State v. Casagranda

No. 81-150

I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA

1981

S T A T E O F MONTANA,

P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,

VS .
JOHN A. CASAGRANDA,

D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Second 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 S i l v e r B o w
H o n o r a b l e M a r k P. S u l l i v a n , Judge p r e s i d - i n g

C o u n s e l of R e c o r d :

For A p p e l l a n t :

T h o m a s M. Malee, Helena, Montana

For R e s p o n d e n t :

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 McCarthy, County Attorney, B u t t e , Montana

-
S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : A u g u s t 2 0 , 1981

Filed:
QEC
- l Q 1981 =-
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y 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 .

D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s f r o m h i s c o n v i c t i o n of two c o u n t s
of aggravated burglary following a jury trial in the

D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e
of Montana, i n and for t h e County of Silver Bow. Trial
commenced on J a n u a r y 20, 1 9 8 1 , and on J a n u a r y 2 2 , 1981, a
j u r y found defendant g u i l t y of both o f f e n s e s . Defendant's

m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l was d e n i e d , and t h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w s .
Early i n t h e morning of July 6, 1980, a doctor's

o f f i c e and a n a d j o i n i n g pharmacy w e r e b u r g l a r i z e d i n B u t t e ,
Montana. On J u l y 7 , 1 9 8 0 , W i l l i a m H a n l e y was a r r e s t e d i n

M i s s o u l a , Montana, for a parole violation. Later t h a t day,
a box o f d r u g s was f o u n d i n some b u s h e s n e a r t h e m o t e l w h e r e

H a n l e y had been s t a y i n g . The box o f d r u g s was l a t e r i d e n t i -
f i e d a s b e i n g p a r t of t h e d r u g s t h a t were s t o l e n from t h e

B u t t e pharmacy. H a n l e y was q u e s t i o n e d by t h e a u t h o r i t i e s
concerning the burglary in Butte, and on July 18, 1980,
Hanley gave a statement to S i l v e r Bow County authorities
claiming that he had been a participant in the Butte

burglary. I t was a t t h i s time t h a t Hanley i m p l i c a t e d h i s
accomplices in the burglary, and named the defendant and
another individual. I n e x c h a n g e f o r t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n and
his testimony, Hanley was given complete immunity from
prosecution.
Hanley informed the authorities that the defendant

and another individual burglarized the pharmacy w h i l e he
waited outside in the car. After the burglary was
completed, t h e y a l l t h r e e went t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s home and
examined t h e q u a n t i t y and t y p e s o f d r u g s t h e y had s t o l e n .
The n e x t d a y , t h e d e f e n d a n t , accompanied by h i s f a m i l y , some
f r i e n d s and H a n l e y , d r o v e t o M i s s o u l a , c h e c k e d i n t o a m o t e l

and s p e n t t h e n i g h t i n a d j o i n i n g rooms. Hanley s t a t e d t h a t
h e saw a box o f drugs i n the defendant's room t h e night

b e f o r e h e was a r r e s t e d f o r t h e p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n . T h i s was

t h e same box o f d r u g s , a c c o r d i n g t o H a n l e y ' s s t a t e m e n t , t h a t
was f o u n d o u t s i d e t h e m o t e l t h e n e x t d a y .
Based upon Hanley's statement, the defendant was

s u b s e q u e n t l y a r r e s t e d and b r o u g h t t o t r i a l . Charges a g a i n s t
the third individual were dismissed on grounds of

i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence.
The d e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t s two a l l e g a t i o n s o f e r r o r :
1. Did c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e c o n s t i t u t e e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r
c r i m e s and t h e r e b y p r e j u d i c e t h e d e f e n d a n t ?

2. Was t h e accomplice's testimony sufficiently
corroborated?
The f i r s t i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s p r e m i s e d o n t h e i d e a

t h a t c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e , a p h a r m a c e u t i c a l b o t t l e , was e v i d e n c e
of other crimes and thereby caused the jury to draw

p r e j u d i c i a l inferences about the defendant's character.
The p h a r m a c e u t i c a l b o t t l e was f i r s t brought before
t h e j u r y when c o u n s e l f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t was c r o s s - e x a m i n i n g

the police officer who investigated the burglary. The
r e l e v a n t t e s t i m o n y was a s f o l l o w s :
"Q. Did you e v e r h a v e o c c a s i o n to search
Andy Casagranda's apartment? A. Yes, we
did.

"Q. Did you f i n d a n y t h i n g a t a l l i n t h a t
a p a r t m e n t which would l i n k Andy C a s a g r a n d a t o
t h i s b u r g l a r y ? A. W f o u n d some e v i d e n c e a t
e
t h e Casagranda .. .
"Q. I am j u s t s p e a k i n g o f f r u i t s o f t h e
c r i m e , s o t o s p e a k , o r e v i d e n c e of t h e s e
burglaries? A. P o s s i b i l i t y t h e r e was a
 p r e s c r i p t i o n or a , not a p r e s c r i p t i o n b o t t l e
b u t a pharmaceutical b o t t l e a t t h e Casagranda
r e s i d e n c e t h a t was s i m i l a r . . .

"Q. Now, I am n o t t a l k i n g a b o u t p o s s i b i l i -
ties. Did you f i n d a n y t h i n g t h a t would l i n k
Mr. C a s a g r a n d a t o t h e c r i m e ? A. Not
directly.
"Q. So t h e answer would be ' n o ' ? A. I
s t i l l h a v e t o q u a l i f y my answer by s a y i n g
t h e r e was b o t t l e f o u n d t h e r e t h a t was s i m i l a r
t o o n e t a k e n f r o m t h e pharmacy, t h a t i s u s e d
a t t h e pharmacy. P o s s i b i l i t y it could have
been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t . "
Then, after several more questions concerning the

pharmaceutical bottle, these questions were asked of the
police officer :
"Q. Did you d e t e r m i n e i f t h a t came from
C e n t r a l Pharmacy? A . No, s i r , i t was n e v e r
determined.
IIQ . S o t h e n i t d o e s n o t c o n n e c t Mr.
Casagranda? A. Could n o t d i r e c t l y c o n n e c t
i t , no, s i r . " (Emphasis added.)

The p h a r m a c e u t i c a l bottle was a g a i n b r o u g h t before

t h e j u r y when d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was c r o s s - e x a m i n i n g t h e owner
o f t h e pharmacy. The r e l e v a n t t e s t i m o n y was a s f o l l o w s :

"Q. A t any r a t e , t h e r e ' s a l o t of t h o s e
l i t t l e b o t t l e s around, r i g h t [ r e f e r r i n g t o
t h e b o t t l e i n q u e s t i o n ] ? A. I am s u r e t h e r e
are.

"Q. Can you p o s i t i v e l y identify that as
coming f r o m y o u r pharmacy?
"MR. WHEAT: Your h o n o r , I t h i n k t h e e x h i b i t
s h o u l d be marked s o t h e r e c o r d c a n b e c l e a r .

"THE COURT: Is t h i s some o t h e r e x h i b i t t h a t
i s n ' t marked now?
"MR. MILLER: No, your honor, it is not
marked .
"THE COURT: This is an item from box,
E x h i b i t P, r i g h t ?
"MR. MILLER: No, y o u r h o n o r .
"MR. MALEE: This is a b o t t l e , your honor,
that was found when Mr. Casagranda's
 a p a r t m e n t was s e a r c h e d .
"THE COURT: I f you want t o r e f e r t o i t and
i t h a s n ' t been marked, l e t ' s h a v e i t marked
s o you c a n r e f e r t o i t and s o the record w i l l
show what you a r e r e f e r r i n g to. The C l e r k
c a n mark i t f o r y o u .
"MR. MALEE: T h e r e i s no c o n n e c t i o n shown t o
t h i s c a s e , o r t h i s b o t t l e , your honor.
"THE COURT: T h a t i s b e f o r e t h e J u r y now. If
you want t o p u r s u e t h e m a t t e r , you a r e g o i n g
t o have t o i d e n t i f y i t .
"MR. MALEE: Could w e h a v e i t marked Defen-
d a n t ' s 1. ( C l e r k marked t h e e x h i b i t . )

"Q. Can you i d e n t i f y t h i s b o t t l e a s h a v i n g
come from your pharmacy? A. NO, t h e l a b e l
h a s been s c r a t c h e d o f f .
"Q. T h e r e i s no way? A . Not t o my knowledge.

"Q. There are thousands of these bottles
around? A. I am s u r e t h e r e a r e a l o t of
them.
"MR. MALEE: In that case, your honor, I
won't even o f f e r t h i s .
"MR. MILLER: No o b j e c t i o n , y o u r h o n o r . "

A f t e r t h i s c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f t e s t i m o n y e l i c i t e d by t h e
d e f e n s e f r o m two d i f f e r e n t w i t n e s s e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e b o t t l e ,
t h e S t a t e r e s p o n d e d by q u e s t i o n i n g t h e owner o f t h e C e n t r a l
Pharmacy on r e d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n a s f o l l o w s :

"Q. With r e f e r e n c e t o what h a s b e e n marked
D e f e n d a n t ' s No. 1 and what was marked e a r l i e r
a s P l a i n t i f f ' s [P-21 a r e t h e y t h e same t y p e
o f b o t t l e . A. Same t y p e o f b o t t l e e x a c t l y .
"Q. C o u l d you t e l l from t h e l a b e l on P-2
what is i n t h a t b o t t l e o r d i n a r i l y ? A.
Codeine Phosphate, 15 miligrams.
"Q. That is an a d d i c t i v e drug? A. Yes.

"Q. Do t h e d r u g c o m p a n i e s p u t d i f f e r e n t
t y p e s of d r u g s i n d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f b o t t l e ?
A. Yes.
"Q. Is t h i s t y p e o f b o t t l e , t h e s e two
b o t t l e s , D e f e n d a n t ' s No. 1 and S t a t e ' s P-2,
i s t h i s t y p e o f b o t t l e u s e d t o y o u r knowledge
f o r any o t h e r p ur p o s e t h a n t o keep v a r i o u s
 narcotic substances? A. I don't recall
s e e i n g it used f o r a n y t h i n g e l s e . . ."
Later, d u r i n g f u r t h e r r e d i r e c t of t h e pharmacy o w n e r , the

following d i s c u s s i o n took p l a c e :
"MR. MILLER: I am g o i n g t o o f f e r S t a t e ' s
E x h i b i t P-2 f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s and I
b e l i e v e t h a t I have provided f o u n d a t i o n f o r
t h a t w i t h Mr. S t a j c a r .
"MR. MALEE: W e l l , I make t h e same o b j e c t i o n .
T h i s h a s n o t b e e n t i e d t o M r . S t a j -r ' s
................................. c a-
pharmacy and n e i t h e r h a s t h e o t h e r b o t t l e , s o
what a r e t h e y demonstratinq?
"THE COURT: Let's see that bottle. This
d o e s n ' t h a v e a c o s t l a b e l on i t .
"MR. MILLER: I t h a s a mark Mr. S t a j c a r
t e s t i f i e d c o u l d be a p o r t i o n o f h i s c o s t c o d e
number. W e a r e o f f e r i n g t h i s f o r c o m p a r a t i v e
p u r p o s e s . Mr. Malee h e l d up what was l a b e l e d
No. 1 and we f e e l t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p
t h a t t h e J u r y s h o u l d be a b l e t o d i s c e r n and
f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s P-2 s h o u l d go i n .
"THE COURT: Not t h a t i t n e c e s s a r i l y came
f r o m Mr. S t a j c a r ' s s t o r e b u t t o d e m o n s t r a t e
t h i s is t h e t y p e of b o t t l e t h a t holds
narcotics.

"MR. M I L L E R : And a l s o , a s Mr. S t a j c a r
t e s t i f i e d , prescriptions a r e not given out i n
t h a t type of b o t t l e .
"THE COURT: A l l right. W e l l , f o r demon-
s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s o n l y we w i l l a c c e p t i n t o
e v i d e n c e P-2 a n d o v e r r u l e t h e o b j e c t i o n .
"MR. M I L L E R : Thank y o u . For t h e same r e a s o n
I would o f f e r D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 a t t h i s
t i m e s o i t c a n be compared f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e
p u r p o s e s by t h e J u r y w i t h [ S t a t e ' s ] P-2.
"MR. MALEE: Your h o n o r , I t h i n k w e a r e
leading t o a conclusion here. I don't
b e l i e v e it h a s been s a i d p o s i t i v e l y t h a t t h a t
is t h e only drug t h a t goes i n t o t h i s b o t t l e
...

"MR. MILLER: Your honor, Mr. Malee
i d e n t i f i e d t h i s b o t t l e w i t h D e t e c t i v e Lee a s
coming from t h e C a s a g r a n d a a p a r t m e n t . W e
f e e l t h a t is . . .
"THE COURT: If I u n d e r s t a n d w h a t you a r e
 a t t e m p t i n g t o d o is show t h a t D e f e n d a n t ' s
E x h i b i t 1 now, f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s
only, is t h e type of b o t t l e t h a t u s u a l l y
contains narcotics.
"MR. MILLER: That's right.

"THE: COURT: And i t ' s a l s o a t y p e o f b o t t l e
t h a t i s n o t n o r m a l l y i s s u e d o r h a n d l e d by
drug s t o r e s a s a p r e s c r i p t i v e i t e m .
"MR. MILLER: Yes, y o u r h o n o r .

"THE COURT: It's a pharmaceutical b o t t l e
rather than a prescription type b o t t l e ?
"MR. MILLER: That's correct.

"THE COURT: For o n l y t h o s e p u r p o s e s t h e n , we
w i l l o v e r r u l e t h e o b j e c t i o n and a d m i t Defen-
d a n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 a s -- w e l l , I g u e s s we w i l l
j u s t r e f e r t o i t a s D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t 1,
a c c e p t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e by m o t i o n o f t h e
Plaintiff." ( E m p h a s i s added.)
I n S t a t e v. Frates ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 431, 436, 503
P.2d 47, 50, this Court reiterates the general rule
concerning evidence of other crimes by stating:

". . . when a d e f e n d a n t i s p u t upon t r i a l f o r
o n e o f f e n s e , h e s h o u l d be c o n v i c t e d , i f a t
a l l , by e v i d e n c e which shows t h a t he i s
g u i l t y o f t h e o f f e n s e a l o n e ; and e v i d e n c e
which i n any manner shows o r t e n d s t o show,
t h a t he h a s committed a n o t h e r c r i m e w h o l l y
i n d e p e n d e n t , e v e n t h o u g h i t be a c r i m e o f t h e
same s o r t , i s i r r e l e v a n t and i n a d m i s s i b l e . "
This general rule, along with the exceptions, has
been c o d i f i e d i n Rule 4 0 4 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid., which s t a t e s :

" E v i d e n c e of o t h e r c r i m e s , w r o n g s , o r a c t s i s
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 h e a c t e d i n
conformity therewith. I t may, h o w e v e r , be
admissible f o r o t h e r purposes, such a s proof
of motive, opportunity, i n t e n t , p r e p a r a t i o n ,
p l a n , knowledge, i d e n t i t y , o r absence of
mistake or accident."
The i m p o r t a n t l a n g u a g e o f t h i s r u l e o v e r l o o k e d by t h e
S t a t e is t h a t t h e r u l e is n o t l i m i t e d t o "other crimes."
The r u l e a l s o a p p l i e s t o "wrongs o r a c t s " o f t h e d e f e n d a n t .

H e r e , t h e t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e p h a r m a c e u t i c a l b o t t l e was
s u c h t h a t a j u r y c o u l d i n f e r from i t t n a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had

illegally acquired a bottle used for narcotics. Clearly,

t h i s b o t t l e was e v i d e n c e o f "wrongs o r acts," if not the

e v i d e n c e of " o t h e r c r i m e s , " o f t h e d e f e n d a n t .

The general rule set out in Frates, supra, and

codified in Rule 4 0 4 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid., is to be strictly

enforced. This Court i n S t a t e v. Just (1979), - Mont.

, 602 P.2d 957, 962, 36 S t . R e p . 1649, when reviewing

other crimes evidence, s t a t e d :

"The g e n e r a l r u l e s h o u l d be s t r i c t l y e n f o r c e d
i n a l l c a s e s where a p p l i c a b l e , b e c a u s e o f t h e
p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t and i n j u s t i c e of such
e v i d e n c e , a n d s h o u l d n o t be d e p a r t e d from
e x c e p t under c o n d i t i o n s which c l e a r l y j u s t i f y
such a departure. The e x c e p t i o n s s h o u l d be
c a r e f u l l y l i m i t e d , and t h e i r number and s c o p e
not increased. S t a t e v . Tiedemann ( 1 9 6 1 ) ,
139 Mont. 237, 242-243, 362 P.2d 529, 5 3 1 . "

The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t under the test set out in

S t a t e v. Jackson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 1 Mont. 257, 589 P.2d 1009, 36

St.Rep. 169, other crimes evidence includes only evidence

that is connected to wholly independent and unrelated

crimes, and d o e s n o t i n c l u d e e v i d e n c e t h a t i s i n e x t r i c a b l y

related t o t h e crime charged. Further, the S t a t e contends

t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e b o t t l e was n o t

e v i d e n c e f r o m a n o t h e r c r i m e and t h e r e f o r e u n d e r J a c k s o n t h e

e v i d e n c e c a n n o t be c o n s t r u e d t o be e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r c r i m e s .

T h i s a r g u m e n t is f l a w e d i n s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t ways.

First, i t is a x i o m a t i c t h a t t h e burden of p r o o f d o e s

not r e s t with the defendant, but with the State. Second,

the State failed to prove that the bottle was in fact

connected with t h e burglary i n Butte. The w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e

State testified that there was no c o n n e c t i o n between the

pharmaceutical bottle i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a p a r t m e n t and t h e
B u t t e pharmacy. Again, t h e b o t t l e was e v i d e n c e o f "other

crimes, wrongs o r a c t s " of t h e d e f e n d a n t and was t h e r e b y
severely p r e j u d i c i a l t o the defendant.

The S t a t e ' s f i n a l c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s
e s t o p p e d f r o m a l l e g i n g e r r o r b e c a u s e h i s c o u n s e l o p e n e d up
t h e i s s u e of the pharmaceutical b o t t l e . The g e n e r a l r u l e
c o n c e r n i n g t h i s c o n t e n t i o n i s s e t o u t i n S t a t e v . Tiedemann

( 1 9 6 1 ) , 1 3 9 Mont. 237, 243, 362 P.2d 529, 5 3 2 , a s f o l l o w s :
"A p a r t y d o e s n o t o r d i n a r i l y w a i v e h i s
objection t o t h e erroneous admission of
e v i d e n c e by s u b s e q u e n t l y i n t r o d u c i n g e v i d e n c e
t o disprove the matter t e s t i f i e d t o , t o
e x p l a i n them o r t o p r o v e f a c t s i n c o n s i s t e n t
t h e r e w i t h , e v e n t h o u g h i t i s o f t h e same k i n d
or nature. "
H e r e , d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l had r e c e i v e d a n u n s o l i c i t e d
r e s p o n s e f r o m t h e S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s c o n c e r n i n g t h e pharmaceu-
tical bottle found in the d e f e n d a n t 1s apartment. This
Court, i n S t a t e v. R i v e r s ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 1 3 3 Mont. 1 2 9 , 1 3 5 , 320
P.2d 1004, 1007, when referring to defense counsel in a

similar situation, stated: "His e f f o r t s t o s a v e t h e day f o r
his client by explaining the matter in redirect is not

waiver." D e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l may h a v e d i s c u s s e d t h e pharma-
ceutical bottle before the State introduced it into

evidence, b u t t h i s d i d n o t waive t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s right to
object or to urge this as error on appeal. Tiedemann,
supra.

Finally, these i s s u e s were b e s t summarized by this
C o u r t i n Tiedemann, where i t was s t a t e d :
"The e r r o r i n t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e s t a t e m e n t
was p r e j u d i c i a l , was n o t w a i v e d by t h e
d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n t o meet t h a t o f t h e
S t a t e , and was of s u c h a n a t u r e t h a t i t c o u l d
n o t be c u r e d by s t r i k i n g t h e o b j e c t i o n a b l e
p o r t i o n , n o r by i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e j u r y t h a t
i t was n o t t o c o n s i d e r a n y r e m a r k s n o t
s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . " 362 P.2d a t 532-
 The second issue in this case is p r e m i s e d on the

allegation that the accomplice's testimony was insuffi-

c i e n t l y c o r r o b o r a t e d by t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e .

I n S t a t e v. S t a n d l e y ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 1 5 3 , 586 P.2d

1 0 7 5 , 1 0 7 7 , 35 S t . R e p . 1631, 1634, t h i s Court held:

"The r u l e on c o r r o b o r a t i o n is s t a t e d i n S t a t e
v . Cobb ( 1 9 2 6 ) , 76 Mont. 8 9 , 245 P. 265. In
t h a t c a s e , we h e l d t h a t t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g
e v i d e n c e may be s u p p l i e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t o r
h i s w i t n e s s e s ; i t may b e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l
e v i d e n c e ; i t need n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o
s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n or e s t a b l i s h a prima
f a c i a c a s e o f g u i l t ; and i t n e e d n o t b e
s u f f i c i e n t t o connect the defendant with the
c r i m e b u t m u s t t e n d t o c o n n e c t him w i t h t h e
crime. I n S t a t e v . Keckonen ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 1 0 7
Mont. 253, 84 P.2d 3 4 1 , w e h e l d t h a t w h e r e
t h e a l l e g e d c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e is e q u a l l y
consonant with a reasonable explanation
p o i n t i n g toward i n n o c e n t c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t
of defendant, then such evidence does n o t
t e n d t o c o n n e c t him w i t h 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 and i s i n t h e r e a l m o f s p e c u l a -
tion, not corroboration. Where t h e c l a i m e d
c o r r o b o r a t i o n shows no more t h a n a n o p p o r -
t u n i t y t o commit a c r i m e and s i m p l y p r o v e s
suspicion, it is not suff i c e n t corroboration
t o j u s t i f y a c o n v i c t i o n upon t h e t e s t i m o n y o f
an accomplice. S t a t e v . J o n e s ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 95
Mont. 3 1 7 , 26 P.2d 341; S t a t e v . Coleman

Here, the State's evidence merely illustrated that

t h e d e f e n d a n t had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o commit a crime. The

evidence, as a matter of law, was not sufficient when

coupled with t h e testimony of t h e accomplice t o support a

conviction. The p r y m a r k s , f o o t p r i n t s and s t o l e n d r u g s w e r e

never shown t o h a v e been c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t and

t h e r e b y do n o t tend t o connect t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e crime.

The m o t e l r e c o r d s , t h e box c o n t a i n i n g t h e s t o l e n d r u g s , and

d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e ' s p r e s c r i p t i o n b o t t l e t h a t was f o u n d i n t h e

b u s h e s o u t s i d e t h e m o t e l d o no more t h a n p l a c e t h e d e f e n d a n t
in a suspiclous circumstance. The explanation given to

t h e s e f a c t s and c i r c u i n s t a n c e s by t h e a c c o m p l i c e i s no more

reasonable than the explanation provided by d e f e n d a n t and

his wife. Clearly, the State did not present sufficient

corroborating evidence to support the accomplice's

testimony.

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

W concur:
e