STATE v SIMTOB
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13056 I N THE SUPREME COIJRT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 197 5 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - S L M N B ITTON SIMTOB , OO O Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R. B e n n e t t , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: R i c h a r d E. G i l l e s p i e a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana For 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 , H e l e n a , 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 , Helena, Montana Thomas Dowling, County A t t o r n e y , Helena, Montana C h a r l e s A. Graveley , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Submitted : November 13, 1975 Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a judgment of c o n v i c t i o n of c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous drugs e n t e r e d on a j u r y v e r d i c t i n Lewis and C l a r k County. The crime was committed i n t h e c i t y o f Helena by defendant a f t e r he had journeyed t o Helena from B i l l i n g s . The s t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d g e n e r a l l y a s t o being w i t h t h e defendant a t a p a r t y i n B i l l i n g s , h e a r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n a s t o going t o Helena v i a Bozeman, f o r , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e purpose of o b t a i n i n g drugs. The d e t a i l s of t h e t r i p were observed and monitered by undercover a g e n t s w i t h a l l of t h e s p e c i f i c s a s t o t h e crime; I n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c a s e , one Mike Ringquist was c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s f o r defendant. H i s testimony a p p a r e n t l y was t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t he was a c l o s e f r i e n d of defendant and had planned a t r i p w i t h defendant about August 25 t o go t o G l a c i e r Park on August 30, t h e d a t e o f t h e a c t i v i t y t e s t i f i e d t o by s t a t e w i t n e s s e s . The w i t n e s s was asked i f he had heard a l l t h e testimony p r e s e n t e d about t h e t r i p from B i l l i n g s t o Helena. So, h i s testimony was an obvious a t t e m p t t o d i s p u t e o r c o n t r a d i c t t h e s t a t e ' s testimony a s t o t h e purpose of t h e t r i p and i t s d e t a i l s . Then t h e w i t n e s s Ringquist was asked s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s by d e f e n d a n t ' s counsel concerning t h e u s e of drugs: Did t h e Defendant g i v e any i n d i c a t i o n t o you "Q. t h a t he was going t o purchase drugs and s e l l drugs? A. N sir. o "Q. To your knowledge, d i d he have any drugs i n h i s o possession? A. N S i r . Were you going t o u s e any drugs w h i l e you were "Q. N sir. o i n G l a c i e r Park? A . "Q. Did you go on t h a t t r i p w i t h him? I had t o work. A. N sir, o "Q. The t r i p t h a t we a r e t a l k i n g about i s t h e same one t h a t he e v e n t u a l l y went on w i t h M r . Desmul, i s t h a t r i g h t ? A . Well, I d o n ' t know, I know him a s Y . E Ferguson. Q . Ferguson? A. Yes. "Q. Why was i t you c o u l d n ' t go? A . I had t o work t h a t Saturday and they were l e a v i n g Saturday so I s a i d , t I j u s t c a n ' t go. r I n t h e time t h a t you were w i t h and around M r . "Q. Simtob i n B i l l i n g s , t o your knowledge, d i d he u s e any d r u g s , t r a f f i c i n drugs? A. Other than a l c o h o l , no. "Q. H w much a l c o h o l a r e you t a l k i n g about? A . Well, o I went o u t w i t h him p r a c t i c a l l y every n i g h t t h a t he was i n B i l l i n g s and I s a y on two occasions t h a t we had d i n n e r p a r t i e s and he had t h r e e , maybe f o u r g l a s s e s of wine and every time whenever we went t o a b a r i t was l i k e one o r two b e e r s and t h e n he s t a r t e d d r i n k i n g seven-up. "Q. Did he t a l k about u s i n g drugs? d i d n ' t t a l k about drugs. A. N s i r , we o Did he have any opinion about drugs? "Q. "Q. Did he make any s t a t e m e n t s about drugs? d u r i n g t h a t time. I I A. Not By t h i s w i t n e s s and t h e l i n e of q u e s t i o n i n g and h i s answers, i t was obvious t h a t t h e w i t n e s s was a t t e m p t i n g t o e s t a b l i s h a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e defendant; knew h i s h a b i t s ; knew h i s p l a n s ; knew h i s g e n e r a l r e p u t a t i o n ; and, denied knowledge of h i s This tended t o r e f u t e a n d c a t m d i c t drug use. t h e testimony of t h e s t a t e ' s witnesses. Then, on cross-examination, t h e s t a t e f u r t h e r developed t h e s e m a t t e r s a s t o t h e w i t n e s s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p s and h i s exchange of l e t t e r s . When pinned down t h e w i t n e s s changed l e t t e r s t o a single l e t t e r , When pinned down f u r t h e r a s t o d a t e s and p l a c e s , t h e w i t n e s s was f i n a l l y f o r c e d t o acknowledge t h a t t h e defendant had been i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n during s e v e r a l months p r i o r t o August 1 9 , 1974. Over o b j e c t i o n , t h e S t a t e was allowed t o e l i c i t t h e s e answers from t h e w i t n e s s who p r e v i o u s l y had p a i n t e d what was obviously meant t o be a p i c t u r e of t h e defendant a s a wholesome f r i e n d planning a t r i p t o G l a c i e r Park--which would r e f u t e and c o n t r a d i c t t h e s t a t e ' s testimony. F u r t h e r , on r e b u t t a l , t h e s t a t e was allowed t o p r e s e n t evidence t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t defendant had a g e n e r a l r e p u t a t i o n a s one of t h e major drug pushers i n Montana. q e r e , che s i n g l e i s s u e , a s i d e from a later i s s u e mentioned h e r e i n a f t e r , i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r u l i n g t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l had b r o u g h t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c h a r a c t e r and g e n e r a l r e p u t a t i o n i n t o i s s u e and t h e n a l l o w e d t h e s t a t e t o q u e s t i o n w i t n e s s e s ' knowledge of t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s c h a r a c t e r and g e n e r a l reputation. Defendant a s s e r t s t h a t Mike R i n g q u i s t was n o t a c h a r a c t e r w i t z l e s s and t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n s and a n s w e r s , p a r t l y q u o t e d h e r e t o f o r e , were o n l y f o r t h e purpose o f s o l i c i t i n g defendant's a c t i v i t i e s . f i r s t h a n d knowledge o f Perhaps t h a t w a s d e f e n d a n t ' s purpose i n a s k i n g t h e q u e s t i o n s b u t t h e answers r e v e a l e d a l a c k o f c a n d o r and t r u t h f u l n e s s a s w e l l a s a n a t t e m p t t o p r e s e n t d e f e n d a n t a s a p e r s o n of good c h a r a c t e r , p a r t i c u l a r l y a s t o l a c k of any c o n n e c t i o n w i t h d r u g s o r any purpose f o r t h e t r i p t o Helena t e s t i f i e d t o by t h e s c a t e ' s witnesses. The c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n and r e b u t t a l was c o n f i n e d co t h e p a r t i c u l a r t r a i t o f c h a r a c t e r impugned i n t h e c r i m e w i t h which t h e d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d and t o which t h e s t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s had c e s t i f i e d and d e f e n d a n t ' s w i t n e s s a t t e m p t e d t o c o n t r a d i c t and d i s credit. Such q u e s t i o n i n g i s p r o p e r . S t a t e v . Cor, 144 Mont. 323, 396 P.?d 8 6 ; S t a t e v. Moorrnan, 133 Mont. 148, 321 P.2d 236; 33-1901-7, R.C.M. 1947. Section I n S t a t e v. T u r l e y , 164 Mont. 231, 234, ,21 P.2d 690, t h i s Court s a i d : ** 'If< such e v i d e n c e was b r o u g h t o u t on d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n o f a p p e l l a n t by a p p e l l a n t ' s own c o u n s e l . Xaving done s o , he c a n n o t now complain. I I W f i n d no e r r o r . e t h e f i n a l i s s u e was r a i s e d a s a s u p p l e m e n t a l i s s u e ~ildiLeligi1lgt h e s t a t u t e u n d e r which d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d a s t o r h e d e f i n i t i o n o f "dangerous drugs". W w i l l not repeat the d e t a i l s e 32 t h e c h a l l e n g e h e r e b e c a u s e t h e i s s u e w a s s e t t l e d by t h i s C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n S t a t e e x r e l . Lance, P e t i t i o n e r v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Mon t . 3 P.2d , 32 St.Rep. c o u r t ' s Cause No. 13167, d e c i d e d November 1 2 , 1975. F i n d i n g no e r r o r t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . ' \ - Justices. 1119, t h i 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.
