State v. Armstrong

No. 13063

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1976

THE STATE OF MONTAlUA,

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

M K O L D AKMSTRONG ,

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

Appeal. from: 9 i s t r i c t Court o f 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 ,
Honorable C h a r l e s Luedke, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Courlsel o f Record :

For Appellant :

John R. P r a t e r a r g u e d , T e r r y , Montana
Donald W. Molloy a r g u e d , Law S t u d e n t , M i s s o u l a ,
Montana
Kubert C. P e r a r g u e d , Law S t u d e n t , M t s s o u l a , Montana
rF
D a n i e l A. P i e d a l u e a r g u e d , Law S t u d e n t , M i s s o u l a ,
Montana

Hon, R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena,
Montana
k!illiam J. Anderson 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 ,
Yelena , Montana
Harold Hanser a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s ,
Xontana

Submitted: June 4, 1976

Decided :ml 2 ,I 1071:
--
" ,
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .

Defendant was c o n v i c t e d by j u r y v e r d i c t of d e l i b e r a t e

homicide and r o b b e r y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County.

Judge C h a r l e s Luedke s e n t e n c e d him t o c o n s e c u t i v e p r i s o n t e r m s

of 1 0 0 y e a r s f o r d e l i b e r a t e homicide and 40 y e a r s f o r r o b b e r y .

Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e judgment of c o n v i c t i o n .

Because no e y e - w i t n e s s a c c o u n t s of t h e c r i m e s c h a r g e d

were p r e s e n t e d a t t h e t r i a l , t h e s t a t e ' s case was b u i l t upon

testimony concerning t h e events preceding and f o l l o w i n g t h e

c r i m e s , t h e p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e r e l a t e d t h e r e t o , and e v i d e n c e re-

garding p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n ~ .

W w i l l only set f o r t h those f a c t s p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s
e

a p p e a l which a r e e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e r e c o r d .

A t a b o u t 8:00 a.m. on J a n u a r y 22, 1975, t h e body of t h e

v i c t i m of t h e c r i m e s i n v o l v e d , Lynn L o r d s , was found i n a b o i l e r

room l o c a t e d i n a n a l l e y i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. There were m u l t i p l e

s t a b wounds i n L o r d s ' neck, c h e s t and back; t h e c a u s e o f h i s

d e a t h was d e t e r m i n e d t o be m a s s i v e blood l o s s from a wound i n t h e

neck. The weapon c a u s i n g t h e s t a b wounds was m e d i c a l l y d e t e r m i n e d

t o be a r e l a t i v e l y heavy-duty k n i f e o f some s o r t .

Lords had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a poker game a t t h e C r y s t a l

Lounge i n B i l l i n g s on t h e p r e c e d i n g n i g h t , J a n u a r y 21-22, 1975.

H e played u n t i l approximately c l o s i n g t i m e then cashed i n c h i p s

w i t h a v a l u e of between two hundred and f o u r hundred d o l l a r s .

The d e f e n d a n t p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e s a m e poker game, c a s h e d i n no

more t h a n a b o u t t h i r t y d o l l a r s worth of c h i p s a t t h e end o f t h e

game.

During t h e few d a y s p r i o r t o t h e poker game, t h e d e f e n d -

a n t had i n d i c a t e d t o a t l e a s t two w i t n e s s e s t h a t he was w i t h o u t

f u n d s and had w r i t t e n c h e c k s on a bank a c c o u n t w i t h i n s u f f i c i e n t

funds. H e had r e c e n t l y been l a i d o f f from h i s job.
 The d e f e n d a n t and Lords s e p a r a t e l y e n t e r e d t h e C r y s t a l

Lounge e a r l y on t h e evening of J a n u a r y 2 1 , 1975; t h e y a p p a r e n t l y

l e f t s e p a r a t e l y and by d i f f e r e n t e x i t s a t a b o u t 2 : 0 0 a.m.,

J a n u a r y 22. When d e f e n d a n t f i r s t e n t e r e d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t on

January 2 1 he was wearing a b l u e c o a t and a gun b e l t w i t h a

p i s t o l and h u n t i n g - t y p e k n i f e t h e r e i n . The b e l t , gun and k n i f e

were l e f t a t t h e b a r and t h e p i s t o l was g i v e n t o a C r y s t a l em-

p l o y e e a s s e c u r i t y f o r a l o a n o f money t o d e f e n d a n t . The k n i f e

was r e t u r n e d t o d e f e n d a n t a t a b o u t 12:30 a.m.; t h e gun was n e v e r

r e t u r n e d t o him.

S h o r t l y a f t e r 2:30 a.m., J a n u a r y 22, t h e d e f e n d a n t d r o v e

h i s vehicle into a service station i n Billings. H e requested

t h e a t t e n d a n t t o perform c e r t a i n r e p a i r work on t h e v e h i c l e , f o r

which d e f e n d a n t p a i d i n c a s h , g i v i n g a t w e n t y - d o l l a r b i l l and

having c o n s i d e r a b l e o t h e r money i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n . He a l s o c l e a n -

ed h i s v e h i c l e and washed t h e f l o o r mats and a p a i r o f b o o t s w i t h

water. The a t t e n d a n t l a t e r r e t r i e v e d some a r t i c l e s from a waste-

b a s k e t which d e f e n d a n t had a p p a r e n t l y thrown away.

On t h e a f t e r n o o n o f J a n u a r y 22, 1975, d e f e n d a n t w a s

a r r e s t e d f o r s h o p l i f t i n g a b l u e c o a t from a hardware s t o r e i n

Billings. When h e e n t e r e d t h e s t o r e he w a s n o t wearing a c o a t .

The i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o t h e s h o p l i f t i n g a r r e s t e v e n t u a l l y

l e d t o t h e charges involved i n t h e i n s t a n t case.

The t r i a l l a s t e d s i x d a y s and i n v o l v e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f

3 9 s t a t e w i t n e s s e s and t h e a d m i s s i o n o f 55 s t a t e e x h i b i t s and

two d e f e n s e e x h i b i t s . Fourteen B i l l i n g s p o l i c e o f f i c e r s testi-

f i e d f o r t h e s t a t e on v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of

t h e c r i m e s and of d e f e n d a n t ' s s h o p l i f t i n g a r r e s t . Counsel f o r

t h e d e f e n s e made no opening s t a t e m e n t , and r e s t e d a t t h e c l o s e

of t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e i n c h i e f . The d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t t e s t i f y .

The j u r y r e t u r n e d g u i l t y v e r d i c t s on b o t h c r i m e s c h a r g e d .
After sentencing, defendant made motion for a new trial, which
was denied.
The issues on appeal are as follows:
1. Were the prosecutor's comments to the jury on clos-
ing argument tantamount to comments on the failure of defendant
to testify and therefore in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 11,
Section 25, 1972 Montana Constitution?
2. Did the district court commit prejudicial error in
admitting evidence of other acts or conduct of the defendant?
3. Did the district court commit prejudicial error in
admitting into evidence a coat and testimony pertaining to the
alleged theft of the coat?
4. Did the district court err in its failure to instruct
the jury on the elements of theft in the course of its instruc-
tions on the elements of robbery?
5. Was the testimony of 14 police officers so unnecessary
and unduly prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair trial?
The first issue concerns certain remarks made by the
county attorney during his closing argument to the jury. It is
beyond question that the prosecution is strictly prohibited from
commenting on a defendant's failure to testify, for such comment
may negate the presumption of a defendant's innocence in vio-
lation of his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment
of the United States Constitution. Griffin v. California, 380
U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L ed 2d 106. This federal constitu-
tional right inures to the benefit of defendants in state courts
by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Con-
stitution. Griffin, supra; State v. Hart, 154 Mont. 310, 316,
462 P.2d 885. The Montana constitutional guaranty affords no
greater protection than that of the Federal constitution. State
v . Anderson, 156 Mont. 1 2 2 , 1 2 5 , 4 7 6 P.2d 780. I n Anderson

t h i s C o u r t s a i d t h a t t h e t e s t o f t h e p r o p r i e t y of a p r o s e -

c u t o r ' s comments i s :

" ' * * * whether t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d w a s m a n i f e s t l y
i n t e n d e d o r was of s u c h c h a r a c t e r t h a t t h e j u r y
would n a t u r a l l y and n e c e s s a r i l y t a k e it t o be a
comment on t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e a c c u s e d t o t e s t i f y . ' "

I n H a r t , w e found r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s

comment t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y d i d n o t s e e f i t t o o f f e r

any e v i d e n c e t o c o n t r o v e r t t h e s t o r y o f a policeman who t e s t i -

f i e d t o s e a r c h i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t and f i n d i n g i n c r i m i n a t i n g e v i -

dence. The f o u n d a t i o n of t h a t d e c i s i o n was t h a t any c o n t r o v e r t -

ing evidence " * * * c o u l d o n l y come from t h e d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f
* * *.I1 I n s o h o l d i n g , t h e C o u r t r e l i e d upon two f e d e r a l cases:

Desmond v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 345 F.2d 225, 14 ALR3d 718 ( F i r s t C i r .

1 9 6 5 ) , and Rodriguez-Sandoval v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 409 F.2d 529

(First Cir. 1969). I n b o t h cases c o n v i c t i o n s w e r e r e v e r s e d be-

c a u s e comment was made t h a t d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y o f p r o s e c u t i o n

w i t n e s s e s was n o t c o n t r a d i c t e d . I n a l l t h r e e c a s e s , t h e uncon-

t r a d i c t e d t e s t i m o n y commented upon c o n c e r n e d s i t u a t i o n s where

t h e government w i t n e s s and t h e d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f w e r e p r e s e n t

and no o t h e r w i t n e s s e s t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r o c c u r r e n c e s w e r e a v a i l -

able. Thus, t h e i n f e r e n c e t o b e drawn from s u c h comments i s t h a t

t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y n e g a t e s t h e p r e s u m p t i o n of

innocence.

I n t h e i n s t a n t case t h e f a c t s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .

I n t h e f i r s t p l a c e t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y n e v e r made r e f e r e n c e t o

d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y nor t o defense c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e

t o c a l l defendant t o t h e witness stand. Second, t h e r e was no

r e f e r e n c e t o t h e u n c o n t r a d i c t e d n a t u r e of t h e testimony o f any

w i t n e s s who was p r e s e n t w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t d u r i n g o r i m m e d i a t e l y

a f t e r t h e c r i m e s a s w a s t h e case i n Hart, Desmond and Rodriguez-

Sandoval.

While it i s t r u e t h a t t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y o f t e n a s k e d
r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s which amounted t o comments t h a t t h e r e was

"no e v i d e n c e " o r "no t e s t i m o n y " t o r e b u t t h e i n f e r e n c e s r a i s e d

by t h e s t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e , nowhere d o e s it a p p e a r t h a t t h e s e

comments would n e c e s s a r i l y imply t h a t d e f e n d a n t was t h e o n l y

s o u r c e which c o u l d n e g a t e s t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e . The most t h a t c a n

be s a i d of t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s comments i s t h a t t h e y r e f e r r e d

t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d no c a s e a t a l l . Certain-

l y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , a s a n a d v e r s a r y f o r t h e s t a t e , c a n n o t be

p r o h i b i t e d from a r g u i n g t h e s t r e n g t h of i t s c a s e t o t h e j u r y .

The m a n i f e s t f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d no t e s t i m o n y of i t s

own may be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , b u t such f a c t c a n n o t

deny t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i t s r i g h t t o s t r e s s t h e s t r e n g t h of i t s own

evidence. Compare: United S t a t e s ex r e l . Leak v . F o l l e t t e , 418

F.2d 1266 ( 2d-.Cir. 1 9 6 9 ) , c e r t . den. 397 U.S. 1050, 90 S.Ct. 1388,

25 L ed 2d 665.

Thus, we h o l d t h a t t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s comments r e g a r d -

ing t h e absence of c o n t r o v e r t i n g evidence i n t h i s c a s e d i d n o t

c o n s t i t u t e a v i o l a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t under

t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , A r t i c l e

11, S e c t i o n 25; G r i f f i n , o r H a r t .

W a l s o n o t e h e r e , a s we d i d i n S t a t e v . C a r y l ,
e

Mont. , 543 P.2d 389, 32 St.Rep. 1207, 1221, where e r r o r w a s

a s s i g n e d t o p r o s e c u t i o n comments made d u r i n g t r i a l , t h a t :

"A measure of t h e l a c k of s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s
a l l e g e d e r r o r i s found i n t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e
d e f e n d a n t t o move f o r a m i s t r i a l , s u b m i t a n
additional cautionary instruction, request
t h e c o u r t t o admonish t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y i n
t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e j u r y , o r t o t a k e any f u r t h e r
corrective action."

I n t h e second a s s i g n m e n t of e r r o r , d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s

t h a t e v i d e n c e was i m p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d which s e r v e d t h e s o l e pur-

p o s e of c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t a s a n e v i l man w i t h a

v i o l e n t d i s p o s i t i o n , a s p l i t p e r s o n a l i t y , and a p e c u l i a r a f f i n i t y
f o r weapons. I n p a r t i c u l a r , defendant o b j e c t s t o t h e testi-

mony of t h e f o l l o w i n g : (1) c o u n t y w e l f a r e employee J o S t r o b b e

who t e s t i f i e d t h a t on J a n u a r y 21, 1975, t h e day b e f o r e t h e k i l l -

i n g , d e f e n d a n t w a s i n h e r o f f i c e s e e k i n g b e n e f i t s and d i s -

p l a y e d a n a n g r y demeanor which f r i g h t e n e d t h e w i t n e s s and c a u s e d

h e r t o l e a v e t h e room i n t e a r s , y e t a few moments l a t e r de-

f e n d a n t ' s a t t i t u d e changed t o one o f p o l i t e calm; (2) acquaintance

Donald F i n c h and w i f e Peggy F i n c h , who b o t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t w h i l e

d e f e n d a n t s t a y e d a t t h e i r home d u r i n g J a n u a r y 19-21, 1975, de-

f e n d a n t c a r r i e d l o a d e d weapons i n t h e house i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f

t h e i r c h i l d r e n and s l e p t w i t h h i s k n i f e and p i s t o l i n h i s bed.

The s t a t e , on t h e o t h e r hand, a r g u e s t h a t t h e above

t e s t i m o n y w a s p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d t o show d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e n t and

m o t i v e t o commit t h e crimes c h a r g e d ; t h a t i s , t h e t e s t i m o n y of

S t r o b b e showed h i s d e s t i t u t e f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n and t h e t e s t i -

mony of t h e F i n c h e s showed t h e h i g h r e g a r d h e had f o r h i s p i s t o l

which he l a t e r on J a n u a r y 21 "hocked" f o r money t o p l a y p o k e r .

Defendant r e l i e s p r i m a r i l y upon S t a t e v . S a n d e r s , 158

Mont. 113, 489 P.2d 371, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a d m i t t e d e v i -

d e n c e must be r e l e v a n t a s t e n d i n g t o p r o v e o r d i s p r o v e f a c t s i n

i s s u e i n t h e c a s e , and t h a t e v i d e n c e o f p a s t a c t s o r c o n d u c t t e n d -

i n g t o show o n l y bad c h a r a c t e r a r e c o l l a t e r a l , i r r e l e v a n t and

prejudicial.

Sanders i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . Here, u n l i k e S a n d e r s , t h e

t e s t i m o n y was a d m i t t e d on t h e b a s i s o f r e l e v a n c y . The t e s t i m o n y

t a k e n a s a whole t e n d s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f a c t t h a t d e f e n d a n t , j u s t

p r i o r t o t h e crimes, w a s d e s p e r a t e f o r money. Such c i r c u m s t a n -

t i a l e v i d e n c e may p r o v i d e a n i n f e r e n c e f o r t h e m o t i v e of t h e

crimes. See S t a t e v . Murdock, 160 Mont. 95, 1 0 4 , 500 P.2d 387;

S t a t e v . F i n e , 9 0 Mont. 311, 2 P.2d 1016. A s we s t a t e d i n Murdock:

" * * * Although m o t i v e i s n o t a n e l e m e n t of
 t h e c r i m e , m o t i v e o r l a c k of m o t i v e i s a c i r -
cumstance t e n d i n g t o e s t a b l i s h g u i l t o r innocence
* * *.I1
F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t any

t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s c h a r a c t e r which was a d m i t t e d

a s p a r t of t h e m o t i v e e v i d e n c e was p r e j u d i c i a l t o d e f e n d a n t .

The t h i r d a s s i g n m e n t of e r r o r i s t h a t e v i d e n c e of o t h e r

c r i m e s committed by an a c c u s e d i s i n a d m i s s i b l e t o show commission

of t h e crime charged. A d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l r u l e and i t s

e x c e p t i o n s i s c o n t a i n e d i n S t a t e v . J e n s e n , 153 Mont. 233, 239,

455 P.2d 631. There w e h e l d t h a t t h e t e s t o f t h e e x c e p t i o n t o

t h e r u l e of e x c l u s i o n h a s t h r e e e l e m e n t s : " s i m i l a r i t y of c r i m e s

o r a c t s , n e a r n e s s i n t i m e , and tendency t o e s t a b l i s h a common

scheme, p l a n o r system." Defendant c o n t e n d s t h a t t e s t i m o n y and

e x h i b i t s c o n c e r n i n g h i s a r r e s t f o r s h o p l i f t i n g a b l u e c o a t on

J a n u a r y 2 2 , 1975 b e a r l i t t l e r e l a t i o n t o t h e J e n s e n t e s t of ad-

missibility.

T h i s argument m i s s e s t h e p o i n t . The t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g

t h e s h o p l i f t i n g o f f e n s e w a s admitted f o r t h e l e g i t i m a t e purpose

of showing t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of e v i d e n c e by t h e d e f e n d a n t . That

i s , t h e prosecution implied t h a t defendant destroyed t h e b l u e

c o a t which he was s e e n wearing on t h e e v e n i n g o f J a n u a r y 21-22

b e c a u s e it w a s bloody, and w a s t r y i n g t o r e p l a c e i t on t h e a f t e r -

noon of J a n u a r y 2 2 . The f a c t t h a t t h e b l u e c o a t w a s a l l e g e d l y

s h o p l i f t e d was a n c i l l a r y and s u b o r d i n a t e t o t h e f a c t t h a t defend-

a n t was a p p a r e n t l y r e p l a c i n g h i s o t h e r b l u e c o a t .

The a d m i s s i o n o f t h e c o a t and t h e t e s t i m o n y s u r r o u n d i n g

it was p r o p e r under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . A s we s a i d i n S t a t e v .

F r a n c i s , 58 Mont. 659, 671, 194 P . 304:

" * * * T h i s t e s t i m o n y t e n d e d t o show a d e s t r u c -
t i o n o r s u p p r e s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e by t h e d e f e n d a n t ,
and was c l e a r l y a d m i s s i b l e a s a c i r c u m s t a n c e
t e n d i n g toward d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t . From t h e record
i t i s c l e a r t h a t i t was i n t r o d u c e d f o r no o t h e r
purpose and t h e j u r y must have s o u n d e r s t o o d t h e
 testimony."

And w e s t a t e d i n S t a t e v . Cesar, 72 Mont. 252, 255, 232 P. 1109:

" I t i s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t , upon t h e t r i a l o f
one accused o f a s p e c i f i c o f f e n s e , e v i d e n c e of
d i s t i n c t and i n d e p e n d e n t c r i m e s i s n o t a d m i s s i b l e ,
and t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e r u l e i s s o a p p a r e n t t h a t i t
d o e s n o t c a l l f o r any d i s c u s s i o n . But t h e r u l e
i s equally w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t , i f evidence tends t o
p r o v e t h e commission o f t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d , it i s
n o t r e n d e r e d i n a d m i s s i b l e b e c a u s e it t e n d s a l s o t o
p r o v e t h a t t h e a c c u s e d committed a n o t h e r crime.
( S t a t e v. Hopkins, 68 Mont. 504, 219 P. 1106.) The
t e s t i s , n o t whether t h e o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e t e n d s t o
p r o v e a n i n d e p e n d e n t o f f e n s e , b u t whether it i s
r e l e v a n t a s t e n d i n g t o p r o v e any f a c t m a t e r i a l t o
t h e i s s u e i n t h e case before t h e court.* * *"

See a l s o : S t a t e v . Hughes, 76 Mont. 4 2 1 , 246 P. 959; S t a t e v .

Q u i g g , 155 Mont. 1 1 9 , 467 P.2d 692.

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

committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y on t h e e l e m e n t s

o f r o b b e r y s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n t h e words of t h e r o b b e r y s t a t u t e ,

s e c t i o n 9 4 - 5 - 4 0 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) , R.C.M. 1947, w i t h o u t d e f i n i n g " t h e f t " a s

used i n t h a t s e c t i o n , i n t h e words of t h e t h e f t s t a t u t e s e c t i o n

94-6-302(1), R.C.M. 1947. This contention i s without m e r i t . The

r e c o r d r e v e a l s no r e q u e s t by t h e d e f e n d a n t f o r a more s p e c i f i c

i n s t r u c t i o n , o r , i n d e e d , f o r any " t h e f t " i n s t r u c t i o n .

"Failure t o instruct i n certain particulars
c a n n o t be a s s i g n e d a s e r r o r , where t h e c o u r t
has properly covered i s s u e s , s i n c e , i n t h e
absence of r e q u e s t f o r i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e r e
i s no r u l i n g t o r e v i e w . * * *

" I t was incumbent upon d e f e n d a n t t o o f f e r and
r e q u e s t more s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s had s u c h been
d e s i r e d . H i s f a i l u r e t o d o s o c a n n o t f u r n i s h him
grounds f o r r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . " S t a t e v . Watson,
1 4 4 Mont. 576, 582, 584, 398 P.2d 949; s e e a l s o :
S t a t e v . P e t e r s , 146 Mont. 1 8 8 , 405 P.2d 642.

F i n a l l y , d e f e n d a n t s e e k s r e v e r s a l on t h e ground t h a t h e

was d e n i e d due p r o c e s s of l a w by a l l o w i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y o f 1 4

p o l i c e o f f i c e r s on b e h a l f o f t h e s t a t e . The g i s t o f h i s argument

i s t h a t t h e " e x c e s s i v e number" of p o l i c e o f f i c e r s a p p e a r i n g on
 t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d d e n i e d him a f a i r t r i a l b e c a u s e t h e h i g h re-

s p e c t which t h e uniform and t h e badge commands among c o n s c i e n t i o u s

c i t i z e n s g r e a t l y o u t w e i g h s t h e n e c e s s i t y of t h e t e s t i m o n y . De-

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

o u r a t t e n t i o n any f a c t s which would show p r e j u d i c e - - a n d i n our

r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d w e f i n d no s u c h p r e j u d i c e . I n any e v e n t ,

d e f e n s e c o u n s e l n e v e r r e q u e s t e d a l i m i t i n t h e number o f p o l i c e

w i t n e s s e s a t any s t a g e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , n o r o b j e c t e d t o t h e i r

t e s t i m o n y on such g r o u n d s ; t h e q u e s t i o n c a n n o t be r a i s e d f o r t h e

f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . S t a t e v . Peters, s u p r a .

Two o t h e r s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f e r r o r c o n t a i n e d i n d e f e n d -

a n t ' s o r i g i n a l b r i e f are s o p a t e n t l y unmeritorious t h a t they

r e q u i r e no d i s c u s s i o n h e r e i n .

F i n d i n g no e r r o r , t h e judgment of c o n v i c t i o n i s a f f i r m e d .

Justice

/ chief ~ ~ ~ t , %
i c