No. 12910
I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA
H OR F F
1975
-
STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-VS -
LEON ALBERT PAULSON,
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 C. B.Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
L. Stephens, Jr. argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
~obert
For Respondent:
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
Thomas A, Rudewitz, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General,
argued, Helena, Montana
Harold F, Hanser, County Attorney, argued, B i l l i n g s ,
Montana
Submitted: June 18, 1975
Decided :j4UB
J
r. .To'
Filed: - 1 - j r ~
Clerk
M. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
r
Court.
Defendant Leon A l b e r t Paulson a p p e a l s from a judgment
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 , Yellowstone
County, c o n v i c t i n g him of c r i m i n a l possession of marijuana,
a felony.
O J u l y 21, 1974, Craig Cunningham, a Yellowstone County
n
deputy s h e r i f f then a t t a c h e d t o t h e c i t y - c o u n t y n a r c o t i c squad,
r e c e i v e d a telephone c a l l from one Sergeant Wolf of t h e Metropol-
i t a n Narcotics Team, Tucson, Arizona. Wolf r e l a y e d information
18
given him by an informant who was involved i n making shipment
c a s e s almost e x c l u s i v e l y f o r h i s department, and t h a t h i s
r e l i a b i l i t y had proven t o be very high i n t h e p a s t . " The Tucson
If
o f f i c e r t o l d Cunningham t h a t i n 1974 t h e informant had made more
c a s e s f o r them than he had t h e previous y e a r , a l l i n v o l v i n g ship-
It
ments of n a r c o t i c s . The information was r e c e i v e d v i a s e v e r a l
telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n s over a p e r i o d of time beginning s h o r t l y
b e f o r e noon and ending about f i v e o r s i x t h a t Sunday a f t e r n o o n ,
J u l y 21. Cunningham was t o l d a shipment of n a r c o t i c s would b e
brought by a i r p l a n e i n t o B i l l i n g s by a w h i t e male, i n h i s e a r l y
t w e n t i e s , about s i x f e e t t a l l , w i t h sandy c o l o r e d h a i r ; i n h i s
possession would b e a brown Samsonite s u i t c a s e , double zippered
w i t h a s i n g l e s t r a p , w i t h a c l a i m check a t t a c h e d marked w i t h a
s p e c i f i c number; and t h e bag would c o n t a i n about 30 pounds of
marijuana .
That evening a t 7:30, t h e due time of t h e Western A i r l i n e s
f l i g h t from t h e s o u t h , O f f i c e r s Cunningham and Wickhorst, were a t
t h e B i l l i n g s Logan I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t and went t o t h e baggage
a r e a where they i d e n t i f i e d t h e bag and s e n t i t up t h e ramp t o
t h e claim area. Defendant Paulson picked up t h e bag and attempted
t o place it i n a locker. Before he could g e t i t e n t i r e l y i n s i d e
t h e l o c k e r , t h e o f f i c e r s approached and a r r e s t e d him f o r posses-
s i o n of dangerous drugs. Paulson was r e a d h i s r i g h t s and f r i s k e d
f o r weapons.
A t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n t h e s u i t c a s e was opened w i t h a
key provided by d e f e n d a n t , i n s i d e was found 25 pounds and 12
ounces of what was l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d t o be marijuana.
The marijuana was i d e n t i f i e d by Cunningham, t h e a r r e s t i n g
o f f i c e r , through t h e u s e of t h e "valtox f i e l d drug t e s t i n g k i t " ,
a s e t of commercial chemicals used by p o l i c e departments. Al-
though Cunningham was n o t a t r a i n e d c h e m i s t , he had been t r a i n e d
i n t h e u s e of t h e k i t f o r f i e l d t e s t purposes. A t t r i a l i t was
e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Cunningham had handled n e a r l y 200 a r r e s t c a s e s
f o r drugs and could i d e n t i f y such substance by s i g h t and s m e l l .
The same was t r u e of t h e o t h e r a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r , Wickhorst . The
o p i n i o n s of Cunninghim and Wickhorst were l a t e r c o r r o b o r a t e d by
a s t a t e chemist, A. B. Meinikoff of Missoula, Montana.
The c a s e was s e t f o r t r i a l September 11, 1974, b u t t h a t
t r i a l d a t e was vacated. The h e a r i n g on d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o
suppress evidence was h e l d on September 30, 1974. O October 4 ,
n
1974, defendant f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t t o d i s q u a l i f y t h e p r e s i d i n g
judge, b u t was denied. This Court i n response t o a p e t i t i o n
f o r s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l on October 11, 1974, s u s t a i n e d t h a t
denial. T r i a l was h e l d , defendant c o n v i c t e d , and he now a p p e a l s .
O a p p e a l , defendant contends s e c t i o n 95-1806(f), R.C.M.
n
1947, which a u t h o r i z e s t h e motion t o suppress evidence i l l e g a l l y
s e i z e d , i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t h a t i t p l a c e s t h e "burden of proof"
on t h e defendant. H e r e , t h e r e c o r d i s u t t e r l y devoid o f a
showing t h i s s t a t u t e was challenged b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
Rather, t h e f a c t s show defendant, a t t h e suppression h e a r i n g ,
went so f a r a s t o remind t h e c o u r t t h a t he was t h e moving p a r t y
and was r e q u i r e d t o put on h i s evidence f i r s t . O appeal, t h i s
n
Court can c o n s i d e r f o r review only t h o s e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e
t r i a l c o u r t . Spencer v. Robertson, 151 Mont. 507, 445 P.2d 48;
Clark v. Worrall, 146 Mont. 374, 406 P.2d 822.
Defendant n e x t contends t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abused i t s
d i s c r e t i o n i n denying h i s a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . As
h e r e t o f o r e s t a t e d , t h a t i s s u e was p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s Court by a
p e t i t i o n f o r s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l on October 11, 1974, and denied.
W f i n d no reason t o d i s t u r b t h a t r u l i n g .
e
Defendant n e x t a l l e g e s t h a t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of
t r i a l , t h e s t a t e c a l l e d one of t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s t o t e s t i f y
and
on t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e evidence s e i z e d , / defense counsel c r o s s -
examined v i g o r o u s l y f o r t h e purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e t e s t s used
were u n r e l i a b l e . A t t h a t p o i n t t h e s t a t e o f f e r e d t o withdraw a
p o r t i o n o f t h e evidence and have i t flown t o Missoula f o r i d e n t i f i -
c a t i o n by t h e s t a t e chemist.
Defense counsel o b j e c t e d on grounds t h a t (1) no
s t a t e chemist had been endorsed on t h e Information; (2) h i s
c a s e had been prepared i n r e l i a n c e of t h e endorsements; and,
(3) p r e j u d i c e would i n u r e t o defendant r e s u l t i n g from a c t u a l
surprise. The n e x t day t h e s t a t e chemist d i d , i n f a c t , t e s t i f y
i n sponsorship of h i s t e s t r e s u l t s . Defense counsel then r e q u e s t e d
a continuance f o r t h e purpose of r e b u t t i n g t h a t testimony; t h i s
was denied by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Defendant now a l l e g e s t h e t r i a l
c o u r t improperly allowed t h e s t a t e t o endorse t h e w i t n e s s a f t e r
t h e t r i a l began, and f a i l u r e t o g r a n t h i s continuance was e r r o r .
The s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n , s e c t i o n 95-1503(d), R.C.M. 1947,
states:
" I f t h e charge i s by information o r i n d i c t m e n t ,
i t s h a l l i n c l u d e endorsed t h e r e o n , t h e names o f
t h e w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e s t a t e , i f known." (Emphasis
added).
From t h e r e c o r d , t h e r e was no a l l e g a t i o n t h e p r o s e c u t o r
was i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e , and i t appears he had n o t planned
on t h e a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s a t t h e time t h e o r i g i n a l Information was
filed. Neither i s t h e r e any charge t h e p r o s e c u t o r was a t t e m p t i n g
t o g a i n undue advantage, o r t o f r a u d u l e n t l y deceive opposing
counsel. Thus, t h e r e a l i s s u e i s t h e d e n i a l of t h e motion f o r
continuance .
Motions f o r continuance a r e addressed t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n
of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e g r a n t i n g of a continuance has never
been a m a t t e r of r i g h t . Williams v. United S t a t e s , 203 F.2d 85.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t cannot c v e r t u r n e d on appeal absence
a showing of p r e j u d i c e t o t h e movant. S t a t e v , Kuilman, 1 1 Mont.
1
~ e f e n d a n t ' sargument t h e r e f o r e must s t a n d o r f a l l on t h e
i s s u e of p r e j u d i c e , f o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t can be s a i d have
abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n o n l y i f i t s r u l i n g was p r e j u d i c i a l . W have
e
n o t found a s i n g l e c a s e , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e c i t e d by defendant, i n
which t h e d e n i a l of a motion f o r continuance was r e v e r s e d without
a showing o f r e s u l t i n g p r e j u d i c e t o t h e movant. I n S t a t e v.
Cooper, 146 Mont. 336, 342, 406 P.2d 691, t h i s Court explained
t h e purpose behind t h e s t a t u t e w i t h which we a r e now concerned:
"R.C.M. 1947, s e c t i o n 94-6208 [ s e c t i o n 95-1503 (d) 1,
r e q u i r e s t h e county a t t o r n e y t o endorse upon t h e
information a t t h e time of f i l i n g ' t h e names of t h e
w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e s t a t e , i f known. 1 The purpose i s
t o p r o t e c t t h e defendant from s u r p r i s e and u n f a i r ad-
vantage and t o a f f o r d him a f a i r o p p o r t u n i t y t o
a d e q u a t e l y defend h i m s e l f . "
C l e a r l y , t h i s Court may n o t r e v e r s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g
u n l e s s t h e s e important c o n s i d e r a t i o n s have been offended by i t .
What then, i s t h e proper s t a n d a r d f o r determining whether
p r e j u d i c e r e s u l t e d under t h e circumstances of t h e r u l i n g h e r e ?
The New Mexico Supreme Court i n S t a t e v. Edwards, 54 N.M. 189,
217 P.2d 854, 856, spoke t o t h i s p o i n t i n t h i s language:
"Whether names o f w i t n e s s e s may be endorsed d u r i n g
t r i a l i s a m a t t e r r e s t i n g w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n
of t h e c o u r t . It i s n o t enough t h a t a defendant c l a i m
s u r p r i s e o r p r e j u d i c e i n t h e c a l l i n g of an a d v e r s e
w i t n e s s o r one whose name does n o t appear upon t h e
information charging him w i t h crime. Nor i s t h e mere
admission of testimony of such w i t n e s s , e r r o r ;
r a t h e r , e r r o r follows from a d e n i a l of an oppor-
t u n i t y t o r e b u t t h e o b j e c t i o n a b l e evidence. When i t
i s made t o appear t h a t testimony of t h e w i t n e s s i s
such t h a t i t cannot be reasonably a n t i c i p a t e d , p o s t -
ponement o r continuance of t h e h e a r i n g i s a v a i l a b l e t o
a defendant t o meet i t and i f a p p l i c a t i o n t h e r e f o r i s
denied, p r e j u d i c e being shown, r e v e r s a l w i l l follow. I I
(Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) .
Here, i t i s c l e a r defendant could have reasonably a n t i c i -
pated t h e testimony o f t h e s t a t e chemist, and f u r t h e r , t h a t he had
ample o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e b u t t h e evidence which, from h i s stand-
p o i n t , was o b j e c t i o n a b l e . Defense counsel obviously planned i n
advance t o c h a l l e n g e t h e s t a t e ' s method of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , a s he
arranged f o r two e x p e r t s t o support t h a t c h a l l e n g e . He was a l s o
given a sample of t h e substance i n q u e s t i o n s o t h a t an independent
t e s t could be made.
Defendant's t h i r d i s s u e a l l e g e s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d
i n several evidentiary rulings. F i r s t , he a l l e g e s no proper founda-
t i o n was o f f e r e d t o support testimony t h a t t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s
could i d e n t i f y marijuana by s i g h t and smell. W disagree.
e Both
men s t a t e d they had been a s s i g n e d t o t h e c i t y - c o u n t y n a r c o t i c s
squad f o r over two y e a r s , and had a t t e n d e d law enforcement seminars
on t h a t p r e c i s e s u b j e c t . They had made about two hundred a r r e s t s
i n v o l v i n g marijuana and had f u r t h e r t e s t e d t h e substance through
t h e u s e of t h e i r f i e l d k i t s .
S e c t i o n 93-401-27, R.C.M. 1947, provides a w i t n e s s may
11
g i v e h i s opinion of a q u e s t i o n o r s c i e n c e , a r t , o r t r a d e , when
he i s s k i l l e d t h e r e i n . " A i n d i v i d u a l may c e r t a i n l y q u a l i f y a s an
n
e x p e r t e i t h e r by study o r experience. S t a t e v. Keeland, 39 Mont.
506, 104 P. 513. The competency of a w i t n e s s t o t e s t i f y a s an
expert i s a question f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s discretion. S t a t e v.
Askin, 90 Mont. 394, 3 P.2d 654. I n l i g h t of t h e background and
experience of t h e s e w i t n e s s e s h e r e , i t was n o t e r r o r t o a l l o w t h e
j u r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e i r opinions and s u b s t a n t i a l evidence e x i s t s
t o support t h e i r f i n d i n g .
Defendant maintains t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s testimony r e g a r d i n g
h i s telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e Tucson a u t h o r i t i e s was
hearsay. This conclusion i s n o t supported by law. The testimony
was introduced only f o r t h e purpose of demonstrating t h e e x i s t e n c e
o f probable cause t o make t h e a r r e s t without a warrant and sub-
sequent search.
The United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n Ker v. C a l i f o r n i a , 374
U.S. 23, 36, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L ed 2d 726, 739, speaking t o t h e
hearsay q u e s t i o n h e l d :
"* >k *That t h i s information was hearsay does n o t
d e s t r o y i t s r o l e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g probable cause.
Brinegar v. United S t a t e s , 338 U.S. 160, 93 L ed 1879,
69 S.Ct. 1302 ** " .
n I n Draper v. United S t a t e s ,
358 U.S. 307, 3 L ed 2d 327, 79 S.Ct. 329, (1959), w e
h e l d t h a t information from a r e l i a b l e informer corrobor-
a t e d by t h e a g e n t s ' o b s e r v a t i o n s a s t o t h e accuracy of
t h e i n f o r m e r ' s d e s c r @ i o n of t h e accused and of h i s
presence a t a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e , was s u f f i c i e n t t o e s tIa b -
l i s h probable cause f o r an a r r e s t without a w a r r a n t . I
I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e f a c t s came from o f f i c i a l p o l i c e
reports. It i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t p o l i c e o f f i c e r s may r e l y on
information coming t o them from o f f i c i a l sources a s w e l l a s
o t h e r known r e l i a b l e s o u r c e s . People v. S c h e l l i n , 227 Cal,App,(2d)
245, 38 Cal.Reptr. 593, 597, c e r t . denied 397 U.S. 1003, 85 S.Ct.
726, 13 L ed 2d 704 (1965); People v. Melchor, 237 Cal.App.2d
685, 47 Gal-Reptr. 235; Walker v. S t a t e , 237 Md. 516, 206 A.2d 795.
A motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t was e n t e r t a i n e d and denied
by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Defendant b a s e s h i s a l l e g a t i o n of e r r o r
r e g a r d i n g t h i s d e n i a l on two grounds (1) t h e s t a t u t e under which
he was charged p r o h i b i t s o n l y t h e s p e c i e s of cannabis s a t i v a 1,
and (2) t h e p r o s e c u t i o n f a i l e d t o prove t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e pos-
s e s s e d by defendant was a c t u a l l y among t h o s e p r o h i b i t e d by s t a t u t e .
W disagree.
e Competent evidence was introduced a t t r i a l t o e s -
t a b l i s h t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e was i n f a c t cannabis s a t i v a 1. The
j u r y chose t o b e l i e v e t h e s t a t e ' s w i t n e s s , t h e r e was ample evidence
t o j u s t i f y i t s decision. I n S t a t e v. M e t c a l f , , 153 Plont. 369, 379,
457 P.2d 453, t h i s Court h e l d :
In t h i s jurfsdiction a directed verdict i n a
II
c r i m i n a l c a s e i s given only where t h e s t a t e f a i l s
t o prove i t s c a s e and t h e r e i s no evidence upon
which a j u r y could base i t s v e r d i c t . S t a t e v. Yoss,
146 Mont. 508, 409 P.2d 452; S t a t e v. Willicombe,
130 Mont. 325, 301 P.2d 1116; S t a t e v. Welch, 22
Monte 92, 55 P. 927."
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n denying t h e motion f o r d i r e c t e d
verdict .
F i n a l l y , defendant c h a l l e n g e s t h e w a r r e n t l e s s s e a r c h and
subsequent s e i z u r e a s unsupported by probable cause o r any o t h e r
legal justification. The s t a t e u r g e s t h e s e a r c h and s e i z u r e was
v a l i d a s i n c i d e n t t o a lawful a r r e s t .
The Fourth Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n
t o l e r a t e s w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h e s i n c i d e n t t o a v a l i d a r r e s t where
t h e e x i s t e n c e of probable cause s u p p o r t s p o l i c e conduct. See:
United S t a t e s v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L ed 2d
653; Ker v. C a l i f o r n i a , supra. Under t h e f a c t s h e r e , t h e a r r e s t
was amply j u s t i f i e d by probable c a u s e , t h e r e f o r e t h e s e a r c h i n -
c i d e n t t h e r e t o was v a l i d ,
The judgment i s a f f i r m e d .
\
P
W Concur:
e
/"..
.?
-; i/ ' 5 - . . *,r
.i
' 1
b
*8J* b-
-
, ,, , , ,.?%kc
, ,, , , ,
? ,,
%
".
z,
. .r
.
C C C ,
M
C I-;iii& r
-1 4
"- *.-
Chief Justice
Justices.