STATE v WILSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-291 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . DONALD E. WILSON, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula. Honorable John Henson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hood and Sherwood, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs: April 2, 1981 Decided: Ju1.y 2, 1981. I/ w I w Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . D e f e n d a n t Donald E a r l W i l s o n a p p e a l s f r o m h i s c o n v i c t i o n b y a j u r y on t h e c h a r g e s o f f e l o n y b u r g l a r y and m i s d e m e a n o r f o r g e r y , r e n d e r e d a f t e r t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , M i s s o u l a C o u n t y , t h e H o n o r a b l e J o h n S. Henson, presiding. The d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d to s e r v e e i g h t y e a r s a t h a r d l a b o r i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n o n t h e f e l o n y b u r g l a r y c h a r g e and s i x m o n t h s i n t h e M i s s o u l a County j a i l o n t h e m i s d e m e a n o r f o r g e r y charge, t h e s e n t e n c e s t o run concurrently. B o t h p a r t i e s recommend t h a t t h e m i s d e m e a n o r c o n v i c t i o n be r e v e r s e d , b a s e d o n t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n S t a t e ex re1 Rasmussen v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 37 St.Rep. 1498. Mont . , . 6 1 5 P.2d 2 3 1 , T h a t case h e l d t h a t d i s t r i c t c o u r t s d o n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r misdemeanor c h a r g e s o t h e r w i s e provided f o r , ( c i t i n g s e c t i o n 3-5-302 (1) d ) , MCA; j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r m i s d e m e a n o r s p u n i s h a b l e by a f i n e n o t e x c e e d i n g $ 5 0 0 a n d / o r imprisonment not e x c e e d i n g s i x m o n t h s was f o u n d to be g i v e n to j u s t i c e c o u r t s under s e c t i o n 3-10-303(1), St.Rep. MCA. R a s m u s s e n , 6 1 5 P.2d 1 4 9 9 ; S t a t e v. C a m p b e l l ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 200, 202, 38 S t . R e p . 1 9 , 21-22. w i t h i n t h e above-stated limits. Mont . 231, 232, 37 , 6 2 2 P.2d Misdemeanor f o r g e r y i s p u n i s h a b l e S e c t i o n 45-6-325 ( 4 ) , MCA. T h e r e f o r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n to t r y t h e charge. D e f e n d a n t 1 s m i s d e m e a n o r f o r g e r y c o n v i c t i o n m u s t be r e v e r s e d , h i s s e n t e n c e v a c a t e d , and t h e c h a r g e d i s m i s s e d . Defendant p r e s e n t s t h e following i s s u e s concerning t h e burglary conviction: 1. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n i n l i m i n e and a l l o w i n g t h e p r o s e c u t i o n to i n q u i r e i n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s e x e r c i s e o f h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s to r e m a i n s i l e n t ? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g to g r a n t d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r a m i s t r i a l a f t e r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n had v i o l a t e d a n o r d e r i n l i m i n e p r o h i b i t i n g t h e p r o s e c u t i o n from i n q u i r i n g i n t o o r s o l i c i t i n g a n y h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y w i t h respect t o t h i n g s s a i d by Anna Doney t o i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s ? 3. Whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to c o n v i c t t h e d e f e n d a n t of b u r g l a r y ? W e af f i r m the defendant's conviction. The u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : The home of P a t r i c k and Gwen Thibodeau was b u r g l a r i z e d w h i l e t h e y were away on v a c a t i o n d u r i n g J u n e and J u l y of 1978. The owners r e t u r n e d home on J u l y 1 5 , and found t h e s i d e d o o r a j a r . Mr. Thibodeau d i s c o - v e r e d t h a t h i s checkbook was m i s s i n g a t t h a t t i m e . A t a l a t e r d a t e , when t h e c o u p l e t s a c c o u n t s t a t e m e n t and c a n c e l l e d c h e c k s a r r i v e d from t h e bank, t h e y d i s c o v e r e d a c h e c k w r i t t e n t o S h a f f e r ' s Market i n M i s s o u l a i n t h e amount of $79.50, which n e i t h e r had i s s u e d . t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s name. The check was e n d o r s e d on t h e back i n A f t e r i n q u i r i n g a b o u t t h e check a t S h a f f e r ' s Market, t h e c o u p l e c o n t a c t e d t h e p o l i c e , and t h e n f u r t h e r s e a r c h e d t h e i r home. They d i s c o v e r e d t h a t e i g h t 1 8 7 9 s i l v e r d o l l a r s , a watch and a g o l d r i n g were a l s o m i s s i n g . The w a t c h and r i n g were l a t e r r e c o v e r e d by p o l i c e a t t h e r e s i d e n c e of o n e Anna Doney. The d e f e n d a n t had g i v e n t h e items t o Doney's children. D e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d n e a r Glasgow i n December 1978. He was c h a r g e d by i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h f e l o n y b u r g l a r y and misdemeanor forgery. Defendant pleaded n o t g u i l t y t o each. T r i a l was h e l d o n J a n u a r y 3 and 4, 1980. A t t r i a l , a s t o r e c l e r k from S h a f f e r t s Market t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had cashed t h e s u b j e c t check on J u n e 24, 1978, f o r t h e defendant; and, t h a t t h e defendant s t a t e d a t t h e t i m e , first, that Thibodeau had g i v e n t h e check t o t h e d e f e n d a n t i n payment f o r work which he had done on T h i b o d e a u ' s r a n c h , and s e c o n d , t h a t d e f e n d a n t had asked Thibodeau t o make t h e check p a y a b l e to S h a f f e r ' s Market b e c a u s e t h e banks were c l o s e d t h a t day and b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t e n d e d t o c a s h it a t t h e s t o r e . c l e r k t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t had used part of t h e money The r e c e i v e d t o pay a b i l l owed by one J u d y Crosby and p a r t t o buy g r o c e r i e s , and t h e rest he had r e c e i v e d i n c a s h . The c l e r k f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a few weeks p r i o r t o t r i a l d e f e n d a n t had r e t u r n e d t o t h e s t o r e t o d i s c u s s t h e check; t h e defendant s t a t e d t h e c h e c k had been g i v e n t o him i n payment f o r a t r u c k s o l d by t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h a t t h e check had been made o u t by a n o t h e r p e r s o n i n t h e s t o r e i n f r o n t of t h e c l e r k , and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t knew 40 w i t n e s s e s who c o u l d t e s t i f y to t h a t e f f e c t . The c l e r k t e s t i - f i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t wanted t o know why t h e c l e r k d i d n o t l i k e him. D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t o h i s v e r s i o n of e v e n t s . According t o h i s t e s t i m o n y , he had been l i v i n g a t t h e home of H e had v e h i c l e s parked i n t h e y a r d . J u d y Crosby. One, a 1966 F o r d , he s o l d t o a man named L e v i a f t e r J u d y Crosby had s t a t e d t h a t s h e wanted t h e v e h i c l e moved. parts. The s a l e p r i c e was $75. c a r away. Levi wanted t h e c a r f o r D e f e n d a n t h e l p e d L e v i tow t h e L e v i promised t o pay a t some l a t e r d a t e . The d e f e n - d a n t d i d n o t know t h e man by any o t h e r name. D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t s e e L e v i a g a i n f o r s e v e r a l weeks, u n t i l S a t u r d a y , J u n e 24, when he n o t i c e d L e v i i n a c i t y park. D e f e n d a n t approached L e v i t o demand payment. Levi s t a t e d t h a t he c o u l d go and g e t t h e money, and asked to borrow the defendant's car. The d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d , on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t L e v i pay f o r t h e g a s he would u s e , and l e n t L e v i h i s w h i t e Ford s t a t i o n wagon. The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t L e v i r e t u r n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y two h o u r s l a t e r w i t h t h e s u b j e c t check. D e f e n d a n t and L e v i t h e n went t o S h a f f e r l s Market t o c a s h t h e check. Levi w r o t e t h e check i n e i t h e r t h e c a r o r t h e s t o r e , i n t h e amount of $79.50, i n c l u d e d $4.50 f o r t h e g a s he had used. which Because t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t know L e v i ' s r e a l name, he had no r e a s o n to s u s p e c t t h a t L e v i was n o t P a t r i c k Thibodeau. The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he and L e v i p r e s e n t e d t h e check t o the c l e r k . The d e f e n d a n t produced h i s chauf f e u r l s l i c e n s e , and e n d o r s e d t h e check on t h e back w i t h h i s name and address. The d e f e n d a n t f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s e v e r a l weeks a f t e r he found t h e watch and g o l d r i n g between t h e s e a t s of J u n e 24, h i s w h i t e Ford wagon, t h e one t h a t L e v i had used. The d e f e n d a n t t h o u g h t t h e items were junk and gave them t o t h e c h i l d r e n of Anna Doney, whose f a m i l y were f r i e n d s w i t h t h e Crosbys . The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he c o n t i n u e d t o f r e q u e n t S h a f f e r ' s Market u n t i l he g o t a job moving h o u s e s i n N o r t h Dakota. H e phoned t h e Crosby r e s i d e n c e a f t e r he had moved, and was informed t h a t t h e r e were problems w i t h t h e check. He d i r e c t e d J u d y Crosby t o c o n t a c t t h e p o l i c e and f i n d o u t what was g o i n g on. When t h e d e f e n d a n t c a l l e d back, J u d y Crosby t o l d him t h e c h e c k was no good and t h e p o l i c e were i n t e r e s t e d i n t a l k i n g t o him. The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i m m e d i a t e l y s e t o u t to I n Glasgow, he needed g a s b u t had r u n o u t of r e t u r n t o Missoula. money. H e s t o p p e d a t t h e Glasgow P o l i c e Department t o a s k f o r h e l p , and t o l d them t h a t he had t o g e t t o M i s s o u l a t o s t r a i g h t e n o u t a l e g a l problem. He was g i v e n t e n g a l l o n s of g a s , b u t was t h e n s t o p p e d and a r r e s t e d a s h o r t d i s t a n c e o u t s i d e of Glasgow. A f t e r t h e d e f e n d a n t was r e t u r n e d t o M i s s o u l a , he was r e l e a s e d on b a i l . H e n e v e r was a b l e t o l o c a t e L e v i . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t on h i s r e t u r n to S h a f f e r ' s Market t o s t r a i g h t e n o u t t h e d i s p u t e t h e c l e r k a c t e d l l s n o t t y v l and " s a r c a s t i c " t o w a r d s him. A p p e l l a n t ' s I s s u e One. A s p a r t of its cross-examination o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e S t a t e asked w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t had e v e r d i s c u s s e d t h e check w i t h any p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , e i t h e r i n Glasgow o r M i s s o u l a , i n an a t t e m p t t o r e c t i f y t h e m a t t e r . Defendant o b j e c t e d a n d , i n chambers, moved f o r an o r d e r i n l i m i n e t o prev e n t t h e S t a t e from a s k i n g any q u e s t i o n s which might r e f l e c t o r comment upon d e f e n d a n t ' s e x e r c i s e of h i s Miranda r i g h t t o remain silent. The C o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion on t h e grounds t h a t d e f e n - d a n t had opened t h e a r e a h i m s e l f upon d i r e c t . The c o u r t and c o u n s e l t h e n r e t u r n e d t o t h e c o u r t r o o m and t h e p r o s e c u t o r , a f t e r r e v i e w i n g w i t h d e f e n d a n t h i s t e s t i m o n y on d i r e c t examination, e l i c i t e d the following: "Q. Did you e v e r t a l k t o anyone t o g e t t h e m a t t e r s t r a i g h t e n e d o u t t h e n ? A. No. I n e v e r g o t back h e r e . "Q. So t h e n you n e v e r gave anyone, you n e v e r t a l k e d t o anyone t o c l e a r t h e m a t t e r up, t h e n ? A. NO, s i r . " D e f e n d a n t i n c l u d e s , a s p a r t of t h i s i s s u e , two s t a t e m e n t s made by t h e p r o s e c u t o r d u r i n g c l o s i n g argument, a s f o l l o w s : ... 1. "Then, w e h e a r from A l l e n Kimery a g a i n A l l e n Kimery a t t e m p t s t o l o c a t e p e o p l e down t h e r e t o f i n d o u t i f anyone e l s e knows of t h i s L e v i . The f i r s t - -v e h e a r d --- was w e ha of Levi y e s t e r d a y , - - -we known a b o u t t h i s and had m y s t e r i o u s L e v i f i r s t o r b e f o r e , t h e n , w e would have a t t e m p t e d t o l o c a E - - - -h e r e . him t o h a v e h i m So w e go t o t h e B o n n e r a r e a t h r o u g h A 1 Kimery and check o u t and see i f anyone knows t h i s L e v i . Nobody b u t t h e D e f e n d a n t and J i m G a t e s and t h e i r w i t n e s s e s have e v e r heard of L e v i . " (Emphasis added. ) 2. "When [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] began t o a d d r e s s you, h e t o l d you a b o u t t h e S t a t e h a v i n g t h e r e s o u r c e s o f t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t and w h a t e v e r . One t h i n g he d i d n o t t e l l you a t t h a t t i m e was t h a t t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t s e r v e s t h e subpoenas f o r b o t h t h e S t a t e and t h e D e f e n d a n t . Another t h i n g he d i d n o t t e l l you i s w h e t h e r o r n o t he i s s u e d a subpoena f o r M r . Levi when he h a s t h a t s h e r i f f ' s department a v a i l a b l e a s a resource to him t o a t t e m p t t o l o c a t e t h i s M r . Levi o r L e v i . W e -d n o t know o f L e v i u n t i l y e s t e r d a y - di ---- -- "MR. SHERWOOD: Your h o n o r , I ' m going t o o b j e c t t o t h i s l i n e of d i s c u s s i o n . It v i o l a t e s the Miranda r i g h t . "THE COURT: Mr. McLean? I1MR. McLEAN: Your Honor, I d o n ' t believe--He mentioned a b o u t t h i s L e v i and o u r s o u r c e s and I ' m t e l l i n g the jury t h a t we t r i e d t o l o c a t e M r . Levi. "THE COURT: I w i l l sustain the objection. Thank you, Your Honor ( Emphasis added. ) "MR. McLEAN: ... II D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h e emphasized p o r t i o n s above were a l s o i m p e r m i s s i b l e comments upon h i s e x e r c i s e of t h e r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t , and amount t o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . The q u e s t i o n s a s k e d of d e f e n d a n t on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n d i d n o t comment upon h i s f a i l u r e t o g i v e an e x p l a n a t i o n to l a w e n f o r c e ment o f f i c i a l s w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t . R a t h e r , t h e q u e s t i o n s l e g i t i m a t e l y e x p l o r e d a s u b j e c t which d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f had p l a c e d i n t o d i s p u t e d u r i n g d i r e c t examination. " I f [a defendant in a criminal case] takes the s t a n d and t e s t i f i e s i n h i s own d e f e n s e , h i s c r e d i b i l i t y may be impeached and h i s t e s t i m o n y a s s a i l e d l i k e t h a t of any o t h e r w i t n e s s , and t h e b r e a d t h of h i s w a i v e r is d e t e r m i n e d by t h e s c o p e of r e l e v a n t cross-examination. ' [He] h a s no r i g h t t o set f o r t h t o t h e j u r y a l l t h e f a c t s which t e n d i n h i s f a v o r w i t h o u t l a y i n g h i m s e l f o p e n t o a c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n upon t h o s e f a c t s . ' .I1 Brown v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 356 U.S. 1 4 8 , 154-155, 78 S . C t . 622, 626, 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 596-597. .. D e f e n d a n t c l e a r l y conveyed t o t h e j u r y , in h i s direct t e s t i m o n y , h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e c h e c k m s good, and t h a t h e a t a l l t i m e s a c t e d i n good f a i t h , i n t e n d i n g t o s p e a k t o and r e s o l v e t h e m a t t e r with l a w enforcement o f f i c i a l s . After the d e f e n d a n t ' s d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y , t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s q u e s t i o n s were w i t h i n t h e s c o p e of r e l e v a n t c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . Rule 6 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) , " [W] hen a w i t n e s s v o l u n t a r i l y t e s t i f i e s , t h e p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s t sel £ - i n c r i m i n a t i o n is amply r e s p e c t e d w i t h o u t need of a c c e p t i n g t e s t i m o n y f r e e d from t h e a n t i s e p t i c t e s t of t h e a d v e r s a r y p r o c e s s . The w i t n e s s h i m s e l f , c e r t a i n l y i f he i s a p a r t y , d e t e r m i n e s t h e a r e a of d i s c l o s u r e and t h e r e f o r e of i n q u i r y . Such a w i t n e s s h a s t h e c h o i c e , a f t e r weighing t h e a d v a n t a g e of t h e privilege against self -incrimination against t h e a d v a n t a g e of p u t t i n g f o r w a r d h i s v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s and h i s r e l i a b i l i t y a s a w i t n e s s , n o t t o t e s t i f y a t a l l . H e cannot reasonably claim t h a t t h e F i f t h Amendment g i v e s him n o t o n l y t h i s c h o i c e b u t , i f he e l e c t s t o t e s t i f y , a n immunity from c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n on t h e matters he h a s I t would make of t h e himself put i n dispute. F i f t h Amendment n o t o n l y a humane s a f e g u a r d a g a i n s t j u d i c i a l l y coerced s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e but a positive invitation to mutilate the t r u t h a The i n t e r e s t s of t h e party offers to tell. o t h e r p a r t y and r e g a r d f o r t h e f u n c t i o n of c o u r t s of j u s t i c e t o a s c e r t a i n t h e t r u t h become r e l e v a n t , and p r e v a i l i n t h e b a l a n c e of cons i d e r a t i o n s d e t e r m i n i n g t h e s c o p e and l i m i t s of the privilege against self -incrimination. P e t i t i o n e r , a s a p a r t y t o t h e s u i t , was a volun- .. t a r y witness. She c o u l d n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d to t e s t i f y i n h e r own b e h a l f and a l s o claim t h e r i g h t t o b e f r e e from c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n on matt e r s r a i s e d b y h e r own t e s t i m o n y o n d i r e c t examination." Brown, 356 U.S. 155-156, 78 S . C t . 6 2 7 , 2 L.Ed.2d 597. D e f e n d a n t ' s r e l i a n c e upon D o y l e v. Ohio ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 426 U.S. 6 1 0 , 96 S . C t . 91, is misplaced. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d The f a c t s t h e r e i n d i c a t e t h e a c c u s e d d i d n o t t e s t i f y a b o u t t h e i r post-arrest a c t s , i n t e n t i o n s or s i l e n c e . They m e r e l y t e s t i f i e d t o a s t o r y w h i c h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n had n o t h e a r d b e f o r e . cross-examination, The S t a t e , o n i n q u i r e d i n t o t h e f a c t o f and t h e r e a s o n s behind d e f e n d a n t s t p r e v i o u s s i l e n c e , j u s t i f y i n g t h e q u e s t i o n s by a s s e r t i n g a need t o p r e s e n t t o t h e j u r y a l l i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t t o the defendants' c r e d i b i l i t y . S.Ct. 2242-2244, 49 L.Ed.2d D o y l e , 426 U.S. 613-616, 96 I n t h i s case t h e d e f e n d a n t 95-97. t e s t i f i e d a t l e n g t h about h i s a c t i o n s immediately b e f o r e as w e l l as a f t e r h i s arrest. The i s s u e w h e t h e r i n t e r r o g a t i o n o f a n a c c u s e d upon t h e p o i n t o f c r e d i b i l i t y is w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i s a t h o r n y p r o b l e m i n c r i m i n a l cases; b u t t h e r e c a n be no d o u b t t h a t matters p u t i n d i s p u t e by t h e a c c u s e d h i m s e l f by d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y are a l w a y s p r o p e r s u b j e c t s o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . 3 W e i n s t e i n ' s Evidence, 5 611[031. D e f e n d a n t t s c o n t e n t i o n a b o u t t h e p r o s e c u t o r 's comments d u r i n g c l o s i n g argument remains. W note t h a t the defendant did e n o t o b j e c t t o t h e S t a t e ' s f i r s t r e f e r e n c e to i t s l a c k o f k n o w l e d g e c o n c e r n i n g t h e man c a l l e d " L e v i .If Defendant d i d o b j e c t t o t h e second r e f e r e n c e ; t h e o b j e c t i o n w a s immediately s u s t a i n e d , and t h e State d i d n o t mention t h e s u b j e c t a g a i n . The comments were n o t so e x t e n s i v e , n o r d i d t h e y so stress a n i n f e r e n c e of g u i l t b a s e d o n s i l e n c e , as t o c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . A n d e r s o n v. N e l s o n ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 390 U.S. 523-524, 88 S.Ct. 1133, 1134, A p p e l l a n t ' s I s s u e Two: P r i o r t o t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t made s e v e r a l m o t i o n s i n l i m i n e . Motion N o . 4 was a s f o l l o w s : ... " Defendant Court a s follows: . . . r e s p e c t f u l l y moves the 4. To o r d e r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o r e f r a i n from a s k i n g any q u e s t i o n s o r s o l i c i t i n g any t e s t i m o n y from any w i t n e s s r e g a r d i n g s t a t e m e n t s made by an Ann Doney . . ." The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n . Defendant c l a i m s t h e S t a t e v i o l a t e d t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n limine. H e moved f o r a m i s t r i a l a t t h e t i m e . The m o t i o n was prompted by t h e f o l l o w i n g exchange between t h e p r o s e c u t o r and a p o l i c e o f f i c e r during the S t a t e I s case-in-chief : "Q. I ' m handing you S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 2 and a s k you i f you can i d e n t i f y i t . A. Yes, s i r , I can. "Q. Would you i d e n t i f y i t , p l e a s e ? A. T h i s is t h e watch t h a t I r e c o v e r e d on t h a t s e a r c h warrant. "Q. To whom was t h i s watch l i s t e d i n t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t a s b e l o n g i n g t o ? A. Thibodeau . Pat "Q. Did you have o c c a s i o n t o a s k Mrs. Doney how s h e came i n t o p o s s e s s i o n of t h e watch? A. Yes, I did. "Q. A. Did s h e t e l l you who gave you ( s i c ) t h e watch? Yes. SHERWOOD: O b j e c t i o n , Your Honor, t h i s is beyond t h e scope of t h e Motions i n Limine and i t ' s hearsay. "MR. "THE COURT: Sustained .I' The c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion f o r m i s t r i a l s t a t i n g t h a t t h e o f f i c e r ' s answer was n o t t e c h n i c a l l y h e a r s a y , b u t t h a t t h e o b j e c t i o n was s u s t a i n e d b e c a u s e of t h e i n f e r e n c e which m i g h t have been l e f t with t h e jury. W e d i s p o s e of t h i s i s s u e by n o t i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t , on cross-examination, t e s t i f i e d he gave t h e r i n g and t h e watch to " l i t t l e k i d s " " a t a house o u t i n Wheeler V i l l a g e , " who "were f r i e n d s of t h e p e o p l e t h a t I l i v e d w i t h . " I n a d d i t i o n , Anna Doney was c a l l e d a s a r e b u t t a l w i t n e s s by t h e S t a t e . She t e s t i f i e d t o t h e same p o i n t s . The i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e j u r y m i g h t h a v e g l e a n e d a n i m p e r m i s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e from t h e a b o v e q u e s t i o n s was r e n d e r e d moot by Anna D o n e y ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t d e f e n d a n t g a v e t h e w a t c h and r i n g t o h e r d a u g h t e r f o r t h e d a u g h t e r ' s b i r t h d a y i n J u n e o f 1 9 7 8 , and t h a t s h e w a s p r e s e n t when d e f e n d a n t g a v e t h e items t o t h e d a u g h t e r . W e f i n d D o n e y ' s c r e d i b i l i t y was f u l l y challenged bythe defense. The e v i d e n c e was p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e j u r y b y o t h e r means; a n y e r r o r c a u s e d by t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s t e s t i m o n y was m e r e l y t e c h n i c a l , and d i d n o t a f f e c t a n y s u b s t a n - tial right. Mont. S e c t i o n 46-20-702, 1 6 8 , 174-175, 5 3 1 P.2d MCA; S t a t e v. Grady ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6 681, 684. A p p e l l a n t ' s I s s u e Three: The f i n a l i s s u e c i t e s a n a l l e g e d i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f e v i d e n c e to support the burglary conviction. The c o r r e c t t e s t is w h e t h e r t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e c o n v i c t i o n , v i e w e d i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e to the State. S t a t e v. B r u b a k e r ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 8 1 , 38 S t . R e p . 5 9 1 P.2d Mont . , 432, 436; S t a t e v. A z u r e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 3 1 , 36 S t . R e p . 514, 520. 6 2 5 P.2d Mont . 78, I "Substantial evidence" i s s u c h r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e as a r e a s o n a b l e mind m i g h t a c c e p t a s adequate t o support a conclusion. Mont . , 622 P.2d S t a t e v. G r a v e s ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 203, 208, 38 S t . R e p . ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 7 Mont. 412, 416, 538 P.2d 9 , 1 4 ; S t a t e v. Merseal 1366, 1368. D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h e p r o p e r t e s t upon r e v i e w i s t h a t a r t i c u l a t e d i n J a c k s o n v. V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 4 4 3 U.S. 307, 3 1 9 , 9 9 ... " t h e r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n is w h e t h e r , a f t e r v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , a n y r a t i o n a l trier of f a c t c o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ." W e f i n d t h e s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w a p p l i e d i n Montana s i n c e b e f o r e 1 9 7 9 d o e s n o t f a l l s h o r t o f t h e s t a n d a r d mandated i n Jackson. Indeed, t h e J a c k s o n t e s t h a s p r e v i o u s l y been a p p l i e d by t h i s Court. S t a t e v. R o d r i g u e z ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont .-' - .2d P , 38 S t . R e p . 578F, 5781. The S t a t e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t had p o s s e s s i o n of t h e s t o l e n property. While it is t r u e t h a t s u c h f a c t a l o n e is i n s u f - f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n , i t is one of t h e f a c t o r s which t h e j u r y may c o n s i d e r . S t a t e v. P e p p e r l i n g ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 166 Mont. 293, 298, 533 P.2d 283, 286; S t a t e v. Lane ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. 369, 372-373, 5 0 6 P.2d 446, 447-448. A r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e S t a t e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e upon which a r a t i o n a l j u r y c o u l d have found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y . The t e s t i m o n y o f t h e c l e r k i n S h a f f e r ' s Market and of Anna Doney, and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n of t h e s t o l e n goods; c o n s t i t u t e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on which t o b a s e a v e r d i c t . W a f f i r m t h e b u r g l a r y c o n v i c t i o n and t h e e i g h t y e a r e sentence. W e r e v e r s e t h e misdemeanor f o r g e r y c o n v i c t i o n , v a c a t e t h e s i x months s e n t e n c e , and W e concur: --------------- /' ................................ Justices J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea d i s s e n t s and w i l l f i l e a w r i t t e n d i s s e n t later. Mr.

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.