No. 80-186
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
1980
THE STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,
-VS-
GEORGE W R E TROMBLEY,
ARN
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f The E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f C a s c a d e , The H o n o r a b l e
J o e l G. Roth, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
Marcia B i r k e n b u e l , P u b l i c Defender, G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana
F o r Respondent:
Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana
J. F r e d Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : September 1 7 , 1980
Decided : 'h%v 2 6 1980
Filed: /$W Z b k3$$
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C . Sheehy d e l i v e r e d the Opinion of the
Court.
D e f e n d a n t G e o r g e Trombley a p p e a l s from t h e judgment
of the Cascade County Eighth J u d i c i a l District Court,
entered pursuant t o a jury verdict finding defendant g u i l t y
of t h e t h e f t o f a t r u c k b e l o n g i n g t o R i c h a r d Show. Before
trial, defendant moved the court to prohibit at trial
prosecution reference t o defendant's use of Show's credit
c a r d s a t t h e t i m e of defendant's arrest. I n t h i s motion,
the defendant relied on our decision in State v. Just
(19791, Mont. , 602 P.2d 957, 36 St.Rep. 1649.
Defendant believed that reference to defendant's use of
S h o w ' s c r e d i t c a r d s amounted t o t h e u s e o f "other crimes"
e v i d e n c e by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . Defendant contended t h a t t h e
prosecution f a i l e d t o comply w i t h the notice requirements
mandated by J u s t f o r t h e u s e o f t h i s e v i d e n c e . Defendant's
m o t i o n was d e n i e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
The s o l e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t by d e f e n d a n t
is whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s
motion. We find the District Court properly denied
d e f e n d a n t ' s motion.
E v i d e n c e o f d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n and u s e o f S h o w ' s
c r e d i t here is not "other crimes" evidence. D e f e n d a n t was
accus e d of committing t h e theft of Show's truck. A t the
t i m e t h e t r u c k was s t o l e n , Show s t o r e d h i s w a l l e t and c r e d i t
cards in the truck. When t h e t r u c k was s t o l e n , the wallet
and c a r d s were s t o l e n a s w e l l . D e f e n d a n t was a p p r e h e n d e d
and t h e t r u c k was c o n f i s c a t e d s h o r t l y a f t e r d e f e n d a n t u s e d
one of the cards a t a Great F a l l s service station. This
e v i d e n c e o f d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n and u s e o f the card is
inseparably related t o the truck t h e f t . I t i s evidence of
defendant's conduct simultaneous with the acts alleged to
constitute truck theft, not evidence of former crimes or
former wrongful a c t i v i t y . Although t h i s evidence i n d i c a t e s
m i s c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f
t h i s evidence neither subjects defendant t o unfair s u r p r i s e
nor t o t h e d e f e n s e of unrelated issues. For t h i s reason
Wigmore classifies this type of evidence separate from
e v i d e n c e of " o t h e r c r i m e s " . Wigmore E v i d e n c e 5218.
In S t a t e v. Jackson (1979), Mont. , 589
P.2d 1009, 36 S t . R e p . 169, defendant was accused of the
t h e f t of personal property belonging t o S h e i l a and Donald
Jeszenka. The d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e f t o f o n l y t h e
Jeszenka's stereo equipment and Ms. Jeszenka's coat,
although additional property taken from t h e J e s z e n k a s was
found i n defendant's possession. I n order t o prove t h e i r
t h e f t accusation, t h e prosecution presented a s evidence t h a t
this other property allegedly taken from the Jeszenkas
during the t h e f t was found in defendant's possession.
Defendant objected to the introduction of the evidence,
labeling it i n a d m i s s i b l e " o t h e r crimes" evidence. I n our
opinion affirming the District Court's admission of this
evidence, we r e c o g n i z e d t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between "other
crimes" e v i d e n c e and evidence of defendant's simultaneous
misconduct i n s e p a r a b l y r e l a t e d t o t h e a l l e g e d c r i m i n a l a c t .
"We recognize the general r u l e t h a t
when a d e f e n d a n t i s p u t on t r i a l f o r one
o f f e n s e , h e s h o u l d be c o n v i c t e d , i f a t a l l ,
by e v i d e n c e which shows t h a t h e i s g u i l t y o f
t h a t o f f e n s e a l o n e . E v i d e n c e which i n any
manner shows, o r t e n d s t o show, h e h a s
committed a n o t h e r c r i m e w h o l l y i n d e p e n d e n t ,
e v e n t h o u g h it i s a c r i m e o f t h e same s o r t ,
is i r r e l e v a n t and i n a d m i s s i b l e , s u b j e c t t o
exceptions not pertinent here. (Citation
omitted. )
"In t h i s case, the prosecution did not
i n t r o d u c e evidence of o t h e r ' u n r e l a t e d ' o r
' w h o l l y i n d e p e n d e n t ' c r i m e s . The p r o s e c u t i o n
o n l y s o u g h t t o p r o v e t h a t d e f e n d a n t was
exercising unauthorized control over various
items, all of which belonged to Sheila and Donald
Jeszenka. Defendant's possession of ... (this
other property) was inextricably related to the
property referred to in the charging information.
We are not, therefore, involved with the intro-
duction of evidence of wholly independent or
unrelated crimes. The evidence was properly
admitted. "
The prosecution here is not required to meet the
Just requirements for the introduction of "other crimes"
evidence because evidence of defendant's possession and use
of the cards is not "wholly independent" or "unrelated"
other crimes evidence.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is
affirmed.
We Concur:
Chief Justice
/
Justice