No. 12463
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA
OR F F
1973
STATE O MONTANA,
F
Pla i n t i f f and Respondent,
-VS -
CHARLES R. CJATKINS ,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record :
For Appellant :
John L. Adams argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
Thomas Beers, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued,
Helena, Montana
Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana
Diane G. Barz, Deputy County Attorney, appeared, B i l l i n g s ,
Montana
Submitted: October 1, 1973
Honorable Paul G. H a t f i e l d , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r J u s t i c e
John Conway H a r r i s o n , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
O October 31, 1972, defendant C h a r l e s R. Watkins was
n
t r i e d , and on November 1, 1972, c o n v i c t e d of b u r g l a r y i n t h e
second d e g r e e i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County. He was
sentenced t o a term o f f i v e y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n . From t h i s
c o n v i c t i o n and judgment he a p p e a l s .
E i t h e r l a t e on May 5 , 1972, o r e a r l y i n t h e morning May 6 ,
1972, t h e r e a r door of t h e Gorham Park Drug, l o c a t e d a t Broadwater
Avenue and 1 9 t h S t r e e t West i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, was found open
by a merchant policeman. The owner-manager t e s t i f i e d he had b r r e d
t h e r e a r door from t h e i n s i d e of t h e s t o r e and l e f t t h e s t o r e
through t h e f r o n t d o o r , which he locked, a t approximately 8:15 p.m.
on May 5 , 1972.
The testimony was u n c o n t r a d i c t e d t h a t defendant f r e q u e n t e d
t h e s t o r e q u i t e o f t e n ; t h a t defendant was i n t h e d r u g s t o r e on t h e
evening of May 5 w i t h a companion; t h a t h e s t a y e d q u i t e a w h i l e ;
t h a t he bought e i t h e r Winston o r Camel c i g a r e t t e s , a s t h e c l e r k
r e c a l l e d ; and, t h a t no employee of t h e s t o r e saw d e f e n d a n t l e a v e
t h e premises.
Testimony of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s r e v e a l e d t h a t ,
i n t h e i r o p i n i o n , no f o r c e d e n t r y of t h e premises was made. How-
e v e r , t h e y d i d conclude t h a t escape was made through t h e r e a r door.
There was f u r t h e r testimony t h a t someone had been h i d i n g i n t h e
back storeroom. I n f a c t , s e v e r a l Camel c i g a r e t t e b u t t s were found
i n a s t o r a g e a r e a between boxes. T h i s was an a r e a of t h e premises
used f o r s t o r a g e and n o t open t o t h e p u b l i c . Investigation also
uncovered a p a i r of g l o v e s which were d i r t y and g r e a s y . The s a f e
was peeled. Found a t t h e s a f e were a s c r e w d r i v e r and a c h i s e l ,
which d i d n o t belong t o t h e s t o r e . Also found was t h e d i a l from
t h e s a f e and t h e s h a f t housing from t h e i n s i d e of t h e s a f e , which
t h e p o l i c e marked.
I n v e n t o r y of m i s s i n g items given by t h e s t o r e manager t o
t h e p o l i c e a t t h e time of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n c l u d e d a p i s t o l w i t h
its make, model and serial number; watches; cigarette lighters;
and quite a bit of medicine from the pharmacy. There was also money
and some narcotics missing from the safe.
On the morning of May 7, 1972, authorities, armed with a
search warrant, searched the premises of Room 6, in the Uptown Motel,
Billings, Montana. In the room was defendant Charles Watkins.
The authorities found a pistol which matched in make, model and serial
number the pistol reported stolen from the Gorham Park Drug; and a
narcotics label with the Gorham Park owner's initials, which labels
were kept on the narcotics in the safe at the drugstore, in the room.
They also found in the room an attache case containing numerous drugs,
along with some watches and cigarette lighters. These items were
all similar to the items reported missing from the Gorham Park Drug,
but they had no identifying marks and, therefore, were not positively
identified. Also found was a wallet in a shaving kit in a box next
to or on the bed in the room. In the wallet were two ID'S belonging
to defendant. Next to the box was found a paper sack containing
brass, whiich together with pieces of the safe found at the scene
of the crime were sent to the F.B.I. The F.B.I. reported this brass
could have been from the same safe as the brass found at the scene
of the crime.
Placed in evidence were two registration cards for Room 6
of the Uptown Motel. One of these cards listed the address of the
signer as 317 South 27th Street. This address is the address of
one-half of a duplex. There was testimony that the other half of
this duplex was rented to a Charles Watkins and a Betty Jones about
a year prior to the date of the crime. Also on this registration
card was listed a license number of a car owned by a person known
to associate with defendant. Finally, there was found in Room 6
of the Uptown Motel a laundry tag with Watkins's name on it and the
address 2612 South First. Testimony indicated this address is
located between 26th Street South and 27th Street South in Billings.
Too, there was evidence of the statement made by defendant at the
sheriff's office, which will be discussed with more particularity
later.
Defendant contends t h a t no b u r g l a r y was committed because
of t h e l a c k o f forced e n t r y . The a t t o r n e y on a p p e a l i s n o t t h e
same a t t o r n e y who r e p r e s e n t e d defendant a t t r i a l , and t h i s argu-
ment was n o t p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l . A s a m a t t e r of f a c t , i n t h e
c l o s i n g argument t o t h e j u r y t h e d e f e n s e counsel s a i d :
"* ** N w we do n o t deny t h a t a b u r g l a r y must
o
have taken p l a c e . The p o l i c e say i t took p l a c e ,
i t must have taken p l a c e . But, Ladies and Gentle-
men, t h i s defendant d i d n ' t do i t . I'
F u r t h e r , t h e c a s e law c i t e d by defendant r e q u i r i n g a t r e s -
p a s s , S t a t e v. Mish, 36 Mont. 168, 170, 92 P. 459, a f f i r m e d S t a t e
v. Rodgers, 40 Mont. 248, 251, 106 P. 3 , and c a r r i e d out i n S t a t e
v. Starkweather, 89 Mont. 381, 386, 297 P. 497, i s :
*
"* * ' i n o r d e r t o c o n s t i t u t e a b u r g l a r i o u s
e n t r y t h e n a t u r e of t h e e n t r y must be i t s e l f
a trespass.' A t r e s p a s s i s t h e i n v a s i o n of
t h e possession of a n o t h e r . (Coburn C a t t l e Co.
v. Hensen, 52 Mont. 252, 157 Pac. 177;
Thrasher v. Hodge, 86 Mont. 218, 283 Pac. 219.)"
The two c a s e s c i t e d i n t h e above q u o t a t i o n a r e c i v i l c a s e s . In
t h i s c a s e , someone exceeded t h e i n v i t a t i o n given a s a b u s i n e s s
i n v i t e e and s t a y e d i n t h e s t o r e a f t e r b u s i n e s s was c l o s e d , becoming
a trespasser.
The p r i n c i p a l c o n t e n t i o n s of defendant a r e (1) t h a t t h e
evidence viewed i n i t s e n t i r e t y was i n s u f f i c i e n t i n law t o j u s t i f y
c o n v i c t i o n of t h e crime of b u r g l a r y i n t h e second degree; (2) t h a t
the p i s t o l introduced i n evidence was i n t r o d u c e d w i t h o u t proper
foundation l a i d f o r i t s admission; (3) t h a t evidence of o t h e r crimes
i n c l u d i n g t h e f a c t defendant was under s u r v e i l l a n c e f o r a n o t h e r
crime was p r e j u d i c i a l and improperly i n t r o d u c e d ; (4) t h a t t h e s t a t e -
ment taken from defendant by t h e s h e r i f f was coerced and should have
been suppressed; and (5) t h a t t h e c l o s i n g argument of t h e p r o s e c u t o r
was p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e r i g h t s of defendant t o a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l
trial.
Concerning d e f e n d a n t ' s f i r s t c o n t e n t i o n , t h i s Court i n S t a t e
v. Joseph Lee Allen, Mont . , 509 P.2d 849, 850, 30 St.Rep.
532, 533, 534, examined a s i m i l a r c o n v i c t i o n . I n A l l e n t h e Court
said:
"The r e c o r d shows t h a t during t h e e a r l y morning
hours of December 8 , 1969, t h e Eagles Club Bar
i n Bozeman, Montana was b u r g l a r i z e d . There was no
f o r c e d e n t r y and t h e crime was accomplished by t h e
b u r g l a r h i d i n g himself i n t h e b u i l d i n g u n t i l t h e
c l u b c l o s e a a t 1:00 a.m. He t h e n wheeled t h e s a f e
from t h e o f f i c e where i t was k e p t i n t o t h e b a r a r e a .
T h i s was done so he was n o t v i s i b l e from t h e o u t -
s i d e of t h e b u i l d i n g . The s a f e was turned on i t s
back, t h e door p r i e d o f f , and over $5,000 i n small
b i l l s , f i v e s , t e n s and t w e n t i e s , s t o l e n . I I
The same c o n t e n t i o n , l a c k of evidence, was made i n A l l e n and
t h e Court s a i d :
h his Court has been faced w i t h t h i s i s s u e i n
s e v e r a l previous c a s e s . J u s t what weight and
u s e should be given t o c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence
i n a c r i m i n a l t r i a l ? W answered t h a t q u e s t i o n
e
and e s t a b l i s h e d a t e s t i n S t a t e v. Cor, 144 Mont.
323, 326, 396 P.2d 86 (1964). I n t h a t c a s e we
held:
11 1
C i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence i s n o t always
i n f e r i o r i n q u a l i t y nor i s i t n e c e s s a r i l y r e l e -
g a t e d t o a "second c l a s s s t a t u s " i n t h e c o n s i d e r -
a t i o n t o be given i t . The very f a c t it i s c i r -
cumstantial i s not a s u f f i c i e n t allegation t o
j u s t i f y a r e v e r s a l o f t h e judgment f o r such e v i -
dence may be and f r e q u e n t l y i s , most convincing
and s a t i s f a c t o r y . I n any c r i m i n a l c a s e , evidence
t h a t i s m a t e r i a l , r e l e v a n t and competent, w i l l b e
admitted, "nothing more and n o t h i n g l e s s . " The
t e s t i s whether t h e f a c t s and circumstances a r e of
such a q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y a s t o l e g a l l y j u s t i f y
a j u r y i n determining g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e
doubt. I f such be t h e c a s e , then t h e c o u r t should
n o t , indeed cannot, s e t a s i d e t h e solemn f i n d i n g s
of t h e t r i e r of t h e f a c t s . '
1I
This t e s t was used r e c e n t l y i n a f i r s t degree
murder c a s e where t h e evidence of g u i l t was based
on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence. S t a t e v. Gallagher,
Mont
r c ~ a y ,
.m:" P.2d , 30 S t a t e Rep.
Again, i n S t a t e v. F i t z p a t r i c k , Mont *Y
-
P. 2d , 30 S t . Rep. 1052, 1060, t h i s Court r e i t e r a t e d t h e r u l e
on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e r e was s u f f i -
c i e n t evidence t o j u s t i f y t h e c o n v i c t i o n .
A s t o d e f e n d a n t ' s second c o n t e n t i o n - - t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of
t h e gun-- t h e o b j e c t i o n i s t h a t t h e s t a t e f a i l e d t o i n t r o d u c e i n
evidence t h e box i n which t h e gun was k e p t and which was l e f t a t
t h e scene of t h e crime, o r a t l e a s t t h a t t h e s e r i a l number i n t r o -
duced a t t r i a l had n o t been compared w i t h t h e box t h e gun had
o r i g i n a l l y come i n . However, t h e o f f i c e r s d i d t e s t i f y t h e y were
given t h e s e r i a l number and t h a t t h e gun recovered i n motel Room 6
bore t h e same s e r i a l number a s t h e one given them a f t e r t h e b u r g l a r y
i n t h e i n v e n t o r y of missing a r t i c l e s . S t a t e v. Wilroy, 150 Mont.
255, 258, 259, 434 P.2d 138, s e t s out t h e r u l e :
11
Failure t o e i t h e r properly i d e n t i f y t h e a r t i c l e ,
o r t o prove t h a t no s u b s t a n t i a l change has taken
p l a c e i n t h e a r t i c l e , w h i l e i n custody, c o n s t i t u t e s
ground f o r a n o b j e c t i o n t h a t t h e proper foundation
has n o t been shown. I 1
X t h i s c a s e a s u f f i c i e n t foundation was shown and a s s t a t e d i n
n
Wilroy and i n F i t z p a t r i c k :
"* * * we f i n d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t o have been
s u f f i c i e n t . The l a c k of s p e c i f i c o r p o s i t i v e
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n marks i s n o t of g r e a t import f o r
t h e items were n o t s o uncommon t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n cannot be made. The l a c k of
o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n goes t o t h e weight of
!he evidence r a t h e r t h a n i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y . **
I t i s s u f f i c i e n t i f they a r e shown t o be connect
w i t h t h e crime, and i d e n t i f i e d a s such."
A s t o d e f e n d a n t ' s t h i r d c o n t e n t i o n - - t h a t evidence of o t h e r
crimes i n c l u d i n g t h e f a c t defendant was under s u r v e i l l a n c e f o r an-
o t h e r crime was p r e j u d i c i a l and improperly i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e case--
we have made a c a r e f u l i n s p e c t i o n of t h e r e c o r d and f i n d no m e r i t
i n t h i s contention.
A s t o t h e f i f t h c o n t e n t i o n - - t h a t t h e c l o s i n g argument of
t h e p r o s e c u t o r was p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e r i g h t s of defendant t o a f a i r
and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l when he r e l a t e d evidence n o t i n t r o d u c e d . Again,
we have examined t h e f i n a l argument of c o u n s e l s e t o u t i n t h e
t r a n s c r i p t , and t h e c a s e law i n S t a t e v. Watkins, 156 Mont. 456,
481 P.2d 689; S t a t e v. Quigg, 155 Mont. 119. 467 P.2d 692; S t a t e
v. Lucero, 151 Mont. 531, 445 P.2d 731; and S t a t e v. J e n s e n , 153
Mont. 233, 455 P.2d 63). W f i n d t h e remarks made by t h e p r o s e c u t o r
e
were n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o r e q u i r e a m i s t r i a l .
The remaining m a t t e r i s d e f e n d a n t ' s f o u r t h c o n t e n t i o n - -
t h a t t h e statement taken from defendant by t h e s h e r i f f was coerced
and should have been suppressed. During t h e time a f t e r t h e execu-
t i o n of t h e search w a r r a n t on May 7, 1972, and t h e time defendant
was charged w i t h t h e crime by d i r e c t Information on J u l y 21, 1972,
defendant on h i s own v o l i t i o n went t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e and
i n q u i r e d a s t o o b t a i n i n g h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , which t h e s h e r i f f
had from t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e search w a r r a n t . Defendant contends
t h a t t h e statement taken a t t h a t time by t h e s h e r i f f from him was
coerced and should have been suppressed. B a s i c a l l y , t h e statement
t h e s h e r i f f took was merely a r e c e i p t f o r t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n which
defendant wanted. The statement was r e q u i r e d a s a r e c e i p t f o r
l e t t i n g o u t of custody of t h e s h e r i f f evidence t h a t t h e s e a r c h
warrant had o b t a i n e d , and i t merely s t a t e d t h a t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
w a s h i s , t h e defendant Watkins.
The f i r s t q u e s t i o n i s whether o r n o t t h e s t a t e m e n t was
voluntary. The t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y h e l d t h e h e a r i n g o u t s i d e t h e
presence of t h e j u r y and found t h e statement t o be v o l u n t a r y b e f o r e
a l l o w i n g i t s admission i n t o evidence. S t a t e v. White, 146 Mont. 226,
236, 405 P.2d 761; S t a t e v. I a c e r o , 151 Mont. 531, 445 P.2d 731.
A t t h e time defendant signed t h e r e c e i p t he was r e p r e s e n t e d
by counsel. He was r e a d t h e Miranda warning b e f o r e he signed t h e
statement. He was t o l d i n p a r t t h a t he had a r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t ;
t h a t a n y t h i n g he s a i d could and probably would be used a g a i n s t him;
t h a t he had a r i g h t t o c o n s u l t an a t t o r n e y b e f o r e making any s t a t e -
ment; b u t t h a t he could waive t h e s e r i g h t s and make a s t a t e m e n t
without c o n s u l t i n g a n a t t o r n e y i f he d e s i r e d . The statement i t s e l f
says i t i s v o l u n t a r y . Watkins t e s t i f i e d he understood t h e warning.
There were no t h r e a t s nor promises made n o r o t h e r c o e r c i o n t o g e t
him t o g i v e t h e statement. Again, i t should be s t a t e d t h a t he went
t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e on h i s own i n i t i a t i v e and t h e only admission
was t h a t t h e i d e n t i f c a t i o n was h i s , which i s merely a r e c e i p t
which t h e s h e r i f f would r e q u i r e anyone t o s i g n i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n
any p r o p e r t y t h e s h e r i f f might have.
F u r t h e r , i t should be remembered t h a t Watkins himself was
i n t h e room a t t h e time of t h e execution of t h e search w a r r a n t . The
admission of t h e statement was n o t e r r o r .
For t h e above r e a s o n s , t h e v e r d i c t was j u s t i f i e d by t h e
evidence. The pistol was properly admitted into evidence, and
the trial court did not err in allowing statements made by the
prosecution in closing argument, especially where no objection was
made at the time.
The conviction of burglary in the second degree is
a£ firmed.
......................................
Hon. Paul G. Hatfied, sitting for
Justice John Conway Harrison.
/i /chief Justice
Justices.