STATE v AUSTAD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12832 I N THE SUPKEME COURT OF THE STATE O F M N A A OTN 1975 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, GENE A D L AUSTAD, N RW Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. D. M c P h i l l i p s , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t : E. F. G i a n o t t i a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana F o r Respondent: Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana C h a r l e s M. J o s l y n , County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Choteau, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: EPR - 9 j373 - March 3 , 1975 N R 9 1975 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 Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by d e f e n d a n t Gene Austad from a judgment of c o n v i c t i o n of t h e c r i m e of b u r g l a r y i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e 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 , Teton County. The s t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d d i s c l o s e d t h a t on t h e e v e n i n g of December 21, 1973, Glen S h e t l e r , a p a r t - t i m e p o l i c e o f f i c e r , was p a t r o l l i n g t h e s t r e e t s o f F a i r f i e l d , Montana. a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6:40 p.m. At S h e t l e r a r r i v e d i n t h e southwest p a r t o f F a i r f i e l d where t h e GTA g r a i n e l e v a t o r w a s l o c a t e d . A t the t i m e a new a d d i t i o n was b e i n g b u i l t o n t o t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r and a s t o r a g e v a n , owned by Hogenson C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, w a s parked a d j a c e n t t o t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r . T h i s van was used t o s t o r e t o o l s used on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e . S h e t l e r o b s e r v e d t h a t a d a r k c o l o r e d , l a t e model c a r had been backed up t o t h e s i d e d o o r of t h e van and d e f e n d a n t and a n u n i d e n t i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l wearing a " s l o p p y b l a c k h a t " w e r e d e p a r t i n g from t h e s i d e d o o r . The u n i d e n t i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l i m - m e d i a t e l y f l e d when S h e t l e r s t o p p e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e . Defendant, however, walked o v e r t o S h e t l e r , i n t r o d u c e d h i m s e l f , and began t o c a r r y on a c o n v e r s a t i o n . Defendant informed S h e t l e r t h a t "he was s e n t up from G r e a t F a l l s t o p i c k up a t r a n s i t 1 ' . A t t r i a l S h e t l e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he n o t i c e d n o t h i n g s u s - p i c i o u s a t t h i s t i m e , b e c a u s e i t was a common p r a c t i c e t h a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n van be used i n t h e e v e n i n g when t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n c r e w worked l a t e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , he d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o r e s t r a i n d e f e n d a n t when he l o c k e d h i s c a r and l e f t t h e area on f o o t , l e a v i n g h i s c a r behind. A f t e r d e f e n d a n t d e p a r t e d , S h e t l e r began s e a r c h i n g f o r a p a d l o c k t h a t he had n o t i c e d m i s s i n g from t h e d o o r o f t h e van. Upon s h i n i n g h i s f l a s h l i g h t i n t h e window of d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r he d i s c o v e r e d , l o c a t e d on t h e f l o o r between t h e f r o n t and rear s e a t s , a pair of bolt cutters with a silver padlock in its jaws. An immediate search of the van revealed some tools had been stacked up against the wall immediately inside the door, and a partially filled glass of liquor had been placed on a workbench inside the van. Defendant's car was immediately impounded and taken by a wrecker to a local garage. Later that evening, the garage The state presented evi- was broken into and the car removed. dence that the car was leased by National Car Rental to defendant on December 15, 1973 and was returned on January 5, 1974. The assistant foreman for Hogenson Construction, Nels Cornelious, testified that on the night of the alleged burglary, he locked the van prior to departing from work and no tools, except for a welder in a plywood box, had been stacked against the wall immediately inside the door. In addition, he stated that when he arrived at the storage van subsequent to the break in he noticed that a portable hand grinder, two four foot levels, two rubberheaded mallets, and a couple of smaller hammers were stacked near the door. These articles had been placed in dif- ferent locations within the van when he had left work on that day. A few days subsequent to the break indefendant was apprehended, charged with the crime of first degree burglary, tried before a jury, and convicted. Defendant appeals from that conviction and raises two issues: 1. Is the state's evidence sufficient to establish that defendant's unlawful entry into the storage van was accompanied with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny? 2. Did defendant's allegedly intoxicated condition prevent him from forming the requisite specific intent to commit the crime? P u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 94-1-103, R.C.M. 1947, t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e 1973 Montana C r i m i n a l Code 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 t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h e a c t . Here, t h e a c t was committed on December 2 1 , 1973 and t h e 1973 Mohtana C r i m i n a l Code t o o k e f f e c t on J a n u a r y 1, 1974. Consequently, we l o o k t o t h e o l d b u r g l a r y s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 94-901, of t h e f i r s t i s s u e . R.C.M. 1947, i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n This s t a t u t e reads: " B u r g l a r y d e f i n e d . Every p e r s o n who e n t e r s any house, room, a p a r t m e n t , tenement, s h o p , warehouse, s t o r e , m i l l , b a r n , s t a b l e , o u t h o u s e , o r o t h e r b u i l d i n g , t e n t , motor v e h i c l e and a i r c r a f t , v e s s e l , o r r a i l r o a d c a r , w i t h i n t e n t t o commit g r a n d o r p e t i t l a r c e n y o r any f e l o n y , i s g u i l t y of burglary. " The b a s i c t h r u s t of d e f e n d a n t ' s argument a p p e a r s t o be t h a t t h e s t a t e h a s f a i l e d t o show d e f e n d a n t p o s s e s s e d t h e r e q u i s i t e i n t e n t t o commit grand o r p e t i t l a r c e n y a t t h e t i m e of t h e u n l a w f u l e n t r y , a b s e n t proof t h a t a n y t h i n g was s t o l e n from t h e s t o r a g e van. W cannot agree. e I n P e r k i n s on C r i m i n a l L a w , p. 166 ( 1 9 5 7 ) , t h e a u t h o r s t a t e s : "Larceny i s u s u a l l y t h e p u r p o s e f o r which burgl a r y i s committed b u t i t i s n o t e s s e n t i a l t o g u i l t t h a t t h e i n t r u d e r succeed i n c a r r y i n g o u t t h e i n t e n t w i t h which t h e house was broken i n t o , n o r t h a t i t s h o u l d be f o r t h e p u r p o s e of s t e a l i n g . There i s no common-law b u r g l a r y , however, u n l e s s t h e i n t r u s i o n i s perpetrated with an i n t e n t t o commit some f e l o n y . Thus i f a r o g u e b r e a k s i n t o t h e dwelling of another a t n i g h t with i n t e n t t o commit murder h e i s g u i l t y of b u r g l a r y even i f he l e a v e s w i t h o u t f i n d i n g h i s i n t e n d e d v i c t i m and w i t h o u t h a v i n g committed any f e l o n y i n t h e house. On t h e o t h e r hand he would n o t be g u i l t y o f burgl a r y i f he broke i n f o r t h e p u r p o s e of t r e s p a s s o n l y even i f he s u b s e q u e n t l y d i d commit some f e l o n y d u r i n g h i s wrongful v i s i t . " See a l s o : 30 St.Rep. S t a t e v. Solis, 163 Mont.293 , 516 P.2d 1157, 1 0 9 9 ; Morigeau v . S t a t e , 149 Mont. 85, 423 P.2d 60. Here, t h e s t a t e c a r r i e d t h e burden o f showing t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t h r o u g h t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e following evidence: 1. I t e s t a b l i s h e d t h e f a c t t h a t a p a i r of b o l t c u t t e r s w i t h a padlock i n s i d e i t s jaws w a s found i n a l a t e model c a r t h a t had been backed up t o t h e s i d e d o o r o f t h e van. 2. The p o s s e s s i o n of t h e c a r w a s t r a c e d t o d e f e n d a n t . 3. I t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a group of t o o l s had been s t a c k e d n e a r t h e d o o r o f t h e van i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of removal. 4. An e y e w i t n e s s had s e e n d e f e n d a n t and a n o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l d e p a r t from t h e van. 5. Defendant had no j u s t i f i c a t i o n n o r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r h i s p r e s e n c e a t t h e van. W b e l i e v e t h e p r e c e d i n g e v i d e n c e , t a k e n a s a whole, e i s s u f f i c i e n t and we w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e j u r y . A c c o r d i n g l y , we f i n d no m e r i t i n d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h e s t a t e f a i l e d t o show a s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t o commit grand o r p e t i t l a r c e n y o r any o t h e r f e l o n y . A s t o h i s second i s s u e , d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t he c o u l d n o t form t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t o commit t h e c r i m e b e c a u s e o f h i s a l l e g e d l y i n t o x i c a t e d c o n d i t i o n a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c t . During t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f two witnesses. "Q. A. "Q. Helen Torgerson t e s t i f i e d : Did you have o c c a s i o n t o s e e Gene on t h a t e v e n i n g ? Yes, I d i d . Did you s e e him i n F a i r f i e l d ? A. Yes, I d i d . "Q. Do you r e c a l l what t i m e t h i s was? A . No, I don't. I t was between 6:30 and s e v e n , I g u e s s . I t * * * "Q. A t t h a t t i m e , Helen, d i d Gene a p p e a r t o have been d r i n k i n g ? A. Y e s , he was. "Q. Would you s a y t h a t he was under t h e i n f l u e n c e a t t h a t t i m e ? A. Yes. "MR. G I A N O T T I : That's a l l . " CROSS-EXAMINATIOIJ By M r . J o s l y n ; Under t h e influence--what i s your u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h a t ? A. Drinking. Drinking alcohol." "Q. R i c h a r d A.ustad, u n c l e of d e f e n d a n t , t e s t i f i e d : "Q. A. A t t h a t t i m e d i d Gene a p p e a r t o be d r i n k i n g ? Oh, he had a few d r i n k s . "Q. Did he a p p e a r t o be under t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e s e d r i n k s ? A. Oh, he was f e e l i n g h i s own. "Q. A. Did you s e e him any o t h e r t i m e s on t h a t day? L a t e r on i n t h e e v e n i n g . "Q. And d i d he s t i l l a p p e a r t o be under t h e Yes." i n f l u e n c e ? A. Upon t h e p r e c e d i n g e v i d e n c e , d e f e n d a n t a t t e m p t s t o show t h a t he was t o o i n t o x i c a t e d t o form t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t o commit t h e c r i m e of b u r g l a r y . The answer t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n c a n be found i n s e c t i o n 9 4 - 1 1 9 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947, which s t a t e s : "No a c t committed by a p e r s o n w h i l e i n a s t a t e o f v o l u n t a r y i n t o x i c a t i o n i s less c r i m i n a l by h i s b e i n g i n s a i d c o n d i t i o n . B u t , whenever t h e a c t u a l e x i s t e n c e o f any p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e , motive, o r i n t e n t , i s a necessary element t o c o n s t i t u t e any p a r t i c u l a r s p e c i e s o r d e g r e e o f c r i m e , t h e j u r y may t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e a c c u s e d was i n t o x i c a t e d a t t h e t i m e , i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p u r p o s e , motive o r i n t e n t w i t h which he committed t h e a c t . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The q u e s t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t ' s s o b r i e t y a t t h e t i m e of t h e c r i m i n a l a c t was f u l l y p r e s e n t e d and i n s t r u c t i o n s upon t h e subj e c t were g i v e n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The j u r y ' s v e r d i c t d e c l a r e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t w a s a b l e t o and d i d e n t e r t a i n t h e n e c e s s a r y criminal intent. W w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h a t v e r d i c t upon t h e e d e a r t h of t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n d a n t ' s two w i t n e s s e s . / The judgment i s h e r W e concur: ,-'" -rJ
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.
