No. 13647
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
-vs-
KEVIN MURPHY,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
Honorable Arnold Olsen, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Stimatz and Engel, Butte, Montana
Joseph Engel argued, Butte, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Dennis Moreen argued, Assistant Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
John G. Winston, County Attorney, Butte, Montana
Submitted: September 27, 1977
Decided: 8 C T 2 5 1977
Filed: 9CT 2 5 rr
s
Clerk
M r . Chief J u s t i c e Paul G . Hatf i e l d d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court:
Defendant Kevin Murphy was charged and convicted of
burglary i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , S i l v e r Bow County. From t h e
j u r y v e r d i c t and subsequent sentence, defendant appeals.
On May 3 , 1976, a t approximately 2:15 a.m., two witnesses
heard a n o i s e which aroused t h e i r a t t e n t i o n . They looked out
from t h e i r second f l o o r apartment, l o c a t e d a c r o s s t h e s t r e e t
from Len's Food S t o r e i n B u t t e , Montana, and saw an i n d i v i d u a l
kicking t h e door window a t Len's. The door window was sub-
sequently kicked out and various items, including Olympia and
Lucky Lager b e e r , were taken from the s t o r e .
During t h e break i n one i n d i v i d u a l on t h e s t r e e t answered
back t o t h e witnesses' shouts from t h e second f l o o r apartment.
Defendant was recognized by one of t h e witnesses a s being n e a r
Len's a t t h e time t h e s t o r e was broken i n t o . Also, an i n d i v i d u a l
was seen running from t h e s t o r e and dropped a can o r b o t t l e
out of h i s hand.
By t h e time one witness was a b l e t o d r e s s and move t o t h e
s t r e e t , t h e p o l i c e had a r r i v e d . They pursued two i n d i v i d u a l s
running down t h e s t r e e t and while i n p u r s u i t t h e p o l i c e observed
t h e two throw items i n t o a yard. One suspect was i d e n t i f i e d
a s defendant. m e n a r r e s t e d defendant had f i v e cans of Olympia
beer i n h i s possession.
O f f i c e r Albert Johnson, who apprehended defendant t e s t i f i e d
a t t r i a l t h a t he believed o t h e r s were involved i n t h e break i n
b u t were n o t apprehended.
Defendant d i d n o t take t h e stand. Mike McMeekin, a r r e s t e d
who
with defendant a n d p l e a d g u i l t y t o t h e b u r g l a r y , t e s t i f i e d an
I n d i a n named Randy kicked i n t h e door g l a s s , r a n i n t o t h e
s t o r e , grabbed some b e e r and ran o u t . McMeekin f u r t h e r
t e s t i f i e d t h a t while Randy was kicking t h e door, " t h e s e
guys came o u t from a c r o s s t h e s t r e e t and s t a r t e d y e l l i n g
a t usff and h e , McMeekin, swore a t them.
A t t r i a l t h e prosecution was n o t a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t
defendant a c t u a l l y e n t e r e d t h e b u i l d i n g .
O appeal defendant p r e s e n t s b u t one i s s u e f o r t h i s
n
C o u r t ' s review:
Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n g i v i n g i t s I n s t r u c t i o n s Nos.
1 7 and 18 regarding d e f e n d a n t ' s l i a b i l i t y a s an a i d e r and
abettDr without charging him a s an a i d e r and a b e t t o r i n t h e
Information?
The i n s t r u c t i o n s i n q u e s t i o n read:
" I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 7
"A person i s l e g a l l y accountable f o r t h e conduct
of a n o t h e r , when, e i t h e r b e f o r e o r during 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, he
s o l i c i t s , a i d s , a b e t s , agrees o r a t t e m p t s t o a i d ,
such o t h e r person i n t h e planning o r commission of
t h e offense . I 1
" I n s t r u c t i o n No. 18
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t a l l persons concerned
i n t h e commission of a crime, whether i t be a
felony o r a misdemeanor, o r whether they d i r e c t l y
commit t h e a c t c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e o f f e n s e o r a i d
and a b e t i n i t s commission, a r e p r i n c i p a l s i n any
crime a s committed. And i n t h i s c a s e , i f you
b e l i e v e from t h e evidence t h a t t h e Defendant d i d
n o t d i r e c t l y commit t h e crime charged i n t h e
Information, y e t i f you do b e l i e v e from t h e evidence,
beyond a reasonable doubt, t h a t he was p r e s e n t ,
knowing, a i d i n g and a b e t t i n g i n i t s commission, you
should f i n d him g u i l t y . "
Defendant contends i t i s c l e a r t h e crime charged i n t h e
Information i s only b u r g l a r y i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 94-6-204(1),
R.C.M. 1947. I t i s n o t c l e a r t h a t defendant was charged w i t h
a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f o r burglary of o t h e r s under t h e provisions
of s e c t i o n 94-2-106 o r s e c t i o n 94-2-107, R.C.M. 1947. That
t h e f a i l u r e of t h e s t a t e t o l i s t t h e a d d i t i o n a l charges upon
which t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d i n I n s t r u c t i o n s Nos. 17 and 18
c o n s t i t u t e s a f a i l u r e t o f u l l y a p p r i s e defendant of t h e
charges a g a i n s t him and r e s u l t e d i n s u r p r i s e t o him when t h e
prosecution sought t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s . Further, t h i s f a i l u r e
precluded defendant from being apprised of t h e s p e c i f i c
charge a g a i n s t him and t h e chance t o be heard on t h e i s s u e s
caused by t h e charge. Defendant's contentions f a i l .
F i r s t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n giving I n s t r u c t i o n s
Nos. 17 and 18, which i n s t r u c t e d t h e jury a s t o "aiding and
abetting". The i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e n o t challenged a s an i n c o r r e c t
statement of t h e law, but r a t h e r t h e challege i s based upon
t h e f a i l u r e of t h e s t a t e t o s p e c i f i c a l l y charge the defendant
with a c c o u n t a b i l i t y i n t h e Information.
P r i o r t o Montana's new c r i m i n a l code, s e c t i o n 94-6423,
R.C.M. 1947, and i n t e r p r e t i n g case S t a t e v. Zadick, 148 Mont.
296, 419 P.2d 749 (1966), c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d t h e law. On January
1, 1974, s e c t i o n s 94-2-106 through 94-2-108, R.C.M. 1947,
replaced s e c t i o n 94-6423. The Criminal Law Study Commission
s t a t e d i n i t s comments t h a t s e c t i o n 94-2-107 accepts t h e
approach of s e c t i o n 94-6423 and endeavors t o develop i t i n f u l l .
Section 94-2-107 i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same a s t h e source,
s e c t i o n 5-2, Chapter 38 of t h e I l l i n o i s Criminal Code. Under
I l l i n o i s case law i n t e r p r e t i n g s e c t i o n 5-2, an indictment need
n o t d i s t i n g u i s h an a c t performed by t h e accused himself and
t h e a c t of another f o r which he i s l e g a l l y accountable. People
_ .J-
v. Nicholls, 43 I11.2d 91, 245 M.E.2d 771,777 (1969), cert.den.
396 U.S. 1016, 90 S.Ct. 578, 24 L ed 2d 507 (1970). Montana
follows. t h e r u l e of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n where i n adopting
a s t a t u t e from a s i s t e r s t a t e , t h e c o u r t adopts t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n
placed upon i t by t h e h i g h e s t c o u r t of t h e s t a t e from which
i t i s adopted. S t a t e ex r e l . P h i l Mankin v . Wilson 9- Mont .
-
9 P.2d , 34 St.Rep. 1075 (1977).
Defendant f u r t h e r argues he was s u r p r i s e d and precluded
from knowing s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e charges a g a i n s t him by t h e
s t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o l i s t t h e a d d i t i o n a l charges i n I n s t r u c t i o n
Nos. 17 and 18. The c o u r t record contains defendant's proposed
i n s t r u c t i o n Nos. 1 7 , 18, 19 and 20. The t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t
r e v e a l s t h e t r i a l judge refused these proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s .
This Court wonders how counsel f o r defendant can so b o l d l y
claim s u r p r i s e . The t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t and c o u r t record r e f l e c t
t h e f a c t defendant was n o t s u r p r i s e d . A l l f o u r of defendant's
proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s p e r t a i n t o "aiding and abetting". Addi-
t i o n a l l y , t h e s t a t e claims from t h e o u t s e t of t h e t r i a l , on
v o i r d i r e and i n t h e opening statement, s e c t i o n 94-2-107(3)
was argued. Under s e c t i o n 94-2-107(3) a person i s l e g a l l y
accountable f o r t h e conduct of another when:
"(3) e i t h e r before o r during t h e commission of an
offense and with t h e purpose t o promote o r f a c i l i t a t e
such commission, he s o l i c i t s , a i d s , a b e t s , agrees
t o attempt t o a i d , such o t h e r person i n the planning
o r commission of t h e offense. * * *"
While t h e record i s c l e a r t h a t no s u r p r i s e e x i s t e d ,
t h i s Court does n o t condone t h e method used by t h e s t a t e i n
charging t h e defendant. I f t h e s t a t e planned t o charge t h e
defendant with a i d i n g and a b e t t i n g , i n proper p r a c t i c e i t
should have-done so from the onset.
Second, t h e giving of I n s t r u c t i o n s Nos. 1 7 and 18 a r e
n o t reviewable by t h i s Court. Section 95-1910(d), R.C.M.
1947, s t a t e s t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s s h a l l s p e c i f y and s t a t e
t h e p a r t i c u l a r ground on which an i n s t r u c t i o n i s objected t o .
A g e n e r a l o b j e c t i o n i s not s u f f i c i e n t . Defense counsel
f a i l e d t o o b j e c t t o t h e g i v i n g of I n s t r u c t i o n No. 17. Failure
t o o b j e c t precludes t h e defendant from a s s i g n i n g e r r o r t o
such i n s t r u c t i o n on appeal. S t a t e v. H o l t , 121 Mont. 459, 463,
194 P.2d 651.(1948); S t a t e v. B e s t , 161 Mont. 20, 24, 503
P.2d 997 (1972).
Defense counsel d i d o b j e c t t o I n s t r u c t i o n No. 18, b u t
only on t h e b a s i s t h a t i t was r e p e t i t i v e of No. 1 7 . I n de-
f e n d a n t ' s b r i e f on appeal he a l l e g e s a d i f f e r e n t reason f o r t h e
i n s t r u c t i o n being improper. Only v a l i d o b j e c t i o n s made a t
t h e t i m e of t h e s e t t l e m e n t of i n s t r u c t i o n s may be considered
by t h i s Court on appeal. S t a t e v. Best, supra.
The judgment i s a f firmed.
W Concur:
e
I