NO. 81-535
I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA
1983
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS.
HAROLD MCCLURE,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of
the Fourth Judicial D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f Missoula
Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Patterson, Marsillo, Tornabene & Schuyler, Missoula,
Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. M i k e 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 , M o n t a n a
R o b e r t L . D e s c h a m p s 111, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a ,
Montana
S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : January 20, 1983
Decided: February 2 4 , 1983
Filed:
FEB 2 4 1983
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e O p i n i o n of the
Court.
D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s a c o n v i c t i o n of b u r g l a r y e n t e r e d o n O c t o b e r
3 , 1 9 8 0 , i n t h e F o u r 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 C o u n t y of
Missoula. The n a t u r e of t h i s appeal concerns the defense of
entrapment.
The d e f e n d a n t is a s k i n g u s t o f i n d t h a t e n t r a p m e n t e x i s t e d as
a matter o f law. T h i s we cannot do. Whether o r not d e f e n d a n t
was l u r e d o r i n d u c e d i n t o committing t h e o f f e n s e was a f a c t u a l
question f o r the jury, e v i d e n c e being p r e s e n t e d on e i t h e r s i d e .
In such a situation we will not overturn a jury verdict.
C o n s e q u e n t l y , we m u s t a £ £ i r m t h e c o n v i c t i o n .
On March 27, 1980, the defendant and his friend, Merritt
Brown, m e t w i t h T e r r y P a d e r n o s i n a M i s s o u l a b a r . P a d e r n o s had
been casually acquainted with McClure and Brown. A t this
meeting, Padernos was asked if he wanted to buy an electric
guitar. P a d e r n o s t e s t i f i e d t h a t v a r i o u s o t h e r items were a l s o
offered for sale, including a motorcycle. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he
l e a r n e d t h a t t h e g u i t a r and o t h e r items had come from a t r a i l e r
i n Frenchtown. P a d e r n o s p u r c h a s e d t h e g u i t a r and b e c a u s e he w a s
s u s p i c i o u s , c o n t a c t e d M i s s o u l a County d e t e c t i v e Chuck McCall and
i n f o r m e d him t h a t h e t h o u g h t a b u r g l a r y had o c c u r r e d . The d e f e n -
d a n t d i s p u t e s t h i s v e r s i o n of t h e March 27 m e e t i n g . The d e f e n -
d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t Brown d i d s e l l a g u i t a r t o P a d e r n o s b u t t h e r e
w a s no c o n v e r s a t i o n a b o u t o t h e r items f o r s a l e n o r c o n v e r s a t i o n s
a b o u t a t r a i l e r i n Frenchtown.
Padernos also t e s t i f i e d t h a t on March 28 h e a g a i n met w i t h
McClure and Brown. This t i m e , two r i f l e s were o f f e r e d f o r s a l e .
I t was suggested t h a t Brown would b r i n g t h e r i f l e s f o r i n s p e c -
tion. P r i o r to s e e i n g t h e r i f l e s , Padernos contacted d e t e c t i v e
McCall and i t was a r r a n g e d t h a t M c C a l l would w i t n e s s t h e trans-
action from a d i s t a n c e . Brown p r o d u c e d the rifles. Padernos
t o o k t h e r i f l e s and had them i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n f o r a b o u t a n h o u r .
D u r i n g t h i s time, P a d e r n o s showed t h e r i f l e s to McCall who marked
them. P a d e r n o s r e t u r n e d t h e r i f l e s t o Brown. No purchase was
made. C o n c e r n i n g t h i s t r a n s a c t i o n , McClure t e s t i £ i e d t h a t h e was
not present, b u t w a s o u t of town. Later during the same d a y ,
March 2 8 , P a d e r n o s t e s t i f i e d t h a t McClure and Brown a g a i n o f f e r e d
to s e l l him a m o t o r c y c l e . He further testified that the two
d i s c u s s e d g o i n g b a c k t o F r e n c h t o w n t o see i f the motorcycle was
still there.
The n e x t c o n t a c t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f P a d e r n o s was
o n t h e a f t e r n o o n o f A p r i l 1. At t h a t t i m e P a d e r n o s and McClure
had a telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n . McClure a s k e d P a d e r n o s i f he was
still interested i n purchasing the motorcycle. P a d e r n o s s a i d he
was, if the price and s i z e were r i g h t . D e t e c t i v e McCal1 had
i n s t r u c t e d Padernos t o i n d i c a t e interest if a n o f f e r was made.
McClure s t a t e d t h a t h e would g e t i n c o n t a c t w i t h Brown and t h e y
would go t o F r e n c h t o w n t o see i f t h e m o t o r c y c l e was s t i l l t h e r e
and to see w h a t size i t was. Within a short t i m e Brown and
McClure w e n t t o see P a d e r n o s i n person. The p a r t i e s d i s c u s s e d
purchase price; Padernos offered $600, if the s i z e was right.
The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h i s m e e t i n g P a d e r n o s t o l d them
w h e r e t o g e t t h e m o t o r c y c l e and how t o s t e a l i t .
Meanwhile, detectives had learned of a trailerhouse in
F r e n c h t o w n t h a t had r e c e n t l y b e e n b u r g l a r i z e d . Many o f t h e items
t a k e n f r o m t h i s t r a i l e r were l a t e r r e c o v e r e d from B r o w n ' s h o u s e .
The d e t e c t i v e s had n o t e d t h a t a m o t o r c y c l e was s t i l l p a r k e d in
the attached garage. T h r o u g h i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from P a d e r n o s ,
i t was b e l i e v e d t h a t McClure and Brown would come to s t e a l t h e
motorcycle. A s t a k e o u t w a s s e t up on t h e e v e n i n g o f April 1.
O f f i c e r s witnessed t h e crime and f o l l o w e d t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s
accomplice back t o Missoula. The two c o n t a c t e d P a d e r n o s and a
p l a n was s e t t o c o n c l u d e t h e s a l e . T h e r e a f t e r , Brown and McClure
were a r r e s t e d .
The e n t r a p m e n t d e f e n s e is p r o v i d e d f o r i n s e c t i o n 45-2-213,
MCAt
"A p e r s o n i s n o t g u i l t y o f a n o f f e n s e i f h i s
c o n d u c t is i n c i t e d or i n d u c e d by a p u b l i c ser-
v a n t o r h i s a g e n t f o r t h e purpose of o b t a i n i n g
e v i d e n c e f o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of such p e r s o n .
However, t h i s s e c t i o n is i n a p p l i c a b l e i f a
p u b l i c s e r v a n t o r h i s a g e n t m e r e l y a f f o r d s to
s u c h p e r s o n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y or f a c i l i t y f o r
c o m m i t t i n g a n o f f e n s e i n f u r t h e r a n c e of c r i m i -
n a l p u r p o s e which s u c h p e r s o n h a s o r i g i n a t e d . "
W e h a v e s t a t e d t h a t e n t r a p m e n t is a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , as
s u c h , t h e burden of proof is on t h e d e f e n d a n t . S t a t e v. Kamrud
(1980)I -- Mont . - -
. , 6 1 1 P.2d 1 8 8 , 37 S t . R e p . 933. Although
e n t r a p m e n t may e x i s t as a m a t t e r o f l a w , Kamrud, s u p r a , and S t a t e
--
v. Grenfell (1977)r 172 Mont. 345, 564 P.2d 171, where
conflicting evidence is p r e s e n t e d , as in this case, the issue
is one f o r t h e jury. S t a t e v. F r a t e s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 6 0 Mont. 4 3 1 , 5 0 3
P.2d 47. I t is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e j u r y d i d n o t a c c e p t d e f e n d a n t ' s
entrapment theory. A r e v i e w of the record shows t h a t t h e y were
properly instructed. Jury instruction number twelve contains
l a n g u a g e v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l to t h e above-ci t e d s t a t u t e . In our
r e v i e w of j u r y v e r d i c t s we have s a i d :
" I t is t h e p r e r o g a t i v e o f t h e j u r y t o d e c i d e
t h e f a c t s , and t h i s C o u r t m u s t u p h o l d s u c h
f i n d i n g s when t h e y a r e s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n -
t i a l evidence. A s we s t a t e d i n S t a t e v .
K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 2 8 3 , 587 P.2d
1298, 1305, 35 St.Rep. 1532, 1539, ' [ t l h e j u r y
i s t h e f a c t - f i n d i n g b o d y and i t s d e c i s i o n is
controlling . . . Given t h e r e q u i r e d l e g a l
minimum o f e v i d e n c e , w e w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e
o u r d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s f o r t h a t of t h e
jury ... I f s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s found t o
s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , it w i l l s t a n d .' . .
(citations omitted.)" S t a t e v. Rumley ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,
.-
Mont . I , 6 3 4 P.2d 4 4 6 , 4 4 9 , 38
S t . R e p . 1 3 5 1 -1351-E.
~ ~
W e f i n d more t h a n s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c -
tion. Padernos tes t i £ i e d that Brown and McClure repeatedly
offered items f o r sale. On s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s a m o t o r c y c l e w a s
offered. Padernos further testified that Brown and McClure
stated they had several items that came from a trailer in
Frenchtown. In the presence of Padernos, Brown and McClure
d i s c u s s e d whether o r n o t t h e m o t o r c y c l e w a s s t i l l a t French town.
These facts and others, which were obviously believed by the
jury, are c o n t r a r y to d e f e n d a n t ' s entrapment theory. The e v i -
dence presented s u p p o r t s t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t .
The defendant's conviction is affirmed.
We concur: