , and a s t o c k i n g c a p . The two men l e f t through t h e r e a r door a f t e r t h e robbery. A t a b o u t t h i s t i m e a man o u t s i d e t h e Oakes Bar o b s e r v e d two men, one c a r r y i n g a gun, r u n o u t t h e r e a r d o o r of t h e Oakes Bar and e n t e r a brown GM t y p e c a r w i t h a w h i t e t o p , having no rear license plate. T h i s w i t n e s s was j o i n e d s h o r t l y by t h e owner of t h e Oakes, whereupon t h e y watched t h i s car proceed i n a n easterly direction. The p o l i c e were n o t i f i e d and a n a l l p o i n t s b u l l e t i n was i s s u e d g i v i n g a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c a r and t h e two robbers. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , a brown GM t y p e a u t o m o b i l e w i t h a w h i t e t o p , b e a r i n g no l i c e n s e p l a t e s w a s s t o p p e d e a s t o f Bozeman. Three men were i n t h e c a r , Gary Radi, John Michael Miner, and d e f e n d a n t , Byron P a u l B e a u d e t t e . Defendant was 6 ' 1 " t a l l , weighed 220 l b s . , had l o n g brown h a i r , and wore g l a s s e s . I n t h e back s e a t of t h e c a r w a s a b l u e down j a c k e t , l a t e r worn by B e a u d e t t e when q u e s t i o n e d i n L i v i n g s t o n . O J a n u a r y 2 , 1975, t h e owner of t h e Oakes B a r , t h r e e n p a t r o n s p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y , and t h e w i t n e s s who o b s e r v e d t h e get-away car w e r e a s k e d t o make a p h o t o g r a p h i c i d e n t i f i One a t a t i m e t h e s e w i t n e s s e s were asked t o l o o k a t cation. t h r e e p i c t u r e s , and were t o l d t h a t a l l t h r e e men w e r e s u s p e c t s . The owner and one p a t r o n s e l e c t e d B e a u d e t t e a s t h e t a l l e r robber. The o t h e r w i t n e s s e s were u n a b l e t o make any i d e n t i f i - c a t i o n whatsoever. A t t r i a l , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e of t h e p r e t r i a l photographic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of defendant, a s w e l l a s a p o s i t i v e i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by t h e owner, and a t e n t a t i v e i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by o n e p a t r o n . A t t h e t i m e of t h e i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , d e f e n d a n t was n o t s e a t e d a t t h e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t a b l e , b u t i n t h e f o u r t h row of t h e s p e c t a t o r p o r t i o n o f t h e courtroom. Defendant w a s c o n v i c t e d by t h e j u r y and sen- t e n c e d t o 40 y e a r s i n p r i s o n . Defendant now a p p e a l s t h a t judgment r a i s i n g a s i n g l e issue: Whether t h e c o n v i c t i o n r e s u l t e d from p h o t o g r a p h i c i d e n t i f - i c a t i o n procedure t h a t w a s s o impermissibly suggestive a s t o give r i s e t o a v e r y s u b s t a n t i a l l i k e l i h o o d of i r r e p a r a b l e m i s i d e n t i f i cation? Leading United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t c a s e s d e a l i n g w i t h p r e t r i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s and s u b s e q u e n t i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s a r e S t o v a l l v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S e c t . 1967, 18 L ed 2d 1199; Simmons v . United S t a t e s , 390 U.S. S.Ct. 967, 1 9 L ed 2d 1247, 1253; F o s t e r v . C a l i f o r n i a , 394 U.S. 4 4 0 , 89 S.Ct. U.S. 377, 384, 88 1127, 22 L ed 2d 402; and N e i l v. B i g g e r s , 409 188, 1 9 6 , 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L ed 2d 401, 410. I n N e i l t h e r e i s d i c t u m t h a t t h e r e a r e two d i s t i n c t t e s t s , a more s t r i n g e n t one r e q u i r i n g i n a d m i s s i b i l i t y of e v i d e n c e of p r e t r i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and a more l e n i e n t one a p p l i e d t o cases such a s Simmons, where o n l y a n i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s r e l i e d upon. A t h o r o u g h a n a l y s i s from S t o v a l l t h r o u g h N e i l i s p r o v i d e d by Justice Friendly in Brathwaite v. Manson, 527 F.2d 363 (2nd Cir. 1975). As Justice Friendly points out, there is sound policy to require inadmissibility of evidence of an impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification, since more probative value is often times given to such than an in-court identification. The reason is that the pretrial identification is usually made immediately after the crime, when it is still fresh in the minds of the witnesses, and such identification is not subject to cross-examination as is the in-court identification. However, in this case we are confined to the admissibility of the in-court identification, since defendant did not object to the pretrial photographic evidence, and his proposed instruction questioned only the reliability of the in-court identification. Therefore, we must apply the appropriate test for those cases where the prosecution relies solely upon an incourt identification, as mandated by Neil, citing Simmons: " ' * * * we hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identifications at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.'" (Emphasis supplied.) The photographic identification procedure used here (only 3 pictures presented, and each witness informed that such pictures were of the robbery suspects) cannot be praised by this Court, since it was somewhat suggestive. However, considering the entire record, such procedure was not so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification in court (at which time defendant was not seated at the defense counsel table, but in the fourth row of the spectator portion of the courtroom). What does appear from the record i s t h a t t h e r e a r e , s i m i l a r t o S t a t e v . B o r c h e r t , 156 Mont. 315, 319, 479 P.2d 454, s u f f i c i e n t m a t e r i a l f a c t s , o t h e r t h a n t h e i n court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , t o support t h i s conviction. Two men robbed t h e Oakes B a r , t h e t a l l e r of t h e two h e l d a gun i n h i s l e f t hand, wore a b l u e o r g r e e n down j a c k e t , and was d e s c r i b e d a s 6 ' t a l l , 185-220 pounds, wore g l a s s e s , and had brown s h o u l d e r l e n g t h h a i r . The two men g o t i n t o a brown GM t y p e c a r w i t h a w h i t e t o p , w i t h o u t r e a r l i c e n s e p l a t e s and headed east. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , a brown GM t y p e c a r , w i t h a w h i t e t o p and no l i c e n s e p l a t e s i n which d e f e n d a n t w a s r i d i n g w a s s t o p p e d e a s t of Bozeman. 220 l b s . , A t t h i s t i m e d e f e n d a n t was 6 ' 1 " t a l l , weighed had l o n g brown h a i r , wore g l a s s e s , and w a s l e f t - h a n d e d . Also t h e r e was a b l u e down c o a t on t h e back s e a t o f t h e c a r which was worn by d e f e n d a n t l a t e r i n L i v i n g s t o n . During t h e r o b b e r y , t h e t a l l e r man r e f e r r e d t o t h e s h o r t e r one a s "Michael". Also i n t h e c a r was John Michael Miner, sometimes r e f e r r e d t o a s "Mike" by f r i e n d s . The w i t n e s s who o b s e r v e d t h e get-away c a r , t e s t i f i e d t h i s c a r w a s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e one he saw l e a v e from t h e back o f t h e Oakes. When t h e c a r was s t o p p e d , a highway p a t r o l m a n o b s e r v e d a box p a r t i a l l y under t h e f r o n t s e a t . i n L i v i n g s t o n , t h e box was m i s s i n g . When t h e c a r was s e a r c h e d F u r t h e r m o r e , a second eye- w i t n e s s made a t e n t a t i v e i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Where t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , t h i s Court w i l l n o t r e v e r s e . S t a t e v . Miner, The judgmen Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: --- Mont . Hon. R o b e r t ~ / ' % ~ k e sD, i s t r i c t J u d g e , s i t t i f i /' i n p l a c e o f M r . g J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s .

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.