No. 12341
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1973
THE STATE OE MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-VS -
JERRY GALLAGHER,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D 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 ,
Hon. Robert H e Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For Appellant :
S a n d a l l , Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana
D. Frank Kampfe a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
F o r Respondent :
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena,
Montana
J o n a t h a n B . Smith, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d ,
Helena
Harold F. Hanser, County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s ,
Montana
Submitted: March 28, 1973
Decided : MAY - 11973
Filed : MAY - 1 1973
Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
This i s an appeal from a judgment of conviction of murder
i n t h e f i r s t degree entered on a j u r y v e r d i c t i n 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 , county of Yellowstone, A f t e r d e n i a l of h i s
motion f o r a new t r i a l , defendant appealed.
Defendant J e r r y Gallagher r a i s e s f o u r i s s u e s on appeal :
1, Defendant i s e n t i t l e d t o a new t r i a l i n s o f a r a s h i s
defense counsel had previously prosecuted him,
2, The t r i a l 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 defendant's
motion f a r new t r i a l based upon newly discovered evidence.
3, The t r i a l 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 defendant's
motion t o suppress c e r t a i n evidence obtained i n v i o l a t i o n of h i s
Fourth Amendment r i g h t s .
4. The t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n admitting c e r t a i n evidence
obtained i n a search i n c i d e n t t o defendant's a r r e s t where t h e
a r r e s t warrant was p r e d i c a t e d upon an i n s u f f i c i e n t showing of
probable cause.
O September 7 , 1971, a body was discovered on " ~ a r d i n
n
H i l l " on U . S . Highway 87 n e a r B i l l i n g s , Montana, The body was
i d e n t i f i e d a s t h a t of one Eldon Egan. The body was observed by
t o u r i s t s , who had stopped a t a v i s t a p o i n t t o observe t h e Yellaw-
stone Valley, some 75 t o 100 f e e t below t h e v i s t a p o i n t on a
s t e e p i n c l i n e beyond a barbed w i r e fence, which r a n p a r a l l e l t o t h e
highway. It was l a t e r observed t h e fence had been c u t a t a p o i n t
n o t f a r from t h e body. The t o u r i s t s stopped a Montana Highway
Patrolman, Leo Burnett, and showed him t h e body, H e immediately
n o t i f i e d t h e s h e r i f f who took a team of d e p u t i e s and d e t e c t i v e s
t o t h e scene, a r r i v i n g a t about 1:20 p.m.
A c a r e f u l combing of t h e a r e a revealed a f i n g e r n a i l c l i p p e r ,
-70 s h e l l casings and one spent b u l l e t , A t the v i s t a pulloff,
above t h e body, t h e r e was a t r a s h can i n which was found a paper
bag containing a blood s t a i n e d pillowcase, a block of woad, and
a comb, A second bag contained a broken Vodka b o t t l e ,
D r , Gordon L. Cox, a B i l l i n g s p a t h o l o g i s t , examined t h e
body. H i s examination revealed Egan had been severely beaten
and shot twice i n t h e head. One of t h e s h o t s had been f i r e d
through t h e roof of t h e mouth. E i t h e r of t h e b u l l e t wounds
would have produced i n s t a n t death. A "32 c a l i b e r s l u g was found
i n t h e s k u l l and t h e expended s l u g found n e a r t h e body was a
.32 c a l i b e r .
Deputies of t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e and B i l l i n g s p o l i c e
o f f i c e r s immediately began i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t o a s c e r t a i n Egan's
a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e community. Much of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n concerned
B i l l i n g s southside b a r s and t h e i r c l i e n t e l e .
Testimony a t t r i a l revealed t h a t defendant and one John
Curry, who was a l s o charged and l a t e r a c q u i t t e d of t h e murder,
were t o g e t h e r i n t h e Montana Bar i n t h e e a r l y hours of September
7 , 1971. Egan had a l s o been i n t h e b a r and testimony i n d i c a t e d
t h a t he was c a r r y i n g a .32 c a l i b e r r e v o l v e r , There was testimony
t h a t Curry made t h e statement t o someone a t t h e b a r when Egan
came i n t o t h e b a r "not t o move, you might g e t i n t o t h e c r o s s
fire". This person, James Lee Marvidikis, was n o t a v a i l a b l e
f o r t r i a l b u t l a t e r i n a deposition taken i n B i l l i n g s , March 16,
1972,and introduced a t t h e time of t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l ,
t e s t i f i e d Curry had a gun, a t one time had i t a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y
o u t from under h i s b e l t and t h a t Curry t o l d Marvidikis, "There
i s going t o be a beef. * * * Hold s t i l l , don't move, you might
get cross-fired."
I n v e s t i g a t i o n revealed and testimony was l a t e r given,
t h a t defendant and Egan had a few n i g h t s before been involved
i n a "beef" a t t h e Empire Bar and t h a t Egan, who came o u t t h e
l o s e r , had threatened t o "get" defendant. Testimony revealed
both men had l i v e d with a woman named Ida May France Egan, a l s o
known a s Smoky Walker, and t h a t t h e a l t e r c a t i o n had developed
because Egan a t t h e time out out of favor and defendant was being
favored.
The i n v e s t i g a t i o n narrowed down t o focus upon t h e where-
abouts and a c t i v i t i e s of Curry and defendant. A t about 9:00 p.m.
on t h e evening of September 8 , t h e day a f t e r t h e discovery of
Egan's body, t h e s h e r i f f received a c a l l from a Mrs, Ruth Parker,
complaining t h a t a prowler was i n o r had been i n h e r home,
Knowing t h a t defendant had been l i v i n g t h e r e , t h e s h e r i f f and
two d e p u t i e s went t o h e r home and upon a r r i v i n g t h e r e were r e -
quested by Mrs. Parker t o search t h e house, including t h e basement,
While i n t h e basement, accompanied by Mrs. Parker, t h e s h e r i f f
observed what appeared t o be a blood s t a i n e d s h i r t and with M r s .
P a r k e r ' s permission took t h e s h i r t , which had a t e a r on t h e r i g h t
s i d e of t h e r e a r of t h e s h i r t , H e a l s o took a p a i r of t r o u s e r s
and a p a i r of stockings t h a t appeared t o be blood s t a i n e d . At
t r i a l , only t h e s h i r t had i d e n t i f i c a b l e blood s t a i n s and t h e blood
was type A. Both defendant and Egan had type A blood.
Concerning t h e blood s t a i n e d pillowcase found i n t h e t r a s h
can near where t h e body was found, an extensive i n v e s t i g a t i o n
t r a c e d i t t o t h e home of one Lamona Northey i n Butte, Montana,
Miss Northey, aged 16, i s t h e daughter of one Neddie S t . Arnant
of B u t t e , a f r i e n d of John Curry. Miss Northey t e s t i f i e d t h a t
John Curry came t o h e r home on t h e ev&ning of August 29, 1971; t h a t
h e s l e p t on t h e couch; t h a t she gave him a pillow covered by t h e
pillowcase found i n t h e t r a s h can; t h a t t h e next day Curry took
t h e pillow out t o h i s c a r ; and, t h a t she had n o t seen i t again
u n t i l i t was shown t o h e r by i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s a t Butte on
November 30, 1971. She i d e n t i f i e d t h e pillowcase by t h e embroidery
on i t and i n d i c a t e d a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n i t because i t had
been made by h e r grandmother and t h a t she had intended t o em-
broidery over i t due t o t h e f a c t some of t h e c o l o r s had faded.
Defendant and Curry were a r r e s t e d one week a f t e r Egan's
death i n a remote cow camp i n Wyoming. The c a r they were d r i v i n g ,
which belonged t o c u r r y ' s son, was impounded and searched under
a warrant issued by a Wyoming magistrate. Testimony of witnesses
a t t r i a l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Curry and defendant had washed t h e c a r ,
i n s i d e and o u t , while a t t h e cow camp. They were observed
washing t h e mats i n a h o r s e tank and hanging them t o d r y on a
fence. Blood s t a i n s were found on t h e f l o o r mats, and on a
p i e c e of cardboard taken from t h e t r u n k of t h e c a r , b u t t h e
stai.ns were n o t i n s u f f i c i e n t amounts t o e s t a b l i s h whether they
were human blood s t a i n s o r t o be typed. During t h e s e a r c h by
S h e r i f f Hladky of Wyoming t h e following items were taken from
t h e c a r , processed and s e n t t o t h e FBI and l a t e r i n t r o d u c e d
i n t o evidence: a p a i r of g l o v e s , a small s u i t c a s e c o n t a i n i n g
c l o t h e s , a motel key, f r o n t f l o o r mats, and a p i e c e of cardboard
from t h e t r u n k of t h e c a r .
Defendant and Curry were charged w i t h t h e d e a t h o f Egan.
B a i l was s e t a t $25,000 b u t l a t e r revoked on motion by t h e county
attorney. P r i v a t e counsel appeared f o r b o t h defendants and r e -
presented them u n t i l December 20, 1971, when an a f f i d a v i t was
f i l e d by defense counsel s e t t i n g f o r t h t h a t h e could n o t r e p r e s e n t
e i t h e r defendant t o t h e p o s s i b l e p r e j u d i c e of t h e o t h e r . The
withdrawal was a u t h o r i z e d and defendant r e q u e s t e d appointment of
counsel a l l e g i n g he was w i t h o u t funds t o h i r e counsel. It i s
noted t h a t a f t e r b e i n g a b l y defended by t h e p u b l i c defender h e
found funds on appeal t o h i r e p r i v a t e counsel. Defendant d i d
not t e s t i f y a t t r i a l .
~ e f e n d a n t ' s f i r s t i s s u e on appeal a l l e g e s e r r o r i n t h a t
defense counsel John Adams had p r e v i o u s l y prosecuted defendant.
Defendant r e l i e s on I n r e P e t i t i o n of Lucero, Mon t . 9
504 P.2d 992, 30 St.Rep. 161. W e hold Lucero n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o
t h e f a c t s of t h e i n s t a n t c a s e .
This Court r e c e n t l y considered t h i s q u e s t i o n i n I n r e
P e t i t i o n of Romero, Mont , y P.2d , 30 St,Rep,
440, quoting from I n r e P e t i t i o n of Gary Lynn A l l e n , Mon t .
II
A s t o t h e f i r s t two s e n t e n c e s t h e i r period of
time had long s i n c e expired and *** defense
counsel would be f r e e t o a c c e p t appointment s i n c e
he was no longer involved i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . 11
W f u r t h e r noted i n Romero:
e
his Court t a k e s j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f t h e f a c t
t h a t s e v e r a l of o u r most eminent and s u c c e s s f u l
c r i m i n a l defense lawyers a r e former p r o s e c u t o r s ;
and t h a t i n no c a s e h a s our a t t e n t i o n e v e r been
c a l l e d t o any l a c k o f i n t e w e s t , e f f o r t o r com-
petency because o f t h i s f a c t o r . I1
S e c t i o n 94-3509, R,C,M. 1947, t h e s t a t u t e p r o h i b i t i n g
counsel from appearing a s defense c o u n s e l f o r a person h e p r e -
v i o u s l y had prosecuted, r e f e r s t o t h e same c a s e ; i t h a s no a p p l i -
c a t i o n t o counsel appearing t o defend a t a l a t e r time and i n a
different case,
I n a d d i t i o n , h e r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t recognized t h e problem
of t h e appointment of defense counsel and h e l d a s p e c i a l h e a r i n g
a t which t h e following colloquy occurred:
"THE COURT: Very w e l l , t h a t o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g
endorsanent of t h e w i t n e s s i s s i g n e d , I might
a s k M r . Gallagher a t t h i s time ---
I h o w when
I appointed M r , Adams t o r e p r e s e n t you I asked
you i f you had a p r e f e r e n c e between M r . Adams and
M r . Whalen and you s t a t e d t h a t you d i d p r e f e r M r .
Adams, and I am presuming from t h a t s e l e c t i o n t h a t
you hold no grudges a g a i n s t M r . Adams a p p a r e n t l y
f o r h i s previous work a s Co~nntyAttorney and you
do f e e l t h a t he i s a good a t t o r n e y and t h a t he i s
doing and w i l l do a s good as he can f o r you i n
your b e h a l f . Am I c o r r e c t i n t h a t assumption?
"DEFENDANT GALLAGHER: Yes, Your Honor,
"THE COURT: And you a r e s a t i s f i e d with him a s
your a t t o r n e y and t h e work h e h a s done f o r you
up t o now and s o on?
"DEFENDANT GALLAGHER: Yes, Your Honor.
"THE COURT: You do t r u s t and depend on him?
"DEFENDANT GALLAGHER : Yes .
"THE COURT: Very w e l l . Okay, 11
Here defendant had a c h o i c e , he could have picked M r , Whalen, an
experienced c o u n s e l , b u t chose M r . Adams. I n so doing, h e waived
any r i g h t t o demand a new t r i a l on t h i s i s s u e .
Defendant's second i s s u e concerns whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t
e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l based on newly discovered e v i -
dence,
I n S t a t e v. Greeno, 135 Mont. 580, 586, 342 P.2d 1052, t h i s
Court e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t e r i a t o be met b e f o r e a new t r i a l w i l l be
~ r a r i t e don t h e h s i s o f newly discovered evidence. There i t s a i d :
"(1) That t h e evidence must have come t o t h e
knowledge of t h e a p p l i c a n t s i n c e t h e t r i a l ; (2) t h a t
i t was n o t through want of d i l i g e n c e t h a t i t was n o t
discovered e a r l i e r ; (3) t h a t i t i s so m a t e r i a l t h a t
i t would probably produce a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t upon
m o t h e r t r i a l ; (4) t h a t i t i s n o t cumulative merely
- - - t h a t i s , does n o t speak a s t o f a c t s i n r e l a t i o n
r o which t h e r e was evidence a t t h e t r i a l ; (5) t h a t
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n must be supported by t h e a f f i d a v i t
of t h e w i t n e s s whose evidence i s a l l e g e d t o have been
newly d i s c o v e r e d , o r i t s absence accounted f o r ; and
(6) t h a t t h e evidence must n o t be such a s w i l l only
tend t o impeach t h e c h a r a c t e r o r c r e d i t of a w i t n e s s ,
To some of t h e s e t h e r e may b e , and d o u b t l e s s a r e ,
e x c e p t i o n s . For i l l u s t r a t i o n : t h e cumulative e v i -
dence may be s o overwhelmingly convincing a s t o compel
t h e conclusion t h a t t o s u s t a i n t h e v e r d i c t would be
a g r o s s i n j u s t i c e , o r t h e impeaching evidence may
demonstrate p e r j u r y i n t h e w i t n e s s e s upon whose e v i -
dence t h e v e r d i c t i s founded. "
See a l s o : S t a t e v. B e s t , Mon t . , 503 P. 2d 997, 29 S t .
Rep. 1045.
Defendant r e l i e s h e a v i l y on s e v e r a l i s s u e s which he c l a s s i -
f i e s a s newly discovered evidence i n h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a new t r i a l :
(1) The f a c t t h a t h i s counsel on a p p e a l , who had r e p r e s e n t e d
John Curry a t h i s t r i a l , had on examination of Lamora Northey
r a i s e d some doubt a s t o h e r p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e pillow-
case a t defendant's t r i a l .
(2) The testimony of Forence Imsande who t e s t i f i e d a t
curry's t r i a l , but did not t e s t i f y a t defendant's t r i a l .
(3) The testimony o f M r . and Mrs. Newt Kirkland, a l i b i
w i t n e s s e s f o r Curry, t h a t Curry was a t t h e i r home from t h e e a r l y
hours of t h e morning of September 7 , 1971, u n t i l about 10 a,m. t h e
n e x t morning.
W f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n denying a new t r i a l
e
due t o t h e f a c t defendant f a i l e d t o produce s u f f i c i e n t new evidence
t o support h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a new t r i a l .
F i r s t , d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t Miss Northey m a t e r i a l l y
v a r i e d h e r testimony a t t h e Curry t r i a l from t h a t given a t de-
fendant's t r i a l i s subject t o question. A s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , Miss
Northey was s i x t e e n y e a r s o l d , h e r mother was a f r i e n d of Curry,
and she was n o t what could b e termed a f r i e n d l y w i t n e s s f o r t h e
s t a t e ; she gave a s t a t e m e n t i n November 1971 t o t h e d e p u t i e s
i d e n t i f y i n g t h e pillowcase and l a t e r t e s t i f i e d i n accordance
with t h a t statement a t defendant's t r i a l , and i t was n o t u n t i l
t h e n i g h t before she t e s t i f i e d a t Curry's t r i a l t h a t she had any
change of mind. L a s t , b u t n o t l e a s t , upon cross-examination a t
Curry's t r i a l when asked t o review h e r previous statements a s t o
t r u t h , she admitted they were t r u e . The t r i a l c o u r t noted, and
we concur, one can only s p e c u l a t e a s t o what she might say on a
third t r i a l . Obviously, t h e t r i a l judge was n o t impressed t h a t
t h i s was newly discovered evidence e n t i t l i n g defendant t o a new
trial,
Second, Florence Imsande t e s t i f i e d a t Curry's t r i a l b u t
d i d n o t a t defendant's t r i a l . Her testimony was t h a t she saw
defendant between 11:30 p.m. and 12:00 midnight on t h e n i g h t of
Egan's death; t h a t defendant was wearing a s h i r t f r e s h l y s t a i n e d
with blood; and, t h a t when she q u e s t ~ h i m
about i t defendant
said i t came from i n j u r i e s received i n a f i g h t . M r s . Imsande was
a c l e r k a t t h e F r o n t i e r Club i n B i l l i n g s . On cross-examination
she s t a t e d she had s o l d defendant a b o t t l e of Vodka, she thought
i t was ord don's, b u t admitted they s o l d Smirnoffs--the type b o t t l e
found i n t h e t r a s h can,
A t defendant's t r i a l no testimony was produced i n d i c a t i n g
t h a t anyone had seen defendant a f t e r midnight September 7 with
blood on h i s s h i r t .
Mrs. Imsande t e s t i f i e d a t Curry's t r i a l t h a t she had known
defendant s i n c e he was a boy a t Lewistawn. Both she and defendant
must have been aware of t h i s so-called new evidence b e f o r e h i s t r i a l ,
most c e r t a i n l y i t i s n o t evidence t h a t came t o defendant's a t t e n t i o n
after t r i a l and obviously with any d i l i g e n c e i t could have been
produced a t h i s t r i a l ,
Third, t h e testimony of M r . and M r s . N e w t Kirkland, two
a l i b i witnesses a t t h e Curry t r i a l . M r . Kirkland i s an admitted
exconvict and on o r a l argument was described by t h e county a t t o r n e y
a s a man "out on a bond of $75,000 from a r e c e n t bank robbery
i n t h e midwest where he had l o s t an arm i n a gun f i g h t . " The
Kirklands t e s t i f i e d a t Curry's t r i a l t h a t t h e y saw Curry s h o r t l y
a f t e r 1:00 a.m. on t h e 7 t h on t h e s o u t h s i d e of B i l l i n g s , t h a t
he was a f r i e n d , t h a t he had been d r i n k i n g , and t h a t t h e y took
him home w i t h them and h e spent t h e n i g h t a t t h e i r ranch. They
t e s t i f i e d they brought him t o town about 10:00 a.m. the next
morning. How t h i s q u a l i f i e d a s t o defendant a s newly discovered
evidence, escapes us. Curry and defendant were j a i l e d i n ad-
j o i n i n g c e l l s where they could t a l k t o each o t h e r ; Kirklands
v i s i t e d Curry a t l e a s t once and probably s e v e r a l times w h i l e he
was i n j a i l , and t h e Kirklands knew defendant, I f t h i s evidence
had been e i t h e r r e l e v a n t o r t r u t h f u l i t could have e a s i l y been
secured by defendant b e f o r e t r i a l , had h e e x e r c i s e d due d i l i g e n c e ,
T h i s Court i n S t a t e v , Jones, 32 Mont. 442, 454, 80 P, 1095,
stated:
"* * * a motion f o r a new t r i a l i s addressed t o
t h e sound l e g a l d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . "
Here, t h e r e was no abuse of t h a t sound d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l
judge i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l , The r e q u i r e -
ments of Greeno simply had n o t been met.
Defendant's t h i r d i s s u e concerns t h e s e a r c h of d e f e n d a n t ' s
room and s e i z u r e of c l o t h i n g found t h e r e . Fourth Amendment t o
t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n ; A r t . 111, Sec, 7, Montana Consti-
tution. S e c t i o n s 95-701 and 95-718, R,C.M. 1947, s e t f o r t h t h e
s t a n d a r d s f o r search and s e i z u r e .
S e c t i o n 95-701, R.C.M, 1947, s t a t e s :
"A s e a r c h of a person, o b j e c t o r p l a c e may b e made
and i n s t r u m e n t s , a r t i c l e s o r t h i n g s may be s e i z e d
i n accordance w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s c h a p t e r
when t h e s e a r c h i s made:
"(a) A s a n i n c i d e n t t o a l a w f u l a r r e s t ,
"(b) With t h e consent of t h e accused or of any
o t h e r person who i s l a w f u l l y i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e
o b j e c t o r p l a c e t o be searched, o r who i s b e l i e v e d
upon r e a s o n a b l e c a u s e t o be i n such lawful posses-
s i o n by t h e person making t h e s e a r c h .
"(c) By t h e a u t h o r i t y of a v a l i d search w a r r a n t ,
"(d) Under t h e a u t h o r i t y andwithin t h e scope of a
r i g h t of l a w f u l i n s p e c t i o n grantkd by t h e law, I I
S e c t i o n 95-718, R.C.M, 1947, s t a t e s :
II
Instruments, a r t i c l e s or things lawfully seized
a r e a d m i s s i b l e a s evidence upon any p r o s e c u t i o n
o r proceeding whether o r n o t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o r
proceeding i s f o r t h e o f f e n s e i n connection w i t h
which t h e s e a r c h was o r i g i n a l l y made."
S e c t i o n 95-701 ( d ) , R.C.M, 1947, is c o n t r o l l i n g , f o r t h e
s h e r i f f had p r i o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f a r h i s presence i n d e f e n d a n t ' s
room, While engaged i n a s e a r c h f o r a prowler, t h e s h e r i f f came
upon a blood s t a i n e d s h i r t , and what appeared t o be blood s t a i n e d
p a n t s and sox belonging t o defendant, upon whom focus had c e n t e r e d
i n r e g a r d t o Egan's d e a t h . The s h e r i f f had no p r i o r knowledge
t h a t h e would f i n d such evidence n o r could he have a n t i c i p a t e d
such a f i n d ,
Such evidence i s a c c e p t a b l e i n t o evidence and h a s been so
h e l d under t h e " p l a i n view" d o c t r i n e d i s c u s s e d i n Coolidge v.
Mw Hampshire, 403 U . S . 443, 91 S.Ct, 2022, 29 L ed 2d 564, 582.
e
There t h e c o u r t s a i d :
II
It i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t under c e r t a i n circum-
s t a n c e s t h e p o l i c e may s e i z e evidence i n p l a i n view
without a warrant. ***
"An example of t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e ' p l a i n view'
d o c t r i n e i s t h e s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e p o l i c e have a
warrant t o s e a r c h a given a r e a f o r s p e c i f i e d o b j e c t s ,
and i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e s e a r c h come a c r o s s some o t h e r
a r t i c l e of i n c r i m i n a t i n g c h a r a c t e r , [ C i t i n g a u t h o r i t y ]
Where t h e i n i t i a l i n t r u s i o n t h a t b r i n g s t h e p o l i c e
w i t h i n p l a i n view of such a n a r t i c l e i s supported, n o t
by a w a r r a n t , b u t by one of t h e recognized e x c e p t i o n s
t o t h e warrant requirement, t h e s e i z u r e i s a l s o l e g i t i -
mate, Thus t h e p o l i c e may i n a d v e r t e n t l y come a c r o s s
evidence w h i l e i n ' h o t p u r s u i t ' of a f l e e i n g s u s p e c t ,
[ C i t i n g a u t h o r i t y ] And an o b j e c t t h a t comes i n t o view
during a search incident t o a r r e s t t h a t i s appropriately
l i m i t e d i n scope under e x i s t i n g law may be s e i z e d w i t h -
out a w a r r a n t . [ C i t i n g a u t h o r i t y ] F i n a l l y , t h e ' p l a i n
view' d o c t r i n e h a s been a p p l i e d where a p o l i c e o f f i c e r
i s n o t s e a r c h i n g f o r evidence a g a i n s t t h e accused, b u t
n o n e t h e l e s s i n a d v e r t e n t l y comes a c r o s s an i n c r i m i n a t i n
o b i e c t , H a r r i s v. United S t a t e s . 390 U.S. 234. 19 L E$
2d-1067, 88 S e c t . 992; F r a z i e r v l Cupp, 394 U.5. 731,
22 L Ed 2d 684, 89 S e c t , 1420; Ker v. C a l i f o r n i a , 374
U . S . , a t 43, 10 L . Ed 2d, a t 743, ***
"What t h e lain view' c a s e s have i n common i s t h a t t h e
p o l i c e o f f i c e r i n each of them had a p r i o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n
f o r an i n t r u s i o n i n t h e c o u r s e o f which h e came inad-
v e r t e n t l y a c r o s s a p i e c e of evidence i n c r i m i n a t i n g t h e
accused. The d o c t r i n e s e r v e s t o supplement t h e p r i o r
justification---whether i t be a warrant f o r another o b j e c t ,
h o t p u r s u i t , s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o l a w f u l a r r e s t , o r some
o t h e r l e g i t i m a t e r e a s o n f o r b e i n g p r e s e n t unconnected
w i t h a s e a r c h d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e accused--- and p e r m i t s
t h e w a r r a n t l e s s s e i z u r e . O f c o u r s e , t h e e x t e n s i o n of
t h e o r i g i n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s l e g i t i m a t e only where i t
i s immediately a p p a r e n t t o t h e p o l i c e t h a t t h e y have
evidence b e f o r e them; t h e ' p l a i n view' d o c t r i n e may n o t
b e used t o extend a g e n e r a l e x p l o r a t o r y s e a r c h from one
o b j e c t t o a n o t h e r u n t i l something i n c r i m i n a t i n g a t l a s t
emerges .* * *
"* * W e r e , once an otherwise lawful. s e a r c h i s i n
p r o g r e s s , t h e p o l i c e i n a d v e r t e n t l y come upon a p i e c e
of evidence, i t would o f t e n be a n e e d l e s s inconvenience,
and sometimes dangerous--to t h e evidence o r t o t h e p o l i c e
themselves--to r e q u i r e them t o i g n o r e i t u n t i l they have
obtained a warrant p r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i b i n g i t .
The
11 l i m i t s on t h e d o c t r i n e a r e i m p l i c i t i n t h e s t a t e -
ment of i t s r a t i o n a l e , The f i r s t of t h e s e i s t h a t p l a i n
view a l o n e i s never enough t o j u s t i f y t h e w a r r a n t l e s s
s e i z u m evidence. ***
IIThe second l i m i t a t i o n i s t h a t t h e discovery o f evidence
i n p l a i n view must be i n a d v e r t e n t . * *"
( ~ m p h a s i sadded).
The r u l e i s : Where t h e r e i s p r i o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e
p a l i c e t o s e a r c h a n a r e a , and i n s e a r c h i n g t h e a r e a , t h e y inad-
v e r t e n t l y f i n d i n c r i m i n a t i n g evidence which they had no reason
t o a n t i c i p a t e , t h e y may l a w f u l l y s e i z e t h a t i n c r i m i n a t i n g evidence,
S t a t e v , Quigg, 155 Mont. 119, 467 P.2d 692; S t a t e v. Williams,
- t.
Man , 502 P.2d 50, 29 %,Rep. 802; S t a t e ex r e l . Wilson
and Hoffer v , D i s t r i c t Court, Mon t . 498 P. 2d 1217, 29
St,Rep. 523; United S t a t e s v. M i t c h e l l , 458 F,2d 960 (9th Cir.1972).
Here a l l t h e requirements o f t h e " p l a i n view" d o c t r i n e
enunciated i n Coplidge were met and t h e evidence was a d m i s s i b l e ,
~ e f e n d a n t ' sf o u r t h and f i n a l i s s u e concerns whether t h e
s e a r c h of John Curry's automobile and t h e s e i z u r e of a r t i c l e s
therefrom was a v i o l a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s
under t h e Fourth Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n .
A. Defendant made no timely motion t o suppress t h e
evidence taken from John Curry's c a r . S e c t i o n 95-1806, R.C.M,
1947, provides f o r t h e motion t o suppress evidence a l l e g e d l y
i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d , and r e a d s :
" ( a ) A defendant aggrieved by an unlawful s e a r c h and
s e i z u r e may move t h e c o u r t t o suppress a s evidence
anything s o o b t a i n e d ,
"(b) The motion s h a l l be made b e f o r e t r i a l u n l e s s
f o r good cause shown t h e c o u r t s h a l l otherwise d i r e c t ,
"(c) The defendant s h a l l give a t l e a s t t e n (10) days'
n o t i c e of such motion t o t h e - a t t o r n e y prosecuting o r
such o t h e r time a s t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t , The defendant
s h a l l serve a copy of t h e n o t i c e and motion upon t h e
a t t o r n e y prosecuting.
"(d) The motion s h a l l be i n w r i t i n g and s t a t e f a c t s
showing wherein t h e search and s e i z u r e were unlawful.
"(e) I f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e motion s t a t e f a c t s
which i f t r u e show t h a t t h e search and s e i z u r e were
unlawful t h e c o u r t s h a l l conduct a hearing i n t o t h e
m e r i t s of t h e motion,
" ( f ) The burden of proving t h a t t h e search and s e i z u r e
were unlawful s h a l l be on t h e defendant,
"(g) I f t h e motion i s granted t h e evidence s h a l l
not be admissible a g a i n s t t h e movant a t any t r i a l of
t h e case. 1t
This Court has s e t f o r t h t h e r u l e f o r suppressing evidence
i n S t a t e v. Callaghan, 144 Mont. 401, 406, 396 P,2d 821:
"'One wishing t o preclude t h e use of evidence obtained
through a v i o l a t i o n of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s must
p r o t e c t himself by timely a c t i o n , I f he has had oppor-
trxnity t o suppress t h e evidence b e f o r e t r i a l , and h a s
f a i l e d t o take advantage of h i s remedy, o b j e c t i o n t o
t h e evidence upon t h e t r i a l w i l l n o t a v a i l him. I
"* * * Of course, i f t h e f i r s t knowledge of t h e e v i -
dence comes a t t h e t r i a l s t a g e then o b j e c t i o n i s proper
a t t h a t time, [Citing authority], I I
See a l s o : S t a t e v , Souhrada, 122 Mont. 377, 385, 204 P.2d 792,
Here no motion was made f o r suppression of t h e f l o o r mats
o r t h e cardboard taken from t h e Curry automobile, ~efendant's
o b j e c t i o n d i d n o t r a i s e any question a s t o t h e l e g a l i t y of t h e
search, and t h e r a i s i n g of t h e i s s u e on appeal before t h i s Court
i s n o t timely.
B, Defendant has no standing t o o b j e c t t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n
of evidence taken from t h e John Curry c a r , The r u l e a s t o who
can q u a l i f y as a person aggrieved by an unlawful search i s set
f o r t h i n Jones v , United S t a t e s , 362 U , S . 257, 261, 80 S.Ct. 725,
4 L ed 2d 697, 702, where t h e c o u r t s a i d :
"1n order t o q u a l i f y a s a 'person aggrieved by an
unlawful search and s e i z u r e one must have been a
v i c t i m of a search and s e i z u r e , one a g a i n s t whom t h e
search was d i r e c t e d , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from one who
claims p r e j u d i c e only through t h e use of evidence
gathered a s a consequence of a search o r s e i z u r e
d i r e c t e d a t someone e l s e . ***
" O r d i n a r i l y , t h e n , i t i s e n t i r e l y proper t o r e q u i r e
of one who seeks t o c h a l l e n g e t h e l e g a l i t y of a
search a s t h e b a s i s f o r suppressing relevant evi-
dence t h a t he a l l e g e , and i f the a l l e g a t i o n b e d i s -
puted t h a t he e s t a b l i s h , t h a t h e himself was t h e
v i c t i m of an invasion of privacy. t t
T h i s r u l e was r e a f f i r m e d i n Alderman v, United S t a t e s , 394 U , S ,
165, 89 S e c t . 961, 22 L ed 2d 176, It was a l s o a p p l i e d by t h i s
Court i n S t a t e v , Dess, 154 Mont. 231, 462 P,2d 186,
C. Was t h e r e probably cause f o r t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t t o
i s s u e i n Wyoming?
Here, t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s defendant did n o t q u e s t i o n t h e
v a l i d i t y o f t h e s e a r c h warrant i s s u e d i n Wyoming, He a l l e g e s a
subsequent s e a r c h was made i n B i l l i n g s , Montana without a w a r r a n t .
W f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s a l l e g a t i o n ,
e S h e r i f f Hladky o f Wyoming
obtained a v a l i d s e a r c h warrant from a Wyoming m a g i s t r a t e , s e i z e d
c e r t a i n i t e m s , marked them, turned them over t o S h e r i f f Meeks of
Yellowstone County and t e s t i f i e d a t t h e t r i a l , The s e a r c h was
l e g a l and t h e evidence taken from t h e c a r was p r o p e r ,
It i s recognized t h a t t h i s i s a j u r y v e r d i c t based e n t i r e l y
on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence, but a s was s a i d i n S t a t e v , Cor, 144
Mont, 323, 326, 396 P.2d 86:
It
C i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence i s n o t always i n f e r i o r
i n quality nor i s it necessarily relegated t o a
1
second c l a s s s t a t u s ' i n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o b e
given i t , The v e r y f a c t i t i s c i r c u m s t a n t i a l i s
not a sufficient allegation t o justify a reversal
o f t h e judgment * * *, The t e s t i s whether t h e
f a c t s and circumstances a r e of such a q u a l i t y and
quantity a s t o legally j u s t i f y a jury i n deter-
mining g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt, I f such be
t h e c a s e , then t h e c o u r t should n o t , indeed cannot,
s e t a s i d e t h e solemn f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i e r of t h e
f a c t s . :I
The judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d ,
i Associate J u s t i c e
We Concur:
' Hon. Edward T. Dussault,
District Judge, sitting for
Chief Justice James T, Harrison,