No. 13085
I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A
H OR F OTN
1975
STATE O M N A A
F OTN,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
JOHN MICHAEL MINER,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable C. R. Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant :
James A. T u l l e y argued, Big Timber, Montana
O . J . Paulson, Big Timber, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
Thomas A. Budewitz argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney
General, Helena, Montana
Kenneth R. Olson, County Attorney, Big Timber,
Montana
Submitted: December 10, 1975
Decided : .. ,I.-
- -
Filed:
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
This i s an a p p e a l by defendant John Michael Miner from
a judgment 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 , Sweet Grass County, Hon.
C . B. Sande, p r e s i d i n g . The judgment followed a j u r y v e r d i c t
f i n d i n g Miner g u i l t y of b u r g l a r y . Miner a p p e a l s .
On t h e n i g h t o f September 7 , 1974, Ullman Lumber Company
i n Big Timber, Montana was b u r g l a r i z e d . Taken i n t h e b u r g l a r y
were approximately $70 i n c a s h and $1100 i n checks w r i t t e n t o
Ullman Lumber Company. The testimony o f w i t n e s s e s i n d i c a t e s t h i s
chronology of e v e n t s : Immediately b e f o r e t h e b u r g l a r y , S h e r i
S t i e f and E i l e e n Brannin, w h i l e " c r u i s i n g t h e drag", spotted a
man t h e y l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s defendant walking back and f o r t h i n
f r o n t of Ullman Lumber Company.
L a t e r f o u r t e e n a g e r s who were conversing i n a c a r d i r e c t l y
a c r o s s t h e s t r e e t from t h e lumber company saw someone i n s i d e t h e
s t o r e whereupon one of t h e t e e n a g e r s , T i m Rostad, l e f t t o c a l l
the police. While Rostad was a b s e n t , t h e o t h e r t h r e e t e e n a g e r s
continued t o watch t h e s t o r e window, and one of t h e t e e n a g e r s , L i l a
F u l l e r , saw someone i n s i d e t h e s t o r e . Later she i d e n t i f i e d
defendant a s t h e person i n s i d e t h e s t o r e .
A t about t h i s time, t h e s e same t e e n a g e r s noted someone
running through t h e s t o r e and decided t o i n v e s t i g a t e more c l o s e l y .
Driving p a s t t h e s t o r e , they saw two men run through t h e yard and
jump t h e back fence. Later these teenagers while driving i n t h e
v i c i n i t y , saw a man walking down a s i d e s t r e e t , whom they l a t e r
i d e n t i f i e d a t t r i a l a s defendant.
Meanwhile, T i m Rostad had succeeded i n a l e r t i n g t h e p o l i c e .
Deputy Brannin while conducting a s u r v e i l l a n c e of t h e immediate
v i c i n i t y , s p o t t e d a man walking down a s i d e s t r e e t t h a t he l a t e r
i d e n t i f i e d a s defendant. After finishing h i s general surveillance,
Deputy Brannin r e t u r n e d t o ~ l l m a n ' swhere Tim Rostad informed him
t h a t a man matching t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e person he had seen
i n ~ l l m a n ' swas i n a telephone booth nearby. Upon being confronted
by Deputy Brannin, t h i s man i d e n t i f i e d himself a s Gary Eugene Radi.
A t t h i s time, T i m Rostad a l s o i d e n t i f i e d Radi a s t h e man he had
seen i n s i d e t h e Ullman Lumber Company e a r l i e r .
A few days l a t e r t h e Sweet Grass County s h e r i f f r e q u e s t e d
photographs of Radi and h i s known a s s o c i a t e s from t h e B i l l i n g s
p o l i c e department. From t h e s e t of s i x photos r e c e i v e d , w i t n e s s e s
thought t h e one photo of defendant might have been t h e man t h e y
saw, b u t t h e y were n o t s u r e . Deputy Brannin d i d i d e n t i f y defendant
a s t h e man he had seen from t h i s f i r s t s e t .
O September 11, 1974, a new s e t o f photographs
n
received. This s e t contained two p i c t u r e s each of defendant and
Radi and one of a n o t h e r s u s p e c t . These photos showed defendant
w i t h l o n g e r h a i r and g l a s s e s , s i m i l a r t o h i s appearance a t t h e
time of a r r e s t . Upon viewing t h e two s e t s o f photos, along w i t h
miscellaneous photos p u l l e d from t h e o f f i c e f i l e s , s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s
made p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . E i l e e n Brannin and S h e r i S t i e f
i d e n t i f i e d defendant a s t h e man t h e y sawwaZliSng back and f o r t h
o u t s i d e t h e lumber company. L i l a F u l l e r i d e n t i f i e d defendant a s
t h e man she observed i n s i d e t h e s t o r e . T i m Rostad i d e n t i f i e d Radi
a s t h e man he saw i n s i d e t h e s t o r e and l a t e r i n t h e n e a r v i c i n i t y .
Based upon t h e above f a c t s Miner was charged w i t h one
count of b u r g l a r y and one count of t h e f t on September 1 2 , 1974.
I n due c o u r s e , motions were made t o d i s m i s s t h e Information and
t o suppress photo i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s made of defendant. After a hearing,
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied b o t h motions, and t h e c a s e proceeded t o
trial.
The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c r of g u i l t y on t h e count of
burglary. Miner was sentenced t o t e n y e a r s i n p r i s o n . It i s from
t h i s judgment and sentence t h a t defendant now a p p e a l s .
Three i s s u e s a r e presented f o r review:
1) Whether o r n o t t h e Information f i l e d a g a i n s t
defendant was supported by probable cause?
2) Whether o r n o t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n denying
d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o suppress photo i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s made o f
defendant?
3) Whether o r n o t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n g i v i n g
i t s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 21 a s t o d e f e n d a n t ' s a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f o r t h e
a c t s of a n o t h e r ?
I n t h e f i r s t i s s u e defendant contends t h e Information f i l e d
was n o t supported by probable cause. W f i n d no m e r i t i n t h i s
e
contention. S e c t i o n 95-1301(a), R.C.M. 1947, allows t h e f i l i n g
o f an Information i f a f t e r review of t h e evidence s u p p o r t i n g t h e
a f f i d a v i t t h e c o u r t i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e r e i s probable c a u s e t o
b e l i e v e t h a t an o f f e n s e has been committed by defendant. The d e f i -
n i t i o n of probable cause t o a r r e s t i s d i s c u s s e d e x t e n s i v e l y i n
S t a t e ex r e l . Pinsoneault v. D i s t r i c t Court, 145 Mont. 233, 240,
400 P.2d 269. There t h e Court h e l d t h a t t h e e x p r e s s i o n "probable
cause", a s used i n t h e f e d e r a l C o n s t i t u t i o n , r e f e r r i n g t o t h e
i s s u a n c e of w a r r a n t s , means t h a t t h e r e i s a p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a
crime has been committed by t h e person named i n t h e w a r r a n t .
I n determining t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t defendant committed an
o f f e n s e , t h e g u i d e l i n e s suggested i n S p i n e l l i v. United S t a t e s ,
393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L ed 2d 637, have been noted w i t h
approval by t h i s Court. See: S t a t e v. T r o g l i a , 157 Mont. 22,
482 P.2d 143. Generally t h o s e g u i d e l i n e s s t a t e t h a t a mere probab-
i l i t y i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r probable c a u s e , a prima f a c i e showing n o t
being necessary. Also a f f i d a v i t s of probable cause a r e s u b j e c t t o
much l e s s r i g o r o u s s t a n d a r d s than t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of evidence.
F i n a l l y , judges reviewing such a f f i d a v i t s should u s e t h e i r common
s e n s e i n determining whether probable cause e x i s t s .
With t h e s e g u i d e l i n e s i n mind, w e review t h e p e r t i n e n t
facts: Three w i t n e s s e s p d t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d defendant a s e i t h e r
i n t h e s t o r e , walking s u s p i c i o u s l y i n f r o n t of t h e s t o r e immediately
p r i o r t o t h e b u r g l a r y , o r walking i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e s t o r e
immediately a f t e r t h e b u r g l a r y . Deputy Brannin a l s o i d e n t i f i e d
defendant a s being i n t h e v i c i n i t y immediately a f t e r t h e burglary.
Several w i t n e s s e s saw two men i n s i d e t h e lumber yard w i t h one of
t h e men matching t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of defendant. Gary Radi, a
known a s s o c i a t e of defendant, was seen i n t h e s t o r e and l a t e r
stopped and questioned i n t h e immediate v i c i n i t y .
Of a l l t h i s evidence going t o probable c a u s e , t h e only
p o i n t of confusion seems t o b e a s t o who was seen i n s i d e t h e s t o r e .
Defendant contends s i n c e t h r e e w i t n e s s e s d i d n o t a g r e e w i t h
L i l a F u l l e r ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of defendant a s being i n t h e s t o r e ,
t h e r e i s a breakdown i n probable cause. F i r s t , probable cause
i s determined on t h e b a s i s of p r o b a b i l i t y n o t percentages. If
one w i t n e s s could p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f y defendant a s being i n t h e
s t o r e t h i s would p o i n t t o t h e p r o b a b i l i t y he was indeed involved
i n the burglary--this i s what probable c a u s e i s a 1 1 about.
Second, any one p i e c e of evidence i s n o t d e t e r m i n a t i v e of probable
c a u s e , r a t h e r a l l evidence must be examined b e f o r e any determina-
t i o n can be made; and upon such examination t h e r e a r e ample f a c t s
t o support a f i n d i n g of probable c a u s e t o a r r e s t .
Since t h e f a c t s show defendant p r e s e n t a t t h e time and
l o c a t i o n of t h e b u r g l a r y , h i s i n t e n t i s t o be determined from
t h e f a c t s and circumstances p r e s e n t e d , a j u r y q u e s t i o n . S t a t e v.
Cooper, 158 Mont. 1 0 2 , 489 P.2d 99.
I n t h e second i s s u e defendant contends t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d
i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o suppress photo i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s
of defendant. Again, we f i n d no m e r i t i n t h i s c o n t e n t i o n . Defendant
a l l e g e s t h e photo l i n e u p procedure was a v i o l a t i o n o f h i s r i g h t t o
counsel because by t h e time t h e second s e t of photos was shown
t h e proceedings had ceased being i n v e s t i g a t o r y and had become
accusatory. United S t a t e s v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S . C t . 1926,
18 L ed 2d 1149. However, t h e f a c t s i n d i c a t e i t was only a f t e r
t h e second s e t of photos was shown t h a t some w i t n e s s e s p o s i t i v e l y
i d e n t i f i e d defendant. It was upon t h e b a s i s of t h i s p o s i t i v e iden-
t i f i c a t i o n t h a t t h e Information was f i l e d and defendant a r r e s t e d .
A c a s e i n p o i n t a s t o t h e c r i t i c a l s t a g e where r i g h t
t o counsel i s r e q u i r e d i s Kirby v. I l l i n o i s , 406 U.S. 682, 690,
9 2 S e c t . 1877, 32 L ed 2d 411,418, where two men a r r e s t e d upon
s u s p i c i o n of a crime b u t n o t y e t formally charged, were confronted
and i d e n t i f i e d by t h e v i c t i m of t h a t crime. The United S t a t e s
Supreme Court upheld t h e v a l i d i t y of t h i s c o n f r o n t a t i o n i n t h e
absence of counsel on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e c r i t i c a l s t a g e of formal
proceedings a g a i n s t t h e s u s p e c t s had n o t been i n i t i a t e d . The Court
said :
"In t h i s c a s e we a r e asked t o import i n t o a
r o u t i n e p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n an a b s o l u t e c o n s t i t u -
t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e h i s t o r i c a l l y and r a t i o n a l l y a p p l i -
a b l e only a f t e r t h e o n s e t of formal p r o s e c u t o r i a l
proceedings. W d e c l i n e t o do so. I I
e
See a l s o ; United S t a t e s v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 93 S.Ct. 2568,
Since t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court saw no need f o r counsel
during a p h y s i c a l l i n e u p a f t e r a r r e s t b u t p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of
formal c h a r g e s , t h i s Court s e e s no reason t o r e q u i r e c o u n s e l
during a photo l i n e u p p r i o r t o t h e time defendant was a r r e s t e d .
Accordingly, t h i s Court f i n d s t h e c r i t i c a l s t a g e where p o l i c e
procedure changes from i n v e s t i g a t i v e t o a c c u s a t o r i a l was n o t
reached a t t h e time t h e photo d i s p l a y s of defendant were made and
t h e r e f o r e defendant was n o t e n t i t l e d t o counsel a t t h a t time.
Defendant a l s o contends t h e photo l i n e u p procedure used
was so s u g g e s t i v e a s t o almost compel w i t n e s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of
him a s t h e g u i l t y p a r t y and a s such was a v i o l a t i o n of t h e due process
c l a u s e of t h e F i f t h and Fourteenth Amendments. I n Simmons v. United
S t a t e s , 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L ed 2d 1247,1253,
t h e Court i n d e a l i n g w i t h a photo l i n e u p s i t u a t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h e
i n s t a n t one s a i d :
'I* * 5~ The danger t h a t use of t h e t e c h n i q u e may
r e s u l t i n c o n v i c t i o n s based on m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
may be s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s e n e d by a c o u r s e of c r o s s -
examination a t t r i a l which exposes t o t h e j u r y t h e
method's p o t e n t i a l f o r e r r o r . W a r e u n w i l l i n g t o
e
p r o h i b i t i t s employment, e i t h e r i n t h e e x e r c i s e of
our s u p e r v i s o r y power o r s t i l l l e s s , a s a m a t t e r of
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirement. I n s t e a d , we hold t h a t
each c a s e must be c o n s i d e r e d on i t s own f a c t s , and
t h a t c o n v i c t i o n s based on eyewitness i d e n t i f i c a t i-o n- -
- - -.
a t t r i a l f o l l o w i n g a p r e t r i e l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by
photograph w i l l be s e t a s i d e on t h a t ground o n l y i f
t h e photographic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n procedure was s o
impermissibly s u g g e s t i v e a s t o g i v e r i s e t o a v e r
iL
s u b s t a n t i a l l i k e l i h o o d of i r r e p a r a b l e m i s i d e n t i i-
cation." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
See a l s o : S t o v a l l v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S . C t . 1967, 18
T h e r e f o r e , u n l e s s t h e e r r o r i s obvious and t h e p r e -
j u d i c e c l e a r , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s remedy i s i n e f f e c t i v e cross-examin-
a t i o n w i t h t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n q u e s t i o n t h e n becoming one of weight
t o be determined by t h e j u r y and n o t one of a d m i s s i b i l i t y . Applying
t h e Simmons t e s t t o t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , t h i s Court p e r c e i v e s
no photo l i n e u p procedure which was s o f l a g r a n t l y s u g g e s t i v e as
t o r e q u i r e a s u p p r e s s i o n of t h e photo i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s .
The photos used f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n were c a t e g o r i z e d
into three sets. The f i r s t s e t c o n t a i n e d p i c t u r e s of defendant
and known a s s o c i a t e s , i n c l u d i n g Gary Radi. The second s e t from
which s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s made p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ,
c o n t a i n e d p i c t u r e s of defendant and Gary Radi. The t h i r d s e t
c o n t a i n e d m i s c e l l a n e o u s p i c t u r e s p u l l e d o u t of t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e
file. These photo s e t s were shown t o g e t h e r n o t t o c r e a t e i m p r e s s i o n s
b u t r a t h e r t o v e r i f y d e s c r i p t i o n s and i n f o r m a t i o n a l r e a d y g a t h e r e d .
I n h i s f i n a l i s s u e , defendant contends t h a t t h e a i d i n g
and a b e t t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was improper.
The c o u r t ' s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 21 r e a d s :
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t a person i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
t h e conduct which i s an element of an o f f e n s e i f t h e
conduct i s e i t h e r t h a t of t h e person himself o r t h a t
.da n o t h e r and he e i t h e r b e f o r e o r d u r i n g t h e commission
of an o f f e n s e , and w i t h t h e purpose t o promote o r
f a c i l i t a t e such commission, s o l i c i t s , a i d s , a b e t s ,
a g r e e s o r a t t e m p t s t o a i d , such o t h e r l e r s o n i n t h e
planning o r commission of t h e o f f e n s e .
The source of t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n i s s e c t i o n 94-2-107(3),
R.C.M. 1947. Defendant does n o t contend t h e i n s t r u c t i o n does n o t
a d e q u a t e l y s t a t e t h e law b u t r a t h e r t h a t i t i s n o t supported by any
evidence which was p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l . T h i s Court cannot a g r e e .
I t i s t r u e t h a t no i n s t r u c t i o n may b e given which i s n o t supported
e i t h e r by some evidence o r some l o g i c a l i n f e r e n c e from o t h e r evidence
which was p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l . But, i n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t
support i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t f o r t h e g i v i n g of t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n .
Defendant was seen walking back and f o r t h i n f r o n t of t h e
lumber s t o r e immediately p r i o r t o t h e b u r g l a r y . Defendant f i t
t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of one of t h e two men seen i n s i d e t h e lumber yard.
He was l a t e r seen i n t h e v i c i n i t y by s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s . He i s an
admitted a s s o c i a t e of Gary Radi who was p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d a s
being i n s i d e t h e s t o r e . I f , d e s p i t e t h e testimony of L i l a F u l l e r ,
t h e j u r y a c t u a l l y b e l i e v e d i t was Radi a l o n e who e n t e r e d t h e
b u i l d i n g , i t s t i l l had s u f f i c i e n t evidence b e f o r e i t t o f i n d t h a t
defendant was c o l l a b o r a t i n g w i t h him on t h e b u r g l a r y . Where t h e r e
i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , t h i s Court
w i l l not reverse. S t a t e v. Stoddard, 147 Mont. 402, 412 P.2d
827; S t a t e v. Cor, 144 Mont. 323, 396 P.2d 86; S t a t e v. Robinson,
109 Mont. 322, 96 P.2d 265.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court/?s affirmed.
r :