No. 79-65
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA
F
1980
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
R D E ALLEN WEST,
O NY
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourth 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 M i s s o u l a , The H o n o r a b l e
J o h n S. Henson, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
S m i t h , Connor & Van V a l k e n b u r g , M i s s o u l a , Montana
P a u l S m i t h a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , 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
Mike McGrath a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ,
H e l e n a , Montana
R o b e r t L. Deschamps, 111, County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a ,
Montana
M i c h a e l S e h e s t e d t a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y ,
M i s s o u l a , Montana
Submitted: September 1 6 , 1 9 8 0
Decided: OCT 2 3 198TJ
Mr. ~ustice
Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
Defendant Rodney A l l e n West a p p e a l s from a c o n v i c t i o n
and judgment of f e l o n y t h e f t i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 45-6-
301, MCA. Judgment was e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,
F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Missoula County.
I n t h e summer o f 1977, a p i c k u p t r u c k was s t o l e n from
~ i t t e r r o o Toyota i n M i s s o u l a .
t On J u l y 26, 1977, d e f e n d a n t
s o l d a t r u c k , matching t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s t o l e n t r u c k ,
t o John Wright i n t h e S t a t e o f Idaho. Wright was g i v e n a
b i l l of s a l e and t o l d t h e t i t l e would be d e l i v e r e d t o him
from Montana. When Wright took t h e t r u c k i n f o r i n s u r a n c e
c o v e r a g e , he d i s c o v e r e d t h e v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number
had been o b l i t e r a t e d . Wright t u r n e d t h e b i l l of s a l e and
t h e t r u c k o v e r t o I d a h o a u t h o r i t i e s who were a b l e t o o b t a i n
a series o f p o t e n t i a l s e r i a l numbers from t h e p a r t i a l numbers
a v a i l a b l e on t h e t r u c k .
On F e b r u a r y 26, 1979, d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d by informa-
t i o n w i t h t h e f e l o n y t h e f t of a t r u c k b e a r i n g t h e v e h i c l e
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number of CE142515821. A t t h e b e g i n n i n g of
t h e t r i a l on J u l y 9, 1979, t h e S t a t e moved t o amend t h e
v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number t o r e a d CCE142515821. The
amendment was a l l o w e d o v e r d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n . 'The j u r y
w a s t h e n g e n e r a l l y i n s t r u c t e d t h a t 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 e l o n y t h e f t of a t r u c k b e a r i n g t h e amended v e h i c l e
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number.
Defendant moved i n l i m i n e t o e x c l u d e any t e s t i m o n y from
Ted B e y e r s , a n a l l e g e d accomplice of West. The motion was
denied. During t h e S t a t e ' s opening remarks, t h e j u r y w a s
t o l d t h a t t h e S t a t e would c a l l a d e t e c t i v e , S g t . ~ i l s o n ,who
would r e l a t e a c o n v e r s a t i o n h e had w i t h Beyers c o n c e r n i n g
how Beyers and d e f e n d a n t had s t o l e n t h e t r u c k . Defendant
o b j e c t e d and moved f o r a m i s t r i a l . The o b j e c t i o n was s u s -
t a i n e d , b u t t h e motion was d e n i e d .
~ e f e n d a n te l e c t e d t o g i v e a n opening s t a t e m e n t f o l l o w -
ing the State's. H e propounded h i s d e f e n s e which was based
on f a u l t y v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers which d i d n o t o r
could n o t i d e n t i f y t h e s t o i e n truck. A t t h i s point, the
S t a t e admitted an e r r o r i n t h e information regarding t h e
v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. The S t a t e was p e r m i t t e d t o
amend t h e number i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n f o r a second t i m e , this
t i m e s t r i k i n g t h e v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number from t h e
information. Defendant t h e n moved f o r a motion i n l i m i n e of
any t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number
s t r i c k e n from t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . The motion w a s d e n i e d .
During t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f , d e f e n d a n t was g r a n t e d a
c o n t i n u i n g o b j e c t i o n t o any t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g v e h i c l e
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers.
On J u l y 11, 1979, t h e j u r y r e n d e r e d a v e r d i c t f i n d i n g
d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of f e l o n y t h e f t . Defendant moved f o r a new
t r i a l on t h e ground t h a t John W r i g h t ' s t e s t i m o n y w a s n o t
corroborated. T h i s motion w a s d e n i e d . On August 1 3 , 1979,
d e f e n d a n t , a nondangerous o f f e n d e r , was s e n t e n c e d t o t e n
years i n the s t a t e prison with c r e d i t f o r t i m e already
served.
Defendant h a s p r e s e n t e d some twenty i s s u e s t o be
examined by t h i s C o u r t . However, o n l y e x a m i n a t i o n of (1)
t h e i s s u e of ~ e t e c t i v e g t . W i l s o n ' s t e s t i m o n y and i t s u s e
S
i n t h e S t a t e ' s opening argument, and ( 2 ) t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of
t h e e v i d e n c e need be reviewed by t h i s C o u r t .
Defendant c o n t e n d s 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 t o g r a n t a motion i n l i m i n e and a m i s t r i a l based on
proposed t e s t i m o n y of a S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s which was l a t e r h e l d
t o be inadmissible. T h i s c l a i m of e r r o r s t e m s from d e f e n -
d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t c e r t a i n remarks made by t h e p r o s e -
c u t i n g a t t o r n e y d u r i n g h i s opening s t a t e m e n t w e r e p r e j u d i -
cial. These remarks r e f e r r e d t o i n f o r m a t i o n Ted Beyers, a n
a l l e g e d accomplice of d e f e n d a n t , had g i v e n t o D e t e c t i v e S g t .
Michael Wilson.
P r i o r t o t r i a l d e f e n d a n t s u b m i t t e d a motion i n l i m i n e
p r e c l u d i n g and p r o h i b i t i n g t h e S t a t e of Montana, i t s a t t o r -
neys o r w i t n e s s e s from m e n t i o n i n g , r e f e r r i n g t o , o r i n t e r -
r o g a t i n g a b o u t any i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t Ted Beyers had g i v e n t o
anyone, i n c l u d i n g Wilson. T h i s motion w a s made on t h e b a s i s
t h a t any s u c h t e s t i m o n y would be s t r i c t l y h e a r s a y and would
d e p r i v e d e f e n d a n t of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o c o n f r o n t
and examine t h e w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t him. The motion w a s
d e n i e d , and t h e c o u r t a d v i s e d c o u n s e l t h a t i t c o u l d be
reviewed when and i f t h e w i t n e s s was sworn and a n o f f e r of
proof made i n chambers.
During h i s opening remarks, t h e p r o s e c u t o r made t h e
following statement:
"We w i l l t h e n c a l l Mike Wilson of t h e Clear-
w a t e r County, I d a h o S h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e . Detec-
t i v e S e r g e a n t Wilson w i l l t e s t i f y t h a t i n d i -
v i d u a l known - - -s Ted Beyers, --
t o him a - t h e same
Ted Beyers which was w i t h M r . Wright who he
- --- --
c a n ' t l o c a t e c u r r e n t l y - who - - -
and - he h a s been
l o o k i n a f o r f o r some t i m e , came i n s h o r t l y
~ - -
a f t e r M r . Wright had bought t h e p i c k u p and
wanted t o t a l k t o him a b o u t a p i c k u p t h a t he
and Rodney A l l e n West had s o l d t o John Wright.
M r . ~ i l s o n i l l r e l a t e t h e s u b s t a n c e - -a t
w of t h
c o n v e r s a t i o n was t h a t M r . Beyers and C a r l a
---
--- Defendant were i n M i s s o u l a s t a y -
Bray and t h e --
- - t- e P a l a c e H o t e l . ---- o u t
ing a th T h a t t h e y went
t o -e B i t t e r r o o t Toyota. The Defendant d r o v e
- th
t h e v e h i c l e from B i t t e r r o o t Toyota --" (Em-
phasis supplied.)
Defendant o b j e c t e d t o t h i s s t a t e m e n t and i n chambers
moved f o r a m i s t r i a l based on t h e p r e j u d i c e t h e s t a t e m e n t
would have on t h e j u r y . C o u n s e l ' s o b j e c t i o n was s u s t a i n e d ,
b u t t h e c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion f o r m i s t r i a l .
The h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y of D e t e c t i v e S g t . Wilson r e g a r d -
i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t made by Beyers w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y deemed
i n a d m i s s i b l e and n o t p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y . Defendant
asserts t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t made by t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y
d u r i n g h i s opening remarks was h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o d e f e n -
d a n t , c o u l d n o t be e r a s e d from t h e j u r y ' s mind and c o n s t i -
tuted reversible error.
T h i s C o u r t h a s f a c e d s i m i l a r i s s u e s on a number of
previous occasions: S t a t e v . Zachmeier (1968) , 1 5 1 Mont.
256, 4 4 1 P.2d 737; S t a t e v . Ruona ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 507, 499
P.2d 797; S t a t e v. K o l s t a d ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 185, 531 P.2d
1346.
Zachmeier was a homicide c a s e . Prior t o trial the
d e f e n d a n t had f i l e d a motion t o s u p p r e s s a c o n f e s s i o n f o r
v i o l a t i o n of Miranda warnings. A t t h a t t i m e the court
r e s e r v e d r u l i n g on t h e motion. A t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t r i a l
t h e motion was renewed. The c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion b u t
g r a n t e d t h e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l l e a v e t o renew t h e motion a t a
later point i n t r i a l . When t h e c o n f e s s i o n was l a t e r o f f e r e d
i n t o e v i d e n c e t h e c o u r t r u l e d it w a s i n a d m i s s i b l e . However,
d u r i n g opening remarks t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y made a d e t a i l e d
r e c i t a t i o n of t h e a d m i s s i o n of g u i l t made by t h e d e f e n d a n t .
T h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h o s e remarks i n c o u n s e l ' s opening
statement w e r e reversible s t a t i n g t h a t , " [wle do n o t t h i n k
t h a t t h e j u r y would c o m p l e t e l y d i s r e g a r d t h i s d e t a i l e d
a d m i s s i o n of g u i l t . " 4 4 1 P.2d a t 741.
I n b o t h Ruona and K o l s t a d , Zachmeier was d i s t i n g u i s e d
on t h e f a c t s :
"Zachmeier h e l d t h a t t h e damaging o p e n i n g
s t a t e m e n t s of p r o s e c u t i o n were n o t of t h e
n a t u r e t h a t t h e j u r y would c o m p l e t e l y d i s -
regard. Too, w e a r e n o t unmindful of t h i s
C o u r t ' s a d m o n i t i o n s i n S t a t e v . Langan, 1 5 1
Mont. 558, 568, 445 P.2d 565 and c a s e s c i t e d
t h e r e i n . F u r t h e r m o r e , a s s t a t e d i n Fahy v .
S t a t e o f C o n n e c t i c u t , 375 U.S. 85, 84 S.Ct.
229, 1 L.Ed.2d 171, c i t e d i n Langan, t h e
1
t e s t remains:
" ' I s there a reasonable p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the
i n a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e m i g h t have c o n t r i b u t e d
t o t h e c o n v i c t i o n ? ' " S t a t e v. Ruona, 499 P.2d
a t 800.
W e g r a n t t h a t Zachmeier i s t h e e x t r e m e example and t h e
s t a t e m e n t made by t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y i n t h e p r e s e n t
c a s e f a l l s s h o r t of b e i n g a s b l a t a n t . However, t h e r e i s no
d o u b t a s t o what h e was t r y i n g t o convey t o t h e j u r y and
l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t t h e y p i c k e d i t up. I t necessarily follows
t h a t t h e r e remained a " r e a s o n a b l e p o s s i b i l i t y --
t h a t the
i n a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e c o n t r i b u t e d - -e c o n v i c t i o n . "
t o th
W e next address defendant's i s s u e concerning t h e suf-
f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e . A t t r i a l Detective W i l l i a m Faust
t e s t i f i e d a b o u t t h e C h e v r o l e t t r u c k i n I d a h o b e i n g t h e same
o n e s t o l e n i n Missoula from B i t t e r r o o t Toyota. This testi-
mony was based s o l e l y o r wholly on c o n j e c t u r e and p r o b a b i l i t y .
The p r o c e s s of b a l a n c i n g v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers and
p r o b a b i l i t i e s t o i d e n t i f y a machine n e v e r s e e n and b e a r i n g
no c o m p l e t e s e t of v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers i s n o t t h e
q u a l i t y of e v i d e n c e t o be c o n s i d e r e d f o r c o n v i c t i o n beyond a
r e a s o n a b l e doubt. N t i t l e i n B i t t e r r o o t w a s ever furnished.
o
The t r u c k was n e v e r r e t u r n e d from Idaho. B i t t e r r o o t had two
d i f f e r e n t v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers f o r t h e s t o l e n
pickup truck i n i t s f i l e . The e x a c t y e a r model was n e v e r
d e t e r m i n e d on t h e I d a h o t r u c k . The Idaho p i c k u p was s o l d t o
a n i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r on October 31, 1977, and t h i s d a t e
f a i l e d t o compliment o t h e r d a t e s deemed of i m p o r t a n c e by t h e
State. I n s h o r t , nothing i n evidence proves t h a t t h e truck
-l-i n Idaho was t h e t r u c k t a k e n from M i s s o u l a .
so d And, t h e r e
i s no proof t h a t d e f e n d a n t took t h e t r u c k i n Missoula.
F u r t h e r m o r e , any proof t h a t i s a c c e p t a b l e would t e n d t o
p r o v e a crime i n t h e S t a t e of Idaho; t h e r e i s no proof t h a t
d e f e n d a n t committed a c r i m e i n t h e S t a t e of Montana.
The a d m i s s i o n of t h e e v i d e n c e h e r e t o f o r e d i s c u s s e d w a s
h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l and r e q u i r e s a r e v e r s a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s
conviction. F u r t h e r e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e r e m a i n i n g e v i d e n c e
i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e was l a c k i n g any s u f f i c i e n t , c r e d i b l e
e v i d e n c e f o r c o n v i c t i o n of a c r i m e i n Montana, and t h e r e i s
l i t t l e o r no chance t o improve t h e m a t t e r inasmuch a s t i m e
h a s s e e n t h e t r u c k and o t h e r e v i d e n c e d e s t r o y e d . I t appears
t o o many y e a r s e l a p s e d , a s i s , t o have o b t a i n e d b e t t e r
e v i d e n c e , i f b e t t e r e v i d e n c e t h e r e was.
The c o n v i c t i o n and judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s
r e v e r s e d , and t h e c a u s e i s d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e .
W concur:
e
Ph 4
-e &!/
Chief J u s t i c e
~ o n o F a b l eGordon R. B e n n e t t ,
D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e
of M r . J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy
Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . S h e a c o n c u r r i n g :
I c o n c u r w i t h b o t h t h e r e v e r s a l and d i s m i s s a l o r d e r e d
in this case. I add, however, that the trial courts
should, a s a m a t t e r o f c o u r s e when r e s e r v i n g a d e c i s i o n
on a motion in limine, refuse to let the attorneys
mention the allegedly admissible evidence to the jury
before the time comes for an actual ruling on its
admissibility.
If t h a t is d o n e , t h e r e would t h e n be no d a n g e r of
c r e a t i n g t h e p r e j u d i c i a l s i t u a t i o n such a s occurred here.
Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t u l t i m a t e l y and p r o p e r l y r u l e d t h e
evidence to be inadmissible but the jury had already
h e a r d what t h e e v i d e n c e would be when t h e p r o s e c u t o r made
his opening statement. The jury could not eradicate
t h e s e h a r m f u l s t a t e m e n t s from i t s mind i n reaching its
decision, and w e m u s t n o t d e l u d e o u r s e l v e s i n t o t h i n k i n g
i t c o u l d do s o .
Justi