No. 80-148
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
-vs-
STANLEY DAVIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Park, the Honorable
Nat Allen, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
FOX Appellant:
Yardley and Yardley, Livingston, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Bruce Becker, County Attorney, Livinqston, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August 28, 1980
Decided: BEC b % 99f@
D€C 1 7 1980
Filed:
4
Clerk
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
S t a n l e y D a v i s was c h a r g e d i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Sixth
J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , w i t h f o u r counts: ( 1 ) conspiracy t o sel 1
dangerous drugs, ( 2 ) attempted c r i m i n a l s a l e o f dangerous drugs,
( 3 ) c r i m i n a l s a l e o f dangerous drugs, and ( 4 ) a t t e m p t e d c r i m i n a l
possession o f dangerous drugs. Fol lowing a j u r y t r i a l , defendant
was c o n v i c t e d o f c o n s p i r a c y t o s e l l d a n g e r o u s d r u g s and was s e n -
tenced t o three years i n prison.
A t some t i m e p r i o r t o A u g u s t 8 , 1979, Kenneth H u t t i n g e r
( I n f o r m a n t ) a p p r o a c h e d t h e Bozeman p o l i c e a b o u t c o o p e r a t i n g w i t h
t h e m i n a p p r e h e n d i n g James Amsk, who was a l l e g e d l y s e l l i n g d r u g s
t o Huttinger's girlfriend. A " b u y " f r o m Amsk was a r r a n g e d b y
I n f o r m a n t t o t a k e p l a c e i n P a r k C o u n t y on A u g u s t 8, 1979.
C e r t a i n members o f a p o l i c e s t a k e o u t g r o u p o b s e r v e d t h e t r a n s a c -
t i o n from a prearranged lookout. T h e y made n o a r r e s t s and n o
w a r r a n t s were i s s u e d a t t h a t time. A n o t h e r p e r s o n was p r e s e n t
w i t h Amsk a t t h a t t r a n s a c t i o n who was l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as D a v i d
Harper. The d e f e n d a n t was n o t p r e s e n t a t t h i s " b u y . "
D u r i n g t h e August 8, 1979, m e e t i n g , Informant arranged
w i t h Amsk t o make a n a d d i t i o n a l p u r c h a s e on t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y .
T h e p o l i c e w e r e a l e r t e d t o t h i s a c t i v i t y and a g a i n s t a k e d o u t t h e
park.
On A u g u s t 9, 1 9 7 9 , d e f e n d a n t m e t Amsk i n L i v i n g s t o n and
d r o v e w i t h him, i n Amsk's c a r , t o Sacajawea Park. I n t h e park
t h e y met I n f o r m a n t , a n d Amsk and I n f o r m a n t a g r e e d t o a " b u y . "
I n f o r m a n t g a v e Amsk $ 4 6 5 . 0 0 a n d Amsk t h e n a g r e e d t o r e t u r n
s h o r t l y w i t h t h e drugs. A t t h a t time, I n f o r m a n t and d e f e n d a n t
h a d no c o m m u n i c a t i o n e x c e p t f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t i d e n -
t i f y i n g himself t o Informant. Amsk and d e f e n d a n t l e f t t h e p a r t
together.
I n f o r m a n t gave a p r e a r r a n g e d s i g n a l t o t h e o f f i c e r s
s t a k i n g o u t t h e p a r k a n d i n f o r m e d t h e m t h a t Amsk i n t e n d e d t o
r e t u r n t o t h e park s h o r t l y w i t h the drugs. The o f f i c e r s r e t u r n e d
t o t h e i r stakeout positions.
F i f t e e n o r t w e n t y m i n u t e s l a t e r , d e f e n d a n t r e t u r n e d a1 o n e
t o t h e park. He i n d i c a t e d t o I n f o r m a n t t h a t I n f o r m a n t was t o
m e e t Amsk a t t h e A & W R o o t B e e r S t a n d i n o r d e r t o t a k e d e l i v e r y
o f the drugs. D e f e n d a n t l e f t h i s c a r a t t h e p a r k and g o t i n t o
I n f o r m a n t ' s c a r and d r o v e t o t h e A & W w i t h him. The A & W
p a r k i n g l o t was v e r y c r o w d e d so d e f e n d a n t i n s t r u c t e d I n f o r m a n t t o
d r i v e t o t h e m o t e l p a r k i n g l o t n e x t d o o r and t o h o n k h i s h o r n a t
a c a r b e i n g d r i v e n b y Amsk a n d H a r p e r . Informant stopped h i s c a r
i n t h e l o t and went t o H a r p e r ' s c a r t o g e t t h e d r u g s . Amsk
i n s t r u c t e d I n f o r m a n t t o g i v e 1000 h i t s o f "speed" (amphetamines)
t o defendant, f o r defendant t o dispose of. Informant returned t o
t h e c a r and gave d e f e n d a n t t h e "speed" w h i c h d e f e n d a n t p u t i n
h i s boot. I n f o r m a n t and d e f e n d a n t r e t u r n e d t o t h e p a r k t o g e t
defendant's car.
Upon r e a c h i n g t h e p a r k , I n f o r m a n t and d e f e n d a n t b o t h g o t
o u t o f I n f o r m a n t ' s c a r and w a l k e d o v e r t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r . At
t h a t time, I n f o r m a n t gave t h e s i g n a l t o c e r t a i n p o l i c e on t h e
s t a k e o u t who i n t u r n s i g n a l e d t o o f f i c e r s M a l o n e and Bowman t o
make t h e a r r e s t . O f f i c e r Ma1 o n e a r r e s t e d d e f e n d a n t and c o n d u c t e d
a pat-down search. D e f e n d a n t was t a k e n t o t h e j a i l i n Park
C o u n t y and s e a r c h e d , a t w h i c h t i m e t h e a l l e g e d amphetamines were
found i n defendant's boot. T e s t s p r o v e d t h e s u b s t a n c e s t o be n o n -
c o n t r o l l e d substances.
Prior to trial, d e f e n d a n t moved t o s u p p r e s s a l l e v i d e n c e
taken from defendant's person f o l l o w i n g a r r e s t , based on h i s
a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e a r r e s t was i l l e g a l . The m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s
was d e n i e d .
A t t h e c l o s e o f t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e a t t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t moved
t o dismiss the f i r s t t h r e e counts. The m o t i o n was b a s e d o n
d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e s a l e o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s had b e e n
c o m p l e t e d and t h e c r i m e s c o n s u m & e d p r i o r t o any p a r t i c i p a t i o n by
defendant. T h i s m o t i o n was d e n i e d .
The d e f e n d a n t r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s on a p p e a l :
(1) W h e t h e r t h e o f f i c e r s h a d p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s t
defendant, and w h e t h e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e q u i r e d h i s immedi a t e
arrest?
( 2 ) Whether t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s s h o u l d have
b e e n g r a n t e d b e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e was o b t a i n e d a f t e r a n i l l e g a l a r r e s t ?
( 3 ) W h e t h e r t h e s a l e o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s was c o m p l e t e d
p r i o r t o any p a r t i c i p a t i o n by d e f e n d a n t D a v i s ?
( 4 ) Whether t h e c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f t h e m o t i o n t o suppress
and t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s d e p r i v e d d e f e n d a n t o f a f a i r t r i a l on
t h e charge o f c o n s p i r a c y t o s e l l dangerous drugs?
O f f i c e r s M a l o n e a n d Bowman o f t h e Bozeman p o l i c e f o r c e
arrested defendant without a warrant. I n o r d e r t o make s u c h a n
arrest, a p o l i c e o f f i c e r must s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s e c t i o n
46-6-401, MCA. That s t a t u t e provides i n p a r t :
" C i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h i c h a p e a c e o f f i c e r may make
an a r r e s t .
- A p e a c e o f f i c e r may a r r e s t a p e r s o n
when:
" [ 4 ] h e b e l i e v e s on r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e
p e r s o n i s c o m m i t t i n g an o f f e n s e o r t h a t t h e p e r -
s o n h a s c o m m i t t e d an o f f e n s e a n d t h e e x i s t i n g
circumstances r e q u i r e h i s immediate arrest."
Appellant contends t h a t the a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s d i d not
o b s e r v e h i m c o m m i t t i n g any o f f e n s e , n o r d i d t h e y have any
k n o w l e d g e t h a t a c r i m e had been c o m m i t t e d by d e f e n d a n t .
Additionally, a p p e l l a n t argues t h a t even i f p r o b a b l e cause d i d
e x i s t t o b e l i e v e a c r i m e had been c o m m i t t e d , t h e r e w e r e no
e x i s t i n g circumstances r e q u i r i n g h i s a r r e s t without a warrant.
We f i n d t h a t t h e a r r e s t was b a s e d o n p r o b a b l e c a u s e and
was l a w f u l . Thus, t h e e v i d e n c e s e i z e d a f t e r t h e a r r e s t was
admissible a t t r i a l . The d i s t r i c t j u d g e p r o p e r l y d e n i e d t h e
m o t i o n t o suppress.
I n Montana, " r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s " t o a r r e s t a r e synonymous
w i t h "probable cause" t o a r r e s t . S t a t e v. Fetters (1974), 165
Mont. 1 1 7 , 1 2 2 , 5 2 6 P.2d 122, 125. As t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n S t a t e
v. Hamilton (1980), Mont. , 6 0 5 P.2d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 5 , 37
St.Rep. 70, 73:
" ' P r o b a b l e cause t o a r r e s t w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t
e x i s t s w h e r e t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h i n
t h e o f f i c e r ' s k n o w l e d g e and o f w h i c h he had
reasonable trustworthy information are s u f f i c i e n t
i n t h e m s e l v e s t o w a r r a n t a man o f r e a s o n a b l e
c a u t i o n i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t an o f f e n s e h a s b e e n
o r i s b e i n g c o m m i t t e d . "'
Admittedly, O f f i c e r s Ma1 o n e and Bowman, the arresting
officers, may n o t h a v e h a d s u f f i c i e n t i n d e p e n d e n t p e r s o n a l
k n o w l e d g e o f an o f f e n s e t o e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e cause. From
O f f i c e r Malone's position i n the stakeout, he was u n a b l e t o
o b s e r v e any o f d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s i n t h e park. He was n o t p r e -
s e n t a t t h e A & W Root Beer Stand o r a t t h e motel p a r k i n g l o t . He
c o n c e d e s t h a t he d i d n o t p e r s o n a l l y o b s e r v e d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t any
offense. O f f i c e r Bowman t e s t i f i e d s i m i l a r l y .
The f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v e d h e r e i s n o t an u n u s u a l one
i n t h i s t y p e o f case. S e v e r a l o f f i c e r s were w o r k i n g i n coopera-
t i o n w i t h an i n f o r m a n t i n an ongoing undercover operation.
O f f i c e r s were s t a k e d o u t i n v a r i o u s p o s i t i o n s around t h e scene o f
t h e " b u y " a n d c o m m u n i c a t e d b y means o f r a d i o a n d s i g n a l s . No o n e
o f f i c e r may h a v e h a d s u f f i c i e n t k n o w l e d g e t o e s t a b l is h p r o b a b l e
c a u s e , b u t i f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d c o l l e c t i v e l y and i s
e v a l u a t e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o t h e l a w
e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s as a g r o u p , i t was s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h
p r o b a b l e cause. Numerous j u r i s d i c t i o n s hold that
It I
.. .[P]robable c a u s e i s t o be e v a l u a t e d b y t h e
c o u r t s on t h e b a s i s o f t h e c o l l e c t i v e i n f o r -
mation o f the police rather than t h a t of only
t h e o f f i c e r who p e r f o r m s t h e a c t o f a r r e s t i n g . "'
S t a t e v. Shaw ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 3 0r.App. 3 4 6 , 4 7 3 P.2d 1 5 9 ,
161.
See a l s o S m i t h v. U n i t e d S t a t e s (D.C. C i r 1966), 3 5 8 F.2d 833,
835, cert.den. 3 8 6 U.S. 1008, 87 S.Ct. 1 3 5 0 , 1 8 L.Ed.2d 448;
P e o p l e v. Saars (1978), 196 C o l o . 294, 5 8 4 P.2d 622, 625; State
v. M i l l e r (1975), 112 A r i z . 9 5 , 5 3 7 P.2d 965, 967.
We f i n d t h i s v i e w t o be p e r s u a s i v e . Many i n v e s t i g a t i o n s
a n d u n d e r c o v e r o p e r a t i o n s c o u l d be n e e d l e s s l y f r u s t r a t e d i f t h e
p a r t i c i p a t i n g o f f i c e r s were n o t a b l e t o r e l y on i n f o r m a t i o n p r o -
v i d e d by o t h e r o f f i c e r s w o r k i n g w i t h them on a p a r t i c u l a r case.
V i e w e d i n t h i s way, we f i n d t h a t t h e r e w e r e s u f f i c i e n t
facts and c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h i n t h e o f f i c e r s ' knowledge t h a t t h e y
c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e t h a t an o f f e n s e was b e i n g o r h a d b e e n
committed by defendant. Appel l a n t argues t h a t h i s mere p r e s e n c e
a t t h e scene o f a c r i m e does n o t e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e cause f o r
arrest. T h i s i s a c o r r e c t statement o f t h e law, S t a t e v.Hamilton,
supra, Mont. at , 6 0 5 P.2d a t 1125, 37 St.Rep. a t 73,
b u t t h e e v i d e n c e shows m o r e t h a n d e f e n d a n t ' s m e r e p r e s e n c e .
Steve Markle, i n v e s t i g a t o r f o r t h e G a l l a t i n County
Attorney's office, knew t h a t a d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n had o c c u r r e d b e t -
w e e n I n f o r m a n t and Amsk on A u g u s t 8 , 1979 and t h a t a n o t h e r t r a n -
s a c t i o n was s c h e d u l e d f o r A u g u s t 9, 1979. From h i s d e a l i n g s w i t h
Informant, S t e v e M a r k l e k n e w t h e I n f o r m a n t t o be r e 1 i a b l e and
Markle p e r s o n a l l y viewed p a r t o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s . On A u g u s t 9,
f r o m h i s s t a k e o u t p o s i t i o n i n t h e L i v i n g s t o n Armory, M a r k l e saw
t h r o u g h h i s s p o t t i n g s c o p e t h a t I n f o r m a n t h a d made c o n t a c t w i t h
Amsk a n d a n o t h e r u n i d e n t i f i e d p e r s o n ( d e f e n d a n t ) a t t h e s c h e d u l e d
t i m e a n d t h a t I n f o r m a n t h a d t r a n s f e r r e d money t o Amsk; Amsk and
t h e u n i d e n t i f i e d person l e f t the meeting place; the unidentified
person returned; I n f o r m a n t and t h e u n i d e n t i f i e d p e r s o n l e f t
together,and r e t u r n e d t o t h e scene t o g e t h e r ; and I n f o r m a n t gave a
prearranged signal i n d i c a t i n g t h e d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n had b e e n
completed. The i n f o r m a t i o n p o s s e s s e d by M a r k l e was t r a n s m i t t e d
t o O f f i c e r s Bowman and M a l o n e , the arresting officers, by radio.
O f f i c e r s Bowman a n d M a l o n e a l s o knew t h a t a d r u g t r a n s a c -
t i o n h a d o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n Amsk, t h e i n f o r m a n t and a n u n i d e n t i f i e d
p e r s o n t h e p r e v i o u s day. T h e y knew t h a t I n f o r m a n t h a d d e l i v e r e d
t h e money t o Amsk a n d a n u n i d e n t i f i e d p e r s o n o n A u g u s t 9 , 1979,
and t h a t I n f o r m a n t had g i v e n t h e p r e a r r a n g e d s i g n a l t o M a r k l e
t h a t t h e d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n had been c o m p l e t e d . They t e s t i f i e d t o
t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t I n f o r m a n t w o u l d n o t h a v e s i g n a l e d t o M a r k l e , who
a l e r t e d them i n t u r n , unless t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e crime were
p r e s e n t and t h e t r a n s a c t i o n c o m p l e t e .
I n sum, t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s had s u f f i c i e n t t r u s t w o r t h y
i n f o r m a t i o n and k n o w l e d g e t o c o n s t i t u t e p r o b a b l e cause t h a t an
offense had been c o m m i t t e d by d e f e n d a n t . But a p p e l l a n t argues
t h a t t h e r e w e r e no e x i s t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s
immediate a r r e s t . Section 46-6-401(4), MCA. S t a t e v. Lenon
( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 270-271, 264, 5 7 0 P.2d 901, 905. He a s s e r t s
t h a t he was n o t a t t e m p t i n g t o f l e e , he was n o t a r m e d , and t h e
p a r k was s u r r o u n d e d b y l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s . The o f f i c e r s
w e r e i n r a d i o c o n t a c t w i t h t h e l a w e n f o r c e m e n t f a c i l i t y and c o u l d
have obtained a warrant.
Although there i s a strong preference f o r o f f i c e r s t o
obtain a warrant, B e c k v. Ohio (1964), 3 7 9 U.S. 8 9 , 8 5 S.Ct. 223,
1 3 L.Ed.2d 1 4 2 , we f i n d t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e w e r e s u f -
f i c i e n t t o allow a warrantless arrest. T h i s C o u r t has n o t s p e c i -
f i c a l l y d e f i n e d t h e " e x i s t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s " w h i c h p e r m i t an
immediate a r r e s t , b u t we h a v e i n p r e v i o u s c a s e s d i s c u s s e d
" e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s " a1 1 o w i n g p o l i c e t o e n t e r a r e s i d e n c e
w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t i n o r d e r t o s e a r c h and a r r e s t . I n S t a t e v.
Means ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. , 5 8 1 P.2d 406, 3 5 St.Rep. 673, this
Court h e l d t h a t p o l i c e acted p r o p e r l y under t h e circumstances i n
not obtaining a warrant. C i t i n g J o h n s o n v. United S t a t e s (1948),
3 3 3 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 3 6 7 , 9 2 L.Ed 436, we n o t e d c e r t a i n i n s t a n c e s
i n w h i c h t h e r e c o u l d be a n e e d t o p r o c e e d w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t :
" 'There are e x c e p t i o n a l circumstances i n which,
o n b a l a n c i n g t h e need f o r e f f e c t i v e l a w e n f o r -
c e m e n t a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t o f p r i v a c y , i t may be
contended t h a t a m a g i s t r a t e ' s warrant f o r search
may be d i s p e n s e d w i t h . B u t t h i s i s n o t such a
case. No r e a s o n i s o f f e r e d f o r n o t o b t a i n i n g a
search warrant except the inconvenience t o the
o f f i c e r s and some s l i g h t d e l a y n e c e s s a r y t o p r e -
p a r e p a p e r s and p r e s e n t t h e e v i d e n c e t o a
magistrate. .. No s u s p e c t was f l e e i n g o r l i k e l y
t o take f l i g h t . T h e s e a r c h was o f p e r m a n e n t
premises, n o t o f a movable v e h i c l e . No e v i d e n c e
o r c o n t r a b a n d was t h r e a t e n e d w i t h r e m o v a l o r d e s t r u c t i o n . .. I I(
S t a t e v. Means, s u p r a , Mont. at , 5 8 1 P.2d at
410-411, 3 5 S t . R e p . a t 679.
I n t h i s case, O f f i c e r Malone t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e s p i t e t h e
s t a k e o u t he b e l i e v e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t , who h a d come t o t h e p a r k i n
h i s car, was l i k e l y t o f l e e . Additionally, t h e p o l i c e were
j u s t i f i e d i n b e l i e v i n g t h a t e v i d e n c e o f t h e buy, which c o u l d
e a s i l y h a v e b e e n d e s t r o y e d o r d i s p o s e d o f , m i g h t be f o u n d o n
d e f e n d a n t b e c a u s e h e was p r e s e n t a t d e l i v e r y . Based on t h e s e
circumstances, t h e o f f i c e r s w e r e r e a s o n a b l e i n t h e i r be1 i e f t h a t
a n i m m e d i a t e a r r e s t was n e c e s s a r y , as i s r e q u i r e d i n S t a t e v.
B e n n e t t ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 158 Mont. 496, 504, 4 9 3 P.2d 1077, 1081. Because
we f i n d t h a t t h e a r r e s t was l a w f u l , we h o l d t h a t t h e a l l e g e d
amphetamines s e i z e d f r o m t h e d e f e n d a n t f o l l o w i n g t h e a r r e s t were
properly admitted a t t r i a l .
A p p e l l a n t next contends t h a t the d i s t r i c t judge erred i n
n o t d i s m i s s i n g c o u n t one, c o n s p i r a c y t o s e l l dangerous drugs;
c o u n t two, attempt t o s e l l dangerous drugs; and c o u n t t h r e e , sale
o f dangerous drugs. A p p e l l a n t ' s m o t i o n was b a s e d o n h i s t h e o r y
t h a t b e c a u s e he d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e A u g u s t 9 A m s k - I n f o r m a n t
agreement t o buy d r u g s , o r t h e a c c o m p a n y i n g e x c h a n g e o f money,
t h a t a n y c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e was c o m p l e t e d p r i o r t o t h e t i m e t h a t
defendant participated i n the transaction.
I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s argument t o t h e C o u r t , d e f e n d a n t i s
assuming t h a t f o r t h e purposes o f c o n v i c t i o n f o r s a l e o f
dangerous drugs, t h e a c t o f agreement t o buy, and t h e exchange o f
money, c o n s t i t u t e t h e e n t i r e s a l e t r a n s a c t i o n . We f i n d t h i s v i e w
o f "criminal s a l e " t o be t o o r e s t r i c t i v e . The s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s
i n part:
" ( 1 ) A person commits t h e o f f e n s e o f c r i m i n a l
s a l e o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s i f he s e l l s , b a r t e r s ,
e x c h a n g e s , o r g i v e s away, o r o f f e r s t o s e l l ,
b a r t e r , e x c h a n g e , o r g i v e away
4 5 - 9 - 1 0 1 , MCA.
. . ."
Section
S e v e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s have c o n s i d e r e d t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f
"sell" as i t a p p e a r s i n s t a t u t e s s i m i l a r t o s e c t i o n 4 5 - 9 - 1 0 1 ,
MCA. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f New H a m p s h i r e i n S t a t e v. Stone
(1974), 1 1 4 N.H. 1 1 4 , 3 1 6 A.2d 196, 197, noted t h a t i n criminal
statutes, " s e l l " may h a v e a b r o a d e r m e a n i n g t h a n i t d o e s i n s t a -
t u t e s g o v e r n i n g c o m m e r c i a1 t r a n s a c t i o n s , where " s e l l " i s commonly
d e f i n e d as " ' t h e p a s s i n g o f t i t l e f r o m t h e s e l l e r t o t h e b u y e r f o r
a price."' I n order t o c a r r y out t h e purposes o f t h e drug
statutes, t h a t C o u r t f o u n d t h a t " p r o o f t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t made n o
p r o f i t o r r e c e i v e d no o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n f r o m t h i s t r a n s a c t i o n ,
o r p r o o f t h a t he was s i m p l y a p r o c u r i n g a g e n t f o r P e r r i a w o u l d
n o t prevent t h e defendant's a c t i o n from c o n s t i t u t i n g a sale under
[New H a m p s h i r e l a w . ] " The a c t o f " b r i n g i n g a b o u t t h e t r a n s f e r o f
t h e LSD t o [ a n u n d e r c o v e r a g e n t ] " allowed t h e j u r y t o f i n d defen-
d a n t g u i l t y o f t h e s a l e o f dangerous drugs. S t a t e v. Stone,
supra, 316 A.2d a t 197-198.
The Supreme C o u r t o f Kansas has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i n a con-
viction f o r criminal sale, i t i s i m m a t e r i a l t h a t d e f e n d a n t does
n o t possess l e g a l t i t l e , o r t h a t d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v e s no c o n s i d e r a t i o n
f r o m a t r a n s a c t i o n i n w h i c h he p a r t i c i p a t e s . See S t a t e v. Nix
(1974), 2 1 5 Kan. 8 8 0 , 5 2 9 P.2d 147, 151. I n S t a t e v. Collazo
(1977), 1 Kan.App.2d 654, 5 7 4 P.2d 214, t h e Court o f Appeals of
Kansas approved t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n i n a case c h a r g i n g c r i m i n a l
sale:
" T o s e l l h e r o i n means t o k n o w i n g l y and i n t e n -
t i o n a l l y t r a n s f e r possession o r ownership o f t h e
h e r o i n t o a n o t h e r f o r money o r o t h e r v a l u a b l e
consideration. F o r a p e r s o n t o make s u c h a s a l e
i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t he p e r s o n a l l y h a n d l e
a l l o f the details of the transaction. It i s
s u f f i c i e n t i f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n i s arranged by him
a n d h a n d l e d b y p e r s o n s u n d e r h i s d i r e c t i o n and
i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o constitute a sale i f the
person charged w i t h sale i s i n v o l v e d i n t h e
t r a n s a c t i o n by accepting, handling, o r c o u n t i n g
t h e money and d i r e c t i n g t h e d e l i v e r y o f t h e
heroin. I n o t h e r words, t h e person charged w i t h
t h e s a l e d o e s n o t h a v e t o p e r s o n a l l y c o n d u c t a1 1
o f t h e various elements o f the d e l i v e r y o f t h e
h e r o i n and o f t h e t r a n s f e r o f t h e money. It i s
s u f f i c i e n t i f he p a r t i c i p a t e s t h e r e i n t o s u c h an
e x t e n t t h a t i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t he i s a p a r t o f
t h e making o f t h e sale." S t a t e v. C o l l a z o , s u p r a ,
5 7 4 P.2d a t 216.
See a l s o Hammonds v. S t a t e ( T e x . 1 9 5 8 ) , 3 1 6 S.W.2d 4 2 3 ,
425. S t a t e v. Thomas ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6 M o n t . 2 6 5 , 2 6 9 , 5 3 2 P.2d
4 0 5 , 4 0 7 ; A n n o t . , 93 ALR2d 1 0 0 8 .
W a p p r o v e t h i s v i e w t a k e n b y o t h e r c o u r t s and c o n c l u d e
e
t h a t t h e M o n t a n a l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t i n t e n d t h a t a s a l e s h o u l d be
c o m p l e t e m e r e l y u p o n t h e e x c h a n g e o f money. D e l i v e r y appears t o
b e an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e s a l e o f d r u g s , p a r t i c u l a r l y when we
c o n s i d e r t h a t t h e s t a t u t e s a r e aimed p r i m a r i l y a t s t o p p i n g t h e
t r a n s f e r and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s . Consequently, we
f i n d t h a t t h e t r i a l judge p r o p e r l y determined t h a t t h e sale d i d
n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o n c l u d e w i t h t h e p a y m e n t o f money, and p r o p e r l y
denied appellant's motion t o dismiss.
Appellant's l a s t contention i s that the judge's denial of
t h e m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s and t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s c o u n t s t w o and
t h r e e denied defendant a f a i r t r i a l on t h e c h a r g e o f c o n s p i r a c y
t o s e l l dangerous drugs. Our d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l judge
p r o p e r l y d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n s p r e c l u d e s a f i n d i ng t h a t
d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d a f a i r t r i a l o n t h i s b a s i s . The e v i d e n c e
f o u n d on d e f e n d a n t ' s p e r s o n was p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e j u r y , as was
the testimony concerning defendant's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the sale of
A u g u s t 9. The j u r y f o u n d t h i s e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v e
b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d w i t h Amsk and
D a v i d Harper t o s e l l dangerous drugs, and a f f i r m a t i v e l y p a r -
t i c i p a t e d i n an o n g o i n g c o n s p i r a c y .
We a f f i r m t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n f o r c o n s p i r a c y t o
s e l l dangerous drugs.
Chief Justice