STATE v WHITE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14804 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . LARRY D. WHITE, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Sherwood and Hood, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs: November 14, 1979 1 Decided: Filed: Clerk * Ji'! 1 1 1 ° C - ,--y Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . his i s a n a p p e a l by d e f e n d a n t , L a r r y D . White, from a j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment e n t e r e d t h e r e o n c o n v i c t i n g him o f felony t h e f t , i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l District, i n t h e County of M i s s o u l a . Defendant w a s sen- t e n c e d t o t e n y e a r s i m p r i s o n m e n t i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n without parole. On A p r i l 1 7 , 1 9 7 8 , d e f e n d a n t began d r i n k i n g e a r l y i n t h e d a y and had consumed a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f l i q u o r and b e e r when he m e t a n a c q u a i n t a n c e , Dennis S a l l e e . They c o n t i n u e d d r i n k i n g i n v a r i o u s b a r s i n downtown M i s s o u l a . Sometime b e f o r e 9:00 p.m. on t h e same d a y , S t e p h e n M. Langer p a r k e d h i s r e d 1974 Honda 1 2 5 cc m o t o r c y c l e i n t h e a l l e y b e h i n d h i s a p a r t m e n t l o c a t e d a t 147 West Main, M i s s o u l a , Montana. A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0 : 3 0 p.m., Douglas K e i t h Downey, who had been d r i n k i n g a t t h e Top H a t B a r , walked o u t o f t h e back d o o r o f t h a t e s t a b l i s h m e n t and n o t i c e d two men p l a c e a m o t o r c y c l e i n t h e back o f a p i c k u p i n t h e a l l e y behind M r . Langer's apartment. H e w a s unable t o i d e n t i f y t h e two men beyond t h e f a c t t h a t o n e was t a l l e r , o n e had a d a r k e r complexion, and b o t h had d a r k h a i r . A f t e r t h e two men d r o v e away, M r . Downey d r o v e t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n and r e p o r t e d what h e had s e e n . O f f i c e r Doug H a r t s e l l t o o k t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , f i l l e d o u t a d e s k r e p o r t , and dispatched t h e information over the air t o p a t r o l vehicles. A p p r o x i m a t e l y f i v e m i n u t e s a f t e r t h e d i s p a t c h , O f f i c e r Lex Herndon o b s e r v e d a v e h i c l e which matched t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e t r u c k and made a s t o p . The p i c k u p was d r i v e n by Dennis S a l l e e and d e f e n d a n t was a p a s s e n g e r . I n t h e back o f t h e t r u c k was a r e d ~ o n d a 1 2 5 cc m o t o r c y c l e which was l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s b e l o n g i n g t o Langer. S a l l e e and t h e d e f e n d a n t w e r e p l a c e d u n d e r a r r e s t . A t the t r i a l , n e i t h e r S a l l e e nor defendant could r e c a l l t h e events of t h a t night, p r i o r t o t h e a r r e s t . There w a s e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t i n g d e f e n d a n t s u f f e r s from a n advanced s t a g e of a l c o h o l i s m and i s s u b j e c t t o a l c o h o l i c blackout. The p r o s e c u t i o n i n t r o d u c e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t when Langer p a r k e d t h e m o t o r c y c l e , h e l o c k e d t h e s t e e r i n g column, c a u s i n g t h e f r o n t wheel t o b e l o c k e d i n a p o s i t i o n s u c h t h a t t h e motorcycle could o n l y be r o l l e d i n c i r c l e s . One p e r s o n w i t h o u t a key c o u l d move i t o n l y by d r a g g i n g i t and two people could b a r e l y c a r r y it because of i t s weight. Langer t e s t i f i e d h e c o u l d n o t have l i f t e d i t a l o n e a n d c o u l d have moved i t o n l y w i t h d i f f i c u l t y . The s t e e r i n g column was s t i l l l o c k e d when t h e b i k e was t a k e n t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n . The v a l u e o f t h e b i k e was o v e r $150. On May 4 , 1978, a n i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d i n D i s t r i c t Court charging defendant with t h e o f f e n s e of felony t h e f t . Defendant e n t e r e d a p l e a of n o t g u i l t y t o t h e charge. Upon d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n , a p s y c h i a t r i c e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t was c o n d u c t e d by t h e r e g i o n a l m e n t a l h e a l t h center. The c a s e was s e t f o r t r i a l . D e f e n d a n t moved f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n o f j u d g e and f i l e d a n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o u s e i n s a n i t y a s a defense. Noel H o e l l , M . D . , performed t h e e v a l u a t i o n upon o r d e r o f J u d g e D u s s a u l t , who had assumed jurisdiction. Dr. H o e l l ' s evaluation s t a t e d t h e defendant was n o t s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill, b u t was a c h r o n i c a l c o h o l i c . A f t e r t h e r e t i r e m e n t o f J u d g e D u s s a u l t , J u d g e Gordon R. B e n n e t t assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n . 2, A f t e r a j u r y t r i a l on ~ c t o b e r 1978, a v e r d i c t o f g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e o f t h e f t , a f e l o n y , w a s r e t u r n e d on O c t o b e r 3, 1978. The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w have been p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s Court: 1) id t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n a l l o w i n g t h e a r r e s t - i n g o f f i c e r t o t e s t i f y regarding t h e d i s p a t c h he received shortly before the a r r e s t ? 2) Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n a l l o w i n g a n e y e - witness t o the t h e f t t o t e s t i f y f o r the State i n rebuttal i n s t e a d of i n i t s case-in-chief? 3) A s t o s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence: A) Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s a t t h e c l o s e of t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e ; and B) Is t h e c o n v i c t i o n s u p p o r t e d by s u f f i c i e n t evidence? D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t P o l i c e O f f i c e r H e r n d o n ' s testimony r e g a r d i n g t h e r a d i o d i s p a t c h he r e c e i v e d from O f f i c e r H a r t s e l l was h e a r s a y and t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n p e r m i t t i n g it t o be introduced. T h i s C o u r t had a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n i n S t a t e v . P a u l s o n ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 310, 538 P.2d 339. I n Paulson, t h e defen- d a n t maintained t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s testimony regarding h i s t e l e p h o n e 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 h e a r s a y . W e d i s a g r e e d and s t a t e d : s u p p o r t e d by law. "This conclusion i s n o t The t e s t i m o n y w a s i n t r o d u c e d o n l y f o r t h e purpose of demonstrating t h e e x i s t e n c e of probable cause t o make t h e a r r e s t w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t and s u b s e q u e n t s e a r c h . " S t a t e v . P a u l s o n , s u p r a , 538 P.2d 343. W e c o n t i n u e d and q u o t e d from K e r v . C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 374 U.S. 1 6 2 3 , 1 0 L.Ed.2d Court s t a t e d "I 23, 83 S . C t . 726, w h e r e i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme * * * That t h i s information w a s 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. . . I 11 538 P.2d 343. When O f f i c e r H e r n d o n ' s t e s t i m o n y i s viewed i n t h e c o n t e x t i n which i t was i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e t r i a l , i t becomes a p p a r e n t t h a t i t w & s b e i n g u s e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e was p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s t o p t h e v e h i c l e i n which t h e d e f e n d a n t was r i d i n g a n d , s u b s e q u e n t l y t o a r r e s t him. The t e s t i m o n y o f O f f i c e r Herndon was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. D e f e n d a n t c o m p l a i n s i t was e r r o r f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o permit t h e S t a t e t o reopen i t s case-in-chief and t o p e r m i t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Doug Downey, t h e e y e w i t n e s s t o t h e t h e f t , t o be i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e c l o s e of d e f e n d a n t ' s c a s e . S e c t i o n 46-16-401, MCA p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n should p u t on i t s case-in-chief f e n s e . S e c t i o n 46-16-402, p r i o r t o t h a t o f t h e de- MCA g r a n t s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o d e p a r t from t h a t o r d e r o f t r i a l " f o r good reasons." D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s no good r e a s o n s e x i s t e d . T h i s c o n t e n t i o n i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e f a c t s . A r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e S t a t e had s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f i c u l t y i n l o c a t i n g M r . Downey. While p a r t o f t h i s problem w a s c a u s e d by t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o subpoena t h e witness p r i o r t o the t r i a l , it is apparent t h a t the S t a t e k e p t t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e d e f e n d a n t i n f o r m e d o f i t s d i f f i c u l t y i n l o c a t i n g t h e w i t n e s s and o f i t s i n t e n t i o n t o c a l l t h e w i t n e s s a s soon a s h e was l o c a t e d . The w i t n e s s was a l s o l i s t e d on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t c l a i m surprise. F u r t h e r , t h e t r i a l judge i n p e r m i t t i n g t h e S t a t e t o reopen i t s case-in-chief f u l l opportunity t o rebut Mr. a l s o gave t h e defendant Downey's t e s t i m o n y . I t h a s l o n g been t h e r u l e i n Montana t h a t t h e o r d e r i n which p r o o f i s a d m i t t e d a t t h e t r i a l i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , S t a t e v . A l l i s o n ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 122 Mont. 1 2 0 , 1 4 3 , 199 P.2d 279, 292, and t h a t t h e u s u a l o r d e r o f t r i a l may b e d e p a r t e d from i n t h e p r o p e r case, S t a t e v . McKenzie ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 278, 309-310, 1041, v a c a t e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s 433 U.S. 557 P.2d 1023, 905 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Here t h e r e w e r e "good r e a s o n s " f o r t h e d e p a r t u r e from t h e o r d e r o f t r i a l and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t e d p r o p e r l y i n p e r m i t t i n g the departure. The t h i r d i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d and i s t w o f o l d . I t d e a l s w i t h whether t h e S t a t e e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e and w h e t h e r t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence introduced during t h e t r i a l t o support the guilty verdict. The d e f e n d a n t m a i n t a i n s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t h i s motion t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e c a s e . Defendant f u r t h e r m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t o f g u i l t y t o t h e charge of felony t h e f t . The c r u x o f d e f e n - d a n t ' s argument a p p e a r s t o b e t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o show t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n p o s s e s s i o n of t h e s t o l e n goods a t t h e t i m e of the a r r e s t . The d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h e e v i d e n c e shows o n l y t h a t t h e m o t o r c y c l e was t a k e n by two p e o p l e i n a r e d p i c k u p and t h a t a p p e l l a n t was i n a r e d t r u c k d r i v e n by D e n n i s S a l l e e when t h e p o l i c e s t o p p e d them. The d e f e n d a n t r e l i e s o n two Montana cases i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s argument: S t a t e v . Campbell ( 1 9 7 8 ) , P.2d 783, 35 St.Rep. Mont. , 582 733; and S t a t e e x r e l . Wilson v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t (1972) 159 Mont. 43-4, 498 P.2d 1217. An examination of these cases indicates they are distinquishable. In Wilson and Campbell there was an absence of any conclusive evidence linking the defendant with the stolen merchandise. Here, White was an occupant in the truck, transporting the stolen motorcycle, when the truck was stopped a very short time after the theft occurred - a theft which was accomplished by two men in a vehicle matching the description of the van in which defendant was a passenger. There was also testimony that the defendant and Sallee had been together all evening. In People v. Barber (1974), 120 1111977, 313N.E.2d 491, an argument similar to defendant's was presented by a driver, who argued that he was simply moving the stolen property in his car for his passenger. He con- tended that the fact he had a passenger in the car at the time of his arrest raised a reasonable doubt as to whether he or his passenger was in possession of the stolen property. The Illinois Court rejected this argument and stated: "If possession by a single defendant is in issue, the possession must be shown to be in him and not in someone else . . . But if the circumstances show that defendant possessed the recently stolen property either singly or jointly with others, the inference of guilt is warranted and 'exclusiveness' of possession is not rebutted by merely showing another's presence." 313 N.E.2d at 494. See also People v. Umphers (1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 853, 272 N.E.2d 278, 280; Bury v. State (1968), 2 Md.App. 674, 236 A. 2d 751, 753; Martinez v. People (1967), 162 Colo. 195, 425 P.2d 299, 301; Commonwealth v. Gusciora (1951), 169 Pa.Super. 27, 82 A.2d 540, 542; 51 A.L.R.3d 727, S 39(b) at 799-801 (1973). The Court in Barber pointed out that: "Possession is a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t t o b e d e c i d e d by t h e j u r y whose p r o v i n c e i t i s t o d e c i d e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s , t h e weight t o be g i v e n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y and t h e i n f e r e n c e s t o b e drawn." N.E.2d a t 495. 313 This record contains s u f f i c i e n t credible e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t on t h i s i s s u e . I n Montana t h e d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r t o g r a n t o r deny a motion t o d i s m i s s a t t h e c l o s e of t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e l i e s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . 16-403, MCA. S e c t i o n 46- F u r t h e r , a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t should o n l y be g i v e n where t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e on which t h e j u r y c o u l d base a conviction. - Mont. P a u l s o n , s u p r a ; S t a t e v . Thompson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , , - 576 P.2d 1105, 1108, 35 St.Rep. 343. T h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s e n d t h i s c a s e t o t h e j u r y and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t e d p r o p e r l y i n d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s . T h e r e was a l s o s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g by t h e j u r y t h a t d e f e n d a n t committed t h e offense of t h e f t . The v e r d i c t must t h e r e f o r e s t a n d . S t a t e v . F i t z p a t r i c k ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 220, 516 P.2d 605. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . , W e concur: z44w*& Chief J u s t i c e Justice -
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.
