STATE v SHAW
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 92-236 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1992 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, SE@ 1.. j$j@ -vsJOHN MICHAEL SHAW, Defendant APPEAL FROM: and Appellant. District Court of the Nineteenth In and for the County of Lincoln, The Honorable Robert S. Keller, Judicial Judge District, presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: S. Charles Montana For Sprinkle, Douglas & Sprinkle, Respondent: Hon. Marc Racicot, Attorney General, Anders, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Scott Spencer, Lincoln County Attorney, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: Libby, Jennifer Montana Libby, October December 8, 1992 1, 1992 Justice John Conway Harrison This Judicial is an appeal District, judgment to sell drugs, of the Nineteenth the Honorable Michael verdict Robert Shaw (Shaw) finding S. Keller appeals him guilty in violation a felony, from a of conspiracy of § 45-4-102, MCA. are: Did the District defense notice John Court of the Court. and remand. The issues 1. County, on a jury dangerous We reverse over Lincoln entered the Opinion from the District Appellant presiding. delivered counsel's requirements P.2d 957, Court err in allowing objections of as modified State v. in State P.2d 52 (the Modified Just that the testimony Just (1979), v. Matt Rule), rebuttal violated the 184 Mont. 262, 602 249 Mont. 136, 814 (1991), and that testimony the testimony exceeded the scope of cross-examination? 2. Did the District Instruction County drug investigation served as the work Sheriff's Office Shawls Proposed Jury detective agent. office Gassett as an agent recommended suspended During obtained (Reynolds). offered for an undercover Klint in the investigation undercover Reynolds conducted 1990 to May 1991. the sheriff's Rodney investigation, would in refusing from September as the primary investigation, charge err No. 21? The Lincoln served Court the sentence In the Reynolds a deal sheriff's office and a fine. 2 and Hal Turner course sufficient order Gassett to Reynolds that evidence further in which in of to the Reynolds return agreed. for a The officers including try Shaw and Brian to purchase a number of approach drugs. did not so he decided Shaw and Kair Shaw at the he'd check it people, Reynolds Libby to for enough to Shaw as a means softball well. fields he could after get him a pound testified Shaw testified out." well knew each other Reynolds or some cocaine. wanted know Kair on May 2, 1991, and asked Shaw if said names of to go through approached of marijuana the and Shaw had known each other because Reynolds with from whom they Kair, Reynolds him directly, practice Reynolds Reynolds years. of introduction [Shawl provided at trial, "He as follows: I told him that the whole team was going to go down to the Mint and I was sure that there was somebody down there that would sell drugs, and that I could probably line him up with somebody that I knew on the team, or whatever. After practice, Shaw went to the Mint because the Mint sponsored to the Mint that later his softball left the restroom no effort to returned contact to the buy some drugs. fifteen restroom, did not take Legion and Kair Although part Reynolds had planned. in the deal and Kair Kair did point the drugs. Kair making the met at the to the 3 Shaw Shaw had made wanted for ten to conversation, agreed to he to meet at the contacts or introduction. Legion not have the privacy. drugs Shaw did not make further after went he approached Reynolds then discussed and Kair also When Shaw and Kair that Shaw listened Bar two days later. participate Up to that Reynolds in it. the bar, for Shaw told Reynolds minutes. about team members Reynolds the restroom to get Kair. anyone other team. When he entered day. Shaw and the two of them went into then with drugs Bar on Saturday at that time, as they but set Sunday or Monday Sunday to that see day Jenny, if $400 charging Shaw with violation of a sample residence for a four with ounce any Lincoln conspiracy called he gave sample of on Later Kair's wife, marijuana. This the of Kair marijuana. on Monday. people Attorney dangerous MCA. A jury err in allowing is The involved. County to sell § 45-4-102, the where to be delivered the of then filed last a complaint drugs, found the a felony, Shaw guilty of in the charged. Did the defense notice District Court counsel's objections requirements P.2d 957, P.2d 52 (the scope During of that a search of a search the State Just trial, portion v. testimony over testimony the Just violated the (1979), Matt Rule), the of his had been defense warrant [By Mr. Q. warrant on paraphernalia, 184 the Mont. 262, 602 249 Mont. (1991), and that State 136, 814 testimony exceeded recalled issued was not for Mr. Detective Detective testimony, counsel, Gassett the Kair Sprinkle, issued examination, any reason on Shaw's the county 4 to Gassett. stated residence. brought that On crossout the fact residence. Sprinkle] And you never executed John's house and recovered any did you? A. We didn't have on John's house. On redirect v. rebuttal cross-examination? warrant examination, in Modified that State as modified During that get had contact 1991, Reynolds date. Xair's was supposed On May 7, the to as payment Reynolds crime he could he went marijuana time as a follow-up a search drugs or do the search warrants attorney, Mr. Spencer, then elicited the following testimony from Detective Q. You were asked on cross some question Shawls house. Did you hear that? A. What was that about question again? Did we do a search warrant on Shaw's A. why didn't we do a search warrant. Q. Looking A. for And you A. No, paraphernalia did not, we did did or residence, or Yeah. Q. something? you? not. Does that mean you did not have Q. other than what Rodney Reynolds that, Shaw was involved in drugs? A. John I'm having I guess. A. Just because mean anything. we didn't a terrible other to believe that Brian point, things, Mr. Sprinkle beyond prejudicial. In questions to Detective evidence existed, charge Shaw with agreed, that Mr. other scope Gassett than the Sprinkle the search the questioning had tends the as, among cross-examination show that the argued, door line of that jury no on which and with and his of May 2, 1991, State to question argued to events opened doesn't his the to court question warrant. When went The conspiracy. of these warrant to the Sprinkle Mr. with evidence that in drugs? objected the conference, time do a search Did you in fact have other Q. show that John Shaw was involved At this reason said, Shaw? John Shaw. Q. names. Dyslexia, about searching Yes. Q. Gassett. continued, 5 the following exchange occurred: [By Mr. Spencer] NOW, Klint, when we broke we were talking about -- I'm not sure what we were talking about, but talking about the search warrant, and is that the You recall that only basis you had, or whatever. question? Q. A. Yes, sir. Now -- and that is yes or no. Do you have other Q. basis for your determinations that we're talking about here with John Shaw? A. Yes. Are those based on -- is that based on information Q. provided to you as part of this undercover operation by Hal Turner? A. Yes. Q. Is Hal Turner A. Yes, Q. Right. from September At this basis the I'm point of lack proper overruled the undercover authority if objection was hired? '91. I ever asked that. to the as required would that objected Sprinkle of notice this to May of not sure Mr. agent by Just. have been u.) and Mr. Spencer testimony (We point on the out The District that Court continued. One additional question. Is this also based on documented information you have of several years ago? Q. A. Yes. Q. Point A. Yes. of fact, We disagree We find that this and was allowed Modified Just eight with the District testimony in violation years ago? Court's rulings on this matter. exceeded the scope of cross-examination of the Rule. 6 notice requirements of the Rule 611(d), M.R.Evid., It examination. governs the scope of redirect provides: A witness may be re-examined Re-examination and recall. as to the same matters to which the witness testified only in the discretion of the court, but without exception the witness may be re-examined as to any new matter brought out during cross-examination. . . . The trial court extent of "has wide re-examination as 1077, 336. abused its scope brought matters and out on Durden (1990), 246 Mont. 154, 161, v. Heaston (1939), 109 Mont. 303, 316, look to whether discretion by allowing the the District above Court testimony from Gassett. On cross-examination, intended to show introduction and he merely for denied that determined Shawls Shaw was this about ruled Shawls 1210, arguing that Simtob, the Mr. Sprinkle defendant's in matter Sprinkle of v. eight years the testified 7 door had been he to door (1975), 239 Mont. opened so had not the court imply that coincidental. the Simtob (1989), witness purely that doing warrant However, opened or wrongs In was intended was the establish trial, drugs. of questioning than drugs. the involved Mix sell to Throughout on State v. 1991, a search Mr. relies to of questions other whether this acts and State May 2, Gassett line that prior The State of a series existed, conspiracy ever in asked evidence residence. involvement then this Detective that court no Sprinkle conversation in asked issued Mr. that Shaw was involved P.2d new the v. We therefore 330, Shawls the to determining State 1081; 97 P.2d Detective in Cline cross-examination." 803 P.2d discretion that testimony ago. 168 Mont. 351, to to The 495, 781 P.2d this the 751, testimony. defendant 544 in In did not use or traffic allowed to prison, and on rebuttal that the bring out defendant This Montana. reputation in testimony the fact that the State Court upheld had brought issue and man. which the allowed the defendant's We do not find We do not drug State Simtob in that character and and rebuttal upheld find that evidence could this not with noted its acts may be introduced Just notice constitute his that as ruling concerning the defendant peaceful character. under Rule other 404(a)(l) a search character to rebut evidence of his inadmissible the State evidence regarding Shaw was innocent brought was character requirements, Matt) because own evidence. whereby further Court's testimony question it evidence which allows rule The State single or that introduce in Mix, regarding as a suggestion the M.R.Evid., character rebuttal on the victim activity 404(a)(l), the District character or Mix to be controlling. Therefore, not dealer ruling as to his general to present priorattacks related issue. did Court's in evidence drug defendant's testified This Court can be construed accurately District was had been cross-examination had opened the door to evidence State State to present as a major the that the defendant a peace loving all defendant was allowed the the were proper. In Mix, warrant the had a reputation counsel defense On cross-examination in drugs. of into under Rule a defendant's As we hold on these crimes, that the facts, the wrongs, without meeting or the does not apply. argues that the requirements do not apply because Detective "other crimes" 8 evidence of Just Gassett's under Rule (more testimony 404(b), M.R .Evid. That rule provides: Evidence of other crimes, Other crimes, wrongs, acts. wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity It may, however, be admissible for other therewith. purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. The State 792 P.2d that relies where this 363, a photograph constituted testified In appears of other that that he thought contrast, testify the it is patch, present directly in not to of illegal full statement This that is of Shawls prior drug related entitled to that the the District in In to tending to show than a "mere more as argued by the State. the authorities evidence advantage was allowed evidence conduct" what trial. at Gassett or improper in was questionable presented drugs. case the man in the picture Detective in that stand took effect evidence in patch was the defendant. a crime that 321, argument a marijuana he had documented Shaw was involved notice defendant's the defendant case 243 Mont. The officer prejudicial other that is an affirmative the standing to argue to the jury the in suggestion It that all (1990), the man in the picture and the photo's to rejected evidence. to be a marijuana relation Sorensen a person case we noted was not him, v. Court crimes of his opportunity that on State activity. had documented As such, information would Court abused Shaw was be brought out at trial. We hold allowing that the State to introduce this its discretion by evidence. II Did the District Court err in refusing 9 Shawls Proposed Jury Instruction No. 21? Shaw was charged statute with violating the conspiracy That statute. provides: (1) A person commits the offense 45-4-102. Conspiracy. of conspiracy when, with the purpose that an offense be committed, he agrees with another to the commission of No person may be convicted of conspiracy that offense. to commit an offense unless an act in furtherance of such agreement has been committed by him or by a coconspirator. . . . Shaw sought to have the following instruction given to the jury: There can be no conspiracy between a defendant and one who only feigns acquiescence in a crime: however, if an undercover agent acts in conjunction with more than one person to violate a law, his participation will not preclude a conviction of the others for a conspiracy among themselves. During court one the agreed, settling that of which the "[y]ou is breaking law. admits to the on the matter. of an can have agent settled contrary in It well its the a conspiracy undercover That's is instructions, who case brief, law." and cites established State argued, between has no and the two people, intention However, extensive the of State case law that: "There is neither a true agreement nor a meeting of the minds when an individual 'conspires' to violate the law with only one other person and that person is a government agent." . . . An individual must conspire with at least one bona fide co-conspirator to meet the formal requirements of a conspiracy. United States (citation F.2d 732 v. Schmidt omitted); (it is (9th United legally Cir. States 1991), 10 Kelly to impossible v. conspire 947 (11th with F.2d 362, 367 Cir. 1989) 888 a government United agent); takes two States to conspire conspirator), The cert. State in cases relevant in this That instruction that State's argument serves that We hold of the that Shawls Proposed the Jury and Kair. the have law. the jury the / part contrary covers Court to Instruction to an between the instruction the the State's situation situation. in refusing to give No. 21. a new trial Shaw and agent are involved. that erred closing given of this does encompass foregoing. We concur: a conspiracy and a government than given entitled was necessary The first instruction its between Shaw was instruction was not other during arisen to finding instruction District it only We disagree occasions and remand for We reverse a true is were two individuals could where more than one individual The second part not and that Furthermore, proposed is 120 (it instruction to the jury. purpose. informer one defendant, not fact, 818 F.Zd proposed on numerous is in 1987), 855 (1987). involved--Shaw limited Shaw and Kair; the the involving a conspiracy Reynolds. Cir. 484 U.S. that argued that argument, denied, agent State argument (1st case where there the government the Giry and a government argues relevant that v. , ' 11 in conformity with the I.2
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.
