No. 12893
I N THE SUPRENE COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
STATE OF MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
GARY EUGENE RADL ,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f 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 C. B. Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For Appellant :
Robert L. Stephens, Jr. a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
F o r Respondent :
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena,
Montana
Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d ,
Helena, Montana
A r t h u r Ayers, County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Red Lodge,
Montana .
Submitted: September 25, 1975
Decided :
Filed : 5 !pE
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e
Court.
T h i s i s an a p p e a l from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Carbon County.
Gary Eugene Radi a p p e a l s from a June 25, 1974, j u r y v e r d i c t f i n d i n g
him g u i l t y o f attempted b u r g l a r y , pursuant t o s e c t i o n s 94-4-103
and 94-6-203, R.C.M. 1947.
From a p p e l l a n t ' s p o i n t of view, t h e r e c o r d p r e s e n t s
t h i s factual setting: I n e a r l y March 1974, Radi and s e v e r a l
o t h e r s i n c l u d i n g John Miner, were i n a t t e n d a n c e a t a l o c a l n i g h t
s p o t i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. Sometime d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e
evening, they were i n t r o d u c e d t o a man c a l l e d "Pat" who mentioned
t h a t he was from Red Lodge and l i v e d i n an apartment j u s t above
a Safeway s t o r e . Radi purchased a round of d r i n k s f o r t h o s e a t
h i s t a b l e , and s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he paid f o r t h e
d r i n k s w i t h a one hundred d o l l a r b i l l . The w a i t r e s s took t h e
b i l l and l a t e r r e t u r n e d w i t h t h e change. She observed t h a t s e v e r a l
o f t h o s e p r e s e n t , i n c l u d i n g Radi, had l e f t t h e t a b l e t o dance.
She placed both t h e d r i n k s and t h e change on t h e t a b l e . Upon
~ a d i ' s e t u r n he discovered t h a t h i s change and t h e man "Pat" had
r
disappeared.
Approximately t e n days l a t e r , Radi i n v i t e d John Miner and
one Daniel Cinnamon t o accompany him t o Red Lodge i n a n a t t e m p t t o
I1
locate this Pat" and r e c o v e r t h e money. It i s a t t h i s p o i n t
t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s s t o r y begins t o c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e o f f i c i a l p o l i c e
version.
P o l i c e s u s p i c i o n s were f i r s t aroused on t h a t evening, when
t h e y observed t r a c k s i n t h e f r e s h l y f a l l e n snow, i n an a l l e y behind
t h e B & P Hardware s t o r e i n Red Lodge. The t r a c k s l e d t o t h e back
door of t h e s t o r e , stopped, and continued up t h e a l l e y . The p o l i c e
followed t h e t r a c k s t o t h e r e a r of a neighboring Safeway s t o r e , where
t h e y s p o t t e d Radi and Miner i n t h e g e n e r a l a r e a of some abandoned
apartments l o c a t e d above t h e s t o r e . The two men were ordered
downstairs and asked t o s t a n d a g a i n s t t h e b u i l d i n g . Radi
suddenly r a n down t h e a l l e y , b u t was l a t e r apprehended s e v e r a l b l o c k s
away. During h i s r u n , an o b j e c t f e l l from h i s person which l a t e r
was i d e n t i f i e d a s a .22 c a l i b e r p i s t o l , A s e a r c h o f Miner r e s u l t e d
i n t h e recovery o f a twelve-inch crowbar c a r r i e d up t h e s l e e v e of
h i s coat. The t h i r d p a r t i c i p a n t , Cinnamon, was a p p a r e n t l y s t a n d i n g
i n t h e f r o n t s t a i r w a y t o t h e apartments and was l a t e r apprehended a t
a nearby motel. The p o l i c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e crowbar found on
Miner was very s i m i l a r t o t h e one which had been used i n an a t t e m p t
t o b u r g l e t h e B & P Hardware s t o r e . A l l t h r e e were a r r e s t e d and
charged w i t h aggravated b u r g l a r y . The charges a g a i n s t Pliner and
Cinnamon were l a t e r dropped and t h e charge a g a i n s t Radi was reduced
t o attempted b u r g l a r y .
A t t r i a l a p p e l l a n t attempted t o e x p l a i n t h a t h i s presence
i n t h e a l l e y on t h e evening of March 1 7 , 1974, was o n l y f o r t h e
It
purpose o f l o c a t i n g p a t " i n t h e hope of r e c o v e r i n g h i s money. The
Carbon County j u r y r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t t h i s s t o r y and i t s a d v e r s e
v e r d i c t engendered t h i s m u l t i - i s s u e a p p e a l .
A t t r i a l a p p e l l a n t c o n s i s t e n t l y denied any i n t e n t t o commit
the offense. O a p p e a l he f i r s t contends t h a t t h e evidence was i n -
n
s u f f i c i e n t t o support h i s c o n v i c t i o n and s u s t a i n a f i n d i n g o f c r i m i n a l
intent.
I n Montana, a person commits t h e o f f e n s e of b u r g l a r y i f he
II
knowingly e n t e r s o r remains u n l a w f u l l y i n an occupied s t r u c t u r e
w i t h t h e purpose t o commit an o f f e n s e t h e r e i n . " S e c t i o n 94-6-204,
R.C.M. 1947. The charge o f attempted b u r g l a r y w i l l l i e where a
-
person h a s done any a c t toward t h e commission of t h e burglary i f
t h e r e q u i s i t e s p e c i f i c purpose can a l s o be e s t a b l i s h e d . Section
94-4-103(1), R.C.M. 1947. The Montana "attempt" s t a t u t e i s somewhat
unique i n t h a t i t e x p r e s s l y provides f o r a complete defense under
circumstances where an abandonment of c r i m i n a l purpose can b e estab-
l i s h e d . S e c t i o n 94-4-103(4), R.C.M. 1947, provides:
"A person s h a l l n o t b e l i a b l e under t h i s s e c t i o n ,
i f under circumstances m a n i f e s t i n g a v o l u n t a r y and
complete r e n u n c i a t i o n of h i s c r i m i n a l purpose, he
avoided t h e commission of t h e o f f e n s e attempted by
abandoning h i s c r i m i n a l e f f o r t . "
Appellant s u g g e s t s t h a t only two p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e s
could b e drawn from t h e r e c o r d a s a m a t t e r of law: 1 ) That t h e r e
was a complete r e n u n c i a t i o n and abandonment of t h e a t t e m p t t o
commit any o f f e n s e ; and 2) t h a t i f g u i l t y a t a l l , a p p e l l a n t could
have committed no crime more s e r i o u s than a c r i m i n a l t r e s p a s s
under s e c t i o n 94-6-203, R.C.M. 1947. I n support o f h i s c o n t e n t i o n
a p p e l l a n t emphasizes he was never seen a t t e m p t i n g t o e n t e r t h e
s t o r e , t h a t i n f a c t t h e s t o r e was never e n t e r e d and t h a t he was
apprehended two b u i l d i n g s away. Appellant r e f e r s u s t o t h e uncon-
t r o v e r t e d f a c t t h e t r a c k s followed by t h e p o l i c e could only have
been made a t a walking pace and h i s " a c t i v i t y " a t t h e hardware
s t o r e was n o t i n t e r r u p t e d by t h e p o l i c e , b u t abandoned v o l u n t a r i l y .
W a g r e e t h e aforementioned f a c t o r s g i v e r i s e t o t h e
e
p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e of a v o l u n t a r y abandonment. But, we do n o t
f i n d t h a t t h e y c o n s t i t u t e c o n c l u s i v e evidence of abandonment a s a
m a t t e r of law. The r e c o r d i s s u f f i c i e n t t o demonstrate a n e n t r y
i n t o t h e B Q P Hardware s t o r e had been attempted through t h e u s e of
a crowbar on t h e back door. F o o t p r i n t s i n t h e snow demonstrated
t h a t s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s had e n t e r e d t h e a l l e y and approached t h e
door. The a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s followed t h e s e f o o t p r i n t s i n t h e
a l l e y t o t h e p l a c e where a p p e l l a n t and h i s a s s o c i a t e were apprehended.
F i n a l l y we c o n s i d e r t h e crowbar which was s e i z e d from John Miner.
I t can h a r d l y be s a i d t h a t under t h e s e c i r c m s t a n c e s a conclusion
of v o l u n t a r y abandonment i s mandated a s a m a t t e r of law. Section
94-4-103 (2), R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s :
"It s h a l l n o t b e a defense t o a charge o f a t t e m p t
t h a t because of a misapprehension of t h e circumstances
i t would have been impossible f o r t h e accused t o commit
t h e o f f e n s e attempted. I I
I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e j u r y might have reasonably
concluded t h e b u r g l a r y was terminated because t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s
found t h e i r e f f o r t s t o be f u t i l e o r f o r any number o f r e a s o n s
o t h e r than v o l u n t a r y abandonment.
This Court has o f t e n s t a t e d t h e j u r y i s t h e s o l e judge
o f t h e weight t o be accorded t h e testimony and t h a t where substan-
t i a l evidence e x i s t s t o support i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , i t w i l l s t a n d .
S t a t e v. Merseal, Mon t . , 538 P.2d 1366, 32 St.Rep. 823;
S t a t e v. G l e i m , 17 Mont. 1 7 , 29, 4 1 P. 998; S t a t e v. White, 146
Mont. 226, 405 P.2d 761; S t a t e v. Stoddard, 147 Mont. 402,408,
412 P.2d 827. The r e c o r d b e f o r e us s u b s t a n t i a l l y s u p p o r t s t h a t
which t h e j u r y chose t o b e l i e v e , and we d e c l i n e t o d i s t u r b i t s
f i n d i n g s on appeal.
Appellant n e x t contends t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g
t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e o f f e n s e of c r i m i n a l t r e s p a s s , which he
terms a l e s s e r included o f f e n s e , A t t h e o u t s e t , we n o t e t h e
probable i s s u e of whether t h e o f f e n s e of c r i m i n a l t r e s p a s s may i n
f a c t be considered a l e s s e r included o f f e n s e of b u r g l a r y . But we
need n o t r e a c h t h a t i s s u e .
It i s argued a p p e l l a n t never o f f e r e d t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n a t
t h e t r i a l l e v e l and t h e r e f o r e t h i s i s s u e i s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time
on appeal. Generally, t h i s Court w i l l r e f u s e t o r u l e on i s s u e s which
were n o t p r e s e n t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t h i s r u l e i s e s p e c i a l l y
applicable t o the i n s t a n t case. The Montana Code of Criminal
Procedure, s e c t i o n 95-1910 (d) , R.C.M. 1947, provides i n p e r t i n e n t
part :
"When t h e evidence i s concluded, i f e i t h e r p a r t y
d e s i r e s s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n s t o b e given t o t h e
j u r y , such i n s t r u c t i o n s s h a l l be reduced t o w r i t i n g ,
numbered, and signed by t h e p a r t y , o r h i s a t t o r n e y ,
and d e l i v e r e d t o t h e c o u r t . 11
The s t a t u t e i s w r i t t e n i n mandatory language and t h e r e f o r e should
be construed a s such. S t a t e v. Cook, 42 Mont. 329, 112 P. 537; S t a t e
v . Dougherty, 71 Mont. 265, 229 P. 735; S t a t e v. Sawyer, 71 Mont.
269, 229 P. 734; S t a t e v. Donges, 126 Mont. 341, 251 P.2d 254;
S t a t e v , Maciel, 130 Mont. 569, 305 P.2d 335.
The n e x t i s s u e r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t concerns a r e q u e s t t o
exclude p r o s p e c t i v e w i t n e s s e s from t h e courtroom. The c o u r t
g r a n t e d t h i s motion, b u t exempted, sua s p o n t e , t h e o f f i c e r s from
t h e Red Lodge p o l i c e department. The n e t e f f e c t of t h i s a c t i o n was
t o exclude a l l t h e d e f e n s e w i t n e s s e s and none of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n
witnesses. Appellant now contends t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t committed
p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r i n exempting t h e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s .
S e c t i o n 93-1901-2, R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s :
11
Witnesses n o t under examination may be excluded.
I f e i t h e r p a r t y r e q u i r e s i t , t h e judge may exclude from
t h e courtroom any w i t n e s s of t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y , n o t a t
t h a t time under examination, s o t h a t he may n o t h e a r t h e
testimony of o t h e r w i t n e s s e s , 11
Although s e c t i o n 93-1901-2 was enacted under ~ o n t a n a ' sc i v i l code,
i t has long been h e l d t o apply t o c r i m i n a l t r i a l s a l s o . S t a t e v.
McDonald, 5 1 Mont. 1, 149 P. 279.
The motion t o s e q u e s t e r o r exclude w i t n e s s e s n o t c u r r e n t l y
under examination from t h e courtroom i s n o t g r a n t e d a s a m a t t e r of
r i g h t , b u t i s addressed t o t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
The motion may b e g r a n t e d when such a c t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y t o i n s u r e t h e
s p o n t a n e i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s by l i m i t i n g t h e i r
o p p o r t u n i t y t o be i n f l u e n d by each o t h e r ' s testimony. See Anno.
32 ALR2d 358-361; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law, 5 1010, pp. 1072,1073.
W c i t e w i t h a p p r o v a l t h e language i n S t a t e v. McLeod,
e
131 Mont. 478, 492, 311 P.2d 400, t o t h e e f f e c t s e c t i o n 93-1901-2
11
is a s a l u t a r y p r o v i s i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n f e l o n y c a s e s i n t h e a i d of
a f a i r t r i a l t o which every defendant i s e n t i t l e d . " McLeod a l s o
c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e a c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge cannot b e d i s t u r b e d
on a p p e a l a b s e n t a showing of manifest abuse of d i s c r e t i o n and pre-
judice.
I n Montana, c e r t a i n types of witnesses have t r a d i t i o n a l l y
been exempted from t h e operation of t h e witness exclusionary r u l e ,
including a t t o r n e y s of t h e c o u r t , c o u r t o f f i c e r s who happen t o be
witnesses and whose attendance i n t h e courtroom i s necessary, and
p o l i c e o f f i c e r s a s s i s t i n g i n preparation of t h e prosecution's
case, S t a t e v. Walsh, 72 Mont. 110, 232 P. 194; S t a t e v, F i t z -
p a t r i c k , 149 Mont. 400, 427 P.2d 300. The t r i a l c o u r t , by incor-
porating one of t h e s e exceptions i n t o i t s r u l i n g , was c o r r e c t l y
following t h e law of t h i s s t a t e and t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t e r r . State
v. Meidinger, 160 Mont. 310, 320, 502 P.2d 58; S t a t e v. Love,
151 Mont. 190, 440 P.2d 275. While t h e record here evidences
no p r e j u d i c i a l harm, we d i r e c t i n t h e f u t ~ r e where t h e t r i a l judge
g r a n t s a motion t o s e q u e s t e r , t h a t i n t h e s p i r i t of f a i r n e s s , a l l
witnesses who a r e t o t e s t i f y be excluded from t h e courtroom.
Appellant's f o u r t h s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r r e f e r s t h i s
Court t o t h e d e n i a l by t h e t r i a l c o u r t of h i s motion f o r m i s t r i a l ,
a motion p r e c i p i t a t e d by a r a t h e r unusual chain of events.
Appellant a l l e g e s t h a t t h e defense witness Daniel Cinnamon
was a r r e s t e d a t o r j u s t o u t s i d e t h e courtroom door, t o a p p e l l a n t ' s
prejudice. The evidence a s t o t h e exact place of a r r e s t i s i n
c o n f l i c t , a s i s whether any of t h e j u r o r s knew what went on. The
t r i a l judge d i d n o t observe what took place, and when a p p e l l a n t ' s
counsel made an i s s u e of what happened, he allowed argument and
II
then r u l e d t h e r e was no prejudice", W f i n d no e r r o r .
e
I n S t a t e v. Bentley, 155 Mont. 383, 405,406, 472 P.2d 864,
t h i s Court s t a t e d :
"This Court w i l l n o t r e v e r s e a d e c i s i o n of t h e t r i a l
c o u r t u n l e s s p r e j u d i c e i s shown, and such p r e j u d i c e
w i l l n o t be presumed but must be a f f i r m a t i v e l y shown.
S t a t e v. Love, 151 Mont. 190, 440 P.2d 275; S t a t e v.
Walker, 148 Mont. 216, 419 P.2d 300; S t a t e v. Heiser,
146 Mont. 413, 407 P.2d 370."
Next a p p e l l a n t t a k e s i s s u e with what he c h a r a c t e r i z e s a s
1'
c e r t a i n opinion evidence1' given by t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s a s t o t h e
crowbar and t h e marks found i n t h e door of t h e hardware s t o r e .
W f i n d no e r r o r .
e S t a t e v. C o l l i n s , 88 Mont. 514, 294 P. 957.
Two e v i d e n t i a r y i s s u e s remain f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , Appel-
l a n t a l l e g e s t h a t t h e admission o f t h e weapon and ammunition c l i p ,
which f e l l t o t h e ground d u r i n g h i s attempted escape from custody,
was improper and p r e j u d i c i a l when o f f e r e d f o r t h e purpose of
a l l o w i n g t h e j u r o r s t o i n & e r c r i m i n a l i n t e n t therefrom. Appellant's
contehthnn cannot b e s u s t a i n e d under t h e p e r t i n e n t Montana c a s e law,
e s p e c i a l l y under t h e f a c t s presented by t h i s c a s e .
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
-
.
Justice
W concur:
e
....................................
Chief J u s t i c e
-----I
' /
--------/, - - l - : L - J - f 2 - ,
'3
' 7 / .
------
1
??iWE%%?€X% t i c e s
Jus .