No, 12267
I N T E 'SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A
H OR F OTN
1973
STATE O M N A A
F OTN,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
T R Y A. LANE a /k/a
ER
TERRY VAN DIVER,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presbding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
D. R. Matthews argued, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
J. C. Weingartner , A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued,
Helena, Montana
Robert L, Deschamps, 111 County Attorney, Missoula,
Montana
Gene McLatchy, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Missoula,
Montana
Submitted: January 26, 1973
Decided :
F'E'E in w.
3
Filed: 1 fi 7973
Y r , J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a judgment of c o n v i c t i o n of t h e
crime of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y e n t e r e d on a j u r y v e r d i c t
i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t 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 , county o f
Missoula. Defendant had a p r i o r f e l o n y and was sentenced t o a
term of f i v e y e a r s , He had been charged w i t h b u r g l a r y i n t h e
f i r s t degree o r a l t e r n a t i v e l y , receiving s t o l e n property.
The home of M r , & M r s . Charles H u r t , i n Missoula, was
b u r g l a r i z e d on October 22, 1971. Access had been gained through
a window i n a bedroom d u r i n g t h e H u r t s ' absence. S t o l e n were a
Gibson Super 400 g u i t a r , an a m p l i f i e r , a Pioneer r e v e r b e r a t o r u n i t ,
a s t e r e o u n i t and one suede j a c k e t .
I t s h o r t l y became a p p a r e n t t h a t two men, P e t e r P r o b s t
and defendant T e r r y Lane, l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s T e r r y Lane Van
D i v e r , were involved because t h e two went t o Bakke Motors i n
Missoula and t r a d e d a 1959 C a d i l l a c , $50 of d e f e n d a n t ' s money,
and t h e s t o l e n g u i t a r f o r a 1965 P o n t i a c purchased i n d e f e n d a n t ' s
name. The s t o l e n a m p l i f i e r was s o l d t o a l o c a l secondhand s t o r e
f o r $50 by P r o b s t w h i l e defendant w a i t e d i n h i s c a r . Both men
s o l d t h e s t e r e o and s p e a k e r s t o an employee a t S t , p a t r i c k ' s
H o s p i t a l f o r $40.
The two men, P r o b s t and Van Diver, d i s a p p e a r e d . Subse-
q u e n t l y , a f t e r t r a v e l i n g t o g e t h e r t o New Orleans and Canada, t h e
two were a r r e s t e d i n Canada f o r having an i l l e g a l weapon, among
o t h e r charges. While i n j a i l i n Regina, Saskatchewan, t h e y i n -
formed t h e Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t t h e r e was a w a r r a n t f o r t h e i r
a r r e s t i n Missoula, Montana. They were s u b s e q u e n t l y d e p o r t e d t o
t h e United S t a t e s from Canada and were a r r e s t e d on December 3 , 1971,
i n Plentywood, Montana, and r e t u r n e d t o Missoula. The suede j a c k e t
t a k e n i n t h e b u r g l a r y was found i n defendant Van ~ i v e r ' sc a r i n
Plentywood,
W h i l e t h e c h a r g e s were pending, P r o b s t dismissed h i s
a t t o r n e y , made a s t a t e m e n t , and p l e a d g u i l t y t o f i r s t d e g r e e
burglary. He was sentenced t o two y e a r s ; which s e n t e n c e was
deferred,
Defendant Van Diver plead n o t g u i l t y and t h e c a s e went
to trial. During t h e t r i a l , t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y t e s t i f i e d
a s t o t h e b u r g l a r y and i d e n t i f i e d t h e s t o l e n i t e m s . The i t e m s
were a l l connected t o t h e p o s s e s s i o n and s a l e by b o t h P r o b s t and
defendant Van Diver. P r o b s t t e s t i f i e d t h a t b o t h h e and Van Diver
b u r g l a r i z e d t h e Hurt home; t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e i r purchase o f
Van ~ i v e r ' sautomobile, t h e i r s a l e of t h e i t e m s , t h e i r t r i p t o
Canada, t h e i r a r r e s t , and h i s subsequent d e c i s i o n t o p l e a d g u i l t y .
As s t a t e d b e f o r e , t h e charge was i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e ,
burglary o r receiving stolen property. The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d on
b o t h c h a r g e s and given a l t e r n a t i v e v e r d i c t s . The j u r y r e t u r n e d a
v e r d i c t of g u i l t y of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y .
Defendant on a p p e a l r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review:
(1) That t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n g i v i n g I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 3 ;
( 2 ) t h a t an a l l e g e d p r o s e c u t i o n comment on d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e
t o e x p l a i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e goods was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r ; and
( 3 ) whether t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g defendant a new t r i a l
on t h e r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y charge by i t s e l f .
I s s u e 1 concerns t h e g i v i n g , over t h e o b j e c t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ,
of I n s t r u c t i o n No. 13 which r e a d s :
1l
You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e mere p o s s e s s i o n of
s t o l e n p r o p e r t y , however soon a f t e r t h e t a k i n g ,
unexplained by t h e person having p o s s e s s i o n , i s
not s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y conviction. It i s ,
however, a c i r c u m s t a n c e t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n con-
n e c t i o n w i t h o t h e r evidence i n determining t h e
q u e s t i o n of innocence o r g u i l t . I f you should
f i n d from t h e evidence t h a t a b u r g l a r y was com-
m i t t e d on t h e premises involved i n t h i s c a s e and
t h a t t h e r e a f t e r t h e defendant was found i n posses-
s i o n , o r claimed t o be t h e owner, of p r o p e r t y
s t o l e n from t h e b u r g l a r i z e d premises, such a f a c t
would be a c i r c u m s t a n c e t e n d i n g i n some d e g r e e t o
show g u i l t , a l t h o u g h n o t s u f f i c i e n t , s t a n d i n g a l o n e
and unsupported by o t h e r e v i d e n c e , t o w a r r a n t your
f i n d i n g him g u i l t y . I n a d d i t i o n t o proof of p o s s e s -
s i o n of such p r o p e r t y t h e r e must be proof of c o r r o b -
o r a t i n g ciwcumstances t e n d i n g of themselves t o e s t a b l i s h
guilt, Such corroborating circumstances may
consist of the acts, conduct, falsehoods, if any,
or other declarations, if any, of the defendant,
and any other proved circumstances tending to
show the guilt of the accused,
"One who is found in the possession of property
that was stolen from burglarized premises is bound
to explain such possession in order to remove the
effect of that fact as a circumstance, to be con-
sidered with all other evidence, pointing to his
guilt. I I
In addition to Instruction No. 13, other instructions
on receiving stolen property were given. Instruction No. 18
specifically required proof beyond a reasonable doubt,
Defendant argues Instruction No. 13 violated his consti-
tutional rights. Namely, that the instruction allows the judge,
by way of an instruction, to comment on the fact defendant did
not take the stand during the trial, Such comments, on the
defendant not taking the stand during a criminal trial, have been
held to violate defendants' rights against self-incrimination
as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Consti-
tution. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14
This Court recently considered the question of the con-
stitutionality of such an instruction, In State v. Branch, 155
Mont. 22, 23, 26, 465 P,2d 821, this instruction was given:
It
One who is found in possession of stolen property
is bound to explain such possession in order to
remove the effect of that fact as a circumstance,
to be considered with all other evidence, pointing
to his guilt, and if he gives a false account of how
he acquired that possession or, having reasonable
opportunity to show that his possession was honestly
acquired he refuses or fails to do so, such conduct
is a circumstance that tends to show his guilt. I I
In Branch, appellant contended that:
"* * +c since defendant did not testify on his own
behalf that the instruction is a comment on the
defendant's failure to testify, forbidden by Art,
111, 5 8, of our Constitution and section 94-8803,
R.C.M. 1947,"
As to the questioned instruction in Branch, this Court
stated:
"'we can f i n d no e r r o r with t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i n
question. The i n s t r u c t i o n c l e a r l y s t a t e d t h a t
mere possession alone i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o
j u s t i f y a c o n v i c t i o n ; such has been t h e long
standing r u l e i n Montana. I 11
The Court then went on t o d e a l d i r e c t l y with t h e i d e n t i c a l i s s u e
raised here:
"'The defendant contends t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n
was a comment on h i s f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y , This
contention i s without merit. [ C i t i n g cases ]
W t h e r e f o r e hold t h a t t h e challenged i n s t r u c t i o n
e
i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . 1 I!
W f i n d nothing new i n t h e argument presented by defendant
e
i n t h i s appeal. This argument has been heard before by t h i s
Court, and we considered t h e matter a f t e r t h e United S t a t e s Su-
preme Court case c i t e d by defendant a s c o n t r o l l i n g was handed
down. This i n s t r u c t i o n i s n o t i n v i o l a t i o n of the p r o t e c t i o n
of t h e r i g h t a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n , It does n o t comment on
f a i l u r e of t h e defendant t o t e s t i f y , It does permit t h e defendant
t o e x p l a i n how he came i n t o possession of t h e s t o l e n goods. A
defendant can do t h i s by t a k i n g t h e stand h i m s e l f , by having
another t e s t i f y on h i s b e h a l f , o r by introducing o t h e r types of
evidence t o show how he came i n t o possession of t h e s t o l e n goods,
I f t h e defendant does n o t e x p l a i n , by any of t h e enumerated methods
of explaining h i s possession, then t h i s f a c t can be considered
by t h e j u r y i n making i t s determination.
Defendant urges t h a t i n s p i t e of our holding i n Branch
and S t a t e v. Gray, 152 Mont. 145, 447 P.2d 475, i t i s e r r o r
f o r t h e prosecution t o comment even by way of i n s t r u c t i o n on f a i l u r e
of a defendant t o e x p l a i n h i s possession of r e c e n t l y s t o l e n goods,
Defendant p u t s i t a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t l y i n t h a t he s t a t e s i t i n
11
t h e s e terms: f a i l u r e t o e x p l a i n away h i s g u i l t by a s s o c i a t i o n " ,
B e t h a t a s i t may, defendant urges t h a t t h e r u l e i n G r i f f i n r e -
quires a reversal. I n 24 ALR3d 1093, an annotation appears £01-
lowing t h e c a s e of Chapman v. C a l i f o r n i a , 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct.
824, 17 L ed 2d 705, 24 ALR3d 1065. That discussion i s of harmless
e r r o r , cured e r r o r , p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r , and automatic r e v e r s a l .
However, i n t h i s c a s e , no comment a s such was made on
defendant's f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y , Counsel makes i t o u t by r e f e r r i n g
t o I n s t r u c t i o n No. 13. That i n s t r u c t i o n p l a i n l y , i n our view,
i s n o t meant t o b e a comment on t h e f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y . Rather,
i t i s an e v i d e n t i a r y r u l e , The unexplained possession o f r e c e n t l y
s t o l e n goods--not n e c e s s a r i l y an e x p l a n a t i o n i n c o u r t - - - i s a cir-
cumstance t o be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e j u r y . hat ' s a l l , Other i n -
s t r u c t i o n s go on t o r e q u i r e o t h e r evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt. The r u l e of G r i f f i n , Chapman, and t h e o t h e r c a s e s r e f e r r e d
t o , simply a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e . h e r e .
~ e f e n d a n t ' si s s u e 2 on a p p e a l r e f e r s t o a l l e g e d comments
made by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o t h e j u r y concerning d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e
t o take t h e stand. I n support of t h i s c o n t e n t i o n c o u n s e l f o r
defendant produced an a f f i d a v i t , signed by h i m s e l f , i n which i s
s e t o u t a l l e g e d l y verbatim t h e language t h e p r o s e c u t o r used. That
i s t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d c o u n s e l f o r defendant h a s used t o support h i s
position. There i s n o t h i n g e l s e , no t r a n s c r i p t ; only h i s a f f i d a v i t
of what h e a l l e g e s was s a i d ,
The s t a t e i n i t s argument c i t e s an a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d by t h e
deputy county a t t o r n e y who t r i e d t h e c a s e . I n t h i s a f f i d a v i t he
r e f u t e s what was a l l e g e d by defendant. There i s no way of knowing
what was a c t u a l l y s a i d , because t h e r e i s no w r i t t e n r e c o r d . This
Court must have a w r i t t e n record b e f o r e i t which shows e x a c t l y
what was s a i d . W cannot allow c a s e s t o b e r e v e r s e d only on what
e
one of t h e a t t o r n e y s thought was s a i d a t t h e time. Prejudice i n
a c r i m i n a l t r i a l must b e shown from t h e r e c o r d , i t w i l l n o t b e
presumed, S t a t e v. G a l l a g h e r , 151 Mont, 501, 445 P.2d 45,
A d d i t i o n a l l y , on motion f o r new t r i a l t h e t r i a l judge,
who was p r e s e n t when t h e a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t s were supposedly made,
denied a new t r i a l . Even a t t h a t time, counsel made no e f f o r t
t o supplement t h e r e c o r d .
The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d i s a p p a r e n t l y t h a t i f t h i s con-
v i c t i o n were t o be r e v e r s e d , defendant could n o t t h e n b e charged
w i t h t h e crime o f b u r g l a r y . W need n o t d i s c u s s t h i s i s s u e , s i n c e
e
t h e conviction of defendant of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n property i s n o t
reversed.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed.
!
Ass c i a t e J u s t i c e s .