No. 12986
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1975
STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
C R J IMISON ,
AL
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge p r e s i d i n g
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Gene Huntley argued, Baker, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General,
argued, Helena, Montana
Richard A. Simonton, County Attorney, argued,
Glendive, Montana
Submitted: June 12, 1975
. a
Decided : $F/3 18..,
r\ F- L,
Filed:
N r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.
Defendant C a r l Jimison a p p e a l s from a judgment of t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Dawson County, a f t e r a j u r y v e r d i c t c o n v i c t i n g
him o f two c o u n t s of t h e f t and imposing a t h r e e y e a r s e n t e n c e of
imprisonment i n t h e Montana s t a t e p r i s o n .
The c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t s h e r e a r e n o t d i s p u t e d . Defendant
came i n t o p o s s e s s i o n of some items of p e ~ c n a l p r o p e r t yi n 1973,
which were s t o l e n by someone i n 1973. Defendant has n e v e r been
accused of t h e a c t u a l t h e f t , b u t o f c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n . There-
f o r e , i f t h e p o s s e s s i o n was i n f a c t c r i m i n a l , defendant was
c h a r g e a b l e i n 1973 under s e c t i o n 94-2721, R.C.M. 1947, which
i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t provided:
11
Receiver of s t o l e n p r o p e r t y . Every person who f o r
h i s own g a i n o r t o prevent t h e owner from a g a i n
p o s s e s s i n g h i s own p r o p e r t y buys o r r e c e i v e s any
p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , knowing t h e same t o have been
s t o l e n , i s p u n i s h a b l e by imprisonment i n t h e s t a t e
p r i s o n n o t exceeding f i v e (5) y e a r s o r i n a county
j a i l n o t exceeding s i x (6) months A- * *." (Emphasis
added).
The F o r t y - t h i r d Montana L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly enacted a
new c r i m i n a l code "Criminal Code of 1973", e f f e c t i v e January 1,
1974. The new c r i m i n a l code t r a n s i t i o n s e c t i o n , s e c t i o n 94-1-103,
R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s :
"A l i c a t i o n t o o f f e n s e s committed b e f o r e and
Pe
a t e r enactment.
"(1) The p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s code s h a l l apply
t o any o f f e n s e d e f i n e d i n t h i s code and committed
a f t e r the effective date thereof.
"(2) Unless o t h e r w i s e e x p r e s s l y provided, o r
unless t h e context otherwise r e q u i r e s , t h e provisions
of t h i s code s h a l l govern t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of and
punishment f o r any o f f e n s e d e f i n e d o u t s i d e of t h i s
code and committed a f t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e t h e r e o f ,
a s w e l l a s t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n of any de-
f e n s e t o a p r o s e c u t i o n f o r such an o f f e n s e .
I r (3) The p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s code do n o t a p p l y
t o any o f f e n s e d e f i n e d o u t s i d e of t h i s code and
committed b e f o r e t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e t h e r e o f . Such
an o f f e n s e must be c o n s t r u e d and punished a c c o r d i n g t o
t h e p r o v i s i o n s of law e x i s t i n g a t t h e time of t h e
commission t h e r e o f i n t h e same manner a s i f t h i s code
had n o t been e n a c t e d . I I
Here, on o r about June 5 and 6 , 1974, t h e s h e r i f f ' s
o f f i c e r s searched d e f e n d a n t ' s farm premises and s e i z e d t h e p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y upon which t h e p r o s e c u t i o n was based. Defendant was
charged under t h e new c r i m i n a l code s e c t i o n 94-6-302, R.C.M.
1947, t h e " t h e f t " s t a t u t e under t h e new code, which i n p e r t i n e n t
part reads:
h heft. (1) A person commits t h e o f f e n s e of t h e f t
when he purposely o r knowingly o b t a i n s o r e x e r t s un-
a u t h o r i z e d c o n t r o l over p r o p e r t y of t h e owner, and:
"(a) has t h e purpose of d e p r i v i n g t h e owner of
the property; o r
II
(b) purposely o r knowingly u s e s , c o n c e a l s , o r
abandons t h e p r o p e r t y i n such manner a s t o d e p r i v e t h e
owner of t h e p r o p e r t y ; o r
11
( c ) u s e s , c o n c e a l s , o r abandons t h e p r o p e r t y
knowing such u s e , concealment o r abandonment probably
w i l l d e p r i v e t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y . "
The s t a t e contends t h e new s t a t u t e a l s o i n c l u d e s t h e o l d
o f f e n s e of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y and i n i t s b r i e f c o n t e n d s :
II
While evidence of t h e t a k i n g i s unnecessary t o s u s t a i n a con-
v i c t i o n f o r t h e f t under t h i s s t a t u t e , some evidence of t h e t a k i n g
i s r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r t o demonstrate t h a t t h e defendant was n o t
t h e l a w f u l owner of t h e p r o p e r t y . T h e r e f o r e any evidence of t h e
t a k i n g i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e was n e c e s s a r i l y p r e s e n t e d i n o r d e r t o
e s t a b l i s h t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e owner and t h e c r i m i n a l i n t e n t of t h e
defendant. 9: * ,
\
-L
" A l l t h a t i s necessary t o support a conviction f o r t h e f t
under 94-6-302 i s some e x e r c i s e of c o n t r o l over t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e
owner. That e x e r c i s e of c o n t r o l need n o t b e f o r any p a r t i c u l a r
l e n g t h of time b u t r a t h e r , any l e n g t h of time which i s s u f f i c i e n t
t o show an i n t e n t t o d e p r i v e t h e owner of t h e u s e of t h e p r o p e r t y
i s sufficient. The defendant h e r e e x e r c i s e d c o n t r o l over t h e
p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n which was demonstrated t o have been owned
by a n o t h e r person and w i t h o u t t h a t p e r s o n ' s a u t h o r i z a t i o n . The
i n f o r m a t i o n charged him w i t h having e x e r c i s e d t h a t c o n t r o l 'on o r
about t h e 5 t h and 6 t h days of June, 1 9 7 4 ' . N a l l e g a . t i o n was
o
made t h a t defendant a c t u a l l y took t h e p r o p e r t y from t h e owner
n o r t h a t h e e x e r t e d c o n t r o l over t h e p r o p e r t y a t any time o t h e r
than on t h e 5 t h and 6 t h d a y of June, 1974. N such a l l e g a t i o n s
o
were n e c e s s a r y . 9
: * *If (Emphasis added.)
F i r s t , we c o n s i d e r t h e t r a n s i t i o n s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 94-1-
103(3). The language of t h e s t a t u t e i s c l e a r , unambiguous and
mandatory. It i s o b v i o u s l y i n t e n d e d t o provide an o r d e r l y t r a n s i -
t i o n t o t h e new code. It o f f e r s no e x c e p t i o n s u n l e s s e x p r e s s l y
provided, y e t t h e s t a t e b a s e s i t s e n t i r e c a s e on an a l l e g e d con-
t i n u i n g o f f e n s e t o come around t h e language "any o f f e n s e d e f i n e d
o u t s i d e of t h i s code and committed b e f o r e t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e
thereof." The Code Commision Comment on t h i s s e c t i o n r e f e r s t o
Chapter 513, S e c t i o n 33, Laws of 1973, which c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h e
i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e :
"The Montana Criminal Code and a l l o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s
of t h i s a c t a r e e f f e c t i v e January 1, 1974, and s h a l l
a p p l y t o a l l o f f e n s e s a l l e g e d t o have been committed
on o r a f t e r t h a t d a t e . The Montana Criminal Code and
a l l o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s a c t do n o t a p p l y t o
o f f e n s e s committed p r i o r t o i t s e f f e c t i v e d a t e and
p r o s e c u t i o n s f o r such o f f e n s e s s h a l l be governed by
t h e p r i o r law, which i s c o n t i n u e d i n e f f e c t f o r t h a t
urpose, a s i f t h i s a c t were n o t i n f o r c e . For t h e
:urpose of t h i s s e c t i o n , an o f f e n s e was committed p r i o r
- t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h i s a c t i f any of t h e elements
to
of t h e o f f e n s e occurred p r i o r t h e r e t o . " (Emphasis added.)
C l e a r l y , t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e could only be prosecuted under
section94-2721, R.C.M. 1947, of t h e o l d code.
Second, f o r f u t u r e guidance, t h e s t a t e i s i n e r r o r i n
i t s argument a s i t p e r t a i n s t o proof of c r i m i n a l i n t e n t of t h e
defendant through proof of t a k i n g and t h e e x e r c i s e of c o n t r o l
a s s u f f i c i e n t proof t o s u p p o r t a c o n v i c t i o n of t h e f t under t h e
new code. This i s a s p e c i f i c i n t e n t crime and t h e proof r e q u i r e d
i s that for specific intent. In t h e i n s t a n t case, suspicious
c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e c o n t r o l do n o t meet t h i s
burden of p r o o f , a f t e r an u n r e f u t e d e x p l a n a t i o n of p o s s e s s i o n
by t h e defendant. See: S e c t i o n 94-6-314, R.C.M. 1947, and Com-
mission Comment t h e r e u n d e r .
Extensive arguments were presented on other aspects of
this problem such as ex post facto application, statute of
limitations, etc. We see no need to burden this opinion with a
discussion of these because, as the transition period comes to
an end, it is unlikely these problems will arise in the future.
The judgment of the district court is reversed and the
cause ordered dismissed.
Justice
We Concur:
- I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chief Justice
u Justices.