No. 12534
I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O M N A A
F H F OTN
1976
THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
F A K D. LE;IrJIS,
RN
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Nat Allen,Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Knight, Dahood, Mackay and PlcLean, Anaconda, Montana
Wade J. Dahood argued, Anaconda, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
James Walsh argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
James J. Masar appeared, County Attorney, Deer Lodge,
Montana
Submitted : February 3 , 1976
Decided: -rn.C?
- r v . i.
.
=
I* [
: r ,
J .a
Filed: rrc- - , % , J < ,
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
Defendant Lewis, f o r m e r l y s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of s c h o o l s ,
School D i s t r i c t Number One a t Deer Lodge, was c o n v i c t e d i n a
j u r y t r i a l o f t h r e e c o u n t s o f embezzlement by a p u b l i c o f f i c e r .
He was s e n t e n c e d t o o n e y e a r i n p r i s o n on e a c h c o u n t , w i t h t h e
s e n t e n c e s suspended. Lewis appeals, challenging t h e sufficiency
of t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n s , and c h a r g i n g 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 r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t d e f e n -
d a n t a change of p l a c e of t r i a l .
Defendant was s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of s c h o o l s i n Deer Lodge
from 1964 t o A p r i l 1970. Soon a f t e r commencing h i s d u t i e s t h e r e ,
he assumed v i r t u a l l y complete c o n t r o l o f t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ' s
a c t i v i t y f u n d , a f u n c t i o n f o r m e r l y handled by a s c h o o l s e c r e t a r y .
I n December 1970, d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d by I n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Powell County w i t h t h i r t y - t w o c o u n t s o f embezzle-
ment by a p u b l i c o f f i c e r , under s e c t i o n 94-1501, R.C.M. 1947. The
c h a r g e s a r o s e from c e r t a i n c h e c k s w r i t t e n by d e f e n d a n t on t h i s
a c t i v i t y fund.
P r i o r t o t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t moved f o r a change o f p l a c e o f
t r i a l p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 95-1710, R.C.M. 1947, a l l e g i n g t h a t he
c o u l d n o t be t r i e d by a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l j u r y i n Powell County.
The a f f i d a v i t accompanying t h e motion s t a t e d t h a t Lewis had i m -
providently pled g u i l t y t o criminal charges i n another school
d i s t r i c t r e l a t e d c a s e and t h e r e s u l t i n g p u b l i c i t y i n Powell County
had c r e a t e d a f i x e d o p i n i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t s o t h a t a f a i r
and i m p a r t i a l j u r y c o u l d n o t be s e c u r e d t h e r e . I n a d d i t i o n , defen-
d a n t and h i s c o u n s e l s t a t e d i n t h e i r a f f i d a v i t t h a t due t o t h e
s m a l l p o p u l a t i o n o f Powell County, i t would be a l m o s t i m p o s s i b l e
t o s e c u r e t w e l v e j u r o r s who were n o t r e l a t e d t o o r a c q u a i n t e d
w i t h t h e l a r g e number o f w i t n e s s e s t o be c a l l e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n .
A t t h e h e a r i n g on t h i s m o t i o n , d e f e n d a n t produced a p e t i t i o n
c i r c u l a t e d i n Powell County and s i g n e d by two hundred and o n e
c i t i z e n s which s t a t e d t h a t i n t h e o p i n i o n of t h e s i g n a t o r i e s ,
d e f e n d a n t c o u l d n o t r e c e i v e a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l i n Powell
County.
The motion w a s t a k e n under a d v i s e m e n t w h i l e t h e v o i r d i r e
e x a m i n a t i o n o f a number o f p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s was c o n d u c t e d .
T h e r e a f t e r d e f e n d a n t renewed h i s motion f o r change of p l a c e o f
t r i a l and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d i t .
Following d i s m i s s a l o f many of t h e c o u n t s i n t h e I n f o r -
mation due t o t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , d e f e n d a n t w a s t r i e d
on s e v e n c o u n t s o f embezzlement by a p u b l i c o f f i c e r . He w a s
c o n v i c t e d on t h r e e , r e l a t i n g t o c h e c k s w r i t t e n on t h e s c h o o l
d i s t r i c t a c t i v i t y fund: (1) a check f o r $311.85 t o Northwest
Airlines f o r personal business; ( 2 ) a check f o r $ 2 0 0 a s a l o a n
t o a s c h o o l employee; and ( 3 ) a check f o r $300 t o t h e same em-
ployee a s another loan. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Hon. Nat A l l e n ,
d i s t r i c t judge p r e s i d i n g , d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n s f o r judg-
ment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t and f o r a new t r i a l , and e n t e r e d
judgment on t h e v e r d i c t F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 1973.
Defendant r a i s e s t h r e e s p e c i f i c i s s u e s on a p p e a l :
(1) Is t h e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c -
t i o n f o r embezzlement by a p u b l i c o f f i c e r ?
(2) Did d e f e n d a n t have t h e r e q u i s i t e i n t e n t t o commit
t h e c r i m e o f embezzlement by a p u b l i c o f f i c e r ?
(3) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n when
i t r e f u s e d t o g r a n t d e f e n d a n t a change of p l a c e of t r i a l ?
With r e s p e c t t o t h e f i r s t two i s s u e s , w e n o t e t h a t de-
f e n d a n t was charged under former s e c t i o n 94-1501, R.C.M. 1947,
which s t a t e d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
"Embezzlement by p u b i c o f f i c e r . Every o f f i c e r
o f t h i s s t a t e , o r of any c o u n t y , c i t y , town, o r
d i s t r i c t o f t h i s s t a t e , and e v e r y o t h e r p e r s o n
Charged w i t h t h e r e c e i p t , s a f e k e e p i n g , t r a n s f e r
o r d i s b u r s e m e n t of p u b l i c moneys, who e i t h e r --
"1. Without a u t h o r i t y of law, a p p r o p r i a t e s t h e
same, o r any p o r t i o n t h e r e o f , t o h i s own u s e , o r
t o t h e use of another; o r
"2. Loans t h e same, o r any p o r t i o n t h e r e o f , ex-
c e p t by d e p o s i t s i n t h e manner a u t h o r i z e d by law,
o r having t h e p o s s e s s i o n o r c o n t r o l of any p u b l i c
money, makes p r o f i t o u t o f i t , o r u s e s t h e same
f o r any p u r p o s e n o t a u t h o r i z e d by law; o r
" 3 . F a i l s t o keep t h e same i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n o r
under h i s c o n t r o l u n t i l d i s b u r s e d o r p a i d o u t by
a u t h o r i t y of law * * *."
I t i s conceded t h a t d e f e n d a n t w r o t e t h e c h e c k s i n ques-
t i o n on t h e a c t i v i t y f u n d . The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t d e f e n d a n t ,
e n t r u s t e d w i t h p u b l i c moneys i n t h e a c t i v i t y f u n d , a p p r o p r i a t e d ,
l o a n e d and d i s b u r s e d p o r t i o n s of t h o s e moneys w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y
of law. D e f e n d a n t ' s a t t e m p t s t o show reimbursement t o t h e fund
a r e t o no a v a i l , f o r t h e s t a t u t e p r o s c r i b e s t h e p u n i s h a b l e con-
d u c t w i t h o u t any r e f e r e n c e t o a n i n t e n t t o make r e s t i t u t i o n . The
g e n e r a l r u l e i s s t a t e d i n 26 Am J u r 2d Embezzlement 520:
" I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t when one w r o n g f u l l y
and i n t e n t i o n a l l y m i s a p p r o p r i a t e s t h e p r o p e r t y
o f a n o t h e r l a w f u l l y i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n t o h i s own
u s e , t h e o f f e n s e o f embezzlement i s c o m p l e t e , s o
t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t h e a t t h e same t i m e i n t e n d s
s u b s e q u e n t l y t o r e t u r n t h e p r o p e r t y o r t o make
r e s t i t u t i o n t o i t s r i g h t f u l owner d o e s n o t r e l i e v e
h i s wrongful a c t of i t s c r i m i n a l n a t u r e , e x c u s e
him, o r make h i s o f f e n s e any t h e l e s s embezzlement.
* * *"
Thus, t h e e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c -
t i o n a s a m a t t e r of law.
With l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t , t h e j u r y w a s
t h e s o l e t r i e r of f a c t . Thus i t was w i t h i n t h e s i n g u l a r p r o v i n c e
of t h e j u r y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i n n o c e n c e o r g u i l t of t h e d e f e n d a n t
under t h e c o u n t s i n t h e I n f o r m a t i o n ; S t a t e v . G l e i m , 17 Mont.
1 7 , 2 9 , 4 1 P. 998. The j u r y may d e c i d e which w i t n e s s e s it
chooses t o b e l i e v e , a f t e r considering a l l of t h e evidence; S t a t e
v. Pankow, 134 Mont. 519, 333 P.2d 1017; S t a t e v. Medicine B u l l ,
J r . , 152 Mont. 34, 445 P.2d 916. I f s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s
found t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , i t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d o n a p p e a l ;
S t a t e v. White, 146 Mont. 226, 239, 405 P.2d 761; S t a t e v .
S t o d d a r d , 147 Mont. 402, 408, 4 1 2 P.2d 827.
D e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t he l a c k e d t h e r e q u i s i t e c r i m -
i n a l i n t e n t t o commit embezzlement i s e q u a l l y u n c o n v i n c i n g . The
evidence s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n he d e l i b e r a t e l y used p u b l i c
moneys from t h e a c t i v i t y f u n d f o r n o n s c h o o l p u r p o s e s w i t h o u t
a u t h o r i t y of l a w . The q u e s t i o n o f i n t e n t i s a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e
jury; S t a t e v . Madden, 128 Mont. 408, 416, 276 P.2d 974; S t a t e
v. Cooper, 158 Mont. 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 , 489 P.2d 99. A v e r d i c t supported
by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e which i s l e g a l l y a d m i s s i b l e must s t a n d
on a p p e a l .
For t h e s e r e a s o n s , d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n s on t h e f i r s t
two i s s u e s a r e w i t h o u t m e r i t .
Defendant u r g e s t h i s C o u r t t h a t h e c o u l d n o t and d i d n o t
r e c e i v e a f a i r t r i a l i n P o w e l l County, b e c a u s e of community p r e j u -
d i c e a g a i n s t him e n g e n d e r e d by h i s p u b l i c i z e d g u i l t y p l e a i n
a n o t h e r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t r e l a t e d c a s e i n t h e same community. The
g i s t o f d e f e n d a n t ' s argument was e x p r e s s e d by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l when
t h e m o t i o n f o r change o f p l a c e of t r i a l was renewed d u r i n g v o i r
dire:
"MR. DAHOOD: Your h o n o r , I h a v e no d o u b t t h a t
I c a n s e l e c t , w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e of a b l e c o u n s e l
f o r t h e S t a t e o f Montana, t w e l v e j u r o r s who w i l l
s t a t e , u n d e r o a t h , t h a t t h e y a r e g o i n g t o be
f a i r , and t h e y a r e n o t g o i n g t o be i n f l u e n c e d ,
b u t no human mind i s p e r f e c t , and no human mind
c a n d e p o s e i t s e l f from t h e community i n which i t
h a s been s h a p e d . The i n f l u e n c e s o f t h a t commun-
i t y , consciously o r subconsciously, a r e going t o
a f f e c t t h e t h i n k i n g o f t h a t p a r t i c u l a r mind. * * *"
The f o c u s of h i s argument seems t o be t h a t a l t h o u g h a
s e e m i n g l y f a i r and i m p a r t i a l j u r y m i g h t b e s e c u r e d a t t h e o u t s e t ,
community i n f l u e n c e s a r i s i n g from a n a b i d i n g o p i n i o n o f d e f e n d a n t ' s
g u i l t would s u b c o n s c i o u s l y a f f e c t t h e j u r o r s and c o n t a m i n a t e t h e i r
verdict.
A t t h e o u t s e t , w e n o t e t h a t a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n
by t h e d i s t r i c t judge i n d e n y i n g a change of venue i s r e q u i r e d
t o s u p p o r t a r e v e r s a l on t h i s ground. S t a t e v . Logan, 156
Mont. 48, 58, 473 P.2d 833, and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n .
Defendant r e l i e s on two cases which h e a l l e g e s demon-
s t r a t e t h a t 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 f a i l i n g
t o g r a n t a change o f p l a c e o f t r i a l ; S t a t e v. S p o t t e d Hawk, 2 2
Mont. 33, 55 P . 1026; and S t a t e v . Dryman, 127 Mont. 579, 269
P.2d 796. A s d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s , t h e s e c a s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e law
i n Montana w i t h r e s p e c t t o change o f p l a c e o f t r i a l . However,
even a c u r s o r y r e a d i n g d i s c l o s e s t h e v a s t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e f a c t s
and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h o s e c a s e s compared w i t h t h e i n s t a n t c a s e .
Here, t h e r e h a s been a b s o l u t e l y no showing of t h e impassioned
p r e j u d i c e e x i s t i n g i n S p o t t e d Hawk and Dryman. F u r t h e r , no p r e j -
u d i c i a l news media a c c o u n t s o f t h e c r i m e o r t r i a l a r e i n v o l v e d
i n t h i s case.
The f a c t s showing p r e j u d i c e r e l i e d on by d e f e n d a n t a r e :
(1) h i s own a f f i d a v i t , j o i n e d i n by h i s a t t o r n e y ; (2) the circulated
p e t i t i o n ; and ( 3 ) t h e t e s t i m o n y o f s e v e r a l j u r o r s o n t h e p a n e l
during v o i r d i r e examination.
D e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t o f h i s motion p r o p e r l y
c a r r i e d l i t t l e w e i g h t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , a s it w a s a m e r e
statement of conclusions. S t a t e v . Davis, 60 Mont. 426, 431, 199
P. 421.
The c i r c u l a t e d p e t i t i o n , which d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n t h e
r e c o r d , w a s l i k e w i s e n o t deemed c o n t r o l l i n g by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
Not o n l y was it n o t a sworn document, b u t it s t a t e s i n p a r t ( a s
set o u t i n defendant's a p p e l l a t e b r i e f ) :
" W e , t h e u n d e r s i g n e d c i t i z e n s , o f t h e County of
Powell, S t a t e o f Montana, do h e r e b y s t a t e t h a t
- -r o p i n i o n FRANK LEWIS c a n n o t k e c e i v e a f a i r
i n ou
and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l i n t h e County of Powell * * *."
(Emphasis added. )
No f a c t s a r e shown by t h i s p e t i t i o n , which w e b e l i e v e n e c e s s a r y
t o move t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . T e r r i t o r y v.
Manton, 8 Mont. 95, 103, 1 9 P. 387; S t a t e v . Davis, s u p r a ; S t a t e
v . B i s c h e r t , 1 3 1 Mont. 152, 1 5 7 , 308 P.2d 969; S t a t e v . Board,
135 Mont. 139, 337 P.2d 924; S t a t e v . B a r i c k , 143 Mont. 273, 280,
389 P.2d 170; S t a t e e x r e l . Hanrahan v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 145 Mont.
501, 401 P.2d 770; S t a t e v . Warrick, 152 Mont. 94, 446 P.2d 916;
S t a t e v . Logan, s u p r a .
Some o f t h e j u r o r s on v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h e y
had h e a r d d e f e n d a n t ' s case d i s c u s s e d i n t h e community and t h a t
l o c a l o p i n i o n on t h e c a s e was p r e d o m i n a n t l y "one way". The s p e c i -
f i c i t y of t h i s testimony f a l l s f a r s h o r t of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t a
f a i r and i m p a r t i a l j u r y c o u l d n o t be empanelled i n Powell County
t o t r y t h e i n s t a n t case. There was some c o n f l i c t i n t h e j u r o r s '
t e s t i m o n y a s t o which "way" t h a t o p i n i o n w a s p o i n t e d . I n any
event, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n deciding
t h a t a n i m p a r t i a l j u r y c o u l d be formed f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s t r i a l i n
Powell County. W e a g r e e w i t h t h i s s t a t e m e n t by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
Supreme C o u r t i n I r v i n v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 8 1 S.Ct. 1639, 6
751,
L ed 2d/756:
" I t i s n o t r e q u i r e d , however, t h a t t h e j u r o r s be
t o t a l l y i g n o r a n t o f t h e f a c t s and i s s u e s i n v o l v e d .
I n t h e s e d a y s of s w i f t , widespread and d i v e r s e
methods o f communication, a n i m p o r t a n t c a s e c a n
be e x p e c t e d t o a r o u s e t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e p u b l i c
i n t h e v i c i n i t y , and s c a r c e l y any o f t h o s e b e s t
q u a l i f i e d t o s e r v e a s j u r o r s w i l l n o t have formed
some i m p r e s s i o n o r o p i n i o n a s t o t h e m e r i t s o f t h e
case. his i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s .
To h o l d t h a t t h e mere e x i s t e n c e of any precon-
ceived notion a s t o t h e g u i l t o r innocence of an
a c c u s e d , w i t h o u t more, i s s u f f i c i e n t t o r e b u t t h e
presumption of a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s i m p a r t i a l i t y
would be t o e s t a b l i s h a n i m p o s s i b l e s t a n d a r d . It
i s s u f f i c i e n t i f t h e juror can l a y a s i d e h i s im-
p r e s s i o n o r o p i n i o n and r e n d e r a v e r d i c t based on
t h e evidence presented i n court."
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e p e a t e d l y reminded t h e j u r o r s t h e y must l a y
a s i d e t h e i r i m p r e s s i o n s and o p i n i o n s , a s d i d c o u n s e l f o r b o t h
sides. There i s simply no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e j u r y d i d n o t
r e n d e r i t s v e r d i c t based s o l e l y upon t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d
i n court.
The judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n i s a f f i r m e d .
Justice