No. 12875
I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
1975
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
WAYNE THOMAS,
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 F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Frank E. B l a i r , ~ u d g ep r e s c d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
J a r d i n e and McCarthy, W h i t e h a l l , . , Montana
J a c k M. McCarthy a r g u e d , W h i t e h a i l , 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,
Mont?
Carl K r a f t , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , argued,
Helena, Montana
C h e s t e r L. J o n e s , County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , E n n i s ,
Montana
Submitted: J a n u a r y 22, 1975
Decided:
-P.
+
.
-
h. 2 .i
- ' ;-
;
-I
F i l e d : :-EL. 5 ,
, -L
'5
Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
T h i s i s an a p p e a l by d e f e n d a n t , Wayne Thomas, from a
judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Madison County, s i t t i n g w i t h o u t
a j u r y , c o n v i c t i n g him o f t h e crime of s a l e o f dangerous d r u g s .
A t 2:00 p.m. on F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 1974, C h r i s t y J o h n s , a g e
1 5 , was b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f t h e Twin B r i d g e s
High S c h o o l . A t that time, s h e was found t o be i n p o s s e s s i o n
of a b l u e p l a s t i c box, w i t h i n which was a p l a s t i c sandwich bag
c o n t a i n i n g some g r e e n m a t e r i a l , s u b s e q u e n t l y d e t e r m i n e d t o be
marijuana .
A t t r i a l , M i s s Johns t e s t i f i e d : T h a t s h e and Rhonda
S h e l l y approached d e f e n d a n t i n t h e Blue Anchor R e s t a u r a n t i n
Twin B r i d g e s on F e b r u a r y 2 0 , 1974, and t h a t t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n
concerned t h e p u r c h a s e of m a r i j u a n a from d e f e n d a n t ; t h a t s h e
and M i s s S h e l l y m e t w i t h d e f e n d a n t a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8:00 a.m.
on F e b r u a r y 22, 1974, a t which t i m e d e f e n d a n t t r a n s f e r r e d a
p l a s t i c bag t o M i s s S h e l l y . M i s s J o h n s s t a t e d s h e assumed t h e
bag conta.ined m a r i j u a n a . M i s s S h e l l y p l a c e d t h e bag i n h e r s o c k .
M i s s J o h n s d i d n o t s e e t h e p l a s t i c bag a g a i n u n t i l a b o u t noon
i n t h e washroom of t h e Blue Anchor; t h a t t h e r e M i s s S h e l l y t r a n s -
f e r r e d t o h e r t h e b l u e box, w i t h i n which was a p l a s t i c bag and
i t s c o n t e n t s , which s h e p u t i n h e r s o c k . M i s s Johns i n d i c a t e d
s h e and M i s s S h e l l y m e t w i t h d e f e n d a n t , who was s i t t i n g a l o n e
a t a b o o t h a t t h e Blue Anchor, between 12:15 and 1 2 : 2 0 p.m. on
F e b r u a r y 22, 1974, and t h e y p a i d d e f e n d a n t t h e sum of $15.
Defendant c a t a g o r i c a l l y d e n i e d he had e v e r m e t w i t h
M i s s J o h n s and M i s s S h e l l y e i t h e r a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8:00 a.m. or
a t noontime on F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 1974. M i s s Shelly did not t e s t i f y .
Bruce and S h e i l a Burke, husband and w i f e , t e s t i f i e d t h e y
meet e a c h day a t noontime and have l u n c h a t t h e Blue Anchor,
o f t e n with defendant. They t e s t i f i e d t h a t n e i t h e r M i s s J o h n s
nor Miss Shelly ever came near their booth at any time they
were having lunch with defendant. However, they were unable
to recall whether or not they had Lunch with defendant on
February 22, 1974.
Mrs. Gage, a realtor, testified that she entered the
Blue Anchor for lunch at approximately 12:25 or 12:30 p.m. on
February 22, 1974, and saw defendant and Burkes eating lunch
in the same booth. Mrs. Lovejoy, owner of the Blue Anchor,
was working as a waitress on February 22, 1974. She testified
that defendant did eat lunch with the Burkes on that day; that
she saw no one go near the booth occupied by defendant and the
Burkes; but added: "I mean, I was busy. I couldn't really say
one way or the other."
The issues presented by defendant can be summarized:
(1) Whether the district court erred in admitting into
evidence the blue plastic box containing the marijuana because
it was not identified nor connected to defendant by competent
evidence?
(2) Whether the district court erred in determining
that the plastic bag taken from Miss Johns at 2:00 p.m. was the
same plastic bag given to Pliss Shelly at 8:00 a.m.?
(3) Whether the district court erred in determining
t h a t Yiss ,Johns and Miss Shelly were in the Blue Anchor and
paid $15 to defendant on February 22, 1974?
(4) Whether the evidence proved defendant guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt?
The district court did not err in admitting into evi-
dence the blue plastic box containing the marijuana. Defendant
contends the state failed to establish by competent evidence
that the piastic bag delivered to Miss Shelly contained marijuana;
that it was the same plastic bag delivered to Miss Johns at
noontime; n o r t h a t it was t h e same p l a s t i c bag t a k e n from
M i s s Johns. I n o t h e r words, d e f e n d a n t u r g e s t h a t t h e s t a t e
must e s t a b l i s h a c o n t i n u o u s c h a i n of p o s s e s s i o n from t h e de-
fendant t o t h e Superintendent.
I n s u p p o r t d e f e n d a n t c i t e s J o y n e r v. U t t e r b a c k , 196
Iowa 1 0 4 0 , 195 N.W. 594, wherein t h e Iowa c o u r t h e l d t h a t i f
one l i n k i n a c h a i n o f p o s s e s s i o n i s m i s s i n g t h e e x h i b i t c o u l d
n o t be i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , T h a t c a s e s h o u l d be d i s t i n -
g u i s h e d , however, and t h e r u l e n o t a p p l i e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s i t -
uation. I n J o y n e r , a u t h o r i t i e s s e i z e d a c e r t a i n b o t t l e from
p e t i t i o n e r ' s p l a c e of b u s i n e s s and found i t t o be i n v i o l a t i o n
o f a s t a t u t e p r e s c r i b i n g a l c o h o l by c o n t e n t . The s t a t e f a i l e d
t o e s t a b l i s h a c h a i n of p o s s e s s i o n from t h e t i m e of c o n f i s c a -
t i o n u n t i l t h e t i m e of i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e . The c o u r t
r e q u i r e d a complete c h a i n of p o s s e s s i o n a f t e r c o n f i s c a t i o n by
law enforcement o f f i c i a l s .
However, h e r e M i s s J o h n s i d e n t i f i e d t h e p l a s t i c box
and t h e p l a s t i c bag which were i n t r o d u c e d by t h e s t a t e . Her
t e s t i m o n y i n e x o r a b l y l i n k e d d e f e n d a n t t o them. Defendant, how-
e v e r , s i m p l y a l l e g e s t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of t a m p e r i n g e x i s t e d
w h i l e t h e p l a s t i c bag was i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f M i s s S h e l l y . This
m e r e c o n j e c t u r e by d e f e n d a n t i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o p r e c l u d e t h e
i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h i s e v i d e n c e . D e f e n d a n t ' s burden was t o show
a f f i r m a t i v e l y t h a t t a m p e r i n g had t a k e n p l a c e .
I n S t a t e v . O l s e n , 152 Mont. 1, 1 0 , 445 P.2d 926, t h i s
Court s a i d :
" I * * * I n e a c h c a s e t h e t r i a l judge b e f o r e h e
a d m i t s i t i n e v i d e n c e must be s a t i s f i e d t h a t
i n reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h e a r t i c l e has n o t
been changed i n i m p o r t a n t r e s p e c t s . Wigmore,
Evidence, 3d Ed., S 4 3 7 ( 1 ) ; 3 2 C . J . S . Evidence
B 607. I n r e a c h i n g h i s c o n c l u s i o n he must be
g u i d e d by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a r t i c l e , t h e c i r -
cumstances s u r r o u n d i n g t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n and
c u s t o d y of i t , and t h e l i k e l i h o o d of i n t e r -
meddlers tampering with i t . '
" * * * A i e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether a f o u n d a t i o n
h a s been p r o p e r l y l a i d i n o r d e r t o i n t r o d u c e
e x h i b i t s i n t o e v i d e n c e r e s t s w i t h t h e lower c o u r t
and such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be o v e r t u r n e d
u n l e s s t h e r e i s a c l e a r a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n , a
s i t u a t i o n not present here."
W e f i n d no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n a d m i t t i n g i n t o e v i d e n c e t h e p l a s t i c box con-
t a i n i n g t h e marijuana. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c t e d w i t h i n i t s d i s -
c r e t i o n a s t h e t r i e r of f a c t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e p l a s t i c
bag t a k e n from M i s s J o h n s a t 2 : 0 0 p.m. was t h e same a s t h a t
d e l i v e r e d t o M i s s S h e l l y by d e f e n d a n t t h a t morning; t h a t M i s s
J o h n s and M i s s S h e l l y were i n t h e Blue Anchor and p a i d $15 t o
d e f e n d a n t on F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 1974; and t h a t d e f e n d a n t was g u i l t y
beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . Such d e c i s i o n s p r o p e r l y r e s t e d w i t h
t h e t r i e r o f f a c t , g i v i n g whatever w e i g h t it deemed p r o p e r t o
the e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d t o i t .
A f t e r c l o s i n g arguments, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n d i c a t e d
t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s which compelled i t t o b e l i e v e t h e t e s t i m o n y of
Xiss J o h n s and d i s c o u n t t h e t e s t i m o n y of d e f e n d a n t ' s w i t n e s s e s .
T h e t e s t i m o n y of M i s s J o h n s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e o t h e r w i t n e s s e s
f o r t h e s t a t e , was s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of g u i l t y be-
yond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt of t h e crime of s a l e of dangerous d r u g s .
C e r t a i n l y , t h e g i v i n g o r t r a n s f e r o f t h e m a r i j u a n a , w i t h o u t even
c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c a s h t r a n s £ e r , e s t a b l i s v t h e c r i m e beyond a
reasonable doubt.
F i n d i n g no e r r o r , t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d .
W e concur:
' , . "
t,.d[
.'.d
,-,,,,--,--,,L':~I
L*'
,----... a - d ~ ~ i .
~ ~ * L
Chief J u s t i c e
:Z: :/
----- - j , ,
~ - ~-~i'i'i.~t~iii------
'
- i -
, -
f
Justices - 5 -