No. 13084
IN THE SUPKEMli COURT OF THE STATE OF W N T A N A
1976
STATE OF MON'IAXA,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
JOSEPH THERON HALL,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n r .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh Judicia 1 D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable R o b e r t C. S y k e s , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record :
For Appellant:
n o n a l d L. S h a f f e r a r g u e d , L i b b y , Montana
For Aespondent :
Hon. R o b e r t Td. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a ,
Montana
' d i l l i a m J. Anderson, 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
' d i l l i a m A. Douglas a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , L i b b y ,
Yontana
Submitted: August 30, 1976
!)ecided: ~ t 2p
;
M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
This i s an appeal from a judgment entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , Lincoln County, on a j u r y v e r d i c t f i n d i n g t h e defendant
g u i l t y of grand larceny.
Sometime during t h e weekend of August 17 t o August 20,
1973, a food s t o r a g e t r a i l e r and cookhouse of t h e Canyon Logging
Company, where defendant Joseph Theron H a l l had been employed
a s a cook f o r some time, were broken i n t o and a l a r g e q u a n t i t y
of f o o d s t u f f s taken. A t t h e time of t h i s break i n t h e camp,
located a t Bunker H i l l near Eureka, Montana, was closed due t o
f i r e conditions i n t h e a r e a .
The break i n was discovered on August 20, 1973, by t h e
logging supervisor who had gone t o t h e camp t o be c e r t a i n i t
was closed down properly. I n v e s t i g a t i o n by t h e Lincoln County
s h e r i f f ' s department r e s u l t e d i n t h e f i l i n g of an Information i n
d i s t r i c t c o u r t , December 5 , 1974, charging defendant w i t h t h e
f e l o n i e s of f i r s t degree burglary and grand larceny. The I n f o r -
mation s t a t e d t h e offenses charged occurred "on o r about t h e
19th day of August, 1973." On December 6 , 1974, defendant's
counsel f i l e d a n o t i c e of i n t e n t t o r e l y on t h e defense of a l i b i
and a l i s t of supportive witnesses, pursuant t o t h e requirements
of s e c t i o n 95-1803(d), R.C.M. 1947.
T r i a l held on t h i s matter was commenced February 24, 1975.
A t conclusion of t h e s t a t e ' s case, t h e defendant's motion f o r a
d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t dismissing t h e charge of burglary i n t h e f i r s t
degree was granted. Defendant a l s o moved f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t
on t h e charge of grand larceny based on t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e
s t a t e ' s evidence was n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c a s t o t i m e of t h e
offense. T h i s motion w a s denied. The s t a t e o f f e r e d proof
i n d i c a t i n g t h e o f f e n s e charged could have taken p l a c e anytime
between t h e e a r l y evening, F r i d a y , August 17, t o noon Monday,
August 20, 1973.
A t t r i a l d e f e n d a n t ' s defense c o n s i s t e d mainly of testimony
of s e v e r a l a l i b i w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e p e r i o d from t h e n i g h t of
August 18, 1973 through t h e morning of August 20, 1973. No
testimony w a s presented r e g a r d i n g t h e p e r i o d p r i o r t o t h a t
time. Defendant argues on appeal t h a t t h e s t a t e ' s proof t h a t t h e
o f f e n s e could have occurred over a t h r e e day p e r i o d was i n
v a r i a n c e w i t h t h e Information d a t e of August 19, 1973, and denied
him f a i r n o t i c e t o defend w i t h a l i b i w i t n e s s e s f o r August 17 and
18. T h i s appeal i s from t h e judgment and t h e o r d e r denying a
motion f o r a new t r i a l a f t e r defendant w a s found g u i l t y of grand
larceny.
S e c t i o n 95-1503, R.C.M. 1947, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , s t a t e s a
charge s h a l l :
" (c) Charge t h e commission of an o f f e n s e by:
" ( 4 ) s t a t i n g t h e time and p l a c e of t h e o f f e n s e
a s d e f i n i t e l y as can be done **
*." ( ~ m p h a s i sadded.)
I n S t a t e ex r e l . Borberg v . D i s t r i c t Court, 125 Mont. 481,
488, 489, 240 P.2d 854, t h i s Court s t a t e d :
" P e r f e c t i o n i s n o t r e q u i r e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g of a
c r i m i n a l cause *** [and] i s seldom a t t a i n e d ** *.I'
The Court a l s o s t a t e d i n Borberg:
"* * *the use of t h e phrase 'on o r about' a c e r t a i n
day of a c e r t a i n month i n t h e y e a r 1950 i n charging
such o f f e n s e simply i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e time a l l e g e d
w a s s t a t e d w i t h approximate accuracy. S t a t e v. T e r r y ,
77 Mont. 297, 250 Pac. 612; S t a t e v. Thompson, 1 0 Mont.
549, 27 Pac. 349."
The- use of approximate d a t e language should have served t o
put t h e defendant on n o t i c e t h e s t a t e intended t o prove t h e crime
was committed within a reasonable period of time p r i o r t o o r
subsequent t o t h e d a t e on t h e Information. The l o c a t i o n of t h e
break i n and t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n determining t h e exact time of
t h e offense d i c t a t e d t h e s t a t e ' s use of t h e l e s s p r e c i s e "on o r
about" language.
Defendant concedes time i s not o r d i n a r i l y a necessary ingred-
i e n t of t h e offense of grand larceny. He argues, however, t h a t
n o t i c e of i n t e n t t o r e l y on a defense of a l i b i a s required by
s e c t i o n 95-1803(d), R.C.M. 1947, g i v e s t h e s t a t e n o t i c e time
may become an e s s e n t i a l f a c t of t h e proof required t o convict t h e
accused. Assertion of t h e a l i b i defense does not change t h e n a t u r e
of t h e crime charged here. Defendant should have rea.lized t h e
s t a t e would present evidence proving t h e crime took place sometime
i n t h e period between shutdown of t h e camp and discovery of t h e
break i n . Defendant cannot r e s t r i c t t h e s t a t e ' s case by merely
a s s e r t i n g i n t e n t t o r e l y on an a l i b i defense f o r a l i m i t e d period
of time w i t h i n which t h e crime could have occurred.
F u r t h e r , i n requesting a new t r i a l , defendant f a i l e d t o seek
t h e proper r e l i e f i f he wished t o p r o t e c t himself from any
prejudice a l l e g e d l y incurred by use of an approximate d a t e i n t h e
charging Information and t h e proof o f f e r e d a t t r i a l . The a c t i o n
suggested i n S t a t e v. Rogers, 31 Mont. 1, 4 , 77 P, 293, would have
been a p p r o p r i a t e . I n t h a t c a s e , under circumstances very s i m i l a r
t o those presented h e r e , t h e Court s a i d :
"* ** t h e defendant might n o t be prepared t o prove
an a l i b i a s t o any day except t h a t named i n t h e
information. But t h e defendant i n such a case may
p r o t e c t himself by asking f o r permission t o subpoena
o t h e r witnesses, o r , i f necessary, t o ask f o r a con-
tinuance, and t h e a c t i o n of t h e c o u r t thereon would
then become a proper sQbject f o r review on appeal."
(Emphasis added.)
Section 95-1803(d), R.C.M. 1947, provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
"
* * After t h e t r i a l commences, no witnesses may be
c a l l e d by t h e defendant i n support of t h e s e defenses,
unless t h e name i s included on such l i s t , except upon
good cause shown ." (Emphasis added. )
Even though t h i s s e c t i o n r e q u i r i n g advance n o t i c e of t h e de-
f e n d a n t ' s i n t e n t t o u t i l i z e an a l i b i defense was n o t enacted
u n t i l 1967, i t provides f o r a modification of t h e witness l i s t
upon a showing of good cause by t h e defendant, and p r o t e c t s him
from t h e type of p r e j u d i c e a l l e g e d t o have occurred here. I f de-
fendant f e l t h i s defense of a l i b i was jeopardized a t t h e c l o s e of
t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e , h i s proper course would be t o seek a continuance
t o have time t o prepare a s u i t a b l e defense t o meet t h e charges
raised, Defendant cannot have t h e b e s t of two worlds. Having
e l e c t e d t o l e t t h e case go t o t h e j u r y , he cannot now complain
a f t e r t h e j u r y has found him g u i l t y .
The judgment i s affirmed.
W Concur:
e /