State v. Van Natta

No. 81-189

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F

1982

STATE O MONTANA,
F

P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

VS.

VERNON L. VAN NATTA a/k/a J O H N SMITH,

Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e
F&(ifi
Judicial District,
I n and f o r t h e County o f Cascade
Honorable H. William Coder, J u d q e p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant:

K a r l N a g e l , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana

For 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 : A p r i l 1, 1982

Decided: September 2 3 , 1982

Filed:
SEP 2 3 1982
M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of the
Court.

Def e n d a n t - a p p e l l a n t was a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d w i t h t w o c o u n t s
of f e l o n y b u r g l a r y and two c o u n t s of felony t h e f t . Following a

r a s h o f i n c i d e n t s i n C a s c a d e County and L e w i s and C l a r k County o n

November 1 6 , 1 9 8 0 , and November 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 . On F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 1 9 8 1 ,
a jury verdict found defendant guilty on all four counts.

D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from t h i s c o n v i c t i o n .
I n t h e e a r l y m o r n i n g h o u r s of November 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 , t h r e e b a r s
i n t h e Cascade-Wolf C r e e k a r e a were b u r g l a r i z e d . P r i o r to t h e

burglaries, o n November 16 1980 , J a c k Pachek r e p o r t e d someone
s t o l e h i s l a t e model p i c k u p t r u c k . The t r u c k , a 1977 two-tone

b l u e and w h i t e Ford c l u b c a b was s t o l e n w h i l e p a r k e d i n f r o n t of

Pachek' s b u s i n e s s l o c a t e d i n G r e a t F a l l s .

The f i r s t b r e a k - i n took p l a c e a t t h e U l m B a r i n U l m , Montana.
The i n t r u d e r f i r s t a t t e m p t e d t o e n t e r t h e b a r by r e m o v i n g p i e c e s

o f t h e window f r a m e on t h e f r o n t d o o r . When t h i s a t t e m p t p r o v e d
unsuccessful, e n t r a n c e was g a i n e d by breaking into a residence
owned by F r a n k B a l l w h i c h l i e s a d j a c e n t to t h e b a r . Early in the

morning of November 17, 1982, Ron Ball was awakened by an
intruder. When Ron looked down the h a l l w a y of the house he
o b s e r v e d a n i n d i v i d u a l , who h e l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as t h e d e f e n d a n t ,

r e m o v i n g g u n s from t h e gun room. Ron w a t c h e d a s t h e d e f e n d a n t
removed the guns, proceeded down a h a l l w a y and l e f t through a
garage door. F r a n k B a l l l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d t h e s t o l e n g u n s as a n

o l d Winchester Model 70 r i f l e , a 12-gauge shotgun, a 10-gauge
shotgun, a 300 S a v a g e and a Remington 22-250. Frank B a l l , who
was n o t p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y , a l s o n o t e d t h a t s e v e r a l i t e m s

had been s t o l e n from t h e b a r a d j a c e n t t o t h e r e s i d e n c e i n c l u d i n g
a stamp machine, a saddle, a c a s e of R a i n i e r b e e r and a p p r o x i -
m a t e l y $40 f r o m t h e j u k e b o x .
A second break-in occurred in the e a r l y morning hours of

November 17, 1980, a t the Mountain P a l a c e B a r , t h i r t e e n miles
south of Cascade, Montana. At the Mountain P a l a c e Bar the
i n t r u d e r g a i n e d e n t r y b y p r y i n g loose t h e wooden s t r i p s of a win-

dow frame, removing the window and then reaching through and
unlocking the door. After unplugging the burglar alarm, the
intruder removed a case of Olympia beer from the cooler and

a p p r o x i m a t e l y $300 t o $500 f r o m t h e j u k e b o x .
A third break-in occurred i n t h e e a r l y m o r n i n g of November

1 7 , 1 9 8 0 , a t t h e C r a i g B a r i n C r a i g , Montana. A t the Craig B a r

t h e i n t r u d e r g a i n e d e n t r a n c e by r e m o v i n g t h e p i n s of the hinges
of the front door. Several items were stolen from the bar
i n c l u d i n g t h e money i n t h e j u k e b o x , some Lucky L a g e r b e e r , and a

b o t t l e of Seagram's Seven whisky.

A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1:30 a.m. t o 2:00 a . m . o n November 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 ,
E l m e r L i n d q u i s t o b s e r v e d someone m a t c h i n g t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of the
d e f e n d a n t p a r k a b l u e p i c k u p t r u c k o u t s i d e h i s house l o c a t e d n e a r

C a s c a d e , Montana. When L i n d q u i s t made a n o i s e i n t h e h o u s e , t h e
individual returned to the truck and drove to the highway.
L i n d q u i s t w e n t o u t s i d e and n o t e d a s i z e L-78 b y 1 5 G o o d r i c h t i r e
mounted on a c r e a m c o l o r e d w h e e l had b e e n s t o l e n from t h e bed of
h i s pickup.
On the afternoon of November 17, 1980, John Strandel, a
deputy s h e r i f f i n Cascade County, w a s d r i v i n g to G r e a t F a l l s on

Interstate 1 5 t o do follow-up r e p o r t s on t h e U l m and M o u n t a i n

Palace break-ins. On the way, Strandel observed a highway
patrolman parked behind a Ford c l u b cab pickup. The p r e v i o u s
night Strandel had observed a similar pickup parked west of

C a s c a d e on S t . Peter's M i s s i o n Road a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4:00 a.m.
Strandel stopped to investigate and learned from Highway
Patrolman, Larry Strickland, t h a t t h e t r u c k had b e e n s t o l e n from
Great Falls. On the southside of the pickup, in the ditch,
S t r a n d e l f o u n d s i x c a n s o f Olympia b e e r , o n e c a n of R a i n i e r b e e r ,
t h r e e cans of Lucky L a g e r b e e r and one Seagram's Seven whisky

bottle. L y i n g on t h e p a v e m e n t n e x t t o t h e p a s s e n g e r d o o r of t h e

p i c k u p S t r a n d e l f o u n d o n 12-gauge Remington s h o t g u n s h e l l , and

o n e 1 0 - g a u g e Remington s h o t g u n s h e l l . Strandel then searched an
a r e a a few y a r d s from t h e d i t c h w h e r e he f i r s t found t h e b e e r and

found a stamp machine a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i f t y y a r d s away from the
pickup. Approximately ten yards east of the stamp machine,

S t r a n d e l found s i x r i f l e s l a i d side-by-side i n the grass. Five
of t h e r i f l e s w e r e l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s t h o s e t a k e n from t h e B a l l
residence i n U l m and the s t a m p m a c h i n e was identified as t h a t

t a k e n f r o m t h e U l m Bar. I n t h e b a c k of t h e t r u c k S t r a n d e l f o u n d
a B.F. G o o d r i c h t i r e and w h e e l l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as b e l o n g i n g to
Elmer Lindquist, The s i x t h r i f l e was l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as a .22

caliber r i f l e which had been s t o l e n from a h o u s e i n Craig on
November 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 .
On t h e m o r n i n g o f November 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 , a man l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d

as the defendant registered f o r a room a t t h e Belmont Hotel in
G r e a t F a l l s u n d e r t h e name o f J i m Todd. The i n d i v i d u a l p a i d f o r

h i s room w i t h £ i f t y - c e n t pieces. On November 1 7 and 1 8 , 1 9 8 0 , a

man l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as t h e d e f e n d a n t , e n t e r e d t h e Town T a v e r n
a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e and o n e - h a l f b l o c k s from t h e Belmont H o t e l . On
November 1 7 , t h e man s p e n t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $40 i n t h e b a r and p a i d

f o r a l l h i s drinks with f i f ty-cent pieces. On November 1 8 , 1 9 8 0 ,
t h e man r e t u r n e d and a g a i n p a i d f o r a l l o f h i s d r i n k s w i t h f i f t y -
cent pieces.

On November 2 0 , 1 9 8 0 , d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d w i t h
b u r g l a r y and t h e £ t . D e f e n d a n t r e f u s e d to i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f e x c e p t
a s "John Smith." An FBI c h e c k l a t e r r e v e a l e d h i s t r u e name of

Vernon L e r o y Van Natta. Initially, d e f e n d a n t was charged by
i n f o r m a t i o n of Count I : F e l o n y T h e f t , a r i s i n g o u t of t h e the£ t
of Pachek's pickup; Count 11: Burglary, arising out of

defendant's alleged break-in a t the Ulm Bar; C o u n t 111: Felony
T h e f t , a r i s i n g o u t of d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g e d break-in a t the Craig
Bar; and C o u n t I V : B u r g l a r y , a r i s i n g o u t of t h e break-in at the

Mountain Palace Bar. On February 11, 1 9 8 1 , respondent sent
n o t i c e to d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h a t t h e county a t t o r n e y i n t e n d e d to
amend t h e i n £ o r m a t i o n . R e s p o n d e n t moved t o amend t h e i n £ o r m a t i o n

by s u b s t i t u t i n g t h e t h e £ t of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a t t h e U l m B a r i n
the place of the break-in at the Craig B a r . The m o t i o n was

g r a n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 1 9 8 1 . On F e b r u a r y

1 9 , 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t was r e a r r a i g n e d and p l e d n o t g u i l t y to a l l

four counts. Up u n t i l F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t r e f u s e d to
cooperate with defense counsel. On t h a t d a y , d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t e d
t h e District C o u r t to a p p o i n t o t h e r d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . H i s request

was d e n i e d . On F e b r u a r y 2 0 , 1981, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion to
c o n t i n u e t h e t r i a l d a t e set f o r F e b r u a r y 23, 1981, on t h e grounds
t h a t d e f e n d a n t was now r e a d y to c o o p e r a t e w i t h d e f e n s e c o u n s e l

a n d more t i m e was n e c e s s a r y t o p r e p a r e f o r t r i a l . Immediately
p r i o r to t r i a l , on F e b r u a r y 23, 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e n i e d
d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o c o n t i n u e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o d e n i e d

defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of similar
crimes c o m m i t t e d o n t h e same d a t e as t h e crimes w i t h which d e f e n -

d a n t was a l r e a d y c h a r g e d . On F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 1 9 8 1 , a j u r y v e r d i c t

found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y on a l l four counts. Defendant appeals
from t h i s c o n v i c t i o n .
The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w are:

1. W h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d b y a d m i t t i n g e v i d e n c e of
crimes similar to those with which defendant was charged?
2. W h e t h e r 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 t o continue t h e t r i a l ?
R u l e 4 0 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid. d e f i n e s t h e r u l e on t h e

a d m i s s i o n o f o t h e r crimes e v i d e n c e as f o l l o w s :
" E v i d e n c e o f o t h e r crimes, w r o n g s , o r a c t s is
n o t a d m i s s i b l e t o p r o v e t h e c h a r a c t e r of a
p e r s o n i n o r d e r t o show t h a t he a c t e d i n con-
formity therewith. I t may, however, be
a d m i s s i b l e f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s , s u c h as p r o o f
of motive, opportunity, i n t e n t , preparation,
plan, knowledge, identity, or a b s e n c e o f
mistake o r accident."
R u l e 4 0 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) Mont.R.Evid., incorporates the general rule that
e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r crimes is n o t a d m i s s i b l e to show d e f e n d a n t com-

mitted a particular crime as charged. State v. Casagranda

(1981) - Mont . , 637 P.2d 8 2 6 , 38 S t . R e p . 2122; S t a t e v .
Hanson ( 1 9 8 0 ) , ---- Mont . , 6 0 8 P.2d 1 0 8 3 , 37 S t . R e p . 657.
Rule 4 0 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) a l s o states t h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e g e n e r a l
rule. These e x c e p t i o n s are governed by t h e g u i d e l i n e s s e t o u t i n

S t a t e v. J u s t ( 1 9 7 9 ) , --- - .- . Mont . I 6 0 2 P.2d 9 5 7 , 36 S t . R e p .

1649 :

" T h e r e e m e r g e s a f o u r - e l e m e n t t e s t to d e t e r -
m i n e t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e of o t h e r
crimes or a c t s c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s s u c h a s
t h e one h e r e . The f i r s t t h r e e of t h e s e ele-
m e n t s were i d e n t i f i e d i n S t a t e v. J e n s e n , 1 5 3
Mont. a t 2 3 9 , 4 5 5 P.2d a t 634; t h e f o u r t h is
b a s e d on R u l e 4 0 3 , Mont.R.Evid. The f o u r
h&e a r e :
-Pc,Ct"P:
- 1

"1. S i m i l a r i t y o f crimes o r a c t s ;

"2. Nearness i n t i m e ; and

" 3 . Tendency t o e s t a b l i s h a common scheme
p l a n o r system; -
and

"4. The p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e e v i d e n c e i s
n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d by t h e p r e j u d i c e
to the defendant." 6 0 2 P.2d a t 9 6 1 .

T h i s four-element t e s t h a s b e e n f o l l o w e d and a p p l i e d i n S t a t e

v . Wurtz ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mon t . -- - , 636 P.2d 246, 38 S t . R e p . 1808;

State v. Brubaker (1981) , - - -- .- Mont . ---- 1 6 2 5 P.2d 78, 38

St.Rep. 4 3 2 ; and S t a t e v. Case ( 1 9 8 0 ) , -- Mon t . , 6 2 1 P.2d

1 0 6 6 , 37 S t . R e p . 2057. When w e a p p l y t h e f o u r - p a r t t e s t to t h e
f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t case w e f i n d t h e e v i d e n c e of t h e

C r a i g b r e a k - i n was a d m i s s i b l e .

F i r s t , the break-ins a t a l l t h r e e b a r s were s i m i l a r . A t each

of the three break-ins the i n t r u d e r gained entrance by p r y i n g

open a door or window. Also, a t each of the three bars the

intruder broke i n t o and stole the change from the jukebox and

s t o l e some b e e r or o t h e r a l c o h o l .
Second, all three break-ins occurred some t i m e during the

e a r l y m o r n i n g h o u r s o f November 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 . The d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n

Ulm and Craig, Montana, is approximately thirty miles. The

M o u n t a i n P a l a c e b a r is b e t w e e n U l m and C r a i g . C e r t a i n l y , t h e f a c -

tors of timing and location indicate that the three break-ins

were t h e work o f t h e same p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s .
T h i r d , t h e p a t t e r n of t h e t h r e e b r e a k - i n s d o e s t a b l i s h a com-

mon scheme, plan or s y s t e m . As stated above , t h e methods of
break-in were similar, similar items were t a k e n and all three

break-ins o c c u r r e d i n t h e same t i m e f r a m e w i t h i n t h i r t y m i l e s of
each o t h e r . As all t h r e e b a r s a r e c o n n e c t e d by I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 ,
t h e f a c t s indicate the t h r e e break-ins were e f f e c t u a t e d p u r s u a n t
t o a common s c h e m e , p l a n o r s y s t e m .
Fourth, t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e e v i d e n c e is n o t s u b s t a n -
t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d b y p r e j u d i c e to t h e d e f e n d a n t . The a d m i s s i o n
p r o v i d e d c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e which e x p l a i n e d t h e f i n d i n g o f
t h e Lucky L a g e r b e e r and t h e S e a g r a m ' s S e v e n w h i s k y b o t t l e w i t h

t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e found a t o r n e a r P a c h e k ' s s t o l e n p i c k u p t r u c k .
Here t h e e v i d e n c e was n o t a d m i t t e d m e r e l y to impugn d e f e n d a n t ' s

character. The e v i d e n c e w a s a d m i t t e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e of showing

a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c m e t h o d , p l a n o r scheme used i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n of
the offense or f o r the purpose of identifying the person who

c o m m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e and t h e j u r y w a s so i n f o r m e d .

I n - u s t , s u p r a , t h i s C o u r t h e l d a l t h o u g h o t h e r crime e v i d e n c e
J-

may be a d m i s s i b l e p e r t h e a b o v e c r i t e r i a , it w i l l n o t be a d m i t t e d
unless the proper procedure is followed. That procedure is:

"(a) E v i d e n c e o f o t h e r crimes may n o t be
r e c e i v e d u n l e s s t h e r e h a s b e e n n o t i c e to t h e
d e f e n d a n t t h a t s u c h e v i d e n c e is to be i n t r o -
duced. The p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n
46-18-503, MCA, s h o u l d s e r v e as g u i d e l i n e s f o r
the form and content of such notice.
Additionally, t h e n o t i c e to t h e d e f e n d a n t
s h a l l i n c l u d e a s t a t e m e n t as to t h e p u r p o s e s
f o r w h i c h s u c h e v i d e n c e i s to be a d m i t t e d .
" ( b ) A t t h e time o f t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of s u c h
e v i d e n c e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l e x p l a i n to t h e
j u r y t h e p u r p o s e o f s u c h e v i d e n c e and s h a l l
admonish it to weigh t h e e v i d e n c e o n l y f o r
such purposes.
"(c) In its f i n a l charge, the court should
i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y i n u n e q u i v o c a l terms t h a t
s u c h e v i d e n c e was r e c e i v e d o n l y f o r t h e
l i m i t e d p u r p o s e s e a r l i e r s t a t e d and t h a t t h e
d e f e n d a n t i s n o t b e i n g t r i e d and may n o t be
convicted f o r any o f f e n s e e x c e p t t h a t charged,
w a r n i n g them t h a t t o c o n v i c t f o r o t h e r o f -
f e n s e s may r e s u l t i n u n j u s t d o u b l e p u n i s h m e n t . "
6 0 2 P.2d a t 9 6 3 .
Again, we find the proper procedure was followed in the
p r e s e n t case. The f i r s t r e q u i r e m e n t is t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a v e

notice of the intent to introduce other crime evidence.
Respondent did give defendant notice of its intent as is

reflected by defense counsel's introduction of the motion in
limine, " [ylour honor, the State has given notice that they
i n t e n d t o i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r crimes c o m m i t t e d a p p r o x i -
m a t e l y t h e same d a t e as t h e crimes w i t h which M r . Van N a t t a is

charged. "
The s e c o n d and t h i r d r e q u i r e m e n t s are t h a t t h e j u r y m u s t be
properly instructed that the evidence is only received for a
l i m i t e d p u r p o s e , w h a t t h a t p u r p o s e i s , and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s
not being tried for the other offenses. Here t h e trial court
i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y as f o l l o w s :

" L a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n o f t h e j u r y , e v i d e n c e
i s a b o u t t o be i n t r o d u c e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f
s h o w i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d crimes o t h e r
t h a n t h e o n e s f o r which he is on t r i a l . You
may n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s e v i d e n c e to p r o v e t h a t
t h e d e f e n d a n t is a p e r s o n of bad c h a r a c t e r , o r
t h a t he h a s a d i s p o s i t i o n t o c o m m i t crimes.
You may o n l y c o n s i d e r t h i s e v i d e n c e f o r t h e
l i m i t e d p u r p o s e s of p r o v i d i n g a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
m e t h o d , p l a n o r scheme used i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n
o f t h e o f f e n s e i n t h i s case, o r t h e i d e n t i t y
o f t h e p e r s o n who c o m m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e . You
may a l s o c o n s i d e r t h i s e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e
e x i s t a n c e o f i n t e n t , which is a n e l e m e n t of
t h e crime c h a r g e d . You may n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s
e v i d e n c e f o r a n y o t h e r p u r p o s e t h a t would
expose the defendant to unjust double
punishment."
This instruction s a t i s f i e s the requirements t h i s Court put

f o r t h in - s t , supra.
Ju
-
Defendant argues the District Court erred by denying

defendant's motion to continue the trial date. Defendant's

m o t i o n f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e s t a t e s , " [ c l o m e s now t h e d e f e n d a n t ...
and moves the Court for an order continuing the trial i n the
above-entitled matter f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t up to t h e d a t e of t h i s
motion, the defendant has refused to discuss the case or
cooperate with h i s counsel. The d e f e n d a n t h a s i n d i c a t e d o n t h e
d a t e of t h i s motion that he will cooperate with his counsel.

T h e r e f o r e , c o u n s e l w i l l r e q u i r e t i m e t o p r e p a r e f o r t r i a l and t h e
two d a y s b e t w e e n t h e d a t e of t h i s m o t i o n , and t h e d a t e s e t f o r

t r i a l is i n s u f f i c i e n t t i m e f o r s u c h p r e p a r a t i o n . " The m o t i o n is

dated February 20, 1981. D e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d o n
November 20, 1980. Up u n t i l the d a t e of the motion for con-

tinuance defendant refused to cooperate with defense counsel.

Before a m o t i o n f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e is g r a n t e d , t h e movant m u s t

show t h a t h e h a s employed d u e d i l i g e n c e to p r o c u r e t h a t which he

now requests additional time to procure. State v. Klemann

(1981)1 Mont . , 6 3 4 P.2d 6 3 2 , 38 S t . R e p . 1627. Here t h e
r e c o r d shows d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t employ d u e d i l i g e n c e t o c o o p e r a t e

with defense counsel before t h e m o t i o n and t h u s t h e t r i a l c o u r t

was correct in denying defendant's motion. Motions for con-

t i n u a n c e are a d d r e s s e d t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and

t h e g r a n t i n g o f a c o n t i n u a n c e h a s n e v e r b e e n a matter of right.

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c a n n o t be o v e r t u r n e d o n a p p e a l i n a b s e n s e of a

showing of p r e j u d i c e t o t h e movant. S t a t e v. Kirkland (1979),

- -- .-
. .- Mont .- - -- -- , 602 P.2d 586, 36 St.Rep. 1963.
On a p p e a l d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h e c o n t i n u a n c e s h o u l d h a v e b e e n

g r a n t e d b e c a u s e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was amended on F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 1 9 8 1 ,

and t h e t r i a l d a t e was F e b r u a r y 23, 1981. W e note defendant did

n o t make t h i s o b j e c t i o n i n h i s m o t i o n f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e . A simi-

l a r s i t u a t i o n arose i n S t a t e v. Olson (1980 ), Mont . I

6 1 4 P.2d 1 0 6 1 , 37 S t . R e p . 1313, where t h i s Court r u l e d s i n c e t h e

i n f o r m a t i o n s were b a s e d on t h e same s e t of f a c t s and b e c a u s e t h e

charges i n v o l v e d were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , t h e r e was no

prejudice to the defendant when the information was amended.

Here t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n w a s b a s e d o n t h e same s e t of facts

and there was no prejudice to the defendant, Judgment is

affirmed.

W e concur:

'" J u s t i c e Shea d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s d e c i s i o n .