No. 14804
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1979
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS .
LARRY D. WHITE,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Sherwood and Hood, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula,
Montana
Submitted on briefs: November 14, 1979
1 * 1 1 ° C -
Decided: Ji'! 1 ,--y
Filed:
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly 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 .
his i s a n a p p e a l by d e f e n d a n t , L a r r y D . White, from a
j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment e n t e r e d t h e r e o n c o n v i c t i n g him o f
felony t h e f t , i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l
District, i n t h e County of M i s s o u l a . Defendant w a s sen-
t e n c e d t o t e n y e a r s i m p r i s o n m e n t i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n
without parole.
On A p r i l 1 7 , 1 9 7 8 , d e f e n d a n t began d r i n k i n g e a r l y i n
t h e d a y and had consumed a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f l i q u o r and
b e e r when he m e t a n a c q u a i n t a n c e , Dennis S a l l e e . They
c o n t i n u e d d r i n k i n g i n v a r i o u s b a r s i n downtown M i s s o u l a .
Sometime b e f o r e 9:00 p.m. on t h e same d a y , S t e p h e n M.
Langer p a r k e d h i s r e d 1974 Honda 1 2 5 cc m o t o r c y c l e i n t h e
a l l e y b e h i n d h i s a p a r t m e n t l o c a t e d a t 147 West Main, M i s -
s o u l a , Montana. A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0 : 3 0 p.m., Douglas K e i t h
Downey, who had been d r i n k i n g a t t h e Top H a t B a r , walked o u t
o f t h e back d o o r o f t h a t e s t a b l i s h m e n t and n o t i c e d two men
p l a c e a m o t o r c y c l e i n t h e back o f a p i c k u p i n t h e a l l e y
behind M r . Langer's apartment. H e w a s unable t o i d e n t i f y
t h e two men beyond t h e f a c t t h a t o n e was t a l l e r , o n e had a
d a r k e r complexion, and b o t h had d a r k h a i r .
A f t e r t h e two men d r o v e away, M r . Downey d r o v e t o t h e
p o l i c e s t a t i o n and r e p o r t e d what h e had s e e n . O f f i c e r Doug
H a r t s e l l t o o k t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , f i l l e d o u t a d e s k r e p o r t , and
dispatched t h e information over the air t o p a t r o l vehicles.
A p p r o x i m a t e l y f i v e m i n u t e s a f t e r t h e d i s p a t c h , O f f i c e r Lex
Herndon o b s e r v e d a v e h i c l e which matched t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f
t h e t r u c k and made a s t o p .
The p i c k u p was d r i v e n by Dennis S a l l e e and d e f e n d a n t
was a p a s s e n g e r . I n t h e back o f t h e t r u c k was a r e d ~ o n d a
1 2 5 cc m o t o r c y c l e which was l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s b e l o n g i n g t o
Langer. S a l l e e and t h e d e f e n d a n t w e r e p l a c e d u n d e r a r r e s t .
A t the t r i a l , n e i t h e r S a l l e e nor defendant could r e c a l l
t h e events of t h a t night, p r i o r t o t h e a r r e s t . There w a s
e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t i n g d e f e n d a n t s u f f e r s from a n ad-
vanced s t a g e of a l c o h o l i s m and i s s u b j e c t t o a l c o h o l i c
blackout.
The p r o s e c u t i o n i n t r o d u c e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t when Langer
p a r k e d t h e m o t o r c y c l e , h e l o c k e d t h e s t e e r i n g column, c a u s -
i n g t h e f r o n t wheel t o b e l o c k e d i n a p o s i t i o n s u c h t h a t t h e
motorcycle could o n l y be r o l l e d i n c i r c l e s . One p e r s o n
w i t h o u t a key c o u l d move i t o n l y by d r a g g i n g i t and two
people could b a r e l y c a r r y it because of i t s weight. Langer
t e s t i f i e d h e c o u l d n o t have l i f t e d i t a l o n e a n d c o u l d have
moved i t o n l y w i t h d i f f i c u l t y . The s t e e r i n g column was
s t i l l l o c k e d when t h e b i k e was t a k e n t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n .
The v a l u e o f t h e b i k e was o v e r $150.
On May 4 , 1978, a n i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d i n D i s t r i c t
Court charging defendant with t h e o f f e n s e of felony t h e f t .
Defendant e n t e r e d a p l e a of n o t g u i l t y t o t h e charge.
Upon d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n , a p s y c h i a t r i c e x a m i n a t i o n o f
t h e d e f e n d a n t was c o n d u c t e d by t h e r e g i o n a l m e n t a l h e a l t h
center. The c a s e was s e t f o r t r i a l . D e f e n d a n t moved f o r
s u b s t i t u t i o n o f j u d g e and f i l e d a n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o u s e
i n s a n i t y a s a defense. Noel H o e l l , M . D . , performed t h e
e v a l u a t i o n upon o r d e r o f J u d g e D u s s a u l t , who had assumed
jurisdiction. Dr. H o e l l ' s evaluation s t a t e d t h e defendant
was n o t s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill, b u t was a c h r o n i c a l c o h o l i c .
A f t e r t h e r e t i r e m e n t o f J u d g e D u s s a u l t , J u d g e Gordon R.
B e n n e t t assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n . A f t e r a j u r y t r i a l on ~ c t o b e r
2, 1978, a v e r d i c t o f g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e o f t h e f t , a
f e l o n y , w a s r e t u r n e d on O c t o b e r 3, 1978.
The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w have been p r e s e n t e d t o
t h i s Court:
1) id t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n a l l o w i n g t h e a r r e s t -
i n g o f f i c e r t o t e s t i f y regarding t h e d i s p a t c h he received
shortly before the a r r e s t ?
2) Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n a l l o w i n g a n e y e -
witness t o the t h e f t t o t e s t i f y f o r the State i n rebuttal
i n s t e a d of i n i t s case-in-chief?
3) A s t o s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence:
A) Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n
denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s a t t h e c l o s e of t h e
S t a t e ' s c a s e ; and
B) Is t h e c o n v i c t i o n s u p p o r t e d by s u f f i c i e n t
evidence?
D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t P o l i c e O f f i c e r H e r n d o n ' s tes-
timony r e g a r d i n g t h e r a d i o d i s p a t c h he r e c e i v e d from O f f i c e r
H a r t s e l l was h e a r s a y and 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
p e r m i t t i n g it t o be introduced.
T h i s C o u r t had a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n i n S t a t e v . P a u l s o n
( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 310, 538 P.2d 339. I n Paulson, t h e defen-
d a n t maintained t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s testimony regarding h i s
t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e Tucson a u t h o r i t i e s was
h e a r s a y . W e d i s a g r e e d and s t a t e d : "This conclusion i s n o t
s u p p o r t e d by law. The t e s t i m o n y w a s i n t r o d u c e d o n l y f o r t h e
purpose of demonstrating t h e e x i s t e n c e of probable cause t o
make t h e a r r e s t w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t and s u b s e q u e n t s e a r c h . "
S t a t e v . P a u l s o n , s u p r a , 538 P.2d 343. W e c o n t i n u e d and
q u o t e d from K e r v . C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 374 U.S. 23, 83 S . C t .
1 6 2 3 , 1 0 L.Ed.2d 726, w h e r e i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme
Court s t a t e d "I * * * That t h i s information w a s hearsay does
n o t d e s t r o y i t s r o l e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g probable cause. . . I 11
538 P.2d 343.
When O f f i c e r H e r n d o n ' s t e s t i m o n y i s viewed i n t h e
c o n t e x t i n which i t was i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e t r i a l , i t becomes
a p p a r e n t t h a t i t w & s b e i n g u s e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e was
p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s t o p t h e v e h i c l e i n which t h e d e f e n d a n t
was r i d i n g a n d , s u b s e q u e n t l y t o a r r e s t him. The t e s t i m o n y
o f O f f i c e r Herndon was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t
Court.
D e f e n d a n t c o m p l a i n s i t was e r r o r f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
t o permit t h e S t a t e t o reopen i t s case-in-chief and t o
p e r m i t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Doug Downey, t h e e y e w i t n e s s t o t h e
t h e f t , t o be i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e c l o s e of d e f e n d a n t ' s c a s e .
S e c t i o n 46-16-401, MCA p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n
should p u t on i t s case-in-chief p r i o r t o t h a t o f t h e de-
f e n s e . S e c t i o n 46-16-402, MCA g r a n t s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e
d i s c r e t i o n t o d e p a r t from t h a t o r d e r o f t r i a l " f o r good
reasons." D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s no good r e a s o n s e x i s t e d .
T h i s c o n t e n t i o n i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e f a c t s . A
r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e S t a t e had s u b s t a n -
t i a l d i f f i c u l t y i n l o c a t i n g M r . Downey. While p a r t o f t h i s
problem w a s c a u s e d by t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o subpoena t h e
witness p r i o r t o the t r i a l , it is apparent t h a t the S t a t e
k e p t t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e d e f e n d a n t i n f o r m e d o f i t s
d i f f i c u l t y i n l o c a t i n g t h e w i t n e s s and o f i t s i n t e n t i o n t o
c a l l t h e w i t n e s s a s soon a s h e was l o c a t e d . The w i t n e s s was
a l s o l i s t e d on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t
c l a i m surprise. F u r t h e r , t h e t r i a l judge i n p e r m i t t i n g t h e
S t a t e t o reopen i t s case-in-chief a l s o gave t h e defendant
f u l l opportunity t o rebut Mr. Downey's t e s t i m o n y .
I t h a s l o n g been t h e r u l e i n Montana t h a t t h e o r d e r i n
which p r o o f i s a d m i t t e d a t t h e t r i a l i s w i t h i n t h e sound
d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , S t a t e v . A l l i s o n ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 122
Mont. 1 2 0 , 1 4 3 , 199 P.2d 279, 292, and t h a t t h e u s u a l o r d e r
o f t r i a l may b e d e p a r t e d from i n t h e p r o p e r case, S t a t e v .
McKenzie ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 278, 309-310, 557 P.2d 1023,
1041, v a c a t e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s 433 U.S. 905 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Here
t h e r e w e r e "good r e a s o n s " f o r t h e d e p a r t u r e from t h e o r d e r
o f t r i a l and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t e d p r o p e r l y i n p e r m i t t i n g
the departure.
The t h i r d i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i -
d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d and i s t w o f o l d . I t d e a l s w i t h whether t h e
S t a t e e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e and w h e t h e r t h e r e was
s u f f i c i e n t evidence introduced during t h e t r i a l t o support
the guilty verdict.
The d e f e n d a n t m a i n t a i n s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n
f a i l i n g t o g r a n t h i s motion t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o e s t a b -
l i s h a prima f a c i e c a s e . Defendant f u r t h e r m a i n t a i n s t h a t
t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t o f
g u i l t y t o t h e charge of felony t h e f t . The c r u x o f d e f e n -
d a n t ' s argument a p p e a r s t o b e t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o show
t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n p o s s e s s i o n of t h e s t o l e n goods a t t h e
t i m e of the a r r e s t . The d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h e e v i d e n c e
shows o n l y t h a t t h e m o t o r c y c l e was t a k e n by two p e o p l e i n a
r e d p i c k u p and t h a t a p p e l l a n t was i n a r e d t r u c k d r i v e n by
D e n n i s S a l l e e when t h e p o l i c e s t o p p e d them.
The d e f e n d a n t r e l i e s o n two Montana cases i n s u p p o r t o f
t h i s argument: S t a t e v . Campbell ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. , 582
P.2d 783, 35 St.Rep. 733; and S t a t e e x r e l . Wilson v . D i s t r i c t
C o u r t (1972) 159 Mont. 43-4, 498 P.2d 1217.
An examination of these cases indicates they are dis-
tinquishable. In Wilson and Campbell there was an absence
of any conclusive evidence linking the defendant with the
stolen merchandise. Here, White was an occupant in the
truck, transporting the stolen motorcycle, when the truck
was stopped a very short time after the theft occurred - a
theft which was accomplished by two men in a vehicle match-
ing the description of the van in which defendant was a
passenger. There was also testimony that the defendant and
Sallee had been together all evening.
In People v. Barber (1974), 120 1111977,
313N.E.2d 491, an argument similar to defendant's was
presented by a driver, who argued that he was simply moving
the stolen property in his car for his passenger. He con-
tended that the fact he had a passenger in the car at the
time of his arrest raised a reasonable doubt as to whether
he or his passenger was in possession of the stolen property.
The Illinois Court rejected this argument and stated:
"If possession by a single defendant is
in issue, the possession must be shown to
be in him and not in someone else . . .
But if the circumstances show that defen-
dant possessed the recently stolen property
either singly or jointly with others, the
inference of guilt is warranted and 'ex-
clusiveness' of possession is not rebutted
by merely showing another's presence."
313 N.E.2d at 494.
See also People v. Umphers (1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 853, 272
N.E.2d 278, 280; Bury v. State (1968), 2 Md.App. 674, 236
A. 2d 751, 753; Martinez v. People (1967), 162 Colo. 195,
425 P.2d 299, 301; Commonwealth v. Gusciora (1951), 169
Pa.Super. 27, 82 A.2d 540, 542; 51 A.L.R.3d 727, S 39(b) at
799-801 (1973).
The Court in Barber pointed out that: "Possession is a
q u e s t i o n o f f a c t t o b e d e c i d e d by t h e j u r y whose p r o v i n c e i t
i s t o d e c i d e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s , t h e weight t o be
g i v e n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y and t h e i n f e r e n c e s t o b e drawn." 313
N.E.2d a t 495. This record contains s u f f i c i e n t credible
e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t on t h i s i s s u e .
I n Montana t h e d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r t o g r a n t o r deny a
motion t o d i s m i s s a t t h e c l o s e of t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e l i e s
w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . S e c t i o n 46-
16-403, MCA. F u r t h e r , a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t should o n l y be
g i v e n where t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e on which t h e j u r y c o u l d
base a conviction. P a u l s o n , s u p r a ; S t a t e v . Thompson ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,
- Mont. ,
- 576 P.2d 1105, 1108, 35 St.Rep. 343. T h e r e
was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s e n d t h i s c a s e t o
t h e j u r y and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t e d p r o p e r l y i n d e n y i n g
d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s .
T h e r e was a l s o s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o
s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g by t h e j u r y t h a t d e f e n d a n t committed t h e
offense of t h e f t . The v e r d i c t must t h e r e f o r e s t a n d . S t a t e
v . F i t z p a t r i c k ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 220, 516 P.2d 605.
The judgment o f 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:
z44w*&
Chief J u s t i c e
Justice
-