STATE v JIMISON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12986 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - C R J IMISON , AL Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge p r e s i d i n g Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Gene Huntley argued, Baker, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Richard A. Simonton, County Attorney, argued, Glendive, Montana Submitted: June 12, 1975 Decided : $F/3 18.. . a , Filed: r\ F- L, N r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Defendant C a r l Jimison a p p e a l s from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Dawson County, a f t e r a j u r y v e r d i c t c o n v i c t i n g him o f two c o u n t s of t h e f t and imposing a t h r e e y e a r s e n t e n c e of imprisonment i n t h e Montana s t a t e p r i s o n . The c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t s h e r e a r e n o t d i s p u t e d . Defendant came i n t o p o s s e s s i o n of some items of p e ~ c n a l p r o p e r t yi n 1973, which were s t o l e n by someone i n 1973. Defendant has n e v e r been accused of t h e a c t u a l t h e f t , b u t o f c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n . There- f o r e , i f t h e p o s s e s s i o n was i n f a c t c r i m i n a l , defendant was c h a r g e a b l e i n 1973 under s e c t i o n 94-2721, R.C.M. 1947, which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t provided: 11 Receiver of s t o l e n p r o p e r t y . Every person who f o r h i s own g a i n o r t o prevent t h e owner from a g a i n p o s s e s s i n g h i s own p r o p e r t y buys o r r e c e i v e s any p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , knowing t h e same t o have been s t o l e n , i s p u n i s h a b l e by imprisonment i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n n o t exceeding f i v e (5) y e a r s o r i n a county j a i l n o t exceeding s i x (6) months A- * (Emphasis added). *." The F o r t y - t h i r d Montana L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly enacted a new c r i m i n a l code "Criminal Code of 1973", e f f e c t i v e January 1, 1974. The new c r i m i n a l code t r a n s i t i o n s e c t i o n , s e c t i o n 94-1-103, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s : "A l i c a t i o n t o o f f e n s e s committed b e f o r e and a t e r enactment. Pe "(1) The p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s code s h a l l apply t o any o f f e n s e d e f i n e d i n t h i s code and committed a f t e r the effective date thereof. "(2) Unless o t h e r w i s e e x p r e s s l y provided, o r unless t h e context otherwise r e q u i r e s , t h e provisions of t h i s code s h a l l govern t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of and punishment f o r any o f f e n s e d e f i n e d o u t s i d e of t h i s code and committed a f t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e t h e r e o f , a s w e l l a s t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n of any def e n s e t o a p r o s e c u t i o n f o r such an o f f e n s e . The p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s code do n o t a p p l y I r (3) t o any o f f e n s e d e f i n e d o u t s i d e of t h i s code and committed b e f o r e t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e t h e r e o f . Such an o f f e n s e must be c o n s t r u e d and punished a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of law e x i s t i n g a t t h e time of t h e commission t h e r e o f i n t h e same manner a s i f t h i s code had n o t been e n a c t e d . I I Here, on o r about June 5 and 6 , 1974, t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e r s searched d e f e n d a n t ' s farm premises and s e i z e d t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y upon which t h e p r o s e c u t i o n was based. Defendant was charged under t h e new c r i m i n a l code s e c t i o n 94-6-302, R.C.M. 1947, t h e " t h e f t " s t a t u t e under t h e new code, which i n p e r t i n e n t part reads: h heft. (1) A person commits t h e o f f e n s e of t h e f t when he purposely o r knowingly o b t a i n s o r e x e r t s una u t h o r i z e d c o n t r o l over p r o p e r t y of t h e owner, and: "(a) has t h e purpose of d e p r i v i n g t h e owner of the property; o r II (b) purposely o r knowingly u s e s , c o n c e a l s , o r abandons t h e p r o p e r t y i n such manner a s t o d e p r i v e t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y ; o r 11 ( c ) u s e s , c o n c e a l s , o r abandons t h e p r o p e r t y knowing such u s e , concealment o r abandonment probably w i l l d e p r i v e t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y . " The s t a t e contends t h e new s t a t u t e a l s o i n c l u d e s t h e o l d o f f e n s e of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y and i n i t s b r i e f c o n t e n d s : II While evidence of t h e t a k i n g i s unnecessary t o s u s t a i n a con- v i c t i o n f o r t h e f t under t h i s s t a t u t e , some evidence of t h e t a k i n g i s r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r t o demonstrate t h a t t h e defendant was n o t t h e l a w f u l owner of t h e p r o p e r t y . T h e r e f o r e any evidence of t h e t a k i n g i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e was n e c e s s a r i l y p r e s e n t e d i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e owner and t h e c r i m i n a l i n t e n t of t h e defendant. 9: * , \ -L " A l l t h a t i s necessary t o support a conviction f o r t h e f t under 94-6-302 i s some e x e r c i s e of c o n t r o l over t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e owner. That e x e r c i s e of c o n t r o l need n o t b e f o r any p a r t i c u l a r l e n g t h of time b u t r a t h e r , any l e n g t h of time which i s s u f f i c i e n t t o show an i n t e n t t o d e p r i v e t h e owner of t h e u s e of t h e p r o p e r t y i s sufficient. The defendant h e r e e x e r c i s e d c o n t r o l over t h e p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n which was demonstrated t o have been owned by a n o t h e r person and w i t h o u t t h a t p e r s o n ' s a u t h o r i z a t i o n . The i n f o r m a t i o n charged him w i t h having e x e r c i s e d t h a t c o n t r o l 'on o r about t h e 5 t h and 6 t h days of June, 1 9 7 4 ' . made t h a t defendant a c t u a l l y N a l l e g a . t i o n was o took t h e p r o p e r t y from t h e owner n o r t h a t h e e x e r t e d c o n t r o l over t h e p r o p e r t y a t any time o t h e r than on t h e 5 t h and 6 t h d a y of June, 1974. were n e c e s s a r y . 9 : * *If N such a l l e g a t i o n s o (Emphasis added.) F i r s t , we c o n s i d e r t h e t r a n s i t i o n s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 94-1The language of t h e s t a t u t e i s c l e a r , unambiguous and 103(3). mandatory. It i s o b v i o u s l y i n t e n d e d t o provide an o r d e r l y t r a n s i - t i o n t o t h e new code. It o f f e r s no e x c e p t i o n s u n l e s s e x p r e s s l y provided, y e t t h e s t a t e b a s e s i t s e n t i r e c a s e on an a l l e g e d cont i n u i n g o f f e n s e t o come around t h e language "any o f f e n s e d e f i n e d o u t s i d e of t h i s code and committed b e f o r e t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e thereof." The Code Commision Comment on t h i s s e c t i o n r e f e r s t o Chapter 513, S e c t i o n 33, Laws of 1973, which c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h e i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e : "The Montana Criminal Code and a l l o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s a c t a r e e f f e c t i v e January 1, 1974, and s h a l l a p p l y t o a l l o f f e n s e s a l l e g e d t o have been committed on o r a f t e r t h a t d a t e . The Montana Criminal Code and a l l o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s a c t do n o t a p p l y t o o f f e n s e s committed p r i o r t o i t s e f f e c t i v e d a t e and p r o s e c u t i o n s f o r such o f f e n s e s s h a l l be governed by t h e p r i o r law, which i s c o n t i n u e d i n e f f e c t f o r t h a t urpose, a s i f t h i s a c t were n o t i n f o r c e . For t h e :urpose of t h i s s e c t i o n , an o f f e n s e was committed p r i o r to - t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h i s a c t i f any of t h e elements of t h e o f f e n s e occurred p r i o r t h e r e t o . " (Emphasis added.) C l e a r l y , t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e could only be prosecuted under section94-2721, R.C.M. 1947, of t h e o l d code. Second, f o r f u t u r e guidance, t h e s t a t e i s i n e r r o r i n i t s argument a s i t p e r t a i n s t o proof of c r i m i n a l i n t e n t of t h e defendant through proof of t a k i n g and t h e e x e r c i s e of c o n t r o l a s s u f f i c i e n t proof t o s u p p o r t a c o n v i c t i o n of t h e f t under t h e new code. This i s a s p e c i f i c i n t e n t crime and t h e proof r e q u i r e d i s that for specific intent. In t h e i n s t a n t case, suspicious c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e c o n t r o l do n o t meet t h i s burden of p r o o f , a f t e r an u n r e f u t e d by t h e defendant. e x p l a n a t i o n of p o s s e s s i o n See: S e c t i o n 94-6-314, mission Comment t h e r e u n d e r . R.C.M. 1947, and Com- Extensive arguments were presented on other aspects of this problem such as ex post facto application, statute of limitations, etc. We see no need to burden this opinion with a discussion of these because, as the transition period comes to an end, it is unlikely these problems will arise in the future. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause ordered dismissed. Justice We Concur: - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chief Justice u Justices.

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.