STATE v OPPELT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13882 I N THE S P E E COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA UR M F F 1978 THE STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . DAVID OPPELT , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable H. William Coder, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : James A . Lewis, Public Defender argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely,Attorney General, Helena, Montana J . Mayo Ashley, argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana J . Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great Falls,Montana. Submitted: Decided : Filed: Y 1 Clerk. April 26, 1978 JUR - 8 1978 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court: Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of aggravated burglary, aggravated a s s a u l t , and attempted t h e f t e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Cascade County, upon a jury verdict. A t approximately 7:30 a.m., January 15, 1977, t h e Cascade County s h e r i f f ' s department n o t i f i e d J e r r y Noble, owner and m a n a g r of Zooks T i r e Center i n Great F a l l s , Montana, t h a t t h e b u r g l a r alarm f o r h i s s t o r e had sounded. Noble proceeded t o h i s s t o r e where he observed a man e x i t i n g from t h e shop door. Noble then parked h i s c a r i n a manner blocking an automobile which was parked n e a r t h e building. A t approximately t h i s same time, Leonard Dusek, a Zooks T i r e Center salesman, a r r i v e d a t work. A s Dusek approached t h e door of t h e b u i l d i n g , he observed a man i n s i d e t h e s t o r e crouching behind a counter, about e i g h t t o t e n f e e t from where Dusek stood. The man rose from h i s crouching p o s i t i o n , Dusek and t h e man s t a r e d a t each o t h e r , and t h e man then f l e d i n t o t h e shop. Dusek ran t o t h e n o r t h s i d e of t h e b u i l d i n g and observed t h r e e people, two were e n t e r i n g an automobile approximately 15 t o 20 f e e t from where Dusek was standing. Dusek t e s t i f i e d t h e t h i r d person, defendant, was standing o u t s i d e t h e v e h i c l e and threw a bumper jack handle a t him. Noble parked h i s pickup t r u c k a t an angle blocking t h e intruders' vehicle. Dusek t e s t i f i e d t h a t defendant David Oppelt obtained a c r e s c e n t wrench from t h e c a r and threw i t a t Noble's pickup t r u c k , a f t e r which defendant entered the s t o r e and c o l l e c t e d s e v e r a l t i r e i r o n s which he threw a t Noble's pickup truck. Noble t e s t i f i e d he g o t a very good look a t t h e fellow throwing t h e t i r e i r o n s , and t h a t person was defendant. When t h e two i n t r u d e r s i n t h e v e h i c l e t r i e d t o d r i v e away, Noble rammed t h e i r c a r with h i s pickup t r u c k , immobilizing t h e i r vehicle. The two people i n t h e a u t o then ran i n t o t h e shop, while t h e man who had thrown t h e t i r e i r o n s , wrench and jack handle f l e d t h e scene. Noble and Dusek entered t h e shop and, a f t e r an unsuccessful attempt by t h e i n t r u d e r s t o escape, apprehended t h e two people who had been i n t h e c a r and a t h i r d person who had been hiding i n t h e s t o r e behind a t i r e rack. Noble kicked one of t h e i n t r u d e r s s e v e r a l times i n an attempt t o f o r c e him t o r e v e a l t h e name of t h e f o u r t h c o n s p i r a t o r who had escaped. The i n t r u d e r s , upon t h i s persuasive prompting by Noble, i d e n t i f i e d t h e f o u r t h p a r t i c i pant i n t h e crime a s "Sonny" Gardipee. The s h e r i f f ' s department took t h e suspects i n t o custody and e l i c i t e d from one, Robert Azure, a l i s t of four of h i s f r i e n d s . Defendant was one of t h e people on t h e l i s t . Within an hour and a h a l f of t h e crime, Noble and Dusek went t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e where they gave an account of t h e crime and a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e man who had f l e d . Noble described t h e and 5'1OU, person a s between 5 ' 8 " / with h a i r t o t h e shoulders and a s l i g h t build. Dusek described t h e person a s t a l l and t h i n with long hair. A deputy s h e r i f f then held photos of defendant and one o t h e r person from Robert Azure's l i s t of f r i e n d s and showed t h e photos t o Dusek and Noble. The two persons i n t h e photos f i t both Noble's and Dusek's d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e f o u r t h c o n s p i r a t o r . Both Noble and Dusek p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d defendant a s t h e fourth participant. On January 19, 1977, t h e s t a t e f i l e d an Information i n D i s t r i c t Court, Cascade County, charging defendant and the three p a r t i c i p a n t s apprehended a t the scene of t h e crime with aggravated a s s a u l t , aggravated burglary, attempted t h e f t , and a l s o with a count of criminal trespass t o vehicles which was l a t e r dismissed. On March 28, 1977, the f i r s t day of t r i a l and more than two months a f t e r they had f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d defendant from the photos, the county attorney showed Noble and Dusek t h r e e o r four photos from which they both again selected the photo of defendant a s the photo of the fourth p a r t i c i p a n t i n the crime. A t defendant's t r i a l , both Dusek and Noble i d e n t i f i e d defendant a s the fourth person involved i n the crime. The s t a t e a t t r i a l raised the i s s u e of l e g a l accountability, and t h e c o u r t gave i n s t r u c t i o n s placing the theory of l e g a l accountability bef o r e the jury, although t h e l e g a l accountability offense was not charged i n the Information. Defendant on appeal presen,ts two i s s u e s f o r review: 1. Did Noble and Dusek's in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of de- fendant r e s u l t from an impermissibly suggestive p r e t r i a l photographic lineup? 2. Did the court e r r i n allowing the s t a t e a t t r i a l t o r a i s e the i s s u e of l e g a l accountability, where t h a t crime was n o t charged i n t h e Information? The f a c t o r s t o be considered t o determine whether a p r e t r i a l showup, lineup, o r photo i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s impermissibly suggestive have been s e t f o r t h by the United S t a t e s Supreme Court: ** 'I* A s indicated by our cases, the f a c t o r s t o be considered i n evaluating t h e likelihood of m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n include the opportunity of the witness t o view the criminal a t the time of the crime, the witness' degree of a t t e n t i o n , the accuracy of the witness' p r i o r d e s c r i p t i o n of the c r i m i n a l , t h e l e v e l of c e r t a i n t y demonstrated by t h e witness a t t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n , and t h e length of time between t h e crime and t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n Neil v. Biggers, (1972), 409 U.S. 188, 198, 199, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L ed 2d 401,411. * * *." See a l s o : Manson v. Brathwaite, (1977), 432 U.S. 98, 114,117, Applying t h e s e f a c t o r s t o t h i s c a s e , we cannot say 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 was s o suggestive a s t o c r e a t e a s u b s t a n t i a l l i k e l i h o o d of m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The witnesses had a s u f f i c i e n t opportunity t o view t h e person a t t h e t i m e of t h e crime. Noble saw t h e person throwing t i r e i r o n s from a l o c a t i o n very c l o s e t o t h e pickup t r u c k i n which Noble was s i t t i n g . Dusek s t a r e d a t t h e person f o r about f i v e seconds while t h e person was i n s i d e t h e shop beneath a s t r o n g overhead l i g h t . Dusek again saw t h e person o u t s i d e t h e shop throwing v a r i o u s a u t o t o o l s . The witnesses' a t t e n t i o n was focused on defendant. Noble, when he was s i t t i n g i n h i s pickup t r u c k , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was only 15 t o 20 f e e t from t h e person and g o t a "very good" look a t him. Dusek's a t t e n t i o n was focused on t h e person a s he s t a r e d a t him when he observed him i n s i d e t h e s t o r e . The witnesses' p r i o r d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e person a c c u r a t e l y described defendant, although i t was n o t a s d e t a i l e d a s i t might have been. Both Noble and Dusek t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e person's b u i l d , h e i g h t and h a i r length. Defendant matched t h e w i t n e s s e s ' descriptions. - The witnesses demonstrated a high l e v e l of c e r t a i n t y a t t h e photographic lineup. Each t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had no doubt a s t o t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ; each quickly picked t h e photo of defendant as t h e photo of t h e c r i m i n a l . F i n a l l y , the length of time between the crime and the confrontation was s h o r t . Both witnesses i d e n t i f i e d defendant a t the photographic lineup l e s s than two hours a f t e r t h e crime was committed. A claim of prejudice from an allegedly defective i d e n t i - f i c a t i o n procedure must be evaluated by examining "the t o t a l i t y of the circumstances surrounding it." 388 U.S. 293, 302, 87 S.Ct. S t o v a l l v. Denno, (1967), 1967, 18 L ed 2d 1199, 1206. De- fendant claims t h a t several f a c t o r s created a " t o t a l i t y of circumstances" which led t o an impermissibly suggestive i d e n t i f i c a t i o n procedure. Defendant f i r s t notes t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was made from a presentation of only two photographs. photos would have been a suggestive i n t h i s case. Although showing numerous preferable procedure, i t was not unduly The United S t a t e s Supreme Court has held t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a criminal even by means of a one-person showup o r photo presentation does not n e c e s s a r i l y , without more, v i o l a t e due process. Neil v. Biggers, supra; S t o v a l l v. Denno, supra. I n t h i s case, the o f f i c e r who conducted the photo i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s t a t e d the p i c t u r e of defendant and the other man were t h e only two p i c t u r e s he could obtain from the l i s t of t h e four people Kobert Azure had given him. Moreover, the photo i d e n t i f i c a t i o n occurred not a f t e r defendant had beenstaken i n t o police custody, but during the course of the police i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the crime. This was merely a proper i n v e s t i g a t i o n procedure r a t h e r than an attempt t o suggest t o witnesses t h a t a suspect i n custody was t h e one i n t h e photo and the one who committed the crime. See: United S t a t e s v. Cantu, (7th C i r . 1972), 501 F.2d 1019, 1020; S t a t e v. Ware, (1976), 113 Ariz. 337, 554 P.2d 1264, 1266. While the use of a l a r g e r number of photos would surely have strengthened the force of the identification evidence, the defect in using only two photos " * * * goes to weight and not to substance", Manson v. Brathwaite, supra. Defendant also complains that Noble and Dusek were allowed to view the photos in the presence of each other, while the deputy sheriff held the photographs before them, Simultaneous, rather than independent exhibitions of photos to more than one witness will render a photographic identification inadmissible only if the circumstances of the identification procedure are such as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification. United States v. Hopkins, (D.C.Cir.1972), 464 F.2d 816, 820, Here, each witness testified that he identified defendant as the criminal immediately upon seeing the photos, without prompting from the other witness or from the police officer. In the absence of any evidence of suggestiveness, this identification procedure was merely a factor which the jury could consider in evaluating the strength of the evidence. Defendant also claims that it was improper to conduct another photographic lineup prior to trial. In the absence of any evidence that the state coached the witnesses to pick defendant's picture, however, the reshowing of the photos was merely a matter on which the defense could question the witnesses during cross-examination. Buchanan v. State, (Alaska 1977), 561 P.2d 1197, 1207. Finally defendant claims that the photographic identification was unfair because the police never attempted to obtain a photo of Sonny Gardipee, the man whom the other participants in the crime named as the criminal who had fled. At trial, however, the officer who conducted the photographic identification testified that he knew Sonny Gardipee to be a man 5'9" tall, with short hair, weighing 230 pounds. Both witnesses described the criminal as thin with shoulder length hair. Considering the totality of the circumstances and applying the four part analysis of Neil v. Biggers, supra, we cannot say that the photographic identification was so suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Short of this, any defects in the procedure were merely factors by which the jury could measure the weight of the identification testimony. Nor did the court err in allowing the state to introduce the theory of legal accountability at trial when that theory was not listed in the Information. This Court recently held that Montana follows the Illinois rule that "* * * an indictment need not distinguish an act performed by the accused himself and the act of another for which he is legally accountable.I I State v. Murphy, (1977), Mont . , 570 P.2d 1103, 1105, 34 St. Rep. 1174. The judgment is affirmed. JUStice We Concur: %ad. Chief Justice a4 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.
