State v. Pascgo

No. 13379

I N T E SUPFtEME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
H F F

1977

STATE O MONTANA,
F

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

VS.

BEN PASCGO,

Defendant 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 o f Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t
Honorable James F r e e b o u r n , judge p r e s i d i n g

Counsel o f Record:

For A p p e l l a n t :

S t i m a t z and E n g e l , B u t t e , Montana
J o s e p h C. E n g e l , 111, a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana

F o r Respondent:

Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana
J. Gary Winston, County A t t o r n e y , B u t t e , Montana
Nadine S c o t t a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , B u t t e ,
Montana

Submitted: June 3, 1 9 7 7

Decided : JUL 2 0 17
97

FILED : JJJL i! 0 1977
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e
Court.

Defendant a p p e a l s from a j u r y c o n v i c t i o n o f b u r g l a r y
e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , S i l v e r Bow County. He r e c e i v e d
a s i x y e a r s e n t e n c e i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n w i t h two y e a r s
suspended. Defendant i s f r e e on bond p e n d i n g t h i s a p p e a l .
I n e a r l y morning o f March 10, 1975, p o l i c e o f f i c e r s
responded t o a b u r g l a r alarm t r i g g e r e d a t O s s e l l o l s F u r n i t u r e
S t o r e i n B u t t e , Montana. A r r i v i n g a t O s s e l l o l s w i t h i n two o r
t h r e e m i n u t e s , t h e o f f i c e r s n o t i c e d one s e t of f o o t p r i n t s i n t h e
snow l e a d i n g t o a g a r a g e d o o r on t h e n o r t h - e a s t end o f t h e s t o r e .
It a p p e a r e d t o t h e o f f i c e r s a second p e r s o n had walked d i r e c t l y
i n t h e f o o t p r i n t s o f t h e f i r s t , and t h e r e were n o f o o t p r i n t s
leaving the building. Two p a n e l s were knocked o u t o f t h e g a r a g e
door. One o f t h e broken p a n e l s was a b o u t t h r e e f e e t o f f t h e
ground, b u t t h e o f f i c e r was u n a b l e t o c r a w l t h r o u g h i t , due t o a
t h i n metal locking b a r t h a t c u t h o r i z o n t a l l y a c r o s s t h e opening.
A t e l e v i s i o n s e t blocked t h e opening i n t h e lower panel a t t h e

bottom o f t h e door, b u t t h e o f f i c e r s were a b l e t o e n t e r t h e
b u i l d i n g t h r o u g h t h i s o p e n i n g by p u s h i n g t h e t e l e v i s i o n s e t a s i d e .
The o f f i c e r s t u r n e d on t h e l i g h t s i n t h e s t o r e and saw d e f e n d a n t
crawling behind a r u g rack. They found a n o t h e r man, H a r o l d
I a P i e r , l y i n g i n a p i l e o f r u g s on t h e f l o o r . Both men were
t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y a n d c h a r g e d w i t h b u r g l a r y u n d e r s e c t i o n 94-6-
2 0 4 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947. LaPier subsequently plead g u i l t y i n a
s e p a r a t e proceeding.
Defendant a d m i t t e d a t t r i a l he e n t e r e d t h e b u i l d i n g
u n l a w f u l l y b u t d e n i e d h e i n t e n d e d t o commit a n y f e l o n y t h e r e i n .
Defendant Is version of t h e incident is: Defendant, h i s g i r l
f r i e n d , and L a P i e r had been d r i n k i n g a t v a r i o u s B u t t e e s t a b l i s h -
ments. While a t t h e Dry Gulch Bar, n e a r O s s e l l o l s , d e f e n d a n t
n o t i c e d L a P i e r was m i s s i n g a n d was informed h e had l e f t t h e b a r
w i t h a s t r a n g e r ; presumably t h e y had gone t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r
where a n e x t r a b o t t l e was s t a s h e d . When L a P i e r f a i l e d t o r e t u r n
t o t h e b a r a f t e r a b o u t f i f t e e n m i n u t e s , d e f e n d a n t became con-
c e r n e d and went o u t t o t h e c a r l o o k i n g f o r him. Defendant knew
L a P i e r was on p r o b a t i o n f o r a p r e v i o u s b u r g l a r y and t e n d e d t o
g e t i n t o t r o u b l e when he was d r i n k i n g . & P i e r was n o t i n t h e
c a r , b u t t r a c k s c o u l d be s e e n l e a d i n g t o O s s e l l o l s . Defendant
f o l l o w e d t h e t r a c k s , found t h e broken p a n e l s i n t h e g a r a g e d o o r ,
and e n t e r e d O s s e l l o ' s w i t h t h e purpose of g e t t i n g L a P i e r o u t o f
the building. He found L a P i e r a s l e e p i n a p i l e of r u g s , b u t a t
t h a t time t h e p o l i c e a r r i v e d . Defendant p a n i c k e d and t r i e d t o
h i d e , b u t was apprehended by t h e o f f i c e r s .
L a P i e r t e s t i f i e d he e n t e r e d t h e b u i l d i n g w i t h a n unknown
man t o b u r g l a r i z e t h e s t o r e ; t h a t he pushed t h e t e l e v i s i o n s e t
a g a i n s t t h e lower p a n e l o f t h e g a r a g e d o o r ; and he l o s t t r a c k
of h i s accomplice and f e l l a s l e e p . LaPier maintained defendant
had n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e p l a n n i n g o r commission o f t h e b u r g l a r y .
Defendant c o n t e n d s t h e f o l l o w i n g s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f e r r o r
r e q u i r e a r e v e r s a l of h i s c o n v i c t i o n :
I. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r
a c o n t i n u a n c e was p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r ;
11. The e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a c o n v i c -
t i o n of t h e crime of b u r g l a r y .
S p e c i f i c a t i o n o f e r r o r I. Defense c o u n s e l made a n o r a l
motion, j u s t b e f o r e t h e j u r y was s e l e c t e d , t o c o n t i n u e t h e t r i a l
u n t i l a l a t e r date. Defendant i n t e n d e d t o c a l l Dale M i l l e r , t h e
p e r s o n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n and m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e
alarm system a t Q s s e l l o ' s , b u t M i l l e r l e f t t h e s t a t e j u s t b e f o r e
t h e t r i a l was t o commence. M i l l e r ' s t e s t i m o n y was desired t o
show t h e a l a r m s y s t e m was a c t i v a t e d o n l y by motion i n t h e s t o r e ,
t h u s l e a v i n g open t h e possibility L a P i e r a n d h i s a l l e g e d accom-
p l i c e c o u l d have remained i n t h e s t o r e f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e b e f o r e
d e f e n d a n t a r r i v e d a n d b e f o r e t h e a l a r m was t r i p p e d . Defendant
contends M i l l e r l e f t t h e s t a t e t o avoid t e s t i f y i n g because t h e
owner o f O s s e l l o ~ st h r e a t e n e d t o o b t a i n a new alarm s y s t e m i f
M i l l e r r e v e a l e d t h e i n t r i c a c i e s of t h e o l d system i n c o u r t . The
owner t e s t i f i e d t h a t w h i l e h e had s t a t e d he m i g h t change t h e
system, h e had n o t t h r e a t e n e d t o t a k e h i s b u s i n e s s away from
Miller.
S e c t i o n 93-4910, R.C.M. 1947 s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
"A motion t o postpone a t r i a l on g r o u n d s o f t h e
a b s e n c e o f e v i d e n c e s h a l l o n l y be made upon
a f f i d a v i t showing t h e m a t e r i a l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e
e x p e c t e d t o be o b t a i n e d , and t h a t due d i l i g e n c e
h a s been u s e d t o p r o c u r e i t . * * *'I
Here, n o a f f i d a v i t was f i l e d t o show e i t h e r t h e m a t e r i -
a l i t y o f t h e proposed e v i d e n c e o r t h a t due d i l i g e n c e was
exercised. Counsel had r e p r e s e n t e d d e f e n d a n t from March 10,
1975, t h r o u g h a n e n t i r e p r e v i o u s t r i a l on t h e same m a t t e r , which
r e s u l t e d i n a hung j u r y . The t r i a l i n v o l v e d h e r e began F e b r u a r y
10, 1976, a n d w h i l e a subpoena was i s s u e d , i t was n o t s e r v e d on
the prospective witness. The g r a n t i n g of a c o n t i n u a n c e i s
w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . S t a t e v . Paulson,
167 Mont. 310, 538 P.2d 339; S t a t e v . Kuilman, 1 1 Mont. 459,
1

1 1 0 P.2d 969. I n view of d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h
s e c t i o n 93-4910, i t c a n n o t be s a i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s
d i s c r e t i o n i n denying t h e continuance. S t a t e v. Moorman, 133 Mont.
148, 3 2 1 P.2d 236.
S p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r 11. Defendant c o n t e n d s t h e e v i d e n c e
was i n 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 o f b u r g l a r y i n t h a t
t h e r e was no showing d e f e n d a n t i n t e n d e d t o commit a n o f f e n s e
within the building. The s t a n d a r d o f t h i s C o u r t t o measure j u r y
d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s s t a t e d i n S t a t e v . M e r s e a l , 167 Mont. 409, 415,
 " T h i s C o u r t r e m a i n s e v e r m i n d f u l o f one funda-
m e n t a l r u l e - - t h a t q u e B t i o n s o f f a c t must be
d e t e r m i n e d s o l e l y by t h e ,3ury, a n d t h a t g i v e n
a c e r t a i n l e g a l minimum o f e v i d e n c e , t h i s C o u r t
on r e v i e w w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r
t h a t of the jury. * * *

"On a p p e a l we examine t h e e v i d e n c e t o d e t e r m i n e
w h e t h e r t h e v e r d i c t i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l
e v i d e n c e . I n s o d o i n g , we view t h e e v i d e n c e
i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e . "
See a l s o : S t a t e v. F a r n e s , Mon t . , 558 P.2d 4'7% 33
St.Rep. 1270; S t a t e v . S t o d d a r d , 1 4 7 Mont. 402, 412 P.2d 827.
Therefore, t h i s Court i s l i m i t e d t o an examination of t h e evidence
i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e s t a t e a n d a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f
w h e t h e r t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t d e f e n d a n t ' s
conviction.
While d e f e n d a n t ' s s t o r y , i f b e l i e v e d , would lead t o a
c o n c l u s i o n he was n o t g u i l t y o f t h e c r i m e o f b u r g l a r y , t h e j u r y
was n o t r e q u i r e d t o b e l i e v e t h e t e s t i m o n y of d e f e n d a n t o r t h e
testimony of LaPier. Several f a c t o r s tend t o support t h e j u r y ' s
conclusion:
1. Defendant was found i n O s s e l l o l s F u r n i t u r e S t o r e
a t 1:42 a.m. h i d i n g from t h e p o l i c e . Cases from o t h e r j u r i s -
d i c t i o n s have r e c o g n i z e d t h e o b v i o u s i n f e r e n c e t h a t a p e r s o n
found u n l a w f u l l y on t h e p r e m i s e s o f a n o t h e r i n t h e n i g h t t i m e i s
t h e r e f o r the p u r p o s e o f committing a t h e f t . S t a t e v. Hopkins,
1 Utah 2d 363, 359 P.2d 486; Ex p a r t e S e y f r i e d , 74 I d a h o 467,
1
264 P.2d 685; People v . Henderson, 138 C . A . 2d 505, 292 P.2d 267.
2. A t e l e v i s i o n s e t had been pushed u p a g a i n s t t h e

opening i n t h e lower p a n e l o f t h e g a r a g e d o o r ,
3. D e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n of t h e i n c i d e n t was c o r r o b r a t e d
o n l y by h i s f r i e n d L a P i e r . No t r a c k s were s e e n l e a v i n g t h e
b u i l d i n g , no o t h e r p e r s o n was found i n t h e b u i l d i n g , a n d d e f e n d a n t
 h i m s e l f s t a t e d t o t h e p o l i c e t h a t h e a n d L a P i e r were t h e o n l y
I
people i n t h e building.
4. There was c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e
p o s s i b i l i t y o f anyone g a i n i n g e n t r a n c e t h r o u g h t h e b r o k e n u p p e r
panel. If d e f e n d a n t c o u l d n o t have e n t e r e d t h e b u i l d i n g t h r o u g h

t h e u p p e r p a n e l , i t e o u l d b e i n f e r r e d he was i n s i d e t h e b u i l d i n g
when t h e t e l e v i s i o n s e t was p l a c e d t o b l o c k t h e o p e n i n g i n t h e
lower pane 1.
While d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h e r e was no d i r e c t p r o o f o f
i n t e n t t o commit a t h e f t from O s s e l l o ' s , t h e r u l e h a s l o n g been
e s t a b l i s h e d i n Montana t h a t u s e of c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s a n
a c c e p t a b l e and o f t e n c o n v i n c i n g method o f p r o v i n g c r i m i n a l i n t e n t .
A s we r e s t a t e d i n S t a t e v . F a r n e s , Mont . , 558 P.2d 472,
475, 33 S t .Rep. 1270, c i t i n g S t a t e v. Cooper, 158 Mont. 102, 110,

'I I ~ h e l e m e n t o f f e l o n i o u s i n t e n t i n e v e r y c o n t e s t e d
e
c r i m i n a l c a s e must n e c e s s a r i l y b e d e t e r m i n e d from
t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e ,
-- t h i s f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t c r i m i n a l i n t e n t , b e i n g
a s t a t e of mind, i s r a r e l y s u s c e p t i b l e o f d i r e c t
o r p o s i t i v e p r o o f a n d t h e r e f o r e must u s u a l l y b e
i n f e r r e d from t h e f a c t s t e s t i f i e d t o by w i t n e s s e s
a n d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s d e v e l o p e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . " * *
"'The q u e s t i o n o f i n t e n t i s a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e
j u r y 1 11
The j u r y c o n s i d e r e d t h e e v i d e n c e a l o n g w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s
v e r s i o n o f t h e i n c i d e n t a n d c o n c l u d e d d e f e n d a n t had t h e i n t e n t
t o commit a n o f f e n s e w i t h i n t h e b u i l d i n g . There was s u b s t a n t i a l
evidence t o support t h a t conclusion.
The judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n i s a f f i r m e d .
We Concur: