No 1 3 0 6 8
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1976
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,
-vs-
J O H N AKTHUK YILL,
D e f e n d a n t a n d Appellant .
A p p e a l from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable E Gardner Brownlee, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
S m i t h , Connor & Van V a l k e n b u r g , M i s s o u l a , Montana
F r e d R Van V a l k e n b u r g a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana
For Respondent:
Edward McLean, D e p u t y C o u n t y A t t o r n e y a r g u e d ,
M i s s o u l a , Montana
J o c k 0. A n d e r s o n , 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 ,
H e l e n a , Montana
Submitted: A p r i l 20, 1 9 7 6
Decided: MA! 2 4 1976
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s i s an a p p e a l from t h e f i n a l judgment of c o n v i c t i o n
o f one count a£ s e l l i n g and one c o u n t o f p o s s e s s i o n o f m a r i j u a n a and
d e n i a l of a new t r i a l by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Missoula County.
There i s l i t t l e o r no f a c t d i s p u t e i n t h i s m a t t e r .
The r e l e v a n t f a c t s a r e t h a t on F e b r u a r y 5 , 1975, one Edward Smith,
a n i n f o r m a n t , c o n t a c t e d t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e i n Missoula and a d v i s e d
t h a t a d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n would b e t a k i n g p l a c e a t h i s home. The
s h e r i f f e s t a b l i s h e d s u r v e i l l a n c e a t S m i t h ' s home.
A l v i n Kennedy, who was a p r i n c i p a l i n t h e c r i m e w i t h
d e f e n d a n t H i l l , d e a l t w i t h t h e i n f o r m a n t who e x p r e s s e d a w i l l i n g n e s s
t o p u r c h a s e $2,000 work o f d r u g s . Kennedy d r o v e t o ill's home,
o b t a i n e d a one pound sample o f m a r i j u a n a and produced t h e same a t
s m i t h ' s home. On d i r e c t i o n o f a s u r v e i l l a n c e o f f i c e r , Smith a g r e e d
t o p u r c h a s e f o u r t e e n a d d i t i o n a l pounds of m a r i j u a n a . Thereafter,
Kennedy made a r r a n g e m e n t s w i t h d e f e n d a n t H i l l and r e p o r t e d back
t o t h e Smith r e s i d e n c e t h a t t h e b a l a n c e of t h e d r u g s would b e de-
l i v e r e d i n o n e - h a l f hour and d e s c r i b e d t h e v e h i c l e and a p e r s o n
named John. A t t h i s t i m e Kennedy was p l a c e d under a r r e s t .
A t t h e appointed time t h e described v e h i c l e appeared
and d e f e n d a n t g o t o u t i n f r o n t o f t h e r e s i d e n c e n e x t d o o r t o s m i t h ' s .
Smith c a l l e d o u t " b r i n g t h e s t u f f o v e r h e r e " and d e f e n d a n t grabbed
a knapsack and set of s c a l e s wrapped i n a brown bag from h i s v e h i c l e ,
and e n t e r e d s m i t h ' s house. He went t o a t a b l e and d e p o s i t e d t h e
knapsack. N words were exchanged and d e f e n d a n t was p l a c e d under
o
arrest. Subsequent t o h i s a r r e s t d e f e n d a n t was g i v e n t h e " ~ i r a n d a "
warning and s i g n e d a s t a t e m e n t t o t h a t e f f e c t .
A f t e r defendant's i n i t i a l appearance before t h e c o u r t
and p r i o r t o c o n f e r e n c e w i t h t h e p u b l i c d e f e n d e r , h e was i n t e r r o g a t e d
by members o f t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t . Defendant made a s t a t e m e n t
t h a t was u s e d a g a i n s t him a t t r i a l . A motion t o s u p p r e s s was d e n i e d .
T r i a l was had b e f o r e a j u r y and a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y on both counts
was r e t u r n e d on May 5 , 1975. Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e f i n a l judg-
ment and d e n i a l of h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l .
Defendant p r e s e n t s f i v e i s s u e s t o t h i s Court f o r review:
1. Whether t h e statement of defendant made subsequent
t o a r r e s t was improperly admitted i n t o evidence over d e f e n d a n t ' s
o b j e c t i o n s and motion t o suppress.
2. Whether defendant was improperly convicted o f f e l o n y
possession of marijuana i n l i g h t of t h e s t a t e ' s evidence t h a t l e s s
than s i x t y grams were t e s t e d .
3. Whether t h e s t a t e had probable cause t o a r r e s t and
s e a r c h t h e defendant.
4. Whether t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented a t
t h e t r i a l on which t o b a s e a c o n v i c t i o n of c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous
drugs.
5. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e
d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e d e f i n i t i o n of "offer".
I s s u e 1. W a r e w e l l aware of t h e f e d e r a l and s t a t e
e
c a s e s c i t e d by both p a r t i e s which had t o do w i t h t h e v o l u n t a r y n a t u r e
of admissions o r c o n f e s s i o n s of t h i s kind. The problem h e r e becomes
one of f a c t . Was t h e admission prompted by hope t h a t c o o p e r a t i o n
might achieve c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o r by a promise t h a t
cooperation would a c h i e v e t h e same c o n s i d e r a t i o n ? The d i s t r i c t c o u r t
made t h e f a c t d e t e r m i n a t i o n and denied t h e motion t o suppress. This
Court f i n d s s u f f i c i e n t , c r e d i b l e evidence i n t h e record t o s u p p o r t t h a t
determination.
I s s u e 2. W e f i n d no m e r i t i n t h e argument made i n
support of I s s u e 2. There i s no e x p e r t testimony i n t h e r e c o r d t o
support t h e t h e o r y t h a t a random sample from each of t h e f i f t e e n
one pound packages was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e conclusion t h a t
t h e r e was i n f a c t f i f t e e n pounds of marijuana and t h e r e f o r e t h e r e -
q u i r e d amount, i n excess of 60 grams, t o support a f e l o n y charge.
I s s u e s 3 , 4 , and 5 , can be determined by an examination
of I s s u e 5 .
Defendant maintains t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n
i n r e f u s i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed I n s t r u c t i o n s 3 , 4 , 5 , and 6 on t h e
c o u r t ' s own motion. These i n s t r u c t i o n s were d e f i n i t i o n s of t h e word
" o f f e r " and d i d n o t cover t h e elements r e q u i r e d i n t h e crime of
o f f e r i n g t o s e l l , a l r e a d y given by t h e c o u r t i n i t s I n s t r u c t i o n s 9
and 10. I n any e v e n t , t h e r e were no o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e g i v i n g of
I n s t r u c t i o n s 9 o r 10 by t h e defendant o r t o t h e r e f u s a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s
proposed I n s t r u c t i o n s 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 placed i n t h e r e c o r d . Reading t h e
i n s t r u c t i o n s a s a whole we f i n d t h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d and t h e
c a s e f a i r l y tendered t o t h e j u r y . S t a t e v. Watson, 144 Mont. 576, 398
P.2d 949.
Defendant argues no o f f e r was made t o s e l l t h e drugs and
t h e r e f o r e no probable c a u s e e x i s t e d t o a r r e s t t h e defendant. Probable
cause t o a r r e s t without a warrant e x i s t s where t h e f a c t s and circum-
s t a n c e s w i t h i n t h e o f f i c e r ' s knowledge and of which he had reasonably
trustworthy information a r e s u f f i c i e n t i n themselves t o w a r r a n t a man
of r e a s o n a b l e c a u t i o n i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t an o f f e n s e has been o r i s
.
being committed. S t a t e v. Armstrong, 149 Mont. 470, 428 P.2d 611.
These f a c t s were w i t h i n t h e o f f i c e r ' s knowledge a t t h e time of t h e
arrest :
a) Alvin Kennedy had arranged w i t h informant Edward
Smith t o supply an i l l e g a l drug.
b) That Kennedy s a i d he was d e a l i n g w i t h a n o t h e r person
i n g e t t i n g t h e drugs.
c) That Kennedy had i n f a c t a l r e a d y s u p p l i e d Smith
w i t h one pound of marijuana and was a r r a n g i n g f o r t h e d e l i v e r y of
t h e o t h e r f o u r t e e n pounds.
d) That Kennedy had d r i v e n t o a r e s i d e n c e a t 2229 River
Road while i n t h e process of a r r a n g i n g d e l i v e r y o f t h e drugs.
e) While a t 2229 River Road, Kennedy made c o n t a c t w i t h
a second person and t o g e t h e r t h e y drove t o a phone booth where t h i s
second person was seen wearing a dark bulky c o a t and d a r k p a n t s and
appeared t o have a beard.
f) That Kennedy s t a t e d t h e drugs would b e d e l i v e r e d i n
one-half hour and would b e t r a n s p o r t e d by an o l d e r model d a r k pickup
w i t h a homemade camper on t h e back.
g) That t h e above d e s c r i b e d v e h i c l e d i d i n f a c t a r r i v e
a t t h e appointed time.
h) That t h e man d e p a r t i n g t h a t v e h i c l e appeared t o be
t h e same person who was c o n t a c t e d by Kennedy p r e v i o u s l y and who made
t h e phone c a l l .
i) That when t h e informant c a l l e d t o t h i s man t o come
over and t o "bring t h e s t u f f 1 ' t h e man took a knapsack and a brown
sack from t h e t r u c k and e n t e r e d t h e house.
j) That when t h i s man e n t e r e d t h e house t h e a r r e s t i n g
o f f i c e r saw what appeared t o be a s c a l e protruding&bm t h e sack.
There i s no doubt t h e s e f a c t s and circumstances c l e a r l y
meet t h e requirements s e t out i n Armstrong.
I n regard t o t h e l a c k of an o f f e r t o s e l l r a i s e d by de-
f e n d a n t , t h e law i n r e g a r d t o t h e n e c e s s a r y elements needed t o s u s t a i n
II
a conviction f o r o f f e r i n g t o s e l l 1 ' was c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d i n c o u r t ' s
I n s t r u c t i o n 9. That i n s t r u c t i o n d e s c r i b e s t h e law a s s t a t e d i n
People v. Mann, 27 I11.2d 135, 188 N.E.2d 665, where t h e c o u r t h e l d
t h a t t h e two elements n e c e s s a r y f o r c o n v i c t i o n of t h i s crime were (1)
t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t o make an o f f e r t o s e l l a n a r c o t i c , and (2) a
d i r e c t a c t done toward t h e making o r e x p r e s s i o n of t h e o f f e r t o a n o t h e r .
I n f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n , t h a t c o u r t h e l d t h e r e must be shown a s p e c i f i c
intent t o sell.
In addition t o the circumstancesalredy s e t forth i n
r e l a t i o n t o probable c a u s e , d i r e c t testimony by Kennedy e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t
defend an^ p r o v i d e d t h e one pound sample which Kennedy gave t o Smith.
H i s testimony a l s o e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t defendant agreed t o provide
a n o t h e r f o u r t e e n pounds and t h e y made a r r a n g e m e n t s a s t o how and
when d e f e n d a n t would b e p a i d . I n a d d i t i o n , defendant himself admitted
i t was h i s i n t e n t i o n t o s e l l t h e d r u g s p u r s u a n t t o h i s arrangement w i t h
Kennedy. T h i s a d m i s s i o n was a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e .
The r e c o r d r e v e a l s s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t
t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y .
The judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
,+&flf~:../--
Justice.
W Concur:
e
i James S o r t e , D i s t r i c t
./M.
s i t t i n g for-Chief Justice
James T . H a r r i s o n .