STATE v PAULSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12910 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA H OR F F 1975 - STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - LEON ALBERT PAULSON, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C. B.Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : ~obert L. Stephens, Jr. argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A, Rudewitz, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Harold F, Hanser, County Attorney, argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided Filed: r. - 1 - June 18, 1975 :j4UB .To' j r ~ Clerk J M. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e r Court. Defendant Leon A l b e r t Paulson a p p e a l s from a judgment e n t e r e d on a j u r y v e r d i c t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, c o n v i c t i n g him of c r i m i n a l possession of marijuana, a felony. O J u l y 21, 1974, Craig Cunningham, a Yellowstone County n deputy s h e r i f f then a t t a c h e d t o t h e c i t y - c o u n t y n a r c o t i c squad, r e c e i v e d a telephone c a l l from one Sergeant Wolf of t h e Metropoli t a n Narcotics Team, Tucson, Arizona. given him by an informant who was 18 Wolf r e l a y e d information involved i n making shipment c a s e s almost e x c l u s i v e l y f o r h i s department, and t h a t h i s r e l i a b i l i t y had proven t o be very high i n t h e p a s t . " o f f i c e r t o l d Cunningham t h a t i n 1974 t h e informant had The Tucson If made more c a s e s f o r them than he had t h e previous y e a r , a l l i n v o l v i n g shipments of n a r c o t i c s . It The information was r e c e i v e d v i a s e v e r a l telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n s over a p e r i o d of time beginning s h o r t l y b e f o r e noon and ending about f i v e o r s i x t h a t Sunday a f t e r n o o n , J u l y 21. Cunningham was t o l d a shipment of n a r c o t i c s would b e brought by a i r p l a n e i n t o B i l l i n g s by a w h i t e male, i n h i s e a r l y t w e n t i e s , about s i x f e e t t a l l , w i t h sandy c o l o r e d h a i r ; i n h i s possession would b e a brown Samsonite s u i t c a s e , double zippered w i t h a s i n g l e s t r a p , w i t h a c l a i m check a t t a c h e d marked w i t h a s p e c i f i c number; and t h e bag would c o n t a i n about 30 pounds of marijuana . That evening a t 7:30, t h e due time of t h e Western A i r l i n e s f l i g h t from t h e s o u t h , O f f i c e r s Cunningham and Wickhorst, were a t t h e B i l l i n g s Logan I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t and went t o t h e baggage a r e a where they i d e n t i f i e d t h e bag and s e n t i t up t h e ramp t o t h e claim area. Defendant Paulson picked up t h e bag and attempted t o place it i n a locker. Before he could g e t i t e n t i r e l y i n s i d e t h e l o c k e r , t h e o f f i c e r s approached and a r r e s t e d him f o r possess i o n of dangerous drugs. Paulson was r e a d h i s r i g h t s and f r i s k e d f o r weapons. A t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n t h e s u i t c a s e was opened w i t h a key provided by d e f e n d a n t , i n s i d e was found 25 pounds and 12 ounces of what was l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d t o be marijuana. The marijuana was i d e n t i f i e d by Cunningham, t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r , through t h e u s e of t h e "valtox f i e l d drug t e s t i n g k i t " , a s e t of commercial chemicals used by p o l i c e departments. Al- though Cunningham was n o t a t r a i n e d c h e m i s t , he had been t r a i n e d i n t h e u s e of t h e k i t f o r f i e l d t e s t purposes. A t t r i a l i t was e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Cunningham had handled n e a r l y 200 a r r e s t c a s e s f o r drugs and could i d e n t i f y such substance by s i g h t and s m e l l . The same was t r u e of t h e o t h e r a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r , Wickhorst . The o p i n i o n s of Cunninghim and Wickhorst were l a t e r c o r r o b o r a t e d by a s t a t e chemist, A. B. Meinikoff of Missoula, Montana. The c a s e was s e t f o r t r i a l September 11, 1974, b u t t h a t t r i a l d a t e was vacated. The h e a r i n g on d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o suppress evidence was h e l d on September 30, 1974. O October 4 , n 1974, defendant f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t t o d i s q u a l i f y t h e p r e s i d i n g judge, b u t was denied. This Court i n response t o a p e t i t i o n f o r s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l on October 11, 1974, s u s t a i n e d t h a t denial. T r i a l was h e l d , defendant c o n v i c t e d , and he now a p p e a l s . O a p p e a l , defendant contends s e c t i o n 95-1806(f), R.C.M. n 1947, which a u t h o r i z e s t h e motion t o suppress evidence i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d , i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t h a t i t p l a c e s t h e "burden of proof" on t h e defendant. H e r e , t h e r e c o r d i s u t t e r l y devoid o f a showing t h i s s t a t u t e was challenged b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Rather, t h e f a c t s show defendant, a t t h e suppression h e a r i n g , went so f a r a s t o remind t h e c o u r t t h a t he was t h e moving p a r t y and was r e q u i r e d t o put on h i s evidence f i r s t . O appeal, t h i s n Court can c o n s i d e r f o r review only t h o s e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Spencer v. Robertson, 151 Mont. 507, 445 P.2d 48; Clark v. Worrall, 146 Mont. 374, 406 P.2d 822. Defendant n e x t contends t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying h i s a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . As h e r e t o f o r e s t a t e d , t h a t i s s u e was p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s Court by a p e t i t i o n f o r s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l on October 11, 1974, and denied. W f i n d no reason t o d i s t u r b t h a t r u l i n g . e Defendant n e x t a l l e g e s t h a t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t r i a l , t h e s t a t e c a l l e d one of t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s t o t e s t i f y and on t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e evidence s e i z e d , / defense counsel c r o s s examined v i g o r o u s l y f o r t h e purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e t e s t s used were u n r e l i a b l e . A t t h a t p o i n t t h e s t a t e o f f e r e d t o withdraw a p o r t i o n o f t h e evidence and have i t flown t o Missoula f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by t h e s t a t e chemist. Defense counsel o b j e c t e d on grounds t h a t (1) no s t a t e chemist had been endorsed on t h e Information; (2) h i s c a s e had been prepared i n r e l i a n c e of t h e endorsements; and, (3) p r e j u d i c e would i n u r e t o defendant r e s u l t i n g from a c t u a l surprise. The n e x t day t h e s t a t e chemist d i d , i n f a c t , t e s t i f y i n sponsorship of h i s t e s t r e s u l t s . Defense counsel then r e q u e s t e d a continuance f o r t h e purpose of r e b u t t i n g t h a t testimony; t h i s was denied by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Defendant now a l l e g e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t improperly allowed t h e s t a t e t o endorse t h e w i t n e s s a f t e r t h e t r i a l began, and f a i l u r e t o g r a n t h i s continuance was e r r o r . The s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n , s e c t i o n 95-1503(d), R.C.M. 1947, states: " I f t h e charge i s by information o r i n d i c t m e n t , i t s h a l l i n c l u d e endorsed t h e r e o n , t h e names o f t h e w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e s t a t e , i f known." added). (Emphasis From t h e r e c o r d , t h e r e was no a l l e g a t i o n t h e p r o s e c u t o r was i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e , and i t appears he had n o t planned on t h e a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s a t t h e time t h e o r i g i n a l Information was filed. Neither i s t h e r e any charge t h e p r o s e c u t o r was a t t e m p t i n g t o g a i n undue advantage, o r t o f r a u d u l e n t l y deceive opposing counsel. Thus, t h e r e a l i s s u e i s t h e d e n i a l of t h e motion f o r continuance . Motions f o r continuance a r e addressed t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e g r a n t i n g of a continuance has never been a m a t t e r of r i g h t . Williams v. United S t a t e s , 203 F.2d 85. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t cannot c v e r t u r n e d on appeal a showing of p r e j u d i c e t o t h e movant. absence S t a t e v , Kuilman, 1 1 Mont. 1 ~ e f e n d a n t ' sargument t h e r e f o r e must s t a n d o r f a l l on t h e i s s u e of p r e j u d i c e , f o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t can be s a i d abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n o n l y i f i t s r u l i n g was p r e j u d i c i a l . have W have e n o t found a s i n g l e c a s e , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e c i t e d by defendant, i n which t h e d e n i a l of a motion f o r continuance was r e v e r s e d without a showing o f r e s u l t i n g p r e j u d i c e t o t h e movant. I n S t a t e v. Cooper, 146 Mont. 336, 342, 406 P.2d 691, t h i s Court explained t h e purpose behind t h e s t a t u t e w i t h which we a r e now concerned: "R.C.M. 1947, s e c t i o n 94-6208 [ s e c t i o n 95-1503 (d) 1, r e q u i r e s t h e county a t t o r n e y t o endorse upon t h e information a t t h e time of f i l i n g ' t h e names of t h e w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e s t a t e , i f known. 1 The purpose i s t o p r o t e c t t h e defendant from s u r p r i s e and u n f a i r advantage and t o a f f o r d him a f a i r o p p o r t u n i t y t o a d e q u a t e l y defend h i m s e l f . " C l e a r l y , t h i s Court may n o t r e v e r s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g u n l e s s t h e s e important c o n s i d e r a t i o n s have been offended by i t . What then, i s t h e proper s t a n d a r d f o r determining whether p r e j u d i c e r e s u l t e d under t h e circumstances of t h e r u l i n g h e r e ? The New Mexico Supreme Court i n S t a t e v. Edwards, 54 N.M. 189, 217 P.2d 854, 856, spoke t o t h i s p o i n t i n t h i s language: "Whether names o f w i t n e s s e s may be endorsed d u r i n g t r i a l i s a m a t t e r r e s t i n g w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t . It i s n o t enough t h a t a defendant c l a i m s u r p r i s e o r p r e j u d i c e i n t h e c a l l i n g of an a d v e r s e w i t n e s s o r one whose name does n o t appear upon t h e information charging him w i t h crime. Nor i s t h e mere admission of testimony of such w i t n e s s , e r r o r ; r a t h e r , e r r o r follows from a d e n i a l of an opport u n i t y t o r e b u t t h e o b j e c t i o n a b l e evidence. When i t i s made t o appear t h a t testimony of t h e w i t n e s s i s such t h a t i t cannot be reasonably a n t i c i p a t e d , p o s t ponement o r continuance of t h e h e a r i n g i s a v a i l a b l e t o a defendant t o meet i t and i f a p p l i c a t i o n t h e r e f o r i s denied, p r e j u d i c e being shown, r e v e r s a l w i l l follow. I I (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . Here, i t i s c l e a r defendant could have reasonably a n t i c i pated t h e testimony o f t h e s t a t e chemist, and f u r t h e r , t h a t he had ample o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e b u t t h e evidence which, from h i s standp o i n t , was o b j e c t i o n a b l e . Defense counsel obviously planned i n advance t o c h a l l e n g e t h e s t a t e ' s method of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , a s he arranged f o r two e x p e r t s t o support t h a t c h a l l e n g e . He was a l s o given a sample of t h e substance i n q u e s t i o n s o t h a t an independent t e s t could be made. Defendant's t h i r d i s s u e a l l e g e s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n several evidentiary rulings. F i r s t , he a l l e g e s no proper founda- t i o n was o f f e r e d t o support testimony t h a t t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s could i d e n t i f y marijuana by s i g h t and smell. W disagree. e Both men s t a t e d they had been a s s i g n e d t o t h e c i t y - c o u n t y n a r c o t i c s squad f o r over two y e a r s , and had a t t e n d e d law enforcement seminars on t h a t p r e c i s e s u b j e c t . They had made about two hundred a r r e s t s i n v o l v i n g marijuana and had f u r t h e r t e s t e d t h e substance through t h e u s e of t h e i r f i e l d k i t s . S e c t i o n 93-401-27, g i v e h i s opinion R.C.M. 1947, provides a w i t n e s s may 11 of a q u e s t i o n o r s c i e n c e , a r t , o r t r a d e , when he i s s k i l l e d t h e r e i n . " A i n d i v i d u a l may c e r t a i n l y q u a l i f y a s an n e x p e r t e i t h e r by study o r experience. 506, 104 P. 513. S t a t e v. Keeland, 39 Mont. The competency of a w i t n e s s t o t e s t i f y a s an expert i s a question f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s discretion. Askin, 90 Mont. 394, 3 P.2d 654. S t a t e v. I n l i g h t of t h e background and experience of t h e s e w i t n e s s e s h e r e , i t was n o t e r r o r t o a l l o w t h e j u r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e i r opinions and s u b s t a n t i a l evidence e x i s t s t o support t h e i r f i n d i n g . Defendant maintains t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s testimony r e g a r d i n g h i s telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e Tucson a u t h o r i t i e s was hearsay. This conclusion i s n o t supported by law. The testimony was introduced only f o r t h e purpose of demonstrating t h e e x i s t e n c e o f probable cause t o make t h e a r r e s t without a warrant and subsequent search. The United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n Ker v. C a l i f o r n i a , 374 U.S. 23, 36, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L ed 2d 726, 739, speaking t o t h e hearsay q u e s t i o n h e l d : "* >k *That t h i s information was hearsay does n o t d e s t r o y i t s r o l e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g probable cause. Brinegar v. United S t a t e s , 338 U.S. 160, 93 L ed 1879, " . n I n Draper v. United S t a t e s , 69 S.Ct. 1302 358 U.S. 307, 3 L ed 2d 327, 79 S.Ct. 329, (1959), w e h e l d t h a t information from a r e l i a b l e informer corrobora t e d by t h e a g e n t s ' o b s e r v a t i o n s a s t o t h e accuracy of t h e i n f o r m e r ' s d e s c r @ i o n of t h e accused and of h i s presence a t a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e , was s u f f i c i e n t t o e s tIa b l i s h probable cause f o r an a r r e s t without a w a r r a n t . I ** I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e f a c t s came from o f f i c i a l p o l i c e reports. It i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t p o l i c e o f f i c e r s may r e l y on information coming t o them from o f f i c i a l sources a s w e l l a s o t h e r known r e l i a b l e s o u r c e s . 245, 38 Cal.Reptr. People v. S c h e l l i n , 227 Cal,App,(2d) 593, 597, c e r t . denied 397 U.S. 1003, 85 S.Ct. 726, 13 L ed 2d 704 (1965); People v. Melchor, 237 Cal.App.2d 685, 47 Gal-Reptr. 235; Walker v. S t a t e , 237 Md. 516, 206 A.2d 795. A motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t was e n t e r t a i n e d and denied by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Defendant b a s e s h i s a l l e g a t i o n of e r r o r r e g a r d i n g t h i s d e n i a l on two grounds (1) t h e s t a t u t e under which he was charged p r o h i b i t s o n l y t h e s p e c i e s of cannabis s a t i v a 1, and (2) t h e p r o s e c u t i o n f a i l e d t o prove t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e poss e s s e d by defendant was a c t u a l l y among t h o s e p r o h i b i t e d by s t a t u t e . W disagree. e Competent evidence was introduced a t t r i a l t o e s - t a b l i s h t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e was i n f a c t cannabis s a t i v a 1. The j u r y chose t o b e l i e v e t h e s t a t e ' s w i t n e s s , t h e r e was ample evidence t o j u s t i f y i t s decision. I n S t a t e v. M e t c a l f , , 153 Plont. 369, 379, 457 P.2d 453, t h i s Court h e l d : In t h i s jurfsdiction a directed verdict i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e i s given only where t h e s t a t e f a i l s t o prove i t s c a s e and t h e r e i s no evidence upon which a j u r y could base i t s v e r d i c t . S t a t e v. Yoss, 146 Mont. 508, 409 P.2d 452; S t a t e v. Willicombe, 130 Mont. 325, 301 P.2d 1116; S t a t e v. Welch, 22 Monte 92, 55 P. 927." II The d i s t r i c t c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n denying t h e motion f o r d i r e c t e d . verdict F i n a l l y , defendant c h a l l e n g e s t h e w a r r e n t l e s s s e a r c h and subsequent s e i z u r e a s unsupported by probable cause o r any o t h e r legal justification. The s t a t e u r g e s t h e s e a r c h and s e i z u r e was v a l i d a s i n c i d e n t t o a lawful a r r e s t . The Fourth Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n t o l e r a t e s w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h e s i n c i d e n t t o a v a l i d a r r e s t where t h e e x i s t e n c e of probable cause s u p p o r t s p o l i c e conduct. See: United S t a t e s v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L ed 2d 653; Ker v. C a l i f o r n i a , supra. Under t h e f a c t s h e r e , t h e a r r e s t was amply j u s t i f i e d by probable c a u s e , t h e r e f o r e t h e s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t h e r e t o was v a l i d , The judgment i s a f f i r m e d . \ P W Concur: e .? - /".. . . *,r .i ' -; i / ' *8J* b, ,, , , , , ,, , , ,.?%kc 5 ? ,, % ". z, . Chief Justice Justices. .r . C C C b 1 M , C I-;iii& r -1 4 " - *.-

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.