No. 12832
I N THE SUPKEME COURT OF THE STATE O F M N A A
OTN
1975
STATE OF MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
GENE A D L AUSTAD,
N RW
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable R. D. M c P h i l l i p s , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
E. F. G i a n o t t i a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
F o r Respondent:
Hon. R o b e r t 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 , H e l e n a , Montana
C h a r l e s M. J o s l y n , County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Choteau,
Montana
Submitted: March 3 , 1975
Decided : NR 9 1975
EPR - 9 j373
Filed: -
Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T . 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.
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by d e f e n d a n t Gene Austad from a
judgment of c o n v i c t i o n of t h e c r i m e of b u r g l a r y i n t h e f i r s t
d e g r e e e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Teton County.
The s t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d d i s c l o s e d t h a t on t h e
e v e n i n g of December 21, 1973, Glen S h e t l e r , a p a r t - t i m e p o l i c e
o f f i c e r , was p a t r o l l i n g t h e s t r e e t s o f F a i r f i e l d , Montana. At
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6:40 p.m. S h e t l e r a r r i v e d i n t h e southwest p a r t
o f F a i r f i e l d where t h e GTA g r a i n e l e v a t o r w a s l o c a t e d . A t the
t i m e a new a d d i t i o n was b e i n g b u i l t o n t o t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r
and a s t o r a g e v a n , owned by Hogenson C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, w a s
parked a d j a c e n t t o t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r . T h i s van was used t o
s t o r e t o o l s used on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e .
S h e t l e r o b s e r v e d t h a t a d a r k c o l o r e d , l a t e model c a r
had been backed up t o t h e s i d e d o o r of t h e van and d e f e n d a n t and
a n u n i d e n t i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l wearing a " s l o p p y b l a c k h a t " w e r e
d e p a r t i n g from t h e s i d e d o o r . The u n i d e n t i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l i m -
m e d i a t e l y f l e d when S h e t l e r s t o p p e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e . Defendant,
however, walked o v e r t o S h e t l e r , i n t r o d u c e d h i m s e l f , and began
t o c a r r y on a c o n v e r s a t i o n . Defendant informed S h e t l e r t h a t "he
was s e n t up from G r e a t F a l l s t o p i c k up a t r a n s i t 1 ' .
A t t r i a l S h e t l e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he n o t i c e d n o t h i n g s u s -
p i c i o u s a t t h i s t i m e , b e c a u s e i t was a common p r a c t i c e t h a t t h e
c o n s t r u c t i o n van be used i n t h e e v e n i n g when t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n
c r e w worked l a t e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , he d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o r e s t r a i n
d e f e n d a n t when he l o c k e d h i s c a r and l e f t t h e area on f o o t , l e a v -
i n g h i s c a r behind.
A f t e r d e f e n d a n t d e p a r t e d , S h e t l e r began s e a r c h i n g f o r
a p a d l o c k t h a t he had n o t i c e d m i s s i n g from t h e d o o r o f t h e van.
Upon s h i n i n g h i s f l a s h l i g h t i n t h e window of d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r he
d i s c o v e r e d , l o c a t e d on t h e f l o o r between t h e f r o n t and rear s e a t s ,
a pair of bolt cutters with a silver padlock in its jaws. An
immediate search of the van revealed some tools had been stacked
up against the wall immediately inside the door, and a partially
filled glass of liquor had been placed on a workbench inside the
van.
Defendant's car was immediately impounded and taken by
a wrecker to a local garage. Later that evening, the garage
was broken into and the car removed. The state presented evi-
dence that the car was leased by National Car Rental to defend-
ant on December 15, 1973 and was returned on January 5, 1974.
The assistant foreman for Hogenson Construction, Nels
Cornelious, testified that on the night of the alleged burglary,
he locked the van prior to departing from work and no tools,
except for a welder in a plywood box, had been stacked against
the wall immediately inside the door. In addition, he stated
that when he arrived at the storage van subsequent to the break in
he noticed that a portable hand grinder, two four foot levels,
two rubberheaded mallets, and a couple of smaller hammers were
stacked near the door. These articles had been placed in dif-
ferent locations within the van when he had left work on that
day.
A few days subsequent to the break indefendant was
apprehended, charged with the crime of first degree burglary,
tried before a jury, and convicted. Defendant appeals from that
conviction and raises two issues:
1. Is the state's evidence sufficient to establish
that defendant's unlawful entry into the storage van was accom-
panied with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny?
2. Did defendant's allegedly intoxicated condition
prevent him from forming the requisite specific intent to commit
the crime?
P u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 94-1-103, R.C.M. 1947, t h e p r o v i s i o n s
o f t h e 1973 Montana C r i m i n a l Code do n o t a p p l y t o o f f e n s e s com-
mitted p r i o r t o t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h e a c t . Here, t h e a c t was
committed on December 2 1 , 1973 and t h e 1973 Mohtana C r i m i n a l Code
t o o k e f f e c t on J a n u a r y 1, 1974. Consequently, we l o o k t o t h e o l d
b u r g l a r y s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 94-901, R.C.M. 1947, i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n
of t h e f i r s t i s s u e . This s t a t u t e reads:
" B u r g l a r y d e f i n e d . Every p e r s o n who e n t e r s any
house, room, a p a r t m e n t , tenement, s h o p , ware-
house, s t o r e , m i l l , b a r n , s t a b l e , o u t h o u s e , o r
o t h e r b u i l d i n g , t e n t , motor v e h i c l e and a i r c r a f t ,
v e s s e l , o r r a i l r o a d c a r , w i t h i n t e n t t o commit
g r a n d o r p e t i t l a r c e n y o r any f e l o n y , i s g u i l t y
of burglary. "
The b a s i c t h r u s t of d e f e n d a n t ' s argument a p p e a r s t o be
t h a t t h e s t a t e h a s f a i l e d t o show d e f e n d a n t p o s s e s s e d t h e r e q u i s -
i t e i n t e n t t o commit grand o r p e t i t l a r c e n y a t t h e t i m e of t h e
u n l a w f u l e n t r y , a b s e n t proof t h a t a n y t h i n g was s t o l e n from t h e
s t o r a g e van. W cannot agree.
e I n P e r k i n s on C r i m i n a l L a w ,
p. 166 ( 1 9 5 7 ) , t h e a u t h o r s t a t e s :
"Larceny i s u s u a l l y t h e p u r p o s e f o r which burg-
l a r y i s committed b u t i t i s n o t e s s e n t i a l t o
g u i l t t h a t t h e i n t r u d e r succeed i n c a r r y i n g o u t
t h e i n t e n t w i t h which t h e house was broken i n t o ,
n o r t h a t i t s h o u l d be f o r t h e p u r p o s e of s t e a l i n g .
There i s no common-law b u r g l a r y , however, u n l e s s
t h e i n t r u s i o n i s perpetrated with an i n t e n t t o
commit some f e l o n y . Thus i f a r o g u e b r e a k s i n t o
t h e dwelling of another a t n i g h t with i n t e n t t o
commit murder h e i s g u i l t y of b u r g l a r y even i f he
l e a v e s w i t h o u t f i n d i n g h i s i n t e n d e d v i c t i m and
w i t h o u t h a v i n g committed any f e l o n y i n t h e house.
On t h e o t h e r hand he would n o t be g u i l t y o f burg-
l a r y i f he broke i n f o r t h e p u r p o s e of t r e s p a s s
o n l y even i f he s u b s e q u e n t l y d i d commit some
f e l o n y d u r i n g h i s wrongful v i s i t . "
See a l s o : S t a t e v. Solis, 163 Mont.293 , 516 P.2d 1157,
30 St.Rep. 1 0 9 9 ; Morigeau v . S t a t e , 149 Mont. 85, 423 P.2d 60.
Here, t h e s t a t e c a r r i e d t h e burden o f showing t h e e x i s -
t e n c e of t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t h r o u g h t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e
following evidence:
1. I t e s t a b l i s h e d t h e f a c t t h a t a p a i r of b o l t c u t t e r s
w i t h a padlock i n s i d e i t s jaws w a s found i n a l a t e model c a r
t h a t had been backed up t o t h e s i d e d o o r o f t h e van.
2. The p o s s e s s i o n of t h e c a r w a s t r a c e d t o d e f e n d a n t .
3. I t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a group of t o o l s had been
s t a c k e d n e a r t h e d o o r o f t h e van i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of removal.
4. An e y e w i t n e s s had s e e n d e f e n d a n t and a n o t h e r
i n d i v i d u a l d e p a r t from t h e van.
5. Defendant had no j u s t i f i c a t i o n n o r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r
h i s p r e s e n c e a t t h e van.
W b e l i e v e t h e p r e c e d i n g e v i d e n c e , t a k e n a s a whole,
e
i s s u f f i c i e n t and we w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e j u r y .
A c c o r d i n g l y , we f i n d no m e r i t i n d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h e
s t a t e f a i l e d t o show a s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t o commit grand o r p e t i t
l a r c e n y o r any o t h e r f e l o n y .
A s t o h i s second i s s u e , d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t he c o u l d
n o t form t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t o commit t h e c r i m e b e c a u s e o f h i s
a l l e g e d l y i n t o x i c a t e d c o n d i t i o n a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c t .
During t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f two
witnesses. Helen Torgerson t e s t i f i e d :
"Q. Did you have o c c a s i o n t o s e e Gene on t h a t e v e n i n g ?
A. Yes, I d i d .
"Q. Did you s e e him i n F a i r f i e l d ? A. Yes, I d i d .
"Q. Do you r e c a l l what t i m e t h i s was? A . No, I
don't. I t was between 6:30 and s e v e n , I g u e s s .
I t * * *
"Q. A t t h a t t i m e , Helen, d i d Gene a p p e a r t o have
been d r i n k i n g ? A. Y e s , he was.
"Q. Would you s a y t h a t he was under t h e i n f l u e n c e
a t t h a t t i m e ? A. Yes.
"MR. G I A N O T T I : That's a l l . "
CROSS-EXAMINATIOIJ
By M r . J o s l y n ;
"Q. Under t h e influence--what i s your u n d e r s t a n d -
i n g of t h a t ? A. Drinking. Drinking alcohol."
R i c h a r d A.ustad, u n c l e of d e f e n d a n t , t e s t i f i e d :
"Q. A t t h a t t i m e d i d Gene a p p e a r t o be d r i n k i n g ?
A. Oh, he had a few d r i n k s .
"Q. Did he a p p e a r t o be under t h e i n f l u e n c e o f
t h e s e d r i n k s ? A. Oh, he was f e e l i n g h i s own.
"Q. Did you s e e him any o t h e r t i m e s on t h a t day?
A. L a t e r on i n t h e e v e n i n g .
"Q. And d i d he s t i l l a p p e a r t o be under t h e
i n f l u e n c e ? A. Yes."
Upon t h e p r e c e d i n g e v i d e n c e , d e f e n d a n t a t t e m p t s t o
show t h a t he was t o o i n t o x i c a t e d t o form t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n t
t o commit t h e c r i m e of b u r g l a r y .
The answer t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n c a n be found i n
s e c t i o n 9 4 - 1 1 9 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947, which s t a t e s :
"No a c t committed by a p e r s o n w h i l e i n a s t a t e
o f v o l u n t a r y i n t o x i c a t i o n i s less c r i m i n a l by
h i s b e i n g i n s a i d c o n d i t i o n . B u t , whenever t h e
a c t u a l e x i s t e n c e o f any p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e ,
motive, o r i n t e n t , i s a necessary element t o
c o n s t i t u t e any p a r t i c u l a r s p e c i e s o r d e g r e e o f
c r i m e , t h e j u r y may t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e a c c u s e d was i n t o x i c a t e d a t t h e
t i m e , i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p u r p o s e , motive o r
i n t e n t w i t h which he committed t h e a c t . "
(Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
The q u e s t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t ' s s o b r i e t y a t t h e t i m e of t h e
c r i m i n a l a c t was f u l l y p r e s e n t e d and i n s t r u c t i o n s upon t h e sub-
j e c t were g i v e n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The j u r y ' s v e r d i c t d e c l a r e d
t h a t d e f e n d a n t w a s a b l e t o and d i d e n t e r t a i n t h e n e c e s s a r y
criminal intent. W w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h a t v e r d i c t upon t h e
e
d e a r t h of t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n d a n t ' s two w i t n e s s e s .
/
The judgment i s h e r
W e concur:
,-'"
-rJ