State v. Sheriff

No. 80-17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980

THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS .
DONALD A. SHERIFF,
Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Yellowstone.
Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Calvin Stacey, Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
Honorable Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Harold Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana

Submitted on briefs: August 6, 1980
Decided: ?!Eli 3 - 3986
Filed:
Mr. ~usticeGene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .

his a p p e a l a r i s e s from a c o n v i c t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t

of r o b b e r y f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of

t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, t h e

Honorable R o b e r t H. Wilson p r e s i d i n g .

On A p r i l 5, 1979, a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1:30 a.m., t h e 1145

Club i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, w a s robbed by a man wearing a s k i

mask o v e r h i s f a c e , a r e d o r o r a n g e T - s h i r t and f a d e d b l u e

jeans. The r o b b e r was c a r r y i n g a handgun.

S h i r l e y Murphy, t h e barmaid a t 1145 Club on t h e n i g h t

of t h e r o b b e r y , and two o f f - d u t y B i l l i n g s p o l i c e o f f i c e r s i n

t h e b a r a t t h e t i m e of t h e r o b b e r y , Gary Cooper and Dennis

Moen, d e s c r i b e d t h e r o b b e r a s b e i n g a b o u t 6 ' 1 " o r 6 ' 2 " tall

and weighing a p p r o x i m a t e l y 130 pounds.

S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e robbery, a p o l i c e o f f i c e r c a l l e d t o

t h e s c e n e t o i n v e s t i g a t e approached a n a u t o m o b i l e i n t h e

v i c i n i t y which was o c c u p i e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t , Donald A.

Sheriff. A search of t h e c a r revealed an orange T-shirt,

damp w i t h p e r s p i r a t i o n , and a p a i r of f a d e d L e v i s on t h e

f l o o r behind t h e f r o n t s e a t . A . 3 8 c a l i b e r r e v o l v e r and t h e

s t o l e n money were found h i d d e n under t h e f r o n t f e n d e r of a

c a r which was parked i n a c a r p o r t l o c a t e d d i r e c t l y w e s t of

t h e backdoor of t h e 1145 Club.

A t t r i a l the bartender, S h e i l a Murphy, and e a c h of t h e
two o f f - d u t y p o l i c e o f f i c e r s who w i t n e s s e d t h e r o b b e r y

i d e n t i f i e d t h e s h i r t and j e a n s found i n d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r a s

t h o s e worn by t h e r o b b e r . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e two o f f - d u t y

p o l i c e o f f i c e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t S h e r i f f ' s v o i c e sounded l i k e

t h a t of t h e r o b b e r .

S h e r i f f t e s t i f i e d t h a t on t h e e v e n i n g of ~ p r i l , 1979,
4

h e had d i n n e r w i t h Pam E l l e r , a g i r l f r i e n d , and t h e n went t o
v i s i t a f r i e n d , John S t e k a r . Sheriff further t e s t i f i e d t h a t

a f t e r knocking on t h e d o o r o f S t e k a r ' s r e s i d e n c e and g e t t i n g

no r e s p o n s e , he l e f t and went t o t h e C a t t l e Company, a l o c a l

b a r , t o have a d r i n k . After several drinks, defendant

s t a t e d t h a t he l e f t t h e b a r and w h i l e d r i v i n g down Yellow-

s t o n e Avenue, g o t s i c k and p u l l e d t o t h e s i d e of t h e r o a d .

I t was h e r e t h a t S h e r i f f was approached by t h e B i l l i n g s

p o l i c e and a r r e s t e d f o r t h e r o b b e r y of t h e 1145 Club.

The f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d on a p p e a l i s whether t h e D i s -

t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o s u p p r e s s a l e t t e r w r i t t e n by

d e f e n d a n t t o a f r i e n d w h i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d i n t h e Yellowstone

County j a i l a w a i t i n g t r i a l .

Shortly a f t e r h i s a r r e s t , Sheriff sent a l e t t e r t o h i s

g i r l f r i e n d , Pam E l l e r , and one t o John S t e k a r . These l e t t e r s

w e r e b o t h opened and photocopied by a j a i l o r .
A motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e l e t t e r s was f i l e d by S h e r i f f .

A t a h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r , t h e j a i l o r who "booked" t h e de-

f e n d a n t i n t o j a i l on A p r i l 5 , 1979, t e s t i f i e d t h a t S h e r i f f

s i g n e d a "booking s h e e t " which a u t h o r i z e d j a i l p e r s o n n e l t o

open h i s m a i l . The t r i a l judge s u p p r e s s e d t h e l e t t e r w r i t -

t e n t o t h e g i r l f r i e n d b u t admitted i n t o evidence t h e l e t t e r

s e n t t o John S t e k a r . The l e t t e r t o S t e k a r , a l t h o u g h ad-

mitted, w a s not read t o t h e jury a t t r i a l .

The l e t t e r i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e d : "Well, I g u e s s

you know I r e a l l y screwed up t h i s t i m e . Whatever I g e t o u t

of t h i s I w i l l deserve. I ' v e g o t t o look t o t h e f u t u r e j u s t

the same. "
On a p p e a l d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e l e t t e r h e w r o t e t o

S t e k a r s h o u l d have been s u p p r e s s e d based on h i s r i g h t of

p r i v a c y a s g u a r a n t e e d by 1972 Mont. C o n s t . , Art. 11, ~ 1 0 .

Defendant f u t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t u s e of t h e l e t t e r a t t r i a l
v i o l a t e d h i s F i r s t Amendment r i g h t t o freedom of s p e e c h and

h i s F o u r t h Amendment r i g h t t o freedom from u n r e a s o n a b l e

s e a r c h and s e i z u r e .

Censorship p r a c t i c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o unconvicted p r i s -

o n e r s ' m a i l , n o t r a i s i n g t o t h e l e v e l of d e p r i v a t i o n o r

s i g n i f i c a n t impairment o f a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l o r of a c c e s s

t o t h e c o u r t s , g e n e r a l l y have n o t been r e g a r d e d a s o b j e c -

t i o n a b l e o n grounds t h a t s u c h p r a c t i c e s c o n s t i t u t e a n i n v a -

s i o n o f p r i v a c y o r a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h and s e i z u r e . See

S t a t e v . McCoy ( O r . 1 9 7 4 ) , 527 P.2d 725; U n i t e d S t a t e s v .

Wilson ( 9 t 5 C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) , 447 F.2d 1, c e r t . d e n i e d , 404 U.S.

1053, 92 S.Ct. 723, 30 L.Ed.2d 742; S t a t e v . Hawkins ( 1 9 6 7 ) ,

70 Wash.2d 697, 425 P.2d 390, c e r t . d e n i e d , 390 U.S. 912, 88

S.Ct. 840, 1 9 L.Ed.2d 883; P e o p l e v . D i n k i n s ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 242

Cal.App.2d 892, 52 C a l . R p t r . 134. Courts, i n allowing t h e

p r a c t i c e , r e c o g n i z e d t h e need f o r j a i l o f f i c i a l s t o r e a d

p r i s o n e r s ' m a i l i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e e n f o r c e m e n t of j a i l

s e c u r i t y and d i s c i p l i n e .

I n f o r m u l a t i n g t h e g e n e r a l r u l e , t h e c o u r t s based t h e i r

d e c i s i o n s , i n p a r t , on S t r o u d v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 1 9 ) , 251

U.S. 1 5 , 40 S.Ct. 50, 6 4 L.Ed. 103, and p l a c e a d e g r e e of

emphasis on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e w r i t e r was aware t h a t t h e m a i l

was s u b j e c t t o c e n s o r s h i p .

Mail c e n s o r s h i p by j a i l o f f i c i a l s , however, h a s r e c e n t l y

come under a t t a c k on b o t h F i r s t and F o u r t h Amendment grounds.

I n P r o c u n i e r v. M a r t i n e z ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct.

1800, 4 0 L.Ed.2d 224, t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t C a l i f o r n i a ' s
p r i s o n r e g u l a t i o n s , which p e r m i t t e d t h e r e a d i n g of incoming

and o u t g o i n g m a i l , were c o n t r a t o t h e F i r s t Amendment and

c o u l d n o t be p e r m i t t e d b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h

t h a t t h e y were r e a s o n a b l y o r n e c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e d t o t h e
advancement of some j u s t i f i a b l e p u r p o s e of imprisonment o r

prison security. See a l s o Palmigiano v . T r a v i s o n o ( D . R.I.
1 9 7 0 ) , 317 F.Supp 776, i n which t h e c o u r t condemned a s i m i -

l a r p r a c t i c e on b o t h F i r s t and F o u r t h Amendment grounds.

Upon r e v i e w i n g t h e above d e c i s i o n s , i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t

a b s e n t a showing of some c o m p e l l i n g j u s t i f i a b l e p u r p o s e i n

t h e n a t u r e of p r i s o n s e c u r i t y and d i s c i p l i n e , t h e i n t e r -

c e p t i o n and photocopying of t h e l e t t e r w r i t t e n by S h e r i f f t o

S t e k a r was v i o l a t i v e of t h e F i r s t and F o u r t h Amendments.

H e r e , no s u c h f i n d i n g was made.

I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e s o l e r e a s o n t h e l e t t e r w a s ex-

amined and t h e n p h o t o c o p i e d was t o o b t a i n e v i d e n c e t o be

used a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t . A t no t i m e d u r i n g t r i a l d i d t h e

S t a t e r e v e a l any r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e c e n s o r s h i p p r a c -

t i c e and p r i s o n s e c u r i t y o r d i s c i p l i n e . With t h i s b e i n g t h e

c a s e , t h e l e t t e r s h o u l d have been e x c l u d e d .

D e s p i t e t h e f a i l u r e t o e x c l u d e t h e l e t t e r , however,

S h e r i f f ' s c o n v i c t i o n must s t a n d . There w a s ample e v i d e n c e

o f S h e r i f f ' s g u i l t even a b s e n t t h e l e t t e r . Therefore, t o

e x c l u d e i t would n o t r e s u l t i n a d i f f e r e n t outcome. With

t h i s b e i n g t h e c a s e , w e c o n c l u d e t h e r e i s no r e v e r s i b l e

error.

I n s u p p o r t of h i s argument t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e a t i s s u e

unduly v i o l a t e s t h e r i g h t of p r i v a c y under t h e 1972 Montana

C o n s t i t u t i o n , d e f e n d a n t c i t e s S t a t e v. Brackman (1978) ,

-Mont. , 582 P.2d 1216, 35 St.Rep. 1103. I n Brackman

t h e C o u r t made a n i n - d e p t h a n a l y s i s of t h e r i g h t o f p r i v a c y

under t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . W e n o t e , however, that
Brackman d o e s n o t d e a l w i t h how t h e r i g h t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y

a f f e c t e d by a p e r s o n ' s i n c a r c e r a t i o n , t h e gravaman of t h e

i s s u e a t hand. Thus, i t w i l l n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d c o n t r o l l i n g

i n regard t o t h i s appeal.
 Even assuming d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o p r i v a c y was v i o l a t e d
and t h e l e t t e r s h o u l d have been s u p p r e s s e d , i n t h i s i n s t a n c e ,

a s s t a t e d above, t h e f a i l u r e t o e x c l u d e t h e l e t t e r was n o t

reversible error.

The second i s s u e r a i s e d on a p p e a l i s whether t h e D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n l i m i t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t of c r o s s -

examination.

S h e r i f f was i n t e r r o g a t e d by D e t e c t i v e Henry Fox a f t e r

h i s a r r e s t and e v e n t u a l l y gave a r e c o r d e d s t a t e m e n t l a t e r

reduced t o w r i t i n g . A t t r i a l , t h e S t a t e q u e s t i o n e d Detec-

t i v e Fox c o n c e r n i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t and had t h e s t a t e m e n t

marked f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p u r p o s e s s o t h a t Fox c o u l d examine

i t while t e s t i f y i n g .
P r i o r t o Fox's testimony, defendant requested t h e

c o u r t ' s p e r m i s s i o n t o cross-examine Fox as t o p a r t of t h e

statement--namely, whether S h e r i f f responded i n t h e a f f i r m a -
t i v e when asked i f h e would s u b m i t t o a p o l y g r a p h t e s t .

S h e r i f f s o u g h t t o q u e s t i o n Fox a b o u t t h i s m a t t e r t o e s t a b -

l i s h h i s willingness t o cooperate with the police. Defen-

d a n t ' s r e q u e s t w a s d e n i e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t .

On a p p e a l S h e r i f f c o n t e n d s t h a t Rule 106, Mont.R.Evid.,

i s an appropriate b a s i s f o r finding t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t

e r r e d i n denying h i s r e q u e s t .
Rule 106, Mont.R.Evid., p r o v i d e s t h a t when p a r t of a n

a c t , d e c l a r a t i o n , conservation, w r i t i n g o r recorded state-
ment i s i n t r o d u c e d by a p a r t y , t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y c a n re-
q u i r e , i f f a i r n e s s s o r e q u i r e s , t h a t any o t h e r p a r t of such

i t e m a l s o be admitted. The purpose of t h i s r u l e i s t o a v o i d
a m i s l e a d i n g and u n f a i r i m p r e s s i o n which c a n r e s u l t when
m a t t e r s a r e p r e s e n t e d o u t of c o n t e x t . See omm mission Com-

ment t o Rule 106, M o n t . R . ~ v i d .
 This Court i s unable t o f i n d t h a t an u n f a i r o r m i s -

l e a d i n g i m p r e s s i o n on t h e minds of t h e j u r y r e s u l t s i f

d e f e n d a n t i s u n a b l e t o i n q u i r e on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n a s t o

h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o t a k e a polygraph test. The p a r t of

d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t t e s t i f i e d t o by Fox on d i r e c t examina-

t i o n r e l a t e d t o whether o r n o t d e f e n d a n t owned a gun o r t h e

c l o t h i n g found i n t h e back s e a t of h i s c a r . The f a c t t h a t

d e f e n d a n t a l s o made a s t a t e m e n t showing t h a t h e would t a k e a

p o l y g r a p h t e s t i s n o t of t h e n a t u r e t h a t t o o m i t i t c r e a t e d

a m i s l e a d i n g i m p r e s s i o n on t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s t h a t w e r e ad-

m itted.

Even assuming t h e r e was e r r o r by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t o

omit t h e inquiry does n o t s o prejud.ice defendant t h a t a d i f -

f e r e n t d e c i s i o n would have r e s u l t e d . A t no t i m e d i d t h e

p r o s e c u t i o n r a i s e t h e i s s u e t h a t d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o co-

operate with the police. Defendant was a b l e t o t a k e t h e

s t a n d and i n h i s own d e f e n s e t e s t i f i e d a s t o h i s f u l l co-

operation with the police. The f a c t t h a t he was a l s o w i l l i n g

t o t a k e a p o l y g r a p h t e s t would n o t be d e t e r m i n a t i v e i n t h e

c a s e , e s p e c i a l l y when s u c h t e s t s g e n e r a l l y a r e n o t a l l o w e d

a s evidence i n a criminal t r i a l . See S t a t e v . Bashor ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,

- ,
Mont. - 614 P.2d 4 7 0 , 37 St.Rep. 1098.

F i n a l l y , w e c a n f i n d no m e r i t i n d e f e n d a n t ' s f i n a l

i s s u e , t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g h i s pro-

posed I n s t r u c t i o n No. 21.

D e f e n d a n t ' s proposed I n s t r u c t i o n No. 2 1 read a s f o l -

lows: "The mere f a c t t h a t Donald S h e r i f f was found i n t h e

r e l a t i v e v i c i n i t y of t h e r o b b e r y i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t i n and of

i t s e l f t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of g u i l t y . "

Defendant c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e f u s a l t o g i v e t h i s pro-

posed i n s t r u c t i o n was e r r o r ; however, he f a i l s t o i n d i c a t e
why s a i d a c t i o n was improper. I n h i s b r i e f defendant merely

p o i n t ' s o u t t o t h e C o u r t t h a t h i s a r r e s t took p l a c e s e v e r a l

b l o c k s away from t h e s c e n e of t h e r o b b e r y .

I t i s t r u e t h a t mere p r e s e n c e a t t h e s c e n e of a c r i m e

does n o t e s t a b l i s h criminal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . See S t a t e ex

r e l . Murphy v. McKinnon ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 1 2 0 , 125, 556 P.2d

906, 909. I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , however, we a r e u n a b l e t o f i n d

t h a t an i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s regard i s e s s e n t i a l t o a proper

decision. This c a s e does n o t involve an attempt t o c o n v i c t

on mere p r e s e n c e .

The j u r y w a s p r o p e r l y and a d e q u a t e l y i n s t r u c t e d on t h e

a p p l i c a b l e l a w and burden o f p r o o f , a s w e l l a s b e i n g i n -

s t r u c t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t may n o t b e c o n v i c t e d on m e r e con-

jecture, suspicion o r probability. With t h i s b e i n g t h e

c a s e , w e f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o o m i t

t h e proposed i n s t r u c t i o n .

The d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .

W e concur:

Chief J u s t i c e