No. 13104
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
197 6
STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-VS -
CRAIG EMERSON,
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 E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable W. FJ. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant :
McKinley Anderson a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
F o r Respondent :
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena,
Montana
C h a r l e s E. Erdmam Deputy A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d ,
Helena, Montana
Donald White, County A t t o r n e y , a p p e a r e d , Bozeman,
Montana
Submitted : February 2 , 1976
Decided :
FEB 2 4 1976
9 ; "~
Filed :
<"
+ a;:.
I
I
5 "." . ., :
~
O
1 '
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 of t h e C o u r t .
Defendant a p p e a l s from a G a l l a t i n County judgment of
c o n v i c t i o n f o r r o b b e r y e n t e r e d on t h e v e r d i c t o f a j u r y , t h e Hon.
W. W. Lessley, presiding.
I n t h e e a r l y morning of J a n u a r y 11, 1975, Three F o r k s
and G a l l a t i n County law enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s were n o t i f i e d by
one Wilbur "Swede" Capps of Three F o r k s t h a t h e had been a t t a c k e d
n e a r h i s home and h i s w a l l e t c o n t a i n i n g $200 t o $300 was t a k e n .
The f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s a r r e s t a r e n o t sub-
s t a n t i a l l y i n dispute. After receiving the report, investigating
o f f i c e r s b a c k t r a c k e d f r e s h f o o t p r i n t s i n t h e snow from t h e s c e n e
of t h e i n c i d e n t t o d e f e n d a n t ' s v e h i c l e . The o f f i c e r s knew defend-
a n t was s t a y i n g i n a t r a i l e r owned by James Aughney and proceeded
t h e r e i n f u r t h e r a n c e of t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . A t the trailer, the
owner a l l o w e d t h e o f f i c e r s t o e n t e r and d i r e c t e d them t o t h e room
where d e f e n d a n t w a s s l e e p i n g . The d o o r t o t h i s room was a j a r .
The o f f i c e r s e n t e r e d and found d e f e n d a n t i n t o x i c a t e d and uncon-
s c i o u s on t h e bed. H e was awakened by t h e o f f i c e r s and u t t e r e d
" I d i d n ' t mean t o h u r t him" b e f o r e l o s i n g c o n s c i o u s n e s s . Further
s h a k i n g by t h e o f f i c e r s a g a i n b r o u g h t t h e d e f e n d a n t around. He
r a i s e d up and s t a t e d , "The money i s i n t h e c l o s e t i n t h e b l u e
pants. "
V i s i b l e t o t h e o f f i c e r s t h r o u g h a n open c l o s e t d o o r w a s
a wad of c u r r e n c y s t i c k i n g o u t of a p a i r of b l u e p a n t s . Earlier,
t h e o f f i c e r s n o t i c e d i n p l a i n view a p a i r o f snow c o v e r e d t e n n i s
s h o e s , a s t h e y e n t e r e d d e f e n d a n t ' s room.
The o f f i c e r s t o o k t h e s h o e s and t h e money and checked
t h e t r a c k s i n t h e snow b e f o r e a r r e s t i n g d e f e n d a n t . A s h e was
b e i n g t a k e n t o j a i l , d e f e n d a n t t o l d t h e o f f i c e r s he had thrown
Capps' w a l l e t on t o p of t h e d r u g s t o r e . Upon i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,
t h e w a l l e t w a s d i s c o v e r e d on t h e r o o f of t h e d r u g s t o r e .
A motion t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e and s t a t e m e n t s of defend-
a n t based on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e a r r e s t w a s h e a r d
by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and d e n i e d .
On a p p e a l d e f e n d a n t a l l e g e s a n i l l e g a l and u n c o n s t i t u -
t i o n a l s e a r c h by t h e law enforcement o f f i c e r s and u r g e s v i o l a t i o n
of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s f o r f a i l u r e t o g i v e Miranda
warnings t o d e f e n d a n t b e f o r e and s h o r t l y a f t e r h i s a r r e s t . In
a d d i t i o n , d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s o m i s s i o n s i n t h e a f f i d a v i t accompany-
i n g t h e o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n f o r l e a v e of t h e c o u r t t o f i l e a n
Information deprived t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of j u r i s d i c t i o n r e q u i r -
i n g d i s m i s s a l of t h i s a c t i o n . Further, defendant argues t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c t e d beyond i t s power by a l l o w i n g a n amended a p p l i -
c a t i o n and a f f i d a v i t t o be f i l e d t o remedy t h e o m i s s i o n s i n t h e
original affidavit.
I n i t i a l l y , w e c o n s i d e r whether d e f e n d a n t was t h e v i c t i m
of a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h . I n s o d o i n g , we must d e t e r m i n e whether
a search i n f a c t took place. The d e f i n i t i o n o f a s e a r c h w a s
s t a t e d by t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v . W i l l i a m s , 153 Mont. 262, 269,
"Plunging d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u -
t i o n a l t h i c k e t we f i n d t h a t a ' s e a r c h ' h a s been
h e l d t o imply a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f o n e ' s p r e m i s e s
o r p e r s o n w i t h a view t o t h e d i s c o v e r y of con-
t r a b a n d o r e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t t o be used i n p r o s e -
c u t i o n of a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n ; it i m p l i e s a n
exploratory investigation o r quest. * * *"
A Montana f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t case a l s o p r o v i d e s a
d i s c u s s i o n of what c o n s t i t u t e s a s e a r c h . I n United S t a t e s v .
Lodahl, 264 F.Supp. 927, 928, t h e C o u r t s t a t e d :
"The c o u r t s have n o t s o l v e d s e a r c h and s e i z u r e
problems by t e c h n i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e r u l e s
of agency. I t i s n o t l i k e l y t h a t any p e r s o n i n
p o s s e s s i o n of a house c o n t a i n i n g c o n t r a b a n d
a r t i c l e s had e v e r g i v e n a t h i r d p e r s o n - - c h i l d ;
wife; friend--actual a u t h o r i t y t o i n v i t e p o l i c e
o f f i c e r s i n ; and y e t , where t h e p e r s o n o p e n i n g
t h e door i n v i t e s a n o f f i c e r t o e n t e r , a n o b s e r -
v a t i o n by t h a t o f f i c e r of what i s i n p l a i n s i g h t
a f t e r t h e e n t r y i s n o t h e l d t o be a n u n r e a s o n a b l e
s e a r c h . If b e c a u s e o f some l a c k of a u t h o r i t y on
M o i s a n ' s p a r t t h e r e was a t r e s p a s s , t h a t would
n o t c o n v e r t t h e o b s e r v a t i o n o f what was i n p l a i n
s i g h t i n t o a search. This i s s o because t h e
word ' s e a r c h ' d e n o t e s a n i n t e n t i o n t o f i n d and
a b s e n t s u c h a n i n t e n t i o n t h e r e s i m p l y i s no
search. The C o n s t i t u t i o n f o r b i d s s e a r c h e s , n o t
trespasses. The d e f e n d a n t may have been t h e
v i c t i m o f a v e r y i n n o c e n t t r e s p a s s - - h e was t h e
v i c t i m o f i n c r e d i b l y bad l u c k - - b u t he was n o t
t h e v i c t i m of a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h and s e i z u r e . "
(Emphasis a d d e d . )
Applying t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s , w e c a n n o t s a y t h a t a s e a r c h
was conducted by t h e law enforcement o f f i c e r s w h i l e t h e y w e r e i n
d e f e n d a n t ' s room. Here, t h e o f f i c e r s i n t e n d e d o n l y t o s p e a k t o
d e f e n d a n t when t h e y e n t e r e d h i s room t h r o u g h a n open d o o r . What
t h e y d i d n o t i c e was i n p l a i n view o r d i r e c t e d t o t h e i r a t t e n t i o n
by d e f e n d a n t . Given no i n t e n t i o n t o f i n d , t h e r e c a n be no s e a r c h .
S t a t e v . Braden, 154 Mont. 9 0 , 97, 460 P.2d 85. Thus d e f e n d a n t ' s
contention f a i l s .
A l t e r n a t i v e l y , d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h e r e was c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
e r r o r by t h e law o f f i c e r s i n f a i l i n g t o g i v e d e f e n d a n t Miranda
w a r n i n g s a s he l a y i n h i s room o r when he w a s d r i v e n t o j a i l
a f t e r he was a r r e s t e d . Such e r r o r d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s s h o u l d
cause t h i s Court t o r e v e r s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e
motion t o s u p p r e s s . The s t a t e s u b m i t s t h a t t h e Miranda w a r n i n g s
were n o t r e q u i r e d s i n c e d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t s u b j e c t t o i n t e r r o g a -
tion. The s t a t e f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t g i v i n g d e f e n d a n t Miranda
warnings would have been a u s e l e s s a c t i n view of h i s s t a t e o f
intoxication. W agree.
e
The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n s a f f o r d e d by Miranda warn-
i n g s a r e r e q u i r e d i n i n s t a n c e s where o n e i s s u b j e c t e d t o c u s t o d i a l
interrogation. Miranda v . A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 436, 4 4 4 , 8 6 S.Ct.
1602, 16 L ed 2d 694. I n the instant case defendant's utterances
were n o t i n r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n i n g . Due t o t h e o b v i o u s i n t o x i -
c a t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t , t h e l a w enforcement o f f i c e r s i n v o l v e d r e f r a i n e d
from giving him a Miranda warning and from questioning him,
Thus there was no infringement of defendant's constitutional
privilege against self-incrimination and right to counsel guaran-
teed him by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Doubt with regard to the voluntariness of defendant's
statements going to their admissibility as evidence is also
raised. Defendant urges that his physical and mental condition
as a result of intoxication made it impossible for him to give
a free, voluntary and uncoerced statement to the police, or to
fully appreciate the consequences of his statements. 3 Wigmore,
Evidence, S841 (Chadbourn rev. 1970),discusses the admissibility
of confessions where the intoxication of declarant is self-induced.
That discussion cites a New York Court of Appeals decision which
we find helpful. In People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, 226 N.E.2d
305, 309, the court stated:
"Both the cases and Wigrnore's analysis, therefore,
support a distinction between confessions made
under self-induced intoxication and those, however
truthful, coerced or the product of police-induced
intoxication. In the case of self-induced intox-
ication, the kind involved on this appeal, the
criterion should be trustworthiness rather than
any automatic application of a degree of intoxi-
cation, in determining the admissibility of
confessions. If trustworthiness is the criterion,
then it is logical that the trustworthiness be
testable by the content of the confession or evi-
dence of subsequent events which confirm the
reliability of the confession".
Here, the subsequent events confirmed the reliability of
defendant's statements. Therefore, we cannot say the court
erred in admitting the statements in evidence. State v. Chappel,
149 Mont. 114, 423 P.2d 47; State v. Rossell, 113 Mont. 457, 127
P.2d 379; State v. Dixson, 80 Mont. 181, 260 P. 138.
Considering the affidavit accompanying the initial appli-
cation for leave to file an Information and the amendment allowed
by the district court, we find no error. Admittedly section 95-
1301, R.C.M. 1947, requiring that the affidavit establish probable
c a u s e t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e o f f e n s e h a s been committed was v i o l a t e d
by t h e o r i g i n a l a f f i d a v i t . T h i s , however, i s p a t e n t l y a p r o c e d u r a l
matter, n o t a s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e involving t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of
the court. S t a t e v . Logan, 156 Mont. 48, 55, 473 P.2d 833.
Given such a p r o c e d u r a l d e f e c t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d o e s
have t h e power t o a l l o w t h e a f f i d a v i t t o be amended. T h i s power
i s e s s e n t i a l t o t h e e f f i c i e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e and t h e
b a s i c r i g h t o f d e f e n d a n t t o p r e p a r e h i s own d e f e n s e . S t a t e ex
r e l . B e l l v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 157 Mont. 35, 37, 482 P.2d 557.
D e f e n d a n t ' s t e c h n i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 95-1503 and s e c t i o n
95-1505, R.C.M. 1947, c a n n o t overcome t h e s e w e i g h t y c o n c e r n s .
The judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n i s a f f i r m e d .
Justices