STATE v JENKINS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-213 I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O MONTANA F H F 1981 THE STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . JAMES CLIFTON JENKINS, 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 of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Cascade. Honorable J o e l G . Roth, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Marcia B i r k e n b u e l , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: J . Bourdeau, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana and Mike G r e e l y , H e l e n a , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : F e b r u a r y 1.8, 1981 Decided: J u n e 1 0 , 1981 Filed : 1 0 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . James C l i f t o n J e n k i n s was c h a r g e d i n August 1979 w i t h two c o u n t s of r o b b e r y . H e was t r i e d by j u r y i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County, t h e Honorable J o e l Roth p r e s i d i n g . J e n k i n s was found g u i l t y on b o t h c o u n t s and s e n t e n c e d t o 20 y e a r s on e a c h , t h e s e n t e n c e s t o r u n consecutively. He a p p e a l s from b o t h c o n v i c t i o n s . Pam R a i n s , manager of t h e F e e d l o t R e s t a u r a n t i n G r e a t F a l l s , was a l o n e i n t h e r e s t a u r a n t and t a k i n g a b r e a k a t 4 : 0 0 p.m. August 1 8 , 1979. on She n o t i c e d a man o u t s i d e who was l o o k i n g t h r o u g h t h e f r o n t window of t h e r e s t a u r a n t . The man e n t e r e d t h e r e s t a u r a n t and R a i n s went behind t h e c o u n t e r t o t a k e h i s o r d e r . The man s a i d : "Do as I s a y " , and gave h e r a n o t e which r e a d : "Take a l l t h e money from t h e r e g i s t e r and g i v e i t t o me." man p l a c e d a gun on t h e c o u n t e r . Two p e o p l e e n t e r e d t h e r e s t a u - r a n t b e f o r e Rains gave t h e man any money. n o t e and l e f t . The The man r e t r i e v e d h i s Rains d e s c r i b e d him a s a l i g h t - c o m p l e c t e d w h i t e male, 39 o r 4 0 y e a r s o l d , 6 ' t o 6 ' 2 " , 150 pounds, c l e a n shaven, w i t h s h o r t r e c e d i n g h a i r of a sandy-grey c o l o r , wearing t a n p a n t s and a n o p e n - c o l l a r e d s h i r t w i t h h o r i z o n t a l w h i t e and g r e e n stripes. A few m i n u t e s a f t e r t h e a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y of t h e F e e d l o t , a man e n t e r e d t h e Mode OIDay s t o r e i n G r e a t F a l l s . The s t o r e was n o t open f o r b u s i n e s s , b u t Mavis Bean, who owned t h e s t o r e , and Teresa Bean, M r s . R o b e r t Anderson and R o b e r t a King were i n s i d e unpacking a c l o t h i n g shipment. The man, who was armed w i t h a k n i f e and gun, approached T e r e s a Bean and a s k e d where t h e till was l o c a t e d . Mavis Bean t o l d him t h e y were n o t open f o r b u s i n e s s and t h e man l e f t t h e s t o r e . Mavis Bean d e s c r i b e d t h e man a s Caucasion, 5 ' 1 0 " t o 6 ' l " , 37 t o 40 y e a r s o f a g e , w i t h l i g h t r e c e d i n g h a i r , and wearing o l d denim p a n t s and a striped T-shirt. T e r e s a Bean d e s c r i b e d t h e man a s b e i n g 6 ' t a l l , s l e n d e r , c l e a n shaven, f a i r - c o m p l e c t e d , w i t h l i g h t brown h a i r and a r e c e d i n g h a i r l i n e and wearing j e a n s and a w h i t e s w e a t e r w i t h s h o r t s l e e v e s and aqua s t r i p e s . G r e a t F a l l s p o l i c e d e t e c t i v e s Dave Warrington and Eugene B e r n a r d i were i n v o l v e d i n t h e r o b b e r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 20 a t 11:30 a.m., On August t h e y e n t e r e d t h e Lobby Bar i n G r e a t F a l l s and n o t i c e d James C l i f t o n J e n k i n s . Warrington approached J e n k i n s and t o l d him he f i t t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of a r o b b e r y s u s p e c t . J e n k i n s had no i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and gave h i s name a s L a r r y White. J e n k i n s was p a t t e d down i n t h e w a i s t a r e a and asked i f he would accompany t h e o f f i c e r s s o t h a t a w i t n e s s c o u l d s e e him. went w i t h t h e o f f i c e r s v o l u n t a r i l y . handcuffed. Jenkins H e was n o t a r r e s t e d o r He was p l a c e d i n t h e b a c k s e a t of a n unmarked p o l i c e c a r , a y e l l o w two-door Ford Fairmont. The t h r e e men t h e n d r o v e t o t h e Mode 0 ' Day s t o r e . Mavis Bean w a s n o t a t t h e s t o r e . Warrington t e l e p h o n e d Pam Rains a t h e r home and r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e y meet a t a c e r t a i n p a r k i n g l o t s o Rains c o u l d s e e J e n k i n s f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n purposes. The d e t e c t i v e s and J e n k i n s d r o v e a c r o s s town t o m e e t Rains. The p o l i c e v e h i c l e a r r i v e d a t t h e p a r k i n g l o t f i r s t . When Rains a r r i v e d , Warrington g o t o u t of t h e c a r and went t o R a i n s ' v e h i c l e , which was parked 60 f e e t away. Warrington t o l d Rains he had two men s e a t e d i n h i s c a r and a s k e d h e r i f s h e c o u l d i d e n t i f y e i t h e r man a s t h e r o b b e r . 6 ' 1 " t a l l and weighs 200 pounds. seat. D e t e c t i v e ~ e r n a r d ii s H e was s i t t i n g i n t h e f r o n t J e n k i n s i s 5 ' 9 " t a l l and weighs 1 5 0 pounds and was i n t h e b a c k s e a t of t h e two-door v e h i c l e . police car. R a i n s approached t h e When s h e was a b o u t 25 f e e t away,she p o i n t e d a t J e n k i n s and s a i d : " T h a t ' s him." walk c l o s e r t o t h e c a r . Warrington asked Rains t o When s h e w a s 8-10 f e e t away, s h e s t a t e d t h a t s h e was p o s i t i v e t h a t t h e man i n t h e b a c k s e a t was the robber. J e n k i n s was t h e n t o l d he was under a r r e s t f o r t h e a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y of t h e F e e d l o t . He was t r a n s p o r t e d t o t h e G r e a t F a l l s P o l i c e Department and photographed t h e r e . While i n c u s t o d y , J e n k i n s gave a s i g n e d c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h h i s a p a r t m e n t . A short- s l e e v e , o p e n - c o l l a r e d s h i r t , o f f - w h i t e w i t h aqua-green s t r i p e s , w a s found a t t h e a p a r t m e n t . A photographic a r r a y containing J e n k i n s ' photograph was shown t o t h r e e o f t h e w i t n e s s e s t o t h e r o b b e r y a t t h e Mode OIDay and t o t h e two c u s t o m e r s of t h e Feedlot. Mavis Bean, T e r e s a Bean and M r s . R o b e r t Anderson a l l i d e n t i f i e d t h e photograph of J e n k i n s a s t h e man who t r i e d t o r o b the store. The F e e d l o t c u s t o m e r s were u n a b l e t o make a p o s i t i v e identification. Mavis Bean, T e r e s a Bean and Pam Rains a l s o i d e n - t i f i e d t h e s h i r t s e i z e d a s t h e one worn by t h e man who a t t e m p t e d t o r o b them. J e n k i n s was t h e n charged w i t h t h e a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y of t h e Mode OIDay. J e n k i n s e n t e r e d p l e a s of " n o t g u i l t y " t o b o t h c o u n t s and moved t o s u p p r e s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t e s t i m o n y on t h e grounds t h a t i t was t h e f r u i t of a n i l l e g a l a r r e s t and made p u r s u a n t t o a s u g g e s t i v e one-man show up. The motion t o s u p p r e s s w a s d e n i e d . J e n k i n s was t r i e d by j u r y on November 19-21, 1979. The j u r y r e t u r n e d v e r d i c t s of g u i l t y on b o t h c o u n t s . J e n k i n s was sen- t e n c e d t o 20 y e a r s imprisonment on e a c h c o u n t , t h e s e n t e n c e s t o run consecutively. H e was a l s o d e s i g n a t e d a dangerous o f - f e n d e r , s e c t i o n 46-18-404, s e c t i o n 46-18-501, MCA, MCA, and a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r , and found t o be i n e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i-n t h e p r i s o n f u r l o u g h program. J e n k i n s r a i s e s two i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Was t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t e s t i m o n y d e r i v e d from t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of J e n k i n s f o r t h e purpose of e x h i b i t i n g him t o a w i t n e s s s u p p r e s s i b l e b e c a u s e h i s F o u r t h Amendment r i g h t t o b e s e c u r e i n h i s p e r s o n a g a i n s t u n r e a s o n a b l e s e i z u r e s had been v i o lated? 2. Was t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a t t h e p a r k i n g l o t , a n d t h e subsequent i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a t t r i a l , suppressible because Jenkins' F i f t h Amendment d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s had b e e n v i o l a t e d ? J e n k i n s a r g u e s t h a t a l t h o u g h h e was n o t f o r m a l l y a r r e s t e d b e f o r e R a i n s i d e n t i f i e d him, t h e p o l i c e c o n d u c t was i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from a r r e s t u n d e r t h e s t a n d a r d o f Dunaway v . N e w York ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 442 U.S. 200, 99 S . C t . 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824. T h i s c o n t e n t i o n i s b a s e d upon t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t h i s j o u r n e y w i t h t h e o f f i c e r s was i n v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e , i n v i e w o f a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e i n c i d e n t , a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n would h a v e b e l i e v e d t h a t h e was n o t f r e e t o l e a v e . Mendenhall ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 446 U.S. 544, 1 0 0 S . C t . United S t a t e s v. 1 8 7 0 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497. Jenkins f u r t h e r contends t h a t because t h e pol-ice lacked probable c a u s e f o r t h e " a r r e s t " , t h e f r u i t s t h e r e o f should have been s u p p r e s s e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Not e v e r y c o n f r o n t a t i o n i n i t i a t e d by a p o l i c e o f f i c e r m u s t be based on probable cause. 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S . C t . I-, T e r r y v . Ohio ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 392 U.S. 1868. To j u s t i f y i n t r u s i o n upon t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s of a c i t i z e n , " t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r must be a b l e t o p o i n t t o s p e c i f i c and a r t i c u l a b l e f a c t s which, taken to- g e t h e r w i t h r a t i o n a l i n f e r e n c e s from t h o s e f a c t s , r e a s o n a b l y warrant t h a t intrusion." T e r r y , 392 U.S. a t 21. ~etectives W a r r i n g t o n and B e r n a r d i w e r e a b l e t o p o i n t t o s p e c i f i c and a r t i c u l a b l e f a c t s which r e a s o n a b l y w a r r a n t e d t h e i n t r u s i o n t h a t J e n k i n s now q u e s t i o n s . They were a s s i g n e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e r o b b e r i e s o f t h e F e e d l o t and t h e Mode O'Day. with t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e robber. j u s t two d a y s a f t e r t h e r o b b e r i e s , t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s u s p e c t . They w e r e f a m i l i a r While i n t h e Lobby B a r , t h e y o b s e r v e d a man who f i t They a p p r o a c h e d t h e man. War- r i n g t o n t o l d him t h a t t h e r e had b e e n two a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r i e s two d a y s b e f o r e and t h a t i t was W a r r i n g t o n ' s o p i n i o n t h a t t h e man resembled t h e p e r s o n who had committed t h e c r i m e s . When Warrington asked t h e man h i s name, he responded t h a t i t was L a r r y White. The man had no i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Warrington p a t t e d t h e man i n t h e w a i s t a r e a t o d e t e r m i n e i f he had any weapons. Under t h e f a c t s o u t l i n e d above, t h e p o l i c e c o n d u c t was r e a s o n a b l e and n o t v i o l a t i v e of J e n k i n s ' F o u r t h Amendment r i g h t s . The p o l i c e must be a l l o w e d t o approach and q u e s t i o n p e r s o n s who f a i r l y resemble d e s c r i p t i o n s of p e r p e t r a t o r s of c r i m i n a l While t h e p a t down of J e n k i n s was i n t r u s i v e , i t was j u s t - acts. i f i e d b e c a u s e i t was l i m i t e d t o a s e a r c h f o r weapons, J e n k i n s f i t t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e r o b b e r , and t h e r o b b e r had been armed w i t h a k n i f e and a gun. Police o f f i c e r s a r e not required t o t a k e u n n e c e s s a r y r i s k s i n t h e performance of t h e i r d u t i e s . " [ T l h e r e must be a n a r r o w l y drawn a u t h o r i t y t o p e r m i t a r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h f o r weapons f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e p o l - i c e o f f i c e r , where he h a s r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t he i s d e a l i n g w i t h a n armed and d a n g e r o u s i n d i v i d u a l , r e g a r d l e s s of whether he h a s p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s t . " 27. T e r r y , s u p r a , 3 9 2 U.S. at The i n i t i a l e n c o u n t e r between J e n k i n s and t h e d e t e c t i v e s was lawful. Whether J e n k i n s ' c o n s e n t t o accompany t h e d e t e c t i v e s was v o l u n t a r y i s t o be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r cumstances. Mendenhall, s u p r a , 4 4 6 U.S. a t 557. The ~ i s t r i c t Judge had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e W a r r i n g t o n , B e r n a r d i and J e n k i n s a t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g and e v a l u a t e t h e i r t e s t i m o n y . Warrington t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r t h e p a t down, he a s k e d J e n k i n s i f he would "mind g o i n g " w i t h t h e o f f i c e r s . Warrington f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t J e n k i n s r e p l i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t mind b e c a u s e t h e y had t h e wrong man. The r e s t of t h e d e t e c t i v e s ' t e s t i m o n y i n - d i c a t e d t h a t J e n k i n s was n o t h a n d c u f f e d , f u r t h e r s e a r c h e d , o r o t h e r w i s e c o e r c e d u n t i l a f t e r Rains made h e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . When J e n k i n s asked t h e d e t e c t i v e s i f he was under a r r e s t , t h e y r e p l i e d t h a t he was n o t . J e n k i n s a r g u e s t h a t h i s placement i n t h e b a c k s e a t of a two-door p o l i c e v e h i c l e was a r e s t r i c t i o n amounting t o a s e i z u r e . However, t h e p o i n t i s whether h i s p r e s e n c e t h e r e was v o l u n t a r y . The f a c t t h a t he was t h e r e i s l i t t l e o r no e v i d e n c e t h a t h e was i n any way c o e r c e d . h a l l , s u p r a , 446 U.S. a t 559. Menden- W e f i n d t h a t the record supports t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t J e n k i n s a g r e e d t o accompany t h e o f f i c e r s and had n o t been " a r r e s t e d " p r i o r t o h i s f o r m a l a r r e s t upon i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by R a i n s . J e n k i n s was n o t i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d , and t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t e s t i m o n y was n o t s u p p r e s s i b l e because o b t a i n e d i n v i o l a t i o n of h i s F o u r t h Amendment r i g h t s . Jenkins' second i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Rains i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t and t h e s u b s e q u e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of him a t trial. He c o n t e n d s t h a t he was d e n i e d due p r o c e s s b e c a u s e t h e show up was u n n e c e s s a r i l y s u g g e s t i v e and conducive t o irreparable misidentification. 293, 302, 18 L.Ed.2d S t o v a l l v . Denno ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 388 U.S. 1199, 1206, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1972. t e s t we m u s t u s e i n r e s o l v i n g t h i s i s s u e i s two-pronged. The First, w a s t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e i m p e r m i s s i b l y s u g g e s t i v e ; and, i f s o , d i d i t have s u c h a tendency t o g i v e r i s e t o a s u b s t a n t i a l l i k e l i h o o d of i r r e p a r a b l e m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t h a t t o a l l o w t h e w i t n e s s t o make a n i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n would v i o l a t e due process. N e i l v. 401, 410-1.1, B i g g e r s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 409 U.S. 93 S.Ct. 375, 381. 188, 198, 34 L.Ed.2d The p r o c e d u r e used t o i d e n t i f y J e n k i n s was undoubtedly s u g g e s t i v e , and one-on-one confronta- t i o n s have been w i d e l y and p r o p e r l y condemned by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t . However, under t h e second prong of t h e t e s t we employ, we must c o n s i d e r whether t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s g i v e s r i s e t o 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 identification. W must weigh t h e c o r r u p t i v e e f f e c t of t h e e s u g g e s t i v e p r o c e d u r e a g a i n s t f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e 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 . ~ r a t h w a i t e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 432 U.S. The f a c t o r s a r e : 9 8 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140, 9 7 S.Ct. 2243. (1) t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of t h e w i t n e s s t o view t h e c r i m i n a l a t t h e t i m e of t h e c r i m e , of a t t e n t i o n , Manson v . ( 2 ) t h e witness' degree ( 3 ) t h e a c c u r a c y of t h e w i t n e s s ' p r i o r d e s c r i p t i o n , ( 4 ) t h e l e v e l of c e r t a i n t y d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e w i t n e s s a t t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n , and ( 5 ) t h e l e n g t h of t i m e between t h e c r i m e and the confrontation. N e i l v. B i g g e r s , s u p r a , 409 U.S. a t 199. Rains had a c l e a r view of J e n k i n s b e f o r e he e n t e r e d t h e r e s t a u rant. She viewed him f a c e - t o - f a c e a c r o s s t h e c o u n t e r , i n good l i g h t , during t h e robbery attempt. He was t h e o n l y o t h e r p e r - son i n t h e r e s t a u r a n t , s o h e r l e v e l of a t t e n t i o n was h i g h . t h e e x c e p t i o n of h e i g h t , h e r d e s c r i p t i o n was a c c u r a t e . With The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t s h e was q u i t e c e r t a i n t h a t J e n k i n s was t h e man who t r i e d t o r o b h e r , and o n l y two d a y s had p a s s e d between t h e c r i m e and t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n . W e cannot conclude t h a t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of J e n k i n s by Rains was s o u n r e l i a b l e a s t o c o n s t i t u t e a v i o l a t i o n of due p r o c e s s . Considering t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we h o l d t h a t w h i l e t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e was s u g g e s t i v e , i t d i d n o t c r e a t e a s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e r e was 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 . W affirm. e W e concur: 4;&4, Wu s t i c e & ,\ Chief J
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.
