No. 13133
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
DANNY NELSON and ELMER CRATON NELSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District,
Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Bradley Parrish argued, Lewistown, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Michael Greely, Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
Allen B. Chronister, Assistant Attorney General,
argued, Helena, Montana
William Spoja, County Attorney, Lewistown, Montana
Robert L. Knopp, Deputy County Attorney, argued,
Lewistown, Montana
Submitted: January 21, 1977
Decided: R 2 4 1n
B 9
lerk
M r . 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 Court.
Defendants were convicted by j u r y v e r d i c t i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , Fergus County, of two counts of o f f e r i n g t o s e l l dangerous
drugs i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 54-132, R.C.M. 1947. Both defendants
appeal.
The m a t e r i a l f a c t s a r e d i s p u t e d . The s t a t e ' s v e r s i o n i s
t h a t defendants Danny Nelson and Elmer Nelson, b r o t h e r s , o f f e r e d
t o s e l l marijuana on two s e p a r a t e occasions t o James B r i d g e f o r d ,
an undercover n a r c o t i c s agent f o r t h e Fergus County s h e r i f f ' s de-
partment.
The f i r s t t r a n s a c t i o n was on t h e n i g h t of October 27,
1974, a t t h e Husky t r u c k s t o p on t h e Lewistown by-pass. Defendants
drove up t o t h e t r u c k s t o p i n t h e i r c a r , bought a couple of d o l l a r s
worth of g a s from Bridgeford who was working t h e r e , and asked him
i f he wanted t o buy a " l i d " . Defendants l e f t , r e t u r n e d l a t e r ,
II arrangements" were made, and defendants waited i n B r i d g e f o r d ' s c a r
w h i l e h e was s e r v i c i n g t h e i r c a r . T h e r e a f t e r Bridgeford went over
t o h i s c a r where defendants were w a i t i n g and they handed him "a l i d
of grass" i n a p l a s t i c baggy and he p a i d them $20. About f i v e
minutes a f t e r defendants l e f t , Bridgeford c a l l e d Randall Cordle, a
n a r c o t i c s agent and deputy s h e r i f f of Fergus County, who came t o
t h e t r u c k s t o p where Bridgeford turned t h e p l a s t i c baggy over t o him.
The second t r a n s a c t i o n , according t o t h e s t a t e , occurred on
t h e n i g h t of October 30, 1974. Bridgeford went t o a p r i v a t e r e s i d e n c e
on Pine S t r e e t i n Lewistown where defendants were l i v i n g . After
t a l k i n g about marijuana, an arrangement was made f o r Bridgeford t o
buy a n o t h e r " l i d " from them. Defendant Elmer Nelson went over t o
a p l a s t i c pumpkin on a s h e l f i n a n o t h e r room, e x t r a c t e d a " l i d " ,
and gave i t t o defendant Danny Nelson a s t h e y were going t o t h e
c a r f o r a d r i v e up S p r i n g Creek. While d r i v i n g around d e f e n d a n t s and
B r i d g e f o r d passed around a " j o i n t " t h a t defendant Elmer Nelson had,
which B r i d g e f o r d s i m u l a t e d smoking. During t h e d r i v e , d e f e n d a n t
Danny Nelson p u t t h e "baggy" on t h e s e a t toward B r i d g e f o r d and
B r i d g e f o r d handed him $20. T h e r e a f t e r B r i d g e f o r d c o n t a c t e d Deputy
Randall Cordle and t u r n e d t h e baggy over t o him.
Defendants' v e r s i o n d i f f e r s i n a l l m a t e r i a l p a r t i c u l a r s .
According t o d e f e n d a n t s , t h e a l l e g e d e v e n t s forming t h e b a s i s of
b o t h c h a r g e s a r e complete f a b r i c a t i o n s . They admit going t o t h e
t r u c k s t o p on t h e n i g h t of October 27, 1974 accompanied by f i v e
o t h e r p e r s o n s and g e t t i n g some g a s , b u t deny r e t u r n i n g t h e r e l a t e r .
They c a t e g o r i c a l l y deny having any m a r i j u a n a , s e l l i n g o r o f f e r i n g
t o s e l l any marijuana t o B r i d g e f o r d , o r r e c e i v i n g any money from
him.
Concerning e v e n t s of October 30, 1974, d e f e n d a n t s admit
going f o r a d r i v e up S p r i n g Creek w i t h B r i d g e f o r d i n h i s c a r
accompanied by two o t h e r s and smoking a " j o i n t " of marijuana which
t h e y c l a i m B r i d g e f o r d himself had. Defendants deny t h e y themselves
had any marijuana o r s o l d o r o f f e r e d t o s e l l any t o B r i d g e f o r d .
They deny t h e i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g t h e p l a s t i c pumpkin i n t h e house
on P i n e S t r e e t .
The o n l y w i t n e s s i n t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f was B r i d g e f o r d .
The o n l y e x h i b i t o f f e r e d by t h e s t a t e was a p l a s t i c bag o f a g r e e n
s u b s t a n c e marked "Evidence d e s c r i p t i o n , one baggy of g r e e n s u b s t a n c e
Srl-ieved t o be marijuana bought from Danny and Elmer Nelson, 10-27-
74." A f t e r denying i t s admission i n evidence f o r l a c k of f o u n d a t i o n ,
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a d m i t t e d i t f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e purposes a s shown
by t h e f o l l o w i n g c o l l o q u y :
"Q. M r . B r i d g e f o r d , d i d you -
you obtained t h e
substance from Danny Nelson, c o r r e c t ? A. Yes.
"Q. And d i d you subsequently t r a n s f e r t h a t t o
M r . Cordle? A . Yes, I d i d .
"Q. And t h i s appears t o be b a s i c a l l y t h e same i t e m ,
i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? A . Yes, i t does.
"MR. KNOPP: Your Honor, t h e S t a t e would r e q u e s t
t h a t t h e e x h i b i t be e n t e r e d f o r purposes of demon-
s t r a t i o n , I n t h e p a r t i c u l a r charge, i t i s n o t
necessary t o prove t h a t anything of t h a t n a t u r e was
conveyed, o n l y t h a t t h e r e was an o f f e r t o convey t h i s
p a r t i c u l a r item.
"THE COURT: Inasmuch a s i t i s s i m i l a r and so on,
i t could be admitted f o r t h a t purpose.
"MR. PARRISH: I w i l l o b j e c t , your Honor, because
t h e w i t n e s s i s n o t s u r e t h a t i s t h e same one. He
s a i d i t could be.
"THE COURT: He's n o t e n t e r i n g i t a s t h e same one.
He's e n t e r i n g i t a s demonstrative. I t was something
l i k e t h i s , and t h a t ' s t h e b a s i s on which I admit t h i s . "
The two defendants were t h e only w i t n e s s e s i n t h e i r c a s e - i n -
chief. I n r e b u t t a l , t h e s t a t e c a l l e d two w i t n e s s e s , Jack Songer,
t h e s h e r i f f of Fergus County, and William A . Spoja, J r . , t h e Fergus
County a t t o r n e y .
S h e r i f f Songer read a w r i t t e n r e p o r t t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s
o f f i c e made by deputy Randall Cordle. This report reads:
"A. T h i s i s d a t e d October 27th, 1974, and t h e o f f e n s e
i s s a l e of dangerous drugs. On t h e above d a t e , I , Randy
Cordle, r e c e i v e d a phone c a l l from a c o n f i d e n t i a l i n -
formant s t a t i n g t h a t approximately a t 2:15 A.M., c o n f i -
d e n t i a l informant had purchased a q u a n t i t y of marijuana
from Danny and Elmer Nelson. I went t o t a l k w i t h con-
f i d e n t i a l informant and he t o l d me t h e following: Confi-
d e n t i a l informant s t a t e d t h a t Nelsons and Steven Gavin
came t o h i s p l a c e of employment t o g e t some g a s o l i n e . While
c o n f i d e n t i a l informant was f i l l i n g t h e Nelson v e h i c l e , Elmer
s a i d t o c o n f i d e n t i a l informant, do you want a l i d . Con-
f i d e n t i a l informant s a i d yeah, p o s s i b l y , how much i s i t
going t o c o s t me. Danny s a i d $20.00 because we had t o go
o u t o f town t o g e t i t , and we could only g e t s i x l i d s .
C o n f i d e n t i a l informant s a i d when can I g e t i t . Danny s a i d
we d o n ' t have i t now, b u t we can g e t it t o n i g h t . C o n f i d e n t i a l
informant t h e n s t a t e d t o m t h a t t h e s u s p e c t s l e f t
e
f o r approximately f i f t e e n t o twenty minutes and t h e n
r e t u r n e d . A f t e r r e t u r n i n g , Danny t o l d c o n f i d e n t i a l
informant we a r e going t o look i n your c a r , come over
when you a r e done f i l l i n g t h a t c a r . A f t e r c o n f i d e n t i a l
informant f i n i s h e d , he d i d i n f a c t walk over t o h i s
v e h i c l e a t which time Danny, now s e a t e d i n t h e c a r , gave
c o n f i d e n t i a l informant a l i d , and c o n f i d e n t i a l informant
i n t u r n gave Danny $20.00 which Danny had e a r l i e r s t a t e d
t h a t was t h e amount he wanted f o r t h e l i d . A f t e r con-
c l u d i n g w i t h c o n f i d e n t i a l informant, I brought t h e s a i d
marijuana t o t h e Fergus County S h e r i f f ' s O f f i c e , and
locked i t i n t h e v a u l t . Signed R. Cordle, Deputy S h e r i f f ,
Fergus County . I 1
The s h e r i f f t e s t i f i e d i t was a r e p o r t given t o him a s a
r o u t i n e m a t t e r i n t h e normal c o u r s e o f s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e procedures.
S h e r i f f Songer i d e n t i f i e d t h e " c o n f i d e n t i a l informant" r e f e r r e d
t o t h e r e i n a s J i m Bridgeford.
The s h e r i f f a l s o summarized t h e c o n t e n t s of a second w r i t t e n
r e p o r t submitted t o him by deputy Randall Cordle i n t h e r o u t i n e
procedures of h i s o f f i c e i n t h e normal c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s covering
t h e e v e n t s of October 30, 1974. T h i s r e p o r t was unsigned. The
s h e r i f f ' s t e s t i m o n i a l summary i n d i c a t e d t h a t a t 1:40 a.m. t h e
c o n f i d e n t i a l informant bought marijuana from Danny Nelson i n t h e i r
c a r i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e t r u c k r o u t e i n L e w i s t o ~ m . The r e p o r t
a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t while i n defendant Elmer Nelson's house he
took o u t a p l a s t i c pumpkin from a s h e l f and reached i n and removed
a handful of packaged l i d s c o n t a i n i n g marijuana and handed them t o
defendant Danny Nelson. S h e r i f f Songer a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t J i m
B r i d g e f o r d ' s workmanship w i t h t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e had been
" r e l i a b l e , c o n f i d e n t i a l , t o where he was t r u s t e d by t h i s o f f i c e
t o u s e a s a c o n f i d e n t i a l informant" and Bridgeford had been deputized
and i s s u e d a gun permit.
The s h e r i f f ' s testimony concerning t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e two
w r i t t e n r e p o r t s was o b j e c t e d t o by defendants' counsel on t h e
grounds i t was h e a r s a y , i n c o r r e c t r e b u t t a l , and lacked proper
foundation. The o b j e c t i o n s were o v e r r u l e d .
County a t t o r n e y Spoja t e s t i f i e d w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n t h a t
" t h e f e e l i n g and information t h a t I had i n d i c a t e d t o me M r . Bridge-
f o r d was completely r e l i a b l e . I have no reason whatsoever t o
doubt him." The county a t t o r n e y a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was aware
" t h a t M r . Bridgeford was d i r e c t l y involved w i t h t h e Nelsons and
i n f a c t t h a t t h e r e were funds provided f o r t h a t s p e c i f i c purpose."
On January 17, 1975, defendants Danny and Elmer Nelson
were charged by Information i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Fergus County,
w i t h two c o u n t s of s e l l i n g dangerous drugs t o Bridgeford on
October 27 and 30, 1974, r e s p e c t i v e l y . On May 23, 1975, t h e deputy
county a t t o r n e y moved f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a n amended Information
charging t h e defendants w i t h " o f f e r i n g t o sell" dangerous drugs
on t h e same d a t e s . Leave was g r a n t e d and t h e amended Information
was f i l e d on t h e same d a t e . Following p l e a s of n o t g u i l t y t o
each charge by each defendant, a j u r y t r i a l was h e l d on May 29, 1975.
The j u r y v e r d i c t found b o t h defendants g u i l t y a s charged. Judgment
was e n t e r e d . Defendants a p p e a l from t h e judgment of c o n v i c t i o n .
Defendants r a i s e t h r e e i s s u e s on a p p e a l which we summarize
i n t h i s manner:
1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n
a d m i t t i n g t h e s h e r i f f ' s testimony concerning t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e
w r i t t e n r e p o r t s of deputy Cordle?
2) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n
p e r m i t t i n g improper r e b u t t a l testimony by t h e s h e r i f f ?
3) Must t h e s t a t e prove beyond a reasonable doubt t h a t
t h e substance o f f e r e d f o r s a l e was i n f a c t a dangerous drug?
W need go no f u r t h e r than t h e f i r s t i s s u e t o determine
e
t h a t t h e judgment must b e vacated and a new t r i a l g r a n t e d . However,
b e f o r e we d i s c u s s t h e f i r s t i s s u e , we wish t o make i t c l e a r t h e r e
were other errors, e.g., admission of the "baggier' in evidence, and
failure to have the contents of the baggie analyzed by the state
criminal identification laboratory so that identification could
be established at the trial. These errors must not be repeated on
retrial.
The first issue is whether the sheriff's testimony concerning
the contents of the written reports of Deputy Cordle is reversible
error.
The state contends the testimony was admissible as an
exception to the hearsay rule under section 93-901-1, R.C.M. 1947.
Alternatively, the state argues the authenticity of the reports
was established and they are admissible under the reasoning of
State v. Cooper, 161 Mont. 85, 504 P.2d 978. In any event, the
state contends, the error is harmless because no prejudice was
shown.
Defendants argue the testimony was inadmissible hearsay
and prejudice clearly resulted.
The contents of the report are clearly hearsay. They
are unsworn statements made out of court with no opportunity
afforded to confront the writer and question him as to their
veracity. In fact, certain statements therein are hearsay twice
removed. Thus unless the contents of the statement f a l l . . within
one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, they are inadmissible
in evidence.
The state contends the contents of the report are
admissible under a statutory exception to the hearsay rule, section
93-901-1, R.C.M. 1947. That statute provides:
"written reports or findings of fact made by officers
of this state, on a matter within the scope of their
duty as defined by statute, shall, in so far as relevant,
be admitted as evidence of the matter stated therein."
Y e r e t o f o r e this Courl~held Chdc tlze I . ~ r l t r e r lreporc > e
th
I
3tdte chelilist i n t h e s t a t e c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n l a b o r a t o r y con-
c e r n i n g t h e p h y s i c a l and chemical t e s t i n g and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of
a s u b s t a n c e a s marijuana was a d m i s s i b l e under t h i s s t a t u t e . State
Y. Snider, Ivlont . , 541 P.2d 1204, 32 St.Rep. 1050 (1975).
W have a l s o p r e v i o u s l y denied admission i n evidence of
e
An d i t e d , undated and signed a c c i d e n t r e p o r t of a United S t a t e s
? o r e s t S e r v i c e e n g i n e e r i n a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n by a s k i e r
dgdinst a s k i r e s o r t . I n t h a t c a s e t h e i n j u r i e s o c c u r r e d when a
s k i l i f t c a b l e d e r a i l e d and threw t h e s k i e r t o t h e ground. The
w i t n e s s through whom t h e r e p o r t was sought t o be a d m i t t e d was
not t h e a u t h o r of t h e r e p o r t b u t was p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e t h e i n -
s p e c t i o n was made, ( t h e s u b j e c t of t h e r e p o r t ) . W held the report
e
was i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y under s e c t i o n 93-901-1, R.C.M. 1947.
" e s s l v . B r i d g e r Bowl, 164 Mont. 389, 524 P.2d 1101. Also s e e :
Xichardson v . Farmers Union O i l Co., 131 Mont. 535, 312 P.2d 134,
we h e l d an A i r Force o f f i c e r ' s r e p o r t i n a d m i s s i b l e .
$&here
The f e d e r a l r u l e seems t o d i f f e r and a l l o w s p o l i c e r e p o r t s
l ~ u t l t a i r l i n g e a r s a y under 28 U.S . C . A .
h 5 1732. The r a t i o n a l e seems
t o be t h a t t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e i s designed t o a b r o g a t e t h e common
law h e a r s a y r u l e . See: B r i d g e r v. Union Railway Company, 355
?.3d 382, a s i l l u s t r a t i v e of t h e f e d e r a l approach.
I n our view under Montana's s t a t u t e , t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e
zwo r e p o r t s by deputy Cordle a r e i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y , n o t w i t h -
s ~ a n d i n gt h e f a c t t h e r e p o r t s were o f f i c i a l r e p o r t s g i v e n t h e s h e r i f f
a s a r o u t i n e m a t t e r i n accordance w i t h o f f i c e procedures. It i s
a l s o i n a d m i s s i b l e under t h e r a t i o n a l e of Cooper. The r e a s o n f o r
o u r h o l d i n g i s t h a t deputy Cordle h i m s e l f , had h e been c a l l e d a s
a w i t n e s s a t t h e t r i a l , could n o t have t e s t i f i e d t o t h e c o n t e n t s of
the report. .The report is largely statements of defendants to a
confidential informer who relayed the statements on to a deputy
sheriff. This is patently hearsay and inadmissible through the
lips of either the sheriff or deputy Cordle. The confidential
informant to whom the statements were made testified to their
contents, but the official character of the report does not permit
the sheriff or deputy Cordle to report the statements on the
witness stand to bolster the credibility of the confidential in-
formant .
The purpose of Montana's statute is not to render otherwise in-
admissible hearsay admissible simply because it is contained in
a police report.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold the contents of deputy
Cordle's report was improperly admitted in evidence, was prejudicial
to defendants, and the convictions cannot stand.
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the cause
remanded to the district court, Fergus County, for a new trial.
Justice