STATE v LUNDBLADE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 79-50 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. CARL ROGER LUNDBLADE, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lake. Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: K.M. Bridenstine argued, Polson, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Allan Chronister argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Richard P. Heinz argued, County Attorney, Polson, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: MAR 2 4 1987- January 13, 1981 MAR 2 4 19@' C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. Mr. D e f e n d a n t C a r l R o g e r L u n d b l a d e a p p e a l s from a f e l o n y t h e f t c o n v i c t i o n , f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Lake W e r e v e r s e t h e c o n v i c t i o n and remand t h e c a u s e t o County. D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a new t r i a l . The d e f e n d a n t o p e r a t e d a d i e s e l r e p a i r s h o p i n P o l s o n , M o n t a n a , f o r a t i m e p r i o r t o h i s a r r e s t i n December 1978. One of h i s r e g u l a r c u s t o m e r s was t h e c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s i n t h i s case, Warren G. Harding , d/b/a Mission Valley Concrete I n d u s t r i e s , I n A p r i l 1978, one of H a r d i n g l s t r u c k s blew an e n g i n e . Inc. Defendant i n s t a l l e d a new e n g i n e f o r H a r d i n g , u s i n g s e v e r a l p a r t s from t h e blown e n g i n e . Harding a p p a r e n t l y wanted to g e t t h e e n g i n e r e p a i r e d , b u t L u n d b l a d e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e blown e n g i n e c o u l d n o t be f i x e d and s i m p l y k e p t it a t h i s s h o p . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h i s e n g i n e work was d o n e , d e f e n d a n t p o s t e d a n o t i c e i n h i s s h o p t h a t h e was i n c r e a s i n g h i s h o u r l y r a t e t o $16/hour i n - s h o p and $ 1 7 . 5 0 / h o u r had been paying $lO/hour, t h e new r a t e s . out-of -shop. Mr. H a r d i n g , who a d v i s e d L u n d b l a d e t h a t he c o u l d n o t pay C o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y was p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l a s t o t h e outcome of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . Harding t e s t i f i e d t h a t L u n d b l a d e a g r e e d t o c o n t i n u e t o c h a r g e him a t t h e $ 1 0 h o u r l y r a t e ; L u n d b l a d e t e s t i f i e d t h a t it was a g r e e d t h a t H a r d i n g would g e t a " b r e a k " and $ 1 4 a n h o u r s t r a i g h t across t h e b o a r d was a g r e e d upon. D e s p i t e t h i s d i s p u t e o v e r rates, Lundblade c o n t i n u e d to do m i s c e l l a n e o u s r e p a i r work f o r H a r d i n g i n J u n e , J u l y , and A u g u s t 1978. By e a r l y S e p t e m b e r , H a r d i n g l s b i l l t o t a l l e d $ 2 , 6 2 4 . Harding p a i d $1,000 b u t r e f u s e d t o pay any more, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t h e w a s " g e t t i n g a r u n a r o u n d o n [ t h e ] work." A f t e r s e v e r a l u n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t s to collect t h e b i l l , L u n d b l a d e c o n t a c t e d a P o l s o n a t t o r n e y t o a s s i s t him i n making the collection. A f t e r s e v e r a l l e t t e r s b a c k and f o r t h b e t w e e n H a r d i n g ' s and L u n d b l a d e ' s a t t o r n e y s , d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t h e r e q u e s t e d h i s a t t o r n e y t o f i l e s u i t , b u t no a c t i o n was t a k e n . L u n d b l a d e t e s t i f i e d t h a t on a d v i c e of c o u n s e l , h e h e l d t h e e n g i n e t o p r o t e c t h i s c a u s e of a c t i o n . H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he u n d e r s t o o d t h a t i f he s o l d t h e e n g i n e , t h e d e b t would be e x t i n g u i s h e d and h e would no l o n g e r h a v e g r o u n d s to f i l e s u i t . I n November 1 9 7 8 , L u n d b l a d e c o n t a c t e d W e n d e l l J o n e s i n M i s s o u l a c o n c e r n i n g a s a l e of h i s e q u i p m e n t and t h e e n g i n e b e c a u s e he was f o r c e d t o go o u t of b u s i n e s s . A s a l e of t h e e q u i p m e n t and e n g i n e was consumated on November 27, 1 9 7 8 . Jones t e s t i f i e d t h a t $750 was a l l o c a t e d t o t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e of t h e e n g i n e ; L u n d b l a d e t e s t i f i e d t h a t $600 r e p r e s e n t e d t h e p r i c e f o r t h e engine. Both t e s t i f i e d t h a t it would c o s t more t o r e b u i l d t h e e n g i n e t h a n it would t o p u r c h a s e a used e n g i n e . Jones t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e $750 p r i c e was "more t h a n f a i r . " L u n d b l a d e t e s t i f i e d t h a t it was s t a n d a r d p r a c t i c e i n t h e r e p a i r b u s i n e s s t o s e l l a customer's p r o p e r t y i f an a c c o u n t could n o t be c o l l e c t e d . H e a d m i t t e d t h a t he wrote o f f t h e e n t i r e b a l a n c e owing, a l t h o u g h he d i d n o t i n f o r m M r . H a r d i n g of t h i s u n t i l a f t e r he was a r r e s t e d i n December 1 9 7 8 f o r f e l o n y t h e f t of t h e disassembled engine. W f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n m u s t be r e v e r s e d e b e c a u s e i m p r o p e r j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s d e n i e d him a f a i r t r i a l . The r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s need n o t be a d d r e s s e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n a s t h e y w i l l n o t a r i s e on r e t r i a l . The j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r two reasons: (1) t h e j u r y was n o t a d v i s e d of t h e s t a t u t o r y e l e m e n t s o f t h e crime, and ( 2 ) t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d o n d e f e n d a n t ' s c i v i l remedy of a n a g i s t e r ' s l i e n , p e r m i t t i n g t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t h e was g u i l t y of t h e f t f o r f a i l u r e t o p u r s u e t h a t remedy. The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t we s h o u l d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e q u e s t i o n o f f a i l u r e t o g i v e a n " e l e m e n t s of t h e crime" instruction, citing well-settled p r i n c i p l e s of a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w . The S t a t e c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t t h a t f a i l u r e t o o b j e c t a t t r i a l t o t h e g i v i n g or r e f u s a l t o g i v e a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n n o r m a l l y r e n d e r s t h e i s s u e nonappealable. 6 0 3 P.2d S t a t e v. 6 6 1 , 665, 3 6 S t . R e p . Harvey ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 2035, 2038, Mont. I and t h e r e c o r d h e r e shows t h a t a p p e l l a n t n e v e r o f f e r e d a n i n s t r u c t i o n s e t t i n g o u t t h e B u t t h i s C o u r t h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n some e l e m e n t s o f t h e crime. s i t u a t i o n s we w i l l nonetheless review j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s " f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r or n o t t h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y S t a t e v. Watson ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 576, 5 8 2 , 3 9 8 instructed." I n t h i s case, b e c a u s e w e d e t e r m i n e t h a t f a i l u r e P.2d 9 4 9 , 952. t o i n s t r u c t o n t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e crime c o n s t i t u t e s " p l a i n e r r o r " p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 46-20-702, MCA, zance of t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n q u e s t i o n . ( 1 9 8 0 )I Mont . A t a minimum, , we w i l l t a k e cogni- S t a t e v. P o n c e l e t 610 P.2d 6 9 8 , 7 0 2 , 37 S t . R e p . 760, 763. t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t m u s t e x p l a i n or d e f i n e t h e crime f o r t h e j u r y . S t a t e v. C a m p b e l l ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 6 0 Mont. 111, 1 1 4 , 500 P.2d In determining whether the i n s t r u c t i o n s 8 0 1 , 803. d i d t h i s , w e are g u i d e d by c e r t a i n s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e s . F i r s t , we m u s t v i e w t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s as a w h o l e , S t a t e v. C a r y l ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 8 Mont. 414, 430, 5 4 3 P.2d 389, 3 9 8 , and w e w i l l f i n d n o e r r o r i f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s as a w h o l e f u l l y and f a i r l y i n s t r u c t o n t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e case. P.2d S t a t e v. H i g l e y ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 1 0 4 3 , 1 0 5 4 , 37 S t . R e p . Mont. a t 1 1 6 , 500 P.2d Mont . , 1 9 4 2 , 1 9 5 3 ; S t a t e v. C a m p b e l l , s u p r a , 1 6 0 a t 804. The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s as a whole adeq u a t e l y a p p r i s e d t h e j u r y of t h e s u b s t a n t i v e l a w a p p l i c a b l e to t h i s case. We disagree. Even c o n s i d e r i n g I n s t r u c t i o n s N o s . 5, 6 , 8 , and 11, as t h e S t a t e u r g e s u s t o d o , w e a r e u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e j u r y knew t h a t t h e S t a t e had t o p r o v e e v e r y e l e m e n t o f t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . The p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s as g i v e n p r o v i d e as f o l l o w s : .r g.e d., i n voe rr d em at toe rci a ln vfiac ct t himr o lf e mheen t crime r o t cha e y o e I ' 621 n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e crime m u s t be p r o v e d b y t h e S t a t e o f Montana by c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ; a n d , i f t h e j u r y e n t e r t a i n s a r e a s o n a b l e doubt on any f a c t o r e l e m e n t n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e crime c h a r g e d , it is y o u r d u t y to g i v e t h e d e f e n d a n t t h e b e n e f i t o f s u c h d o u b t and a c q u i t .I' (No. 5 ) " I n e v e r y crime or p u b l i c o f f e n s e t h e S t a t e m u s t e s t a b l i s h each element d e s c r i b e d & t h e s t a t u t e further d e f i n i n g t h e o f f e n s e , and t h e S t a t e e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e Defendant acted while having t h e m e n t a l s t a t e r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t u t e (Emphasis added. ) (No. defining the offense 6 must ." " I n t h i s case t h e D e f e n d a n t h a s b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h c o m m i t t i n g t h e crime o f THEFT, c o m m i t t e d as f o l l o w s , to-wit: T h a t o n o r a b o u t November 27, 1 9 7 8 , a t t h e C o u n t y o f L a k e , i n t h e S t a t e of M o n t a n a , t h e D e f e n d a n t , CARL ROGER LUNDBLADE, p u r p o s e l y or k n o w i n g l y o b t a i n e d or e x e r t e d one unauthorized control over property, to-wit: GMC 6V 5 3 d i e s e l e n g i n e model number 6V 53N, o f a v a l u e o f more t h a n One Hundred F i f t y Dollars ( $ 1 5 0 . 0 0 ) owned by M i s s i o n V a l l e y C o n c r e t e I n d u s t r i e s , Inc., w i t h t h e purpose of d e p r i v i n g t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y . " "The s t a t u t e s u n d e r which t h i s I n f o r m a t i o n is f i l e d , and t h e D e f e n d a n t c h a r g e d , o r as many as a r e a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case, a r e given i n the following instructions." (No. 8 ) [We n o t e t h a t no f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n c o n c e r n i n g t h e s t a t u t e s u n d e r which t h e I n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d , o r u n d e r w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d . ] " R e a s o n a b l e d o u b t i s n o t a mere p o s s i b l e d o u b t , b e c a u s e e v e r y t h i n g r e l a t i n g t o human a f f a i r s , a n d d e p e n d i n g o n e v i d e n c e , i s o p e n t o some p o s s i b l e or i m a g i n a r y d o u b t . A r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t e x i s t s when you j u r o r s c a n n o t s a y t h a t you f e e l a n a b i d i n g c o n v i c t i o n t o a moral c e r t a i n t y of ( N o . 11) t h e t r u t h of t h e charge." I n these instructions, t h e j u r y w a s t o l d t h a t each element o f t h e crime as d e f i n e d by s t a t u t e had t o be p r o v e d ( N o . 6), but t h e j u r y w a s n e v e r i n s t r u c t e d as t o t h e s t a t u t o r y e l e m e n t s of t h e crime. A l t h o u g h t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s c h a r g e d w i t h t h e f t as d e s c r i b e d i n t h e I n f o r m a t i o n (No. 8), n o w h e r e was t h e j u r y a d v i s e d t h a t t h e I n f o r m a t i o n s e t o u t t h e m a t e r i a l e l e m e n t s o f t h e crime, e a c h o f w h i c h t h e S t a t e had t o p r o v e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . P e r h a p s some or a l l o f t h e j u r o r s i n f e r r e d t h a t t h e I n f o r m a t i o n s e t f o r t h t h e s t a t u t o r y elem e n t s o f t h e crime, b u t w e h a v e no way o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h i s . W i t h o u t a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e l e m e n t s of t h e crime b e i n g presented t o the jury we cannot say t h a t the defendant received a f a i r trial. W e f i n d e r r o r a l s o i n t h e District C o u r t ' s g i v i n g of I n s t r u c t i o n No. 9 , t o which d e f e n d a n t d i d o b j e c t a t t r i a l . This i n s t r u c t i o n s e t o u t t h e p r o c e d u r e by which d e f e n d a n t c o u l d h a v e f i l e d a n a g i s t e r ' s l i e n a g a i n s t Harding i n o r d e r to collect on his bill. I t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on d e f e n d a n t ' s c i v i l remedy, a n i n s t r u c t i o n which d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s h a s no p l a c e i n a c r i m i n a l trial. L u n d b l a d e was b e i n g t r i e d f o r t h e f t , and n o t f o r f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w h i s c i v i l remedy. The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was n e c e s s a r y t o b r i n g o r d e r to t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l . According t o t h e S t a t e , t h e d e f e n d a n t a r g u e d t o t h e j u r y t h a t h e had a r i g h t t o r e l y on t h e a g i s t e r ' s l i e n , and a r i g h t t o h o l d o n t o Harding's property. While we a g r e e w i t h t h e S t a t e t h a t d e f e n d a n t may h a v e i n t r o d u c e d i r r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e l i e n , w e d o n o t f i n d t h i s t o be a j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r g i v i n g t h i s j u r y instruction. The S t a t e had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b j e c t t o t h i s t e s t i m o n y and t o h a v e it s t r i c k e n f r o m t h e r e c o r d . I n f a i l i n g to d o t h i s , t h e S t a t e c a n n o t t h e n a t t e m p t to respond to t h i s e v i dence through improper j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s . W e h a v e p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d o u r d i s a p p r o v a l of g i v i n g t o a j u r y a b s t r a c t r u l e s o f l a w t h a t a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e to t h e case. S t a t e v. R e i n e r ( 1 9 7 8 ) , St.Rep. Mon t . , 5 8 7 P.2d 950, 9 5 5 , 3 5 1 8 6 1 , 1 8 6 6 ; S t a t e v. T r o s p e r ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 4 1 Mont. 4 4 2 , 4 4 6 , 1 0 9 P. 8 5 8 , 8 5 9 . I f , h o w e v e r , we f i n d t h a t t h e j u r y c o u l d r e l a t e t h e c o n c e p t p r e s e n t e d i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e f a c t s , and t h e r e i s no p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t i n g i v i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n , w e w i l l n o t f i n d r e v e r s i b l e error. Reiner, supra. I n t h i s case t h e j u r y c o u l d h a v e i n f e r r e d t h a t by f a i l i n g t o p u r s u e t h e p r o p e r c i v i l remedy, t h e d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d t h e crime of t h e f t . This i s c l e a r l y m i s l e a d i n g and n o t a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t of t h e l a w o f theft. The d i s t r i c t j u d g e e r r e d i n g i v i n g t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n . B a s e d o n t h e f o r g o i n g , w e r e v e r s e t h e c o n v i c t i o n and remand t h e c a u s e f o r a new t r i a l . W e d e c l i n e t o r e v e r s e and d i s m i s s , b a s e d on o u r f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e is e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d to s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n . S t a t e v. J o h n s o n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 1 8 2 , 1 8 8 , 5 8 0 P.2d 1 3 8 7 , 1 3 9 0 ; S t a t e v. Mont. 5 5 8 , 5 6 8 , 4 4 5 P.2d Langan ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 5 6 5 , 570. S e v e r a l o t h e r i s s u e s d e s e r v e comment b e f o r e a r e t r i a l of A l t h o u g h w e d o n o t f i n d r e v e r s i b l e error i n t h i s case. I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 0 , w e n o t e t h a t it h a s n o r e l e v a n c e t o t h e case a n d it s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n g i v e n . I n s t r u c t i o n No. d e f e n s e which d e f e n d a n t n e v e r r a i s e d . 10 set out a A l t h o u g h d e f e n d a n t may have believed t h a t h i s conduct did not c o n s t i t u t e an offense, he d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o d e f e n d t h e c h a r g e b y t h e means s e t o u t i n i n s t r u c t i o n 1 0 , t a k e n f r o m s e c t i o n 45-2-103 ( 4 ) , MCA. That i n s t r u c t i o n i n v o l v e s r e l i a n c e on u n p u b l i s h e d r u l e s or regulations, s t a t u t e s later declared invalid, court decisions l a t e r o v e r t u r n e d o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e l a w made by a p u b l i c p e r s o n a u t h o r i z e d to do so. Where, as h e r e , t h e i n s t r u c - t i o n h a s no r e l e v a n c e t o t h e c a s e , it s e r v e s no p u r p o s e b u t t o confuse t h e jury. An i n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d n o t be g i v e n i f it is n o t r e l e v a n t n o r material t o t h e e v i d e n c e o r i s s u e s i n t h e case. S t a t e v . B r o o k s ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 1 5 0 Mont. 3 9 9 , 4 1 1 , 436 P.2d 9 1 , 97. L a s t , we caution t h e D i s t r i c t Court about giving an instruc- t i o n s u c h as No. 6: ... " The l a w a l s o p r e s u m e s t h a t a p e r s o n i n t e n d s t h e o r d i n a r y c o n s e q u e n c e s of a n y v o l u n t a r y a c t c o m m i t t e d by him. This presumption, h o w e v e r , is t e r m e d a d i s p u t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n and may b e c o n t r o v e r t e d b y o t h e r e v i d e n c e . " I n t h e r e c e n t case of P a r k e r v. C r i s t ( 1 9 8 0 ) , , 621 P.2d 4 8 4 , 3 7 S t . R e p . Mont. 2048, w e a p p r o v e d t h e u s e of t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n , u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h a t case. There we f o u n d t h a t t h e e r r o r , i f a n y , i n g i v i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was h a r m l e s s beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . P.2d a t 487, 37 S t . R e p . a t 2050. Parker, Mon t . , 621 But we cannot say t h a t t h e cir- c u m s t a n c e s making t h e i n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i s s i b l e i n P a r k e r o c c u r r e d i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , n o r d o w e know f o r c e r t a i n t h a t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t would f i n d t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t h i s case i n l i g h t o f S a n d s t r o m v . Montana ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 4 4 2 U.S. 5 1 0 , 99 S . C t . 2450, 6 1 L.Ed.2d 39. Thus we urge t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o a v o i d t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n i n a r e t r i a l of t h i s case. The c o n v i c t i o n is r e v e r s e d and t h i s c a u s e is remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a new t r i a l . k We con u r : Justices Chief J u s t i c e P

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.