State v. Bretz

No. 13826

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1978

THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
-vs-
L. R. BRETZ,
Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the EighlhJudicial District,
Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
George W. Huss argued, Miles City, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Robert S. Keller argued, Assistant Attorney General,
Kalispell, Montana
Thomas Budewitz argued, Townsend, Montana

Submitted: December 11, 1978

Clerk
Mr. 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 of t h e
Court.

On December 1, 1976, a f t e r a t r i a l by j u r y i n t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , t h e Honorable

A . B. arti in p r e s i d i n g , d e f e n d a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d of f o u r t e e n

c o u n t s of g r a n d l a r c e n y , two c o u n t s o f o b t a i n i n g money and

p r o p e r t y by f a l s e p r e t e n s e s , and two c o u n t s o f p r e p a r i n g

f a l s e evidence. H e was s e n t e n c e d t o f o u r t e e n - y e a r p r i s o n

terms on e a c h c o u n t w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f two c o u n t s of
p r e p a r i n g f a l s e e v i d e n c e which o f f e n s e s w e r e found t o b e

i n c i d e n t t o o t h e r o f f e n s e s f o r which d e f e n d a n t w a s sen-

tenced. The s e n t e n c e s were grouped s o t h a t d e f e n d a n t was

u l t i m a t e l y s e n t e n c e d t o 56 y e a r s i n p r i s o n , t h e l a s t 3 0

y e a r s t o b e suspended on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t reim-

b u r s e t h e v i c t i m s of t h e o f f e n s e s w i t h i n o n e y e a r from t h e

t i m e of s e n t e n c i n g . Defendant w a s u n a b l e t o make r e s t i t u -

t i o n w i t h i n t h e p r e s c r i b e d t i m e and b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l .

I n view of t h e number and c o m p l e x i t y of t h e i s s u e s

p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w , f a c t u a l summaries, i n s o f a r as t h e y a r e
p e r t i n e n t , w i l l accompany o u r d i s c u s s i o n of i n d i v i d u a l

issues.

Defendant p r e s e n t s twenty-one i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w by t h i s

Court:
1. Whether d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d h i s r i g h t t o a speedy

t r i a l under t h e S i x t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments t o t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 2 4
of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n .
2. Whether d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d h i s r i g h t t o t h e
e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l under t h e S i x t h and Four-
t e e n t h Amendments t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and
A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n s 4 and 24 o f t h e 1 9 7 2 Montana C o n s t i -

t ution.
 3. Whether d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d h i s r i g h t t o t r i a l by
a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l j u r y under t h e F i f t h and F o u r t e e n t h

Amendments t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and A r t i c l e 11,

S e c t i o n s 4 and 24 of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n by

v i r t u e of e x t e n s i v e p r e t r i a l and t r i a l p u b l i c i t y .

4. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n denying d e f e n -

d a n t ' s motion t o q u a s h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n due t o t h e l a c k of

showing of p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r i t s f i l i n g .

5. Whether p r o s e c u t i o n of t h i s case w a s b a r r e d by t h e

d o u b l e jeopardy c l a u s e of t h e F i f t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e accompanying d o c t r i n e of c o l -

l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l and by t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 95-1711,

R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 46-11-501 t h r o u g h -505 MCA.

6. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o

g r a n t a new t r i a l on t h e b a s i s o f a j u r o r ' s i n d e p e n d e n t

knowledge of t h e f a c t s of t h e c a s e .

7. Whether d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e c o n s t i t u t e d c r u e l and

u n u s u a l punishment under t h e E i g h t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amend-

ments t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and A r t i c l e 11,

S e c t i o n s 22 and 28 o f t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1972.

8. Whether c o n d i t i o n i n g s u s p e n s i o n of t h e l a s t 30

y e a r s of d e f e n d a n t ' s 56 y e a r s e n t e n c e on d e f e n d a n t ' s payment

o f r e s t i t u t i o n by December 1 3 , 1977, was improper and c o n s t i -

t u t e d c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment.

9. Whether d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g was p r o p e r l y

conducted.

10. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g

c e r t a i n evidence.

11. Whether t h e S t a t e proved t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f

t h e o f f e n s e of p r e p a r i n g f a l s e e v i d e n c e .
 12. Whether t h e S t a t e proved t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of

l a r c e n y by b a i l e e .

13. Whether d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d h i s r i g h t t o a funda-

m e n t a l l y f a i r t r i a l under t h e S i x t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amend-

ments t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and A r t i c l e 11,

S e c t i o n 24 o f t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n b e c a u s e o f

a l l e g e d o v e r - z e a l o u s a c t s on t h e p a r t of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n .

14. Whether d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o

present h i s defense.

15. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g

c e r t a i n testimony with r e s p e c t t o reasonable a t t o r n e y ' s

fees.

16. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n e x c l u d i n g

o t h e r testimony w i t h r e s p e c t t o reasonable a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s .

17. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g

t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g o t h e r c r i m e s of t h e a c c u s e d .

18. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g t h e

S t a t e t o impeach i t s own w i t n e s s i n t h e a b s e n c e of a showing

of s u r p r i s e by t h e S t a t e .

19. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g t h e

t e s t i m o n y of L a r r y S a n f o r d .

20. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o

i t s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e o f f e n s e s of o b t a i n i n g
money and p r o p e r t y by f a l s e p r e t e n s e s and p r e p a r i n g f a l s e

evidence.
21. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g
c e r t a i n of d e f e n d a n t ' s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s and i n g i v i n g
c e r t a i n of t h e S t a t e ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s .
W e w i l l a d d r e s s t h e s e i s s u e s i n t h e o r d e r of t h e i r

presentation.
SPEEDY TRIAL

The f o l l o w i n g i s a t a b l e o f d a t e s a n d e v e n t s r e l e v a n t

t o o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f whether defendant w a s denied h i s

r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l :

DATE ACTION DAYS ELAPSED
7/30/74 Information f i l e d 0
8/5/74 Arraignment 6
9/16/74 New Information f i l e d 48
9/26/74 Motion f o r Change o f Venue f i l e d 58
10/15/74 Change o f Venue g r a n t e d 77
10/16/74 S t a t e appeals order 78
4/16/75 Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e s o r d e r 260
5/8/75 Remittitur f i l e d 282
5/20/75 Amended I n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d 294
7/29/75 D e f e n s e p r o c e d u r a l m o t i o n s f i l e d 364
8/27/75 S t a t e ' s response t o motions
filed 393
H e a r i n g of m o t i o n s a n d a r r a i g n -
ment of d e f e n d a n t 414
S t a t e moves t o c o n t i n u e p r e -
trial conference 478
P r e t r i a l conference--speedy
t r i a l motions 517

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

U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s . U.S. Const.,

Amend. V I ; 1972 Mont.Const., Art. 11, 524. The f e d e r a l

s t a n d a r d , a s a minimum, i s imposed upon t h e s t a t e s by t h e

d u e p r o c e s s c l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment. S e e Dickey

V. F l o r i d a ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 398 U.S. 30, 90 S . C t . 1 5 6 4 , 26 L Ed 2d

26; S m i t h v . Hooey ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 575, 2 1 L

B a r k e r v . Wingo ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S . C t .

2182, 2192, 33 L Ed 2d 1 0 1 , 116-17, i s t h e touchstone i n an

a n a l y s i s of speedy t r i a l i s s u e s . S e e S t a t e v . Tiedemann

(1978)I Mont. , 584 P.2d 1 2 8 4 , 1 2 8 7 , 35 St.Rep.
1 7 0 5 , 1707; S t a t e v . C o l l i n s ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. , 582

P.2d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 6 , 35 S t . R e p . 993, 1002; S t a t e v. C a s s i d y

(1978) Mont. , 578 P.2d 735, 737, 35 S t . R e p . 612,
614; S t a t e e x r e l . B r i c e n o v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 7 ) ,

Mont. , 568 P.2d 1 6 2 , 1 6 4 , 34 S t . R e p . 927, 930; S t a t e
v . K e l l e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 372, 377, 553 P.2d 1013, 1016;

S t a t e e x r e l . S a n f o r d v. ~ i s t r i c C o u r t ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont.
t

196, 199, 551 P.2d 1005, 1007; S t a t e v . Steward ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168

Mont. 385, 389, 543 P.2d 178, 181; F i t z p a t r i c k v . C r i s t

( 1 9 7 4 ) , 165 Mont. 382, 388, 528 P.2d 1322, 1325; S t a t e v .

S a n d e r s ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 163 Mont. 209, 213, 516 P.2d 372, 375.

I n B a r k e r , t h e p e t i t i o n e r was n o t t r i e d u n t i l more t h a n

f i v e y e a r s had p a s s e d from t h e t i m e h e w a s a r r e s t e d . The

d e l a y i n t h a t c a s e l a r g e l y r e s u l t e d from t h e f a c t t h a t

B a r k e r ' s accomplice w a s t r i e d s i x t i m e s a l t o g e t h e r b e f o r e

f i n a l l y being convicted. I n Barker , 407 U.S. a t 521, 92

S.Ct. a t 2187, 33 L.Ed.2d a t 111, t h e Supreme C o u r t n o t e d :

"A ... d i f f e r e n c e between t h e r i g h t t o speedy
t r i a l and t h e a c c u s e d ' s o t h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
r i g h t s i s t h a t d e p r i v a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t may work
t o t h e a c c u s e d ' s a d v a n t a g e . Delay i s n o t a n
uncommon d e f e n s e t a c t i c . A s t h e t i m e between
t h e commission o f t h e c r i m e and t r i a l l e n g t h e n s ,
w i t n e s s e s may become u n a v a i l a b l e o r t h e i r memories
may f a d e . I f t h e w i t n e s s e s s u p p o r t t h e prosecu-
t i o n , i t s case w i l l b e weakened, sometimes seri-
o u s l y s o . And i t i s t h e p r o s e c u t i o n which c a r r i e s
t h e burden o f p r o o f . Thus, u n l i k e t h e r i g h t t o
c o u n s e l o r t h e r i g h t t o b e f r e e from compelled
s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n , d e p r i v a t i o n - -e r i g h t t o
of t h
speedy -----t p e r se p r e j u d i c e t h e a c c u s e d ' s
t r i a l does n o
a b i l i t y - defend himself."
to (Emphasis a d d e d . )

The C o u r t went on t o r e j e c t two a p p r o a c h e s which c o u l d have
e l i m i n a t e d a g r e a t d e a l of u n c e r t a i n t y i n p r o k e c t i n g t h e

right. The s u g g e s t i o n s w e r e t h a t t h e C o u r t (1) h o l d t h a t

t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s a criminal defendant t o be o f f e r e d

a t r i a l w i t h i n a s p e c i f i e d t i m e p e r i o d , o r ( 2 ) a d o p t some

form of t h e demand-waiver d o c t r i n e . "The demand-waiver
d o c t r i n e p r o v i d e s t h a t a d e f e n d a n t w a i v e s any c o n s i d e r a t i o n
of h i s r i g h t t o speedy t r i a l f o r any p e r i o d p r i o r t o which
h e h a s n o t demanded a t r i a l . " Barker, 407 U.S. a t 525, 9 2
S.Ct. a t 2189, 33 L Ed 2d a t 1 1 4 . The C o u r t found e a c h o f

t h e s e approaches t o o i n f l e x i b l e - - " t h e fixed-time period
b e c a u s e it goes f u r t h e r t h a n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s ; t h e
demand-waiver r u l e b e c a u s e i t i s i n s e n s i t i v e t o a r i g h t

which w e have deemed fundamentalv--and a d o p t e d i n s t e a d " a

b a l a n c i n g t e s t , i n which t h e c o n d u c t of b o t h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n

and t h e d e f e n d a n t a r e weighed." B a r k e r , 407 U.S. a t 529-30,

92 S.Ct. a t 2191-2192, 33 L Ed 2d a t 116.

Noting t h a t c o u r t s must approach speedy t r i a l c a s e s on
a n a d hoc b a s i s , t h e C o u r t i d e n t i f i e d f o u r f a c t o r s t o b e

c o n s i d e r e d a s p a r t of t h e b a l a n c i n g t e s t : "Length o f d e l a y ,

t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n of h i s

r i g h t , and p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . " B a r k e r , 407 U.S. at

530, 92 S.Ct. a t 2192, 33 L Ed 2d 117. W e w i l l d i s c u s s each

o f t h e s e f a c t o r s i n t u r n a s we examine d e f e n d a n t ' s c l a i m i n

t h e i n s t a n t case. S t a t e v . S a n d e r s ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 163 Mont. 209,

Length - d e l a y .
of The Supreme C o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h e d e l a y

f a c t o r as f o l l o w s :

"The l e n g t h o f t h e d e l a y i s t o some e x t e n t a t r i g -
g e r i n g mechanism. U n t i l t h e r e i s some d e l a y which
i s p r e s u m p t i v e l y p r e j u d i c i a l , t h e r e i s no n e c e s s i t y
f o r i n q u i r y i n t o t h e o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t go i n t o t h e
b a l a n c e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , b e c a u s e of t h e i m p r e c i s i o n
o f t h e r i g h t t o s p e e d y . t r i a l , - l e n g t h of d e l a y
the
t h a t w i l l provoke - -a n i n q u i r y i s n e c e s s a r i l
-- such
d e p e n d e n t upon t h e p e c u l i a r c i r c u m ~ a n c e s- -z of t h
c a s e . - -k e b u t o n e example, t h e d e l a y --
To t a - - t h a t can
b e t o l e r a t e d -r- o r d i n a r y s t r e e t crime - -
- f o an i s con-
s i d e r a b l y --- s e r i o u s , complex c o n s p i r -
less than f o r a
acy charge." B a r k e r , 407 U.S. a t 530-31, 92 S.Ct.
a t 2192, 33 L Ed 2d a t 117. ( ~ m p h a s i ss u p p l i e d . )

There i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t t h i s c a s e i s a complex o n e .

Defendant noted i n h i s b r i e f t h a t t h e " c a s e c o n s i s t s of a

t r a n s c r i p t of 4,316 p a g e s . . . and f i v e f u l l volumes of
court files. There w e r e hundreds of e x h i b i t s o f f e r e d and
admitted a t t r i a l . " I n addition t o t h a t , w e note t h a t t h e
b r i e f s s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l a d d r e s s i n g twenty-
o n e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w a r e o v e r 300 pages i n l e n g t h .
Thus, t h e d e l a y h e r e t h a t c a n b e t o l e r a t e d i s c o n s i d e r a b l y

more t h a n f o r a n o r d i n a r y s t r e e t crime.

Even s o , t h e d e l a y i n t h i s case i s e x t r e m e l y l o n g . We

n o t e , i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h a t t h e 205 d a y s e x h a u s t e d by t h e

S t a t e ' s a p p e a l o f t h e change of venue o r d e r must b e c h a r g e d

against the State. S e c t i o n 95-2407, R.C.M. 1947, now sec-

t i o n 46-20-205 MCA. T h e r e f o r e , w e f i n d t h a t t h e 517 d a y s

between t h e i n i t i a l f i l i n g o f a n I n f o r m a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e

and d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k of speedy t r i a l

i s of s u f f i c i e n t l e n g t h under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s case

t o t r i g g e r t h e i n q u i r y i n t o t h e o t h e r f a c t o r s enumerated i n

B a r k e r and a s a d o p t e d p r e v i o u s l y by t h i s C o u r t .

Reason - - d e l a y .
for the Addressing t h i s f a c t o r , t h e

Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d :

"Here, t o o , d i f f e r e n t w e i g h t s s h o u l d b e a s s i g n e d
t o d i f f e r e n t reasons. A d e l i b e r a t e attempt t o
d e l a y t h e t r i a l i n o r d e r t o hamper t h e d e f e n s e
s h o u l d b e weighed h e a v i l y a g a i n s t t h e government.
A more n e u t r a l r e a s o n s u c h a s n e g l i g e n c e o r o v e r -
crowded c o u r t s s h o u l d b e weighed less h e a v i l y b u t
nevertheless should be considered s i n c e t h e u l t i -
m a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s must
r e s t w i t h t h e government r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e de-
fendant. F i n a l l y , a v a l i d reason, such a s a m i s s -
i n g witness, should serve t o j u s t i f y appropriate
d e l a y . " B a r k e r , 407 U . S . a t 531, 92 S.Ct. a t 2192,
33 L Ed 2d a t 117.

The S t a t e , i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , a r g u e s t h a t i n l i g h t of t h e

complexity of t h e c a s e , m a t t e r s proceeded i n a n o r d e r l y

fashion. I t d e m o n s t r a t e s o n e d e l a y of 54 d a y s when d e f e n -

d a n t ' s d e f e n s e m o t i o n s were o v e r d u e . Viewing t h e r e c o r d a s
a whole, t h e m o s t s e r i o u s d e l a y o n t h e p a r t o f t h e p r o s e -

c u t i o n a p p e a r s t o b e t h e 205 d a y s t a k e n up by t h e S t a t e ' s
a p p e a l of t h e O c t o b e r 1 5 , 1974, change of venue o r d e r .
T h e r e i s no showing o r a n y a t t e m p t t o show i n t h e r e c o r d
t h a t t h i s d e l a y was i n any way a " d e l i b e r a t e a t t e m p t t o

d e l a y t h e t r i a l i n o r d e r t o hamper t h e d e f e n s e . " I t appears
thatrthis.delaymay have been the result of some negligence
on the part of the State, but crowded calendars and courts
were also involved and accordingly, the time should "be
weighed less heavily but nevertheless considered."
Defendant relies heavily on a Federal ~istrictCourt
decision in a related case, In the Matter of Carden (1978),
CY-77-61-H, decided May 12, 1978. Defendant asserts that
the most significant element of that Court's decision to
dismiss for lack of speedy trial was the reason for the
delay, specifically the length of the Carden Information.
The State addresses the length of the charging document
and any delay occasioned by it in the following terms:
"The dismissal of the first information and the
filing of the second information constituted no
delay; three individuals were dropped, which did
not prejudice the defendant, and six individuals
were added, but the basic motions of the defen-
dant against either information remained the
same. The six new individuals had to be added,
or the defendant would be prejudiced with another
suit. The counts were doubled, but that was be-
cause of the confusion under the old larceny
statutes, and it was a matter of pleading the
same counts in the alternative, with the same
individuals involved."
Another factor considered negligent in Carden which is
not present in the instant case was delay attributable to
the State by its untimely disqualification of Judge Allen
and the subsequent appeal. The Federal Court held that "the
decision to disqualify Judge Allen was reached in order to
gain a tactical advantage over the defendants." See also

Fitzpatrick v. Crist (1974), 165 Mont. 382, 528 P.2d 1322,
involving a four-month delay in appointment of counsel.
The wisdom of the Supreme Court's instruction that each
case be considered on an "ad hoc" basis becomes apparent at
this point. The Court was undoubtedly strongly influenced

by the disqualification of Judge Allen after seven months
and h e l d i t was d e l i b e r a t e t o g a i n a d v a n t a g e . W have no
e

s u c h a l l e g a t i o n h e r e , n o t even w i l l f u l n e g l i g e n c e , and a
clearly distinguishable factual situation.

A s s e r t i o n - -e r i g h t .
of t h In discussing the third factor

i n t h e B a r k e r b a l a n c i n g t e s t , t h e Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d :

"Whether and how a d e f e n d a n t a s s e r t s h i s r i g h t
i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e o t h e r f a c t o r s we have
mentioned. The s t r e n g t h of h i s e f f o r t s w i l l be
a f f e c t e d by t h e l e n g t h of t h e d e l a y , t o some
e x t e n t by t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y , and most
p a r t i c u l a r l y by t h e p e r s o n a l p r e j u d i c e , which
i s n o t always r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e , t h a t h e
e x p e r i e n c e s . The more s e r i o u s t h e d e p r i v a t i o n ,
t h e more l i k e l y a d e f e n d a n t i s t o complain. The
d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n o f h i s speedy t r i a l r i g h t ,
then, i s e n t i t l e d t o strong e v i d e n t i a r y weight
i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e d e f e n d a n t i s b e i n g
d e p r i v e d o f t h e r i g h t . W emphasize t h a t f a i l u r e
e
t o a s s e r t t h e r i g h t w i l l make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r
a d e f e n d a n t t o p r o v e t h a t h e w a s d e n i e d a speedy
t r i a l . " B a r k e r , 407 U . S . a t 531-32, 92 S . C t . a t
2192-2193, 33 L Ed 2d a t 117-18.

I n t h e i n s t a n t case, d e f e n d a n t moved f o r d i s m i s s a l f o r l a c k
of speedy t r i a l p r i o r t o t h e t r i a l ' s commencement. We

c a n n o t i g n o r e t h e f a c t , however, t h a t a t t h e t i m e d e f e n d a n t

s u b m i t t e d h i s motion h e had a l r e a d y i n d i c a t e d t o Judge

B r a d f o r d t h a t h e i n t e n d e d t o c a l l more t h a n 120 w i t n e s s e s

and t h a t h e f e l t t h e t r i a l would l a s t two months. A t vari-

o u s t i m e s o v e r t h e n e x t s e v e r a l months d e f e n d a n t a s s e r t e d

t i m e and a g a i n t h a t b e c a u s e of t h e c o m p l e x i t y of t h e c a s e ,

he could not possibly be prepared t o defend himself. This

f a c t o r weighs h e a v i l y a g a i n s t any p r e j u d i c e i n t h e t i m e

l a p s e between f i l i n g and t r i a l and g i v e s s u b s t a n c e t o t h e
Barker comment t h a t speedy t r i a l d e n i a l i s n o t p e r- p r e j u -
- se

d i c i a l t o d e f e n d a n t ' s a b i l i t y t o defend himself.
Prejudice. The p r e j u d i c e f a c t o r i s a n a l y z e d a s f o l -

lows:
" P r e j u d i c e , o f c o u r s e , s h o u l d be a s s e s s e d i n t h e
l i g h t of t h e i n t e r e s t s of d e f e n d a n t s which t h e
speedy t r i a l r i g h t w a s d e s i g n e d t o p r o t e c t . T h i s
 C o u r t h a s i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e such i n t e r e s t s : ( i ) t o
p r e v e n t o p p r e s s i v e p r e t r i a l i n c a r c e r a t i o n ; (ii)
t o minimize a n x i e t y and c o n c e r n of t h e a c c u s e d ;
and (iii)t o l i m i t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e de-
f e n s e w i l l b e i m p a i r e d . Of t h e s e , t h e most s e r i -
o u s i s t h e l a s t , b e c a u s e t h e i n a b i l i t y o f a de-
f e n d a n t a d e q u a t e l y t o p r e p a r e h i s c a s e skews t h e
f a i r n e s s of t h e e n t i r e system. If w i t n e s s e s d i e
o r disappear during a delay, t h e prejudice i s
o b v i o u s . There i s a l s o p r e j u d i c e i f d e f e n s e w i t -
n e s s e s a r e u n a b l e t o r e c a l l a c c u r a t e l y e v e n t s of
t h e d i s t a n t p a s t . Loss of memory, however, i s
n o t always r e f l e c t e d i n t h e r e c o r d b e c a u s e what
h a s been f o r g o t t e n can r a r e l y b e shown." B a r k e r ,
407 U.S. a t 532, 92 S.Ct. a t 2193, 33 L Ed 2d a t
118.

Defendant l i s t s f i v e ways i n which h e f e l t h e was

p r e j u d i c e d by t h e d e l a y : " ( 1 ) economic h a r d s h i p ; (2) death

of witnesses; (3) p r e - t r i a l p u b l i c i t y of a long d u r a t i o n ;

( 4 ) d i f f i c u l t y of now f i n d i n g and i n t e r v i e w i n g t h e S t a t e ' s

w i t n e s s e s ; and ( 5 ) e m o t i o n a l stress and s t r a i n . "

The i n s t a n t c a s e w a s n o t t h e o n l y c a s e d e f e n d a n t w a s

defending a t t h i s t i m e . Aside from d i s b a r m e n t p r o c e e d i n g s

b e f o r e t h e Commission on P r a c t i c e and t h i s C o u r t , d e f e n d a n t

was i n v o l v e d i n t h r e e o t h e r c r i m i n a l c a s e s and one c i v i l

case. The e m o t i o n a l stress and s t r a i n and t h e economic

h a r d s h i p and consumption of t i m e w a s t o a l a r g e e x t e n t
commingled w i t h t h e s e o t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s and i t i s d i f f i c u l t

t o a s s e s s f a u l t by any p r e c i s e means. Defendant c o n t e n d s

t h a t f i v e d e f e n s e w i t n e s s e s had d i e d , b u t t h e r e was no

c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e g i v e n a s t o when t h e y d i e d , what t h e i r
t e s t i m o n y would have been, o r whether i t went t o o n e o r more

counts. A mere s e l f - s e r v i n g statement does n o t m e e t t h e
t e s t r e q u i r e d by Barker which demands a showing of p r e j u -

d i c e , n o t merely a s e l f - s e r v i n g a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e r e may
have been some p r e j u d i c e .
Application. C o n t i n u i n g from B a r k e r :

" W e r e g a r d none of t h e f o u r f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d
above as e i t h e r a n e c e s s a r y o r s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i -
t i o n t o t h e f i n d i n g of a d e p r i v a t i o n of t h e r i g h t
 o f speedy t r i a l . R a t h e r , t h e y a r e r e l a t e d f a c -
t o r s and must b e c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r w i t h s u c h
o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s may b e r e l e v a n t . I n sum,
t h e s e f a c t o r s have no t a l i s m a n i c q u a l i t i e s ; c o u r t s
must s t i l l engage i n a d i f f i c u l t and s e n s i t i v e
balancing process." B a r k e r , 407 U.S. a t 533, 92
S . C t . a t 2193, 33 L Ed 2d a t 118.

The C o u r t , i n a p p l y i n g t h e t e s t t o t h e f i v e - y e a r d e l a y i n
B a r k e r found c e r t a i n d e f i c i e n c i e s p r e s e n t b u t went o n t o

say:

"Two c o u n t e r b a l a n c i n g f a c t o r s , however, o u t w e i g h
t h e s e d e f i c i e n c i e s . The f i r s t i s t h a t p r e j u d i c e
w a s minimal.

"More i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e a b s e n c e of s e r i o u s p r e j -
u d i c e , i s t h e f a c t t h a t B a r k e r d i d n o t want a
speedy t r i a l . " B a r k e r , 407 U.S. a t 534, 9 2 S . C t .
a t 2194, 33 L E d 2d a t 119.

". .. barring extraordinary circumstances, w e
would b e r e l u c t a n t i n d e e d t o r u l e t h a t a d e f e n d a n t
was d e n i e d t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t o n a r e c o r d
t h a t s t r o n g l y i n d i c a t e s , a s does t h i s one, t h a t
t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t want a s p e e d y t r i a l . "
B a r k e r , 407 U.S. a t 536, 92 S.Ct. a t 2195, 33 L
Ed 2d a t 1 2 0 .

I n t h i s c a s e , a s i n B a r k e r , we c a n n o t f i n d a showing of

s u f f i c i e n t a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e t o invoke t h e extremely harsh

remedy o f d i s m i s s a l of t h e c a u s e . I n addition, t h e record

r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e s p e e d y t r i a l o b j e c t i o n s were a g a i n com-

mingled w i t h d e f e n d a n t p e r i o d i c a l l y c l a i m i n g h e c o u l d n o t b e
r e a d y f o r t r i a l up t o t h e d a y t h e t r i a l commenced, i n d i -

c a t i n g , o f c o u r s e , a need f o r a d d i t i o n a l t i m e . With t h e

r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s t h e r i g h t t o submit

numerous and complex p r o c e d u r a l m o t i o n s p r i o r t o t r i a l , t h e

r e s u l t i n g d e l a y s c a n n o t now b e c h a r g e d e x c l u s i v e l y t o t h e
State. Much of t h e c o m p l e x i t y and d e l a y of t h i s c a s e i s t h e
r e s u l t of d e f e n d a n t ' s d e f e n s e and h e c a n n o t now u s e t h e
d e l a y t h a t r e s u l t e d t o h i s advantage w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e

s p e e d y t r i a l w i t h o u t a n a c t u a l showing of p r e j u d i c e . We

c a n n o t f i n d i n t h i s r e c o r d a genuine d e s i r e f o r a speedy
t r i a l , which makes a n y p r e j u d i c e minimal. As a result,

p r e j u d i c e w a s a s s e r t e d b u t n e v e r d e m o n s t r a t e d and t h e r e a r e

no o t h e r e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o compel t h i s C o u r t

t o r u l e t h a t defendant w a s denied h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t

t o a speedy t r i a l .

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE - COUNSEL
OF

I n h i s b r i e f t o t h i s Court, defendant s t a t e s t h a t t h e

". . . i s s u e r a i s e d h e r e i s n o t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u n s e l were

i n c o m p e t e n t due t o t h e i r l a c k o f s k i l l s o r a c t i o n s a t t r i a l ,

b u t t h a t t h e y w e r e r e n d e r e d i m p o t e n t and i n e f f e c t i v e by t h e

S t a t e ' s d e n i a l t o them o f a d e q u a t e f u n d s t o p r e p a r e t h e

d e f e n s e up u n t i l a p o i n t a t which t h e y had i n a d e q u a t e t i m e

t o prepare. I'

D e f e n d a n t ' s argument i s d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e p a r t s .

F i r s t , h e c l a i m s t h e r e was a " c h i l l i n g e f f e c t " c r e a t e d by

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e funds - advance f o r
in

appointed defense counsel. Second, h e a r g u e s t h a t by t h e

t i m e f u n d s became a v a i l a b l e , any d e l a y s h a v i n g b e e n t h e

r e s u l t of t h e S t a t e ' s r e s i s t a n c e t o c e r t a i n motions, t h e r e

was i n a d e q u a t e t i m e i n which t o p r e p a r e a d e f e n s e . Thus t h e

S t a t e had a l l e g e d l y p u t t h e d e f e n s e i n t h e awkward p o s i t i o n

o f e i t h e r having t o go t o t r i a l unprepared, o r , having t o

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

claim. Third, defendant complains t h a t t h e District Court
f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e him w i t h a n i n v e s t i g a t o r t o m e e t t h e
e f f e c t of t h e manpower employed by t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l i n

t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f t h i s case. Defendant does n o t argue t h a t

t h e S t a t e must s u p p l y a n i n v e s t i g a t o r i n a l l cases b u t t h a t

i t s h o u l d have i n t h i s case b e c a u s e of t h e c o m p l e x i t y of

t h e case and t h e number o f w i t n e s s e s l i s t e d on t h e S t a t e ' s

Information.
 here was n e v e r any q u e s t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p o i n t e d

c o u n s e l would b e compensated; t h e problem a r o s e w i t h r e s p e c t
t o whether t h e y w e r e e n t i t l e d t o b e compensated i n advance.

The 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 d e f e n d a n t e v e r r e q u e s t e d a

c o n t i n u a n c e b e c a u s e of t h e claimed problem of p r e p a r a t i o n

and hence h e i s i n a poor p o s i t i o n t o a l l e g e p r e j u d i c e .

F i n a l l y , t h e a p p o i n t m e n t of - c o u n s e l f o r d e f e n d a n t ob-
two
v i a t e d any need f o r a n i n v e s t i g a t o r f o r t h e g e n e r a l p r e p a r a -

t i o n f o r t r i a l and i n a d d i t i o n t h e c o u r t d i d a u t h o r i z e t h e

h i r i n g of an i n v e s t i g a t o r i n Alaska who worked f o r t h e

defense.
D e f e n d a n t ' s r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l moved t o withdraw from t h e

c a s e i n November 1975. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y ap-

p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r d e f e n d a n t i n J a n u a r y 1976. The f i r s t

r e a l problem w i t h a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l a r o s e on March 31,

1976, when t h e S t a t e moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s

March 23 o r d e r f o r i n t e r i m payment of c o u n s e l i n t h e amount

o f $gr068.74. The S t a t e argued t h a t t h e payment w a s e x c e s -

s i v e and t h a t t h e c o u n t y , as opposed t o t h e S t a t e , was

l i a b l e f o r payment o f d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . The m a t t e r w a s

a p p e a l e d by t h e S t a t e t o t h i s C o u r t , A p p l i c a t i o n of Barron

( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 218, 552 P.2d 7 0 . This Court affirmed t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r u l i n g and remanded t h e case f o r a n e v i -

d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount of money due ap-

pointed counsel. The d e c i s i o n was i s s u e d J u l y 9 , 1976. A

h e a r i n g w a s h e l d o n August 25 which r e s u l t e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t ' s o r d e r e d payment o f $5000 and $9,760.43 t o d e f e n s e
c o u n s e l f o r t h e i r f e e s and e x p e n s e s . By September 1 5 ,
d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l had s t i l l n o t r e c e i v e d t h e i r money and

moved t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on t h a t day t o p e r m i t t h e i r w i t h -

d r a w a l a s c o u n s e l and t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n on t h e ground of
misconduct on t h e p a r t of t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l . The motion

t o p e r m i t t h e i r w i t h d r a w a l was b a s e d on d i s c i p l i n a r y r u l e

DR2-110 (b) ( 2 ) a d d r e s s i n g mandatory w i t h d r a w a l when a n a t t o r -

ney c a n n o t c o n t i n u e h i s employment w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g a n o t h e r

d i s c i p l i n a r y r u l e , i n t h i s c a s e DR6-101:

" F a i l u r e t o a c t competently:
( A ) A lawyer s h a l l n o t :
( 2 ) Handle a l e g a l matter w i t h o u t p r e p a r a t i o n
adequate t o t h e circumstances " .
The motion was s u b m i t t e d 21 d a y s p r i o r t o t h e day s c h e d u l e d

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

f o l l o w i n g day.

The problem w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s argument c o n c e r n i n g t h i s

i s s u e i s t h a t h e h a s made no showing t h a t t h e a l l e g e d l a c k

of p r e p a r a t i o n on t h e p a r t o f h i s a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l p r e j u -

d i c e d him i n any way. I n f a c t , d e f e n d a n t a s k s u s t o presume

h i s c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e b e c a u s e t h e y were n o t compen-

s a t e d f a r i n advance. Defendant d o e s n o t r e v e a l what h i s

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

been on h i s c a s e . W e c a n o n l y s p e c u l a t e a s t o whether any

p r e j u d i c e r e s u l t e d due t o a l l e g e d l a c k o f p r e p a r a t i o n on t h e

p a r t of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l . Again, w i t h o u t a motion f o r

c o n t i n u a n c e on t h e s e grounds and w i t h o u t any showing of

a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e , w e c a n n o t presume t h a t c o u n s e l w e r e t h e r e -

by r e n d e r e d i n e f f e c t i v e .

--
PUBLICITY AND FAIR TRIAL

Statewide p u b l i c i t y , e s p e c i a l l y concentrated i n Great

F a l l s , accompanied t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of t h i s c a s e a t e a c h
stage. On J u l y 29, 1975, d e f e n d a n t moved t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
t o dismiss t h e charges o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , continue t h e
d a t e f o r t r i a l due t o e x t e n s i v e p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y . The
c o u r t - d e n i e d t h e motion. Defendant a g a i n moved f o r d i s -
m i s s a l on December 29, 1975. The c o u r t d e n i e d t h i s m o t i o n

as well.

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

a f t e r t h e swearing of t h e j u r y a t h i s t r i a l on October 1 8 ,

1976. By t h a t t i m e d e f e n d a n t had become t h e o b j e c t o f heavy

s t a t e w i d e p u b l i c i t y b e c a u s e o f a t r i a l i n which h e had been

c h a r g e d w i t h and a c q u i t t e d of s o l i c i t i n g p e r s o n s t o a s s a s -

s i n a t e t h e Attorney General. Also, a statewide g e n e r a l

e l e c t i o n w a s imminent i n w h i c h , t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l was a

gubernatorial candidate.

The p u b l i c i t y c o n t i n u e d d u r i n g t h e t r i a l of t h e case.

I t c u l m i n a t e d i n t h e door-to-door d i s t r i b u t i o n of a poli-

t i c a l n e w s l e t t e r e n t i t l e d t h e "Montana G a z e t t e " i n which

d e f e n d a n t ' s name was mentioned. On O c t o b e r 2 7 , 1976, d e f e n -

d a n t f i l e d a motion f o r a m i s t r i a l b e c a u s e of t h e p u b l i c i t y .

D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t w e s h o u l d presume, u n d e r t h e

f a c t s of t h i s case, t h a t t h e m i d - t r i a l p u b l i c i t y reached t h e

nonsequestered jury. H e g o e s on t o a r g u e t h a t t h e t r i a l

c o u r t s h o u l d have examined t h e j u r y c o n c e r n i n g (1) t h e i r

c o n t a c t w i t h t h e m a t e r i a l and ( 2 ) i t s p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t

upon them. Throughout h i s argument, i t i s t h e A t t o r n e y
General's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e p u b l i c i t y t h a t defendant

o b j e c t s t o most s t r o n g l y .

Again, w e have a sword t h a t c u t s b o t h ways. The r e c o r d

i s clear and e v i d e n c e s u b s t a n t i a l r e g a r d i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s own

a t t e m p t t o u s e t h e media t o h i s a d v a n t a g e a s w e l l a s h i s
f a i l u r e t o move f o r change o f venue on t h e b a s i s of t h e
publicity. For example, on October 2 7 , 1976, d e f e n d a n t

moved t o h o l d p r o s e c u t o r G i l b e r t i n c o n t e m p t p a r t i a l l y on

t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n had been s e e n t a l k i n g t o
reporters. C o i n c i d e n t a l l y , t h e Great F a l l s T r i b u n e had

p r e d i c t e d t h i s a c t i o n and s t a t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t had con-

tacted the reporter. The t h e a t r i c s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e r e c o r d

by d e f e n d a n t i s n o t i n d i c a t i v e of c o n d u c t t e n d i n g t o show

g e n u i n e c o n c e r n o v e r t h e amount of p r e t r i a l and t r i a l pub-

l i c i t y and when r e p o r t e d c a n n o t b e condemned. Additionally,

t h e motion was n o t accompanied by a n a f f i d a v i t l e a v i n g t h e
c o u r t , a g a i n , no f a c t s upon which i t c o u l d a c t . The c o u r t

d i d s t a t e t h a t : "The c o u r t h a s o b s e r v e d and r e a d t h e p u b l i -

c a t i o n , a t l e a s t i n t h e G r e a t F a l l s T r i b u n e , and t h e y have

seemed s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d r e p o r t i n g , n o t h i n g else. And how

t h a t i s e v e r g o i n g t o b e p r e j u d i c i a l i s beyond me."

Beyond t h a t , d e f e n d a n t ' s argument t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t

s h o u l d have conducted a p o l l of t h e j u r y t o d e t e r m i n e whe-
t h e r t h e members had s e e n a copy o f t h e "Montana G a z e t t e " i s

- p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t inasmuch a s d e f e n d a n t made no
not

motion f o r t h e p o l l i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t and raises t h e i s s u e

f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n t h i s Court.

S e c t i o n 95-1710, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 46-13-203

MCA, sets o u t t h e p r o c e d u r e t o o b t a i n r e l i e f i n a p r o p e r

c a s e of untoward p u b l i c i t y :

" ( a ) The d e f e n d a n t o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n may move
f o r a change of p l a c e of t r i a l on t h e ground t h a t
t h e r e e x i s t s i n t h e c o u n t y i n which t h e c h a r g e i s
pending s u c h p r e j u d i c e t h a t a f a i r t r i a l c a n n o t
b e had i n s u c h c o u n t y . The motion s h a l l be made
a t least f i f t e e n (15) days p r i o r t o t r i a l , u n l e s s ,
f o r good c a u s e shown, i t may b e made t h e r e a f t e r .
"(b) The motion s h a l l be i n w r i t i n g and s u p p o r t e d
by a f f i d a v i t which s h a l l s t a t e f a c t s showing t h e
n a t u r e of t h e p r e j u d i c e a l l e g e d . The d e f e n d a n t
o r t h e s t a t e may f i l e c o u n t e r a f f i d a v i t s . The
c o u r t s h a l l c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g and d e t e r m i n e t h e
m e r i t s of t h e motion.

" ( c ) I f t h e c o u r t determines t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s
i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i s pending
s u c h p r e j u d i c e t h a t a f a i r t r i a l c a n n o t be had
i t s h a l l t r a n s f e r t h e c a u s e t o any o t h e r c o u r t
o f competent j u r i s d i c t i o n i n any c o u n t y where a
f a i r t r i a l may be had."
U n l i k e t h e c a s e s c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t , t h i s c a s e d i d n o t spawn

e d i t o r i a l s crying f o r defendant's conviction. Rather,

defendant has simply provided t h i s Court with h i s statement

of i n f e r e n c e s and c o n c l u s i o n s and t h e s e are n o t enough. See

S t a t e v . Davis ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 60 Mont. 426, 431, 199 P. 421, 4 2 2 .

I n S t a t e v. Lewis ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 290, 297, 546 P.2d 518,

522, w e q u o t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t from

I r v i n v . Dowd ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 366 U.S. 717, 722, 8 1 S.Ct. 1639,

1642, 6 L Ed 2d 751, 756. I t seems e s p e c i a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e

i n t h e i n s t a n t case:

" I t i s n o t r e q u i r e d , however, t h a t t h e j u r o r s b e
t o t a l l y i g n o r a n t of t h e f a c t s and i s s u e s i n v o l v e d .
I n t h e s e d a y s of s w i f t , widespread and d i v e r s e
methods of communication, a n i m p o r t a n t c a s e c a n
be expected t o arouse t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e p u b l i c
i n t h e v i c i n i t y , and s c a r c e l y any of t h o s e b e s t
q u a l i f i e d t o s e r v e a s j u r o r s w i l l n o t have formed
some i m p r e s s i o n o r o p i n i o n a s t o t h e m e r i t s of
t h e case. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e i n criminal
c a s e s . To h o l d t h a t t h e mere e x i s t e n c e of any
preconceived notion as t o t h e g u i l t o r innocence
o f a n a c c u s e d , w i t h o u t more, i s s u f f i c i e n t t o
r e b u t t h e presumption of a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s
i m p a r t i a l i t y would b e t o e s t a b l i s h a n i m p o s s i b l e
standard. It i s s u f f i c i e n t i f t h e j u r o r can l a y
a s i d e h i s i m p r e s s i o n o r o p i n i o n and r e n d e r a v e r -
d i c t based o n t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n c o u r t . "

A s s e t f o r t h above, d e f e n d a n t h a s f a i l e d t o m e e t h i s

burden of showing t h e n a t u r e of t h e p u b l i c i t y , t h e e f f e c t of

t h e p u b l i c i t y , and t h e n e c e s s i t y of such a d r a s t i c remedy.
H e h a s a l s o f a i l e d t o m e e t t h e p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s of

moving f o r a change of venue and s u b m i t t i n g a n a f f i d a v i t

containing s p e c i f i c allegations a s t o t h e p r e j u d i c i a l nature
of t h e p u b l i c i t y .

PROBABLE CAUSE FOR FILING INFORMATION
On September 1 6 , 1974, t h e S t a t e f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t i n
s u p p o r t of a motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a n I n f o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t
defendant. The a f f i d a v i t l i s t e d t h e a l l e g e d v i c t i m s i n

alphabetical order. Defendant sets f o r t h t h e c h a r g e s i n h i s

summary i n t h r e e b a s i c c a t e g o r i e s . The S t a t e combines

d e f e n d a n t ' s f i r s t two c a t e g o r i e s , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e

o r n o n e x i s t e n c e of a n a c c o u n t i n g i n e a c h c a s e i s of l i t t l e

o r no r e l e v a n c e i n d i s c u s s i o n p r o b a b l e c a u s e .

" ( 1 ) A s e t t l e m e n t was made by t h e compensation
i n s u r o r , t h e s e t t l e m e n t check w a s d e p o s i t e d i n t o
a bank a c c o u n t , some t i m e t h e r e a f t e r , r a n g i n g
from d a y s t o y e a r s , t h e a l l e g e d v i c t i m r e c e i v e d
a check f o r t h e i r p o r t i o n o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t b u t
r e c e i v e d no a c c o u n t i n g from M r . B r e t z a s t o t h e
amount and d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e t o t a l s e t t l e m e n t .
(This f a c t s i t u a t i o n i s applicable t o t h e f o l -
lowing a l l e g e d victims--Aker, Baran, DuBois,
E a r l y , H i l l , S p r i n g e r , S t r o o p and W e i s g e r b e r . )

" (2) A s e t t l e m e n t w a s made by t h e compensation
i n s u r o r , t h e s e t t l e m e n t check was d e p o s i t e d i n t o
a bank a c c o u n t , some t i m e t h e r e a f t e r , r a n g i n g up
t o a few y e a r s , t h e a l l e g e d v i c t i m r e c e i v e d a
check f o r t h e i r p o r t i o n of t h e s e t t l e m e n t a l o n g
w i t h a n a c c o u n t i n g from B r e t z a s t o t h e amount
and d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e t o t a l s e t t l e m e n t . (This
f a c t s i t u a t i o n i s applicable t o t h e following
a l l e g e d v i c t i m s - - C u r t i s s f G a i n e s , G i l b e r t , Gus-
z r e g a n , H a l l , L a v a l l e y , McMaster, P o h j o l a , Swims
Under and Wesland.)

" ( 3 ) A s e t t l e m e n t w a s made by t h e compensation
i n s u r o r , t h e s e t t l e m e n t check was d e p o s i t e d i n t o
a bank a c c o u n t and t h e a l l e g e d v i c t i m was n e v e r
c o n t a c t e d by M r . B r e t z and, t o t h e d a t e of t h e
a f f i d a v i t , had n o t r e c e i v e d any p o r t i o n of t h e
settlement. (This f a c t s i t u a t i o n i s applicable
t o t h e following a l l e g e d victims--Barry, F i s c h e r ,
G a r d i p e e , M o r r i s and T a n n e h i l l . ) "

I n h i s p r e t r i a l motion f i l e d J u l y 29, 1975, d e f e n d a n t

moved t o quash t h e I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e grounds t h a t (1) t h e r e

was an a b u s e of p r o b a b l e c a u s e s e t f o r t h i n t h e a f f i d a v i t t o

j u s t i f y f i l i n g of t h e I n f o r m a t i o n ; and ( 2 ) no c r i m e o r
c r i m e s w e r e stated i n the f a c t s alleged i n the affidavit.

Defendant a g a i n r a i s e d t h i s i s s u e on December 29, 1975, i n
a n o t h e r p r e t r i a l motion.
Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e f a c t l a c k i n g i n t h e a f f i d a v i t

i s t h e showing o f i n t e n t r e q u i s i t e t o prove l a r c e n y . He
then argues t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n allowing t h e

S t a t e t o f i l e t h e I n f o r m a t i o n where t h e s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t

f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h probable cause.

The b a s i c c r i m e w i t h which d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d and

upon which h e w a s t r i e d w a s l a r c e n y by b a i l e e a s s e t f o r t h

i n s e c t i o n 94-2701, R.C.M. 1947:

"Every p e r s o n who, w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o d e p r i v e o r
d e f r a u d t h e t r u e owner of h i s p r o p e r t y , o r of t h e
u s e and b e n e f i t t h e r e o f , o r t o a p p r o p r i a t e t h e
same t o t h e u s e o f t h e t a k e r , o r of any o t h e r p e r -
son e i t h e r - -

" 2 . Having i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n , c u s t o d y o r c o n t r o l ,
a s a bailee, servant, attorney, agent, clerk,
t r u s t e e , o r o f f i c e r of any p e r s o n , a s s o c i a t i o n ,
o r corporation, o r a s a public o f f i c e r , o r a s a
p e r s o n a u t h o r i z e d by agreement o r by competent
a u t h o r i t y t o h o l d , o r t a k e s u c h p o s s e s s i o n , cus-
t o d y , o r c o n t r o l , any money, p r o p e r t y , e v i d e n c e
o f d e b t , o r c o n t r a c t , a r t i c l e of v a l u e o f any
n a t u r e , o r t h i n g i n a c t i o n o r p o s s e s s i o n , appro-
p r i a t e s t h e same t o h i s own u s e , o r t h a t of any
o t h e r p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n t h e t r u e owner, o r p e r s o n
e n t i t l e d t o t h e b e n e f i t t h e r e o f , s t e a l s such prop-
e r t y and i s g u i l t y of l a r c e n y . "

S e c t i o n 95-1301, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 46-11-201 MCA,

provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :

" ( a ) The c o u n t y a t t o r n e y may a p p l y d i r e c t l y t o
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r permission t o f i l e an in-
f o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t a named d e f e n d a n t . The a p p l i -
c a t i o n must b e by a f f i d a v i t s u p p o r t e d by such
e v i d e n c e a s t h e judge may r e q u i r e . I f it appears
t h a t t h e r e i s p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e t h a t an
o f f e n s e h a s been committed by t h e d e f e n d a n t t h e
judge s h a l l g r a n t l e a v e t o f i l e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n ,
otherwise t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l be denied."

The r a t i o n a l e o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r f i l i n g a n informa-

t i o n i s t h e same a s p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r a r r e s t . S t a t e ex
r e l . P i n s o n e a u l t v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 145 Mont. 233,

" P r o b a b l e c a u s e i s t h e knowledge of f a c t s , ac-
t u a l o r a p p a r e n t , s t r o n g enough t o j u s t i f y a r e a -
s o n a b l e man i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t h e h a s l a w f u l
grounds f o r p r o s e c u t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h e
manner complained o f . " P i n s o n e a u l t , 145 Mont.
a t 239, 400 P.2d a t 272.
 Any d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of

p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r t h e f i l i n g of a n I n f o r m a t i o n must b e made

on a case-by-case b a s i s viewing t h e p e c u l i a r i t i e s of t h e

p a r t i c u l a r case. I n a d d i t i o n , a s t h e t e r m "probable cause"

i m p l i e s , i t i s a c o n c e p t n e c e s s a r i l y concerned w i t h proba-

bilities. The f a c t s a l l e g e d i n t h e I n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g

d e f e n d a n t w i t h a number o f o f f e n s e s a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o es-

t a b l i s h probable cause. I n s o f i n d i n g , w e emphasize t h e

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

bookkeeping e r r o r s o r c l e r i c a l m i s t a k e s . Viewing t h e I n f o r -

m a t i o n a s a whole, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n con-

cluding t h a t probable cause e x i s t e d f o r d i r e c t l y f i l i n g t h e
Information.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY -- COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

Defendant was a l s o a d e f e n d a n t i n S t a t e v . C l i n e

( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 520, 555 P.2d 724, r e f e r r e d t o by t h e

p a r t i e s a s t h e Wampole case. Defendant c l a i m s t h a t t h a t

c a s e c o u l d and s h o u l d have been j o i n e d w i t h t h e i n s t a n t c a s e
a s b e i n g p a r t of t h e "same t r a n s a c t i o n " a s d e f i n e d i n sec-

t i o n 9 5 - 1 7 1 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i i ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 46-11-501

MCA :

" ( 1 ) a ) The t e r m 'same t r a n s a c t i o n ' i n c l u d e s con-
(
duct consisting of:

" ( i i ) a series - - t s o r o m i s s i o n s which a r e
of a c -
m o t i v a t e d by a common p u r p o s e or
p l a n and which
r e s u l t - -e r e p e a t e d commission - -e s a m e
i n th of t h -
o f f e n s e o r a f f e c t -- p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s -
t h e same or
the thereof. " (Emphasis added. )
Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e m e r e l y used t h e Wampole
c a s e as a " d r y run" t o t e s t t h e i r p r o s e c u t i o n s u c c e s s .

Defendant t h e n a r g u e s t h a t t h e p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t of m u l t i p l e
p r o s e c u t i o n s w a s t o (1) c o n t r i b u t e t o h i s e v e n t u a l i n d i -

gency; ( 2 ) expand p r e s s coverage; and, (3) provide p r a c t i c e

f o r t h e prosecution.

W e n o t e t h a t t h e I n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d i n Cascade County

named d i f f e r e n t d e f e n d a n t s t h a n t h e I n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d i n

L e w i s and C l a r k County. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Lewis and C l a r k

County I n f o r m a t i o n w a s f i l e d s u b s e q u e n t t o t h a t f i l e d i n

Cascade County.

Both p a r t i e s c i t e Ashe v . Swenson ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 397 U.S. 436,

443, 90 S . C t . 1189, 1194, 25 L Ed 2d 469, 475, f o r t h e

d e f i n i t i o n of " c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l " :

" I t means s i m p l y t h a t when a n i s s u e of u l t i m a t e
f a c t h a s o n c e been d e t e r m i n e d by a v a l i d and
f i n a l judgment, t h a t i s s u e c a n n o t a g a i n be liti-
g a t e d between t h e same p a r t i e s i n any f u t u r e l a w
s u i t . " (Emphasis added. )

The i n s t a n t c a s e i n v o l v e s no i s s u e of u l t i m a t e f a c t which

was t w i c e l i t i g a t e d . I f any v a l i d o b j e c t i o n e x i s t e d i n t h i s

a r e a , i t would have been p r o p e r t o make t h e o b j e c t i o n upon

t h e f i l i n g o f t h e second I n f o r m a t i o n i n Lewis and C l a r k

County.

JUROR'S INDEPENDENT KNOWLEDGE

J u r o r Thomas C l a r y was a G r e a t F a l l s a t t o r n e y who had

been asked t o a c t a s a s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r t o b r i n g d i s b a r -

ment p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t a n o t h e r man under a Workmen's

Compensation i n d i c t m e n t . I n d r a f t i n g t h e p l e a d i n g s , h e had
used d e f e n d a n t ' s d i s b a r m e n t a s a model. J u r o r C l a r y had
s t a t e d d u r i n g v o i r d i r e t h a t h e had no knowledge of t h e
p a r t i c u l a r counts defendant faced. But d e f e n d a n t ' s d i s b a r -

ment d e a l t a t l e n g t h w i t h t h e f a c t s o f t h e G i l b e r t , B a r r y ,

Guszregan, H a l l and M o r r i s c o u n t s of t h i s c r i m i n a l case.

Defendant a r g u e s t h a t under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e ,

C l a r y ' s knowledge r e q u i r e s r e v e r s a l of t h e c o n v i c t i o n .
 A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e t r i a l J u r o r C l a r y m e t w i t h t h e

judge and c o u n s e l i n chambers and t o l d them what h e knew.

D e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y made no o b j e c t i o n a t t h a t t i m e even

though t h e r e w e r e t h r e e a l t e r n a t e j u r o r s a v a i l a b l e . The

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

i t s f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y o b j e c t and t h e r e b y g i v e t h e c o u r t a n
o p p o r t u n i t y t o remedy any a l l e g e d d e f e c t s t h a t may have

e x i s t e d by r e p l a c i n g J u r o r C l a r y w i t h one o f t h e a l t e r n a t e
jurors. S e c t i o n 9 5 - 2 4 0 4 ( b ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 46-20-
104 MCA, p r o v i d e s :

" ( b ) Upon a p p e a l from a judgment, t h e c o u r t may
r e v i e w t h e v e r d i c t o r d e c i s i o n , and any o r d e r o r
d e c i s i o n o b j e c t e d t o which i n v o l v e s t h e m e r i t s ,
o r n e c e s s a r i l y a f f e c t s t h e judgment." (Emphasis
added. )

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

Defendant w a s c o n v i c t e d of e i g h t e e n c o u n t s i n t h i s case

and s e n t e n c e d on s i x t e e n . The c o u r t imposed t h e maximum

t e r m of f o u r t e e n y e a r s f o r e a c h of t h e s i x t e e n c o n v i c t i o n s
and d i v i d e d t h e c o n v i c t i o n s i n t o f o u r g r o u p s of f o u r con-

v i c t i o n s each. The s e n t e n c e s w i t h i n e a c h group w e r e t o b e

s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y , b u t t h e f o u r g r o u p s of , c o n v i c t i o n s w e r e

o r d e r e d t o r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y r e s u l t i n g i n a 56 y e a r p r i s o n

term.
I n imposing s e n t e n c e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a t e d :

"NOW, t h e l e n g t h of t h e s e n t e n c e t h a t t h i s C o u r t
imposes c a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d by someone who h a s
n o t h e a r d t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t h a s been p r e s e n t e d i n
t h i s c a s e . NOW, i t i s t r u e t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s n o t
committed a v i o l e n t c r i m e , b u t h i s method of o p e r -
a t i o n i s d e c e i t , h i s p l a y i n g and p r a y i n g upon t h e
weak and t h e p o o r , knowing t h e i r c o n d i t i o n , i s
more r e p r e h e n s i b l e , i n t h e view o f t h i s C o u r t ,
t h a n many c r i m e s of v i o l e n c e . I c o u l d r e v i e w some
of t h e c a s e s . The Hardy c a s e s t a n d s o u t , and a
number of o t h e r s , which a r e u n b e l i e v a b l e . I t i s
unbelievable t h a t an attorney, admitted t o t h e
 p r a c t i c e of l a w , would engage i n t h e t y p e of
a c t i v i t i e s t h a t M r . B r e t z engaged i n . I don't
want t o d r a m a t i z e i t , b e c a u s e t h e c a s e s speak f o r
t h e m s e l v e s , and I r e f e r t h e S e n t e n c e Review Board
t o t h e f a c t s of t h o s e c a s e s . Now, i n t h e e y e s of
many, o r a t l e a s t some, t h e l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n h a s
been branded and s t i g m a t i z e d by B r e t z . H e , o f
c o u r s e , h a s been d i s b a r r e d , no l o n g e r c a n p r a c -
t i c e , but I ' m taking t h i s i n t o account a l s o i n
t h e i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e . Now, d u r i n g t h e t r i a l
M r . B r e t z , t h r o u g h t h e news media, made c e r t a i n
p u b l i c statements t h a t demonstrate an unbelievable
a r r o g a n c e and l a c k o f c o n s c i e n c e on h i s p a r t . Now
o n e t h i n g h e r e f e r r e d t o i s a r e v e r s a l of t h e Wam-
p o l e c a s e by t h e F e d e r a l Appeals C o u r t . T h a t re-
v e r s a l apparently c l e a r s h i s conscience. H e a l s o ,
i n t h a t same news i t e m , c r i t i z e d [ s i c ] t h e S t a t e
f o r w a s t i n g money i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f t h e s e
Workmen's Compensation c a s e s , s a y i n g t h a t o n l y
one man h a s s p e n t s i x t y e i g h t d a y s i n p r i s o n f o r
a l l t h a t h a s been done. I t a k e t h i s i n t o n o t e ,
and p e r h a p s I w i l l c o r r e c t t h a t i m b a l a n c e . He
a l s o s t a t e s t h a t h e h a s many grounds f o r a p p e a l ,
and t h a t u l t i m a t e l y t h e r e w i l l b e a r e v e r s a l , as
t h e r e w a s i n t h e Wampole case. T h i s may b e s o .
H i s c o n s c i e n c e may b e c l e a r , i f t h a t s o happens.
But t h e h a r s h r e a l i t y of h i s g r e e d t o t h e p e o p l e
who have been v i c t i m i z e d w i l l n e v e r be e r a s e d by
any r e v e r s a l . "

Defendant w a s s e n t e n c e d t o o n e - f o u r t h of t h e maximum

s e n t e n c e a l l o w e d by law f o r t h e o f f e n s e s o f which he w a s

convicted. The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t " a s e n t e n c e w i t h i n t h e

maximum a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e i s n o t c r u e l and u n u s u a l
. . ." S t a t e v . Karanthos ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 158 Mont. 461, 468, 493

P.2d 326, 330. C o n s i d e r i n g t h e number of c o u n t s of which
d e f e n d a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d , t h e u n b e l i e v a b l e a r r o g a n c e and t h e

l a c k of any showing of remorse by d e f e n d a n t and t h e s e n t e n c e

b e i n g 25 p e r c e n t o n l y of t h a t allowed by l a w and c o n s i d e r i n g

a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a s e , t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e

t r i a l judge c a n n o t b e c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n .

C O N D I T I O N I N G SUSPENSION - RESTITUTION
ON

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n

t h e judgment and o r d e r of commitment:
 " I t i s F u r t h e r Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed t h a t
t h e l a s t 30 y e a r s of t h e 56 y e a r s e n t e n c e h e r e i n
imposed b e suspended upon t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s .

" 1 . T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t pay i n t o d i s t r i c t c o u r t on
o r b e f o r e December 1 3 , 1977, a n amount s u f f i c i e n t
t o pay a l l v i c t i m s o f t h e o f f e n s e s f o r t h e f u l l
amount of s e t t l e m e n t awarded by t h e IAB/WCD i n -
c l u d i n g Dennis J . Aker, S t a n l e y C. Gaines and Eu-
g e n e R. H a l l .

" 2 . A s a f u r t h e r p e n a l t y t h e r e s h a l l b e no deduc-
t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s o r c o s t s c l a i m e d by t h e de-
fendant.

"3. A t t h i s t i m e t h e C o u r t i s a d v i s e d t h a t a f t e r
a l l o w a n c e f o r payments made by t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e
t o t a l sum of $42,259.68 remains owing t o t h e c l a i m -
a n t s a l l e g e d t o have been d e f r a u d e d .

"4. Should t h e d e f e n d a n t n o t make f u l l payment
within t h e t i m e prescribed, t h e defendant w i l l
s e r v e t h e s e n t e n c e s h e r e i n a b o v e imposed."

Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s are improper and

amount t o c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment f o r two r e a s o n s .

F i r s t , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n c l u d e d t h e amount of t h e s e t t l e -

ment on t h r e e c o u n t s upon which h e was a c q u i t t e d . Second,

h e a r g u e s t h i s amounted t o an e x c e s s i v e f i n e and was uncon-

s t i t u t i o n a l l y c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment c o n s i d e r i n g

defendant's indigent status.

S e c t i o n 95-2206, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 46-18-201 MCA,

provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :

"(1)Whenever a p e r s o n h a s been found g u i l t y o f
a n o f f e n s e upon a v e r d i c t o r a p l e a of g u i l t y ,
t h e c o u r t may:

" ( b ) suspend e x e c u t i o n of s e n t e n c e up t o t h e maxi-
m m sentence allowed f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r o f f e n s e .
u
The s e n t e n c i n g judge may impose on t h e d e f e n d a n t
any r e a s o n a b l e r e s t r i c t i o n s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of
suspended s e n t e n c e . Such r e a s o n a b l e r e s t r i c t i o n s
may i n c l u d e :

" (iv) restitution;
 " ( d ) commit t h e d e f e n d a n t t o a c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i -
t u t i o n w i t h o r w i t h o u t a f i n e as p r o v i d e d by law
f o r the offense;

" ( e ) impose any combination o f s u b s e c t i o n s (1)(b),
(1)( c ) and (1)(dl ."
I

When t h e judgment i s e n t e r e d on t h e v e r d i c t of g u i l t y

and t h e s e n t e n c e i s imposed, t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g i s a t

a n end. Any m i t i g a t i o n by s u s p e n s i o n , e t c . , i s t h e begin-

n i n g of t h e p r o b a t i o n and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o c e s s , and t h e

defendant a t t h i s s t a g e of t h e proceeding i s not possessed

of f u l l c i t i z e n s h i p and n o t e n t i t l e d t o a l l of t h e con-

s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f a f r e e man. W e have m e t t h i s problem

i n r e c e n t c a s e s and have h e l d a s have o t h e r j u r s i d i c t i o n s

and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , see S t a t e v . May ( l 9 6 9 ) ,

93 I d a h o 343, 461 P.2d 126; F u l l e r v. Oregon (19741, 417

U.S. 40, 94 S . C t . 2116, 40 L Ed 2d 642, t h a t r e s t i t u t i o n ,

p a r t i c u l a r l y i n connection with theft-type convictions, i s a

proper condition f o r suspension o r probation. A considera-

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

t r i a l judge h a s been more t h a n f a i r and h i s g r a n t i n g d e f e n -

d a n t a n o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s u s p e n s i o n i s a n a c t of mercy h e w a s

n o t required t o extend t o t h i s defendant.

SENTENCING HEARING

A f t e r t h e v e r d i c t had been r e t u r n e d by t h e j u r y on

December 1, 1976, t h e c o u r t s t a t e d :

"NOW, i n view of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s p e c u l i a r t o
t h i s c a s e , t h e C o u r t deems i t s e l f w e l l enough
a d v i s e d t o impose p e n a l t y w i t h o u t c a l l i n g f o r a
p r e - s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and r e p o r t . I am
g o i n g t o s e t n e x t Tuesday, December t h e 7 t h , a s
t h e t i m e f o r s e n t e n c i n g , a t t h e hour of 1 1 : O O
o ' c l o c k A.M.
"Now, a t t h a t t i m e Counsel f o r t h e Defense may
p r e s e n t any m a t t e r s i n m i t i g a t i o n o f punishment
i f they wish it a t t h a t t i m e . "
 On December 3 , 1976, t h e p r o s e c u t o r s f o r t h e S t a t e s e n t

a l e t t e r t o Judge M a r t i n s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e i r views w i t h

r e s p e c t t o defendant's sentencing. They a t t a c h e d a copy of

a l e t t e r from t h e d a u g h t e r of one of t h e v i c t i m s i n t h e

c a s e , which had been s e n t t o a judge i n C a l i f o r n i a i n an-

other matter. Because of i l l n e s s , d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c i n g

w a s d e l a y e d u n t i l December 13. A t that time, d e f e n s e coun-

s e l s t a t e d t h a t , i n h i s o p i n i o n , i n t h e a b s e n c e of a p r e -

sentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n , " t h e Court l a c k [ e d ] t h e proper

n e c e s s a r y i n f o r m a t i o n t o p a s s judgment i n t h i s m a t t e r . " The

S t a t e answered t h a t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e c o u r t had had

a c c e s s t o a copy of a n o t h e r p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n p r e -

pared i n another t r i a l of defendant. The c o u r t s a i d t h a t i t

had looked a t t h e r e p o r t , found t h a t i t was n o t h e l p f u l , and

then d e t a i l e d f o r t h e record t h e reasons f o r t h e sentence it

was a b o u t t o impose.

Defendant o b j e c t s t o two p a r t s o f t h i s p r o c e d u r e .

F i r s t , h e a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d have o r d e r e d

a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and t h a t t h e p r i o r document was
n o t an adequate s u b s t i t u t e . C i t i n g S t a t e v . Orsborn ( 1 9 7 6 ) ,

170 Mont. 480, 555 P.2d 509, d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t h e s h o u l d

have been a d v i s e d of t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t

from t h e p r i o r t r i a l and g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e b u t any

m i s i n f o r m a t i o n i t m i g h t have c o n t a i n e d . Next, h e a r g u e s

t h a t t h e S t a t e s h o u l d have produced f o r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n
t h e v i c t i m ' s d a u g h t e r who had w r i t t e n t h e l e t t e r t h e p r o s e -
c u t o r s presented t o t h e court. F a i l u r e t o do t h i s , s a y s
d e f e n d a n t , w a s a d e n i a l of due p r o c e s s .
S e c t i o n 95-2203, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 46-18-111

MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
 "No d e f e n d a n t c o n v i c t e d of a crime which may re-
s u l t i n commitment f o r one (1) y e a r o r more i n
t h e s t a t e p r i s o n , s h a l l be s e n t e n c e d o r o t h e r w i s e
d i s p o s e d o f b e f o r e a w r i t t e n r e p o r t of i n v e s t i g a -
t i o n by a p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r i s p r e s e n t e d t o and
c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c o u r t , u n l e s s t h e c o u r t deems
such r e p o r t unnecessary." (Emphasis added.)

The o b v i o u s i m p o r t o f t h i s s t a t u t e i s t o p r o v i d e a means by

which a c o u r t c a n f a s h i o n a punishment which w i l l f i t n o t

o n l y t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e c r i m e b u t a l s o t h e i n d i v i d u a l

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e person convicted. The c o u r t i n t h e

i n s t a n t c a s e , b e c a u s e of i t s f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h d e f e n d a n t and

h i s crimes w a s i n a p o s i t i o n t o sentence without having a

presentence investigation. Defendant had s e e n a copy of t h e

p r i o r p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o

d i s p u t e i t s c o n t e n t s b u t he d i d not. Beyond t h a t , t h e c o u r t

i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t had n o t been h e l p f u l and t h e c o u r t ' s r e l i -
a n c e on i t i n any way i s e x t r e m e l y d o u b t f u l . The D i s t r i c t

C o u r t d e t a i l e d a t some l e n g t h i t s r e a s o n s f o r t h e s e n t e n c e

imposed on d e f e n d a n t and he had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o respond

t o t h o s e r e a s o n s a t t h a t t i m e w i t h any m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s h e

could f i n d .

The same i s t r u e of t h e l e t t e r s e n t t o Judge M a r t i n by

t h e prosecutors with i t s attachment. Defendant w a s f u r -

n i s h e d w i t h a copy of t h e l e t t e r s and w i t h t h e o p p o r t u n i t y
t o m i t i g a t e any e f f e c t h e f e l t i t m i g h t have. The l e t t e r

from t h e d a u g h t e r of o n e o f t h e v i c t i m s was n o t mentioned by

t h e judge a s a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r i n h i s s e n t e n c i n g d e c i -
s i o n and t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o u n t t o which i t r e l a t e d d i d n o t
r e s u l t i n an enhanced punishment.

ADMISSION - EXHIBITS
OF

The S t a t e i n t r o d u c e d t h e f i l e s o f t h e I n d u s t r i a l Acci-

dent Board Worker's Compensation D i v i s i o n as E x h i b i t No. 1
under t h e B u s i n e s s Records a s Evidence A c t , s e c t i o n s 93-801-

1 t h r o u g h 93-801-6, R.C.M. 1947. Each f i l e c o n s i s t e d p r i -

m a r i l y of t h e f o l l o w i n g documents:

1. S e t t l e m e n t d r a f t ;

2 . P e t i t i o n f o r compromise s e t t l e m e n t ;

3. Carden s e t t l e m e n t memorandum;

4 . Appointment o f A t t o r n e y i n F a c t s u b m i t t e d by d e f e n -

dant;

5. Medical r e p o r t s ;

6 . A f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of lump s m s e t t l e m e n t ;
u
7 . Correspondence between t h e I A B and d e f e n d a n t ;

8 . Order a p p r o v i n g s e t t l e m e n t .

S e c t i o n 93-801-2, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s :

"A r e c o r d o f a n a c t , c o n d i t i o n o r e v e n t , shall,
i n s o f a r a s r e l e v a n t , be competent e v i d e n c e
i f t h e custodian o r other q u a l i f i e d witness
t e s t i f i e s t o i t s i d e n t i t y and mode o f i t s p r e p a r a -
t i o n , a n d ' i f i t was made i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e of
b u s i n e s s , a t o r n e a r t h e t i m e of t h e a c t , c o n d i -
t i o n o r e v e n t , and i f , i n t h e o p i n i o n of t h e
c o u r t , t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n , method and
t i m e of p r e p a r a t i o n w e r e s u c h a s t o j u s t i f y ad-
mission."

Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e w a s r e q u i r e d t o produce

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

IAB f i l e e x h i b i t s . I n f a c t , t h e t e s t i m o n y o f A l b e r t G.

P i l l e n , who w a s t h e c l a i m s manager f o r t h e S t a t e I n s u r a n c e

Fund a t t h e t i m e o f most o f t h e e v e n t s i n q u e s t i o n , p r o v i d e d

t h i s foundation. Defendant, though, c l a i m s t h a t P i l l e n

c o u l d n o t l a y t h e p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n b e c a u s e h e had n o t
examined t h e i n d i v i d u a l documents i n t h e f i l e . W find that
e
P i l l e n was a q u a l i f i e d w i t n e s s and t h a t a q u a l i f i e d w i t n e s s
under c i r c u m s t a n c e s l i k e t h o s e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e need
n o t have examined e v e r y document i n a f i l e . Furthermore,

a g a i n d e f e n d a n t h a s f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t any of t h e

evidence presented i s not trustworthy .
 Defendant n e x t a d d r e s s e s t h e a d m i s s i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e of

c e r t a i n h a n d w r i t i n g examples of d e f e n d a n t ' s t h r e e s e c r e -

taries. These i n c l u d e d a b s t r a c t s of v e h i c l e t i t l e s , d r i v e r ' s

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

r e g i s t r a t i o n cards. Defendant o b j e c t e d t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n

o f t h e s e e x h i b i t s b e c a u s e t h e r e was no t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e

s i g n a t u r e s on t h e documents were a u t h e n t i c . The p u r p o s e f o r

which t h e s i g n a t u r e s w e r e i n t r o d u c e d was f o r comparison w i t h

o t h e r questioned signatures. Defendant h a s n e v e r a l l e g e d

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

a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e under t h e P u b l i c Records E x c e p t i o n t o

t h e Hearsay Rule, s e c t i o n s 93-901-1 t h r o u g h 93-901-5, R.C.M.

1947. Each of t h e r e c o r d s i s k e p t by an o f f i c i a l s t a t e o r

c o u n t y agency f o r t h e b e n e f i t of t h e p u b l i c . he f a c t t h a t

a number of s i g n a t u r e s were i n t r o d u c e d h e l p e d t o i n s u r e

their authenticity.

PROOF - ELEMENTS - PREPARING FALSE EVIDENCE
OF OF

Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h e two

counts of preparing f a l s e evidence. Count V I I a l l e g e d t h a t

d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e p a r a t i o n o f p e t i t i o n s f o r lump sum and com-

promise s e t t l e m e n t s , s u b m i t t e d t o t h e IAB/WCD i n t h e Donald

B a r r y c a s e a f t e r B a r r y had d i e d v i o l a t e d s e c t i o n 94-1703,

R.C.M. 1947. Count L I a l l e g e d s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h

r e s p e c t t o E a r l T a n n e h i l l , who was a l s o dead. Defendant

contends t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o prove t h e following
material allegations:
"A. T h a t t h e documents w e r e i n t e n d e d ' a s e v i d e n c e . '
"B. T h a t t h e documents produced w e r e of t h e t y p e
i n t e n d e d t o b e c o v e r e d by t h e c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e .

"C. T h a t t h e documents were produced i n a t r i a l ,
p r o c e e d i n g o r i n q u i r y a u t h o r i z e d by law.

"D. T h a t t h e documents were p r e p a r e d i n Cascade
County, t h e venue o f t h e t r i a l . "
 S e c t i o n 94-1703, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s a s f o l l o w s :

"Every p e r s o n g u i l t y o f p r e p a r i n g any f a l s e o r
a n t e d a t e d book, p a p e r , r e c o r d , i n s t r u m e n t i n w r i t -
i n g , o r o t h e r matter o r t h i n g , w i t h i n t e n t t o pro-
d u c e o r a l l o w i t t o b e produced f o r any f r a u d u l e n t
o r d e c e i t f u l p u r p o s e , a s g e n u i n e o r t r u e , upon any
t r i a l , proceeding, o r i n q u i r y whatever, authorized
by law, i s g u i l t y of a f e l o n y . "

The e l e m e n t s of t h e o f f e n s e of p r e p a r i n g f a l s e e v i d e n c e
which w e r e r e q u i r e d t o be proved i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e a r e (1)

p r e p a r a t i o n of a f a l s e r e p o r t ; ( 2 ) w i t h i n t e n t t o produce i t

f o r any f r a u d u l e n t o r d e c e i t f u l p u r p o s e , a s t r u e ; ( 3 ) upon

any i n q u i r y a u t h o r i z e d by l a w . Here, t h e p e t i t i o n s p r e -

supposed l i v e c l a i m a n t s s i n c e t h e r i g h t t o compensation

ceases a t death. I n t e n t i s a f a c t u a l question f o r t h e jury,

t h e f r a u d u l e n t p u r p o s e b e i n g t o o b t a i n money knowing h e w a s

n o t e n t i t l e d t o it. The p e t i t i o n s w e r e a s t a t u t o r y p r e -

r e q u i s i t e t o t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e b o a r d ' s d i s c r e t i o n i n

awarding lump sum o r compromise s e t t l e m e n t s . See s e c t i o n

92-715, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 39-71-741 MCA.

With r e s p e c t t o venue, we r e c o g n i z e t h a t venue must be

proven i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . State

v . W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 122 Mont. 279, 202 P.2d 245. In this

c a s e , s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e w a s p r e s e n t e d from which t h e j u r y

c o u l d d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e S t a t e proved venue beyond a r e a s o n -

a b l e doubt. Both p e t i t i o n s f o r lump s m s e t t l e m e n t con-
u
t a i n e d d e f e n d a n t ' s s i g n a t u r e f o l l o w e d by h i s G r e a t F a l l s

address. The p e t i t i o n s f o r compromise s e t t l e m e n t r e s u l t e d
i n checks being s e n t t o defendant i n Great F a l l s .

-
LARCENY BY BAILEE PROOF

I n t h e amended I n f o r m a t i o n , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e

B a r r y and T a n n e h i l l c o u n t s , d e f e n d a n t was charged w i t h
a l t e r n a t i v e c o u n t s of Larceny by T r i c k and Device, s e c t i o n
 94-2701(1), R.C.M. 1947, and Larceny by B a i l e e , s e c t i o n 94-

2701 ( 2 ) , R.C.M. 1947. The S t a t e c h o s e t o go t o t r i a l on t h e

Larceny by B a i l e e c h a r g e s and d i s m i s s e d t h e a l t e r n a t e c o u n t s

o f Larceny by T r i c k and Device.

S e c t i o n 94-2701(2), R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t

part:

"Larceny d e f i n e d . Every p e r s o n who, w i t h t h e
i n t e n t t o d e p r i v e o r d e f r a u d t h e t r u e owner of
h i s p r o p e r t y , o r of t h e u s e and b e n e f i t t h e r e o f ,
o r t o a p p r o p r i a t e t h e same t o t h e u s e of t h e
t a k e r , o r of any o t h e r p e r s o n ...

" 2 . Having i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n , c u s t o d y , o r c o n t r o l ,
a s a bailee, servant, attorney, agent, clerk,
t r u s t e e , o r o f f i c e r of any p e r s o n . . .or as a
p e r s o n a u t h o r i z e d by agreement o r by competent
a u t h o r i t y t o h o l d , o r t a k e such p o s s e s s i o n , cus-
t o d y , o r c o n t r o l , any money, p r o p e r t y ... ap-
p r o p r i a t e s t h e same t o h i s own u s e , o r t h a t of
any o t h e r p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n t h e t r u e owner, o r
person e n t i t l e d t o t h e b e n e f i t t h e r e o f , s t e a l s
s u c h p r o p e r t y and i s g u i l t y of l a r c e n y . "

Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h r e e

e l e m e n t s o f t h e crime charged. F i r s t , he argues t h a t t h e

S t a t e f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t d e f e n d a n t was a n " a t t o r n e y . "

Second, h e a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s proof n e g a t e d t h e r e q u i -

s i t e e l e m e n t o f " i n t e n t t o p e r m a n e n t l y d e p r i v e " t h e owner o f

funds. F i n a l l y , h e a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e o f f e r e d proof

which n e g a t e d t h e e l e m e n t of a u t h o r i t y under which d e f e n d a n t

was h o l d i n g t h e f u n d s .

I n i t i a l l y , w e n o t e t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n of t h i s C o u r t i n

reviewing a jury v e r d i c t i s t o determine i f 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 . S t a t e v. P e p p e r l i n g

( 1 9 7 4 ) , 166 Mont. 293, 533 P.2d 283.

". . . t h i s c o u r t i s n o t a t r i e r of f a c t . In ..
view of t h e presumption of i n n o c e n c e a t t h e t r i a l ,
t h e j u r y must have been i n s t r u c t e d t o t h a t e f f e c t ,
b u t on a p p e a l a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n t h e r u l e changes.
Then, i f t h e r e c o r d shows any 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 t h e judgment, t h e presumption
i s i n f a v o r of s u c h judgment." S t a t e v. Stoddard
( 1 9 6 6 ) , 147 Mont. 402, 408. 412 P.2d 827, 831.
See a l s o S t a t e v. Cor ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont, 323, 396 P.2d 86.

he r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e amply d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t d e f e n -

d a n t i n t e n d e d t o permanently d e p r i v e h i s own i n j u r e d c l i e n t s

of t h e i r money. E x h i b i t s p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l showed low

d e p o s i t s i n bank a c c o u n t s m a i n t a i n e d by d e f e n d a n t i n t o which

t h e s e t t l e m e n t c h e c k s from t h e c l i e n t s w e r e d e p o s i t e d . In

e a c h c a s e , i t w a s d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e r e was a t l e a s t one

p o i n t i n t i m e when d e f e n d a n t c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y have d i s -

t r i b u t e d t h e c l i e n t ' s s h a r e of t h e money t o t h e c l i e n t .

A s a p p l i e d t o t h e c h a r g e s i n t h i s case, s e c t i o n 94-

2701(2) r e q u i r e s t h e S t a t e t o p r o v e t h a t d e f e n d a n t took

p o s s e s s i o n of t h e funds e i t h e r as an a t t o r n e y - a s a person
or

a u t h o r i z e d by agreement o r competent a u t h o r i t y . With re-

s p e c t t o e a c h c o u n t , t h e S t a t e need p r o v e one o r t h e o t h e r ;

i t need n o t prove b o t h .

I n each c a s e presented here, defendant received s e t t l e -

ment money b e c a u s e h e had been r e t a i n e d a s a n a t t o r n e y ; h e

represented himself as an a t t o r n e y ; d e a l t w i t h t h e IAB a s

t h e c l i e n t ' s a t t o r n e y ; wrote letters, received correspon-

d e n c e , f i l e d documents w i t h t h e I A B , and r e c e i v e d h i s c l i -
e n t ' s money, a l l a s a n a t t o r n e y . H e c a n n o t now c l a i m t h a t h e

was n o t a n a t t o r n e y , a f t e r a j u r y , p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h i s

e v i d e n c e , found t h a t h e w a s .
The e s s e n c e o f d e f e n d a n t ' s n e x t argument i s t h a t t h e

S t a t e attempted t o prove t h a t defendant sought o u t h i s
c l i e n t s w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o u l t i m a t e l y s t e a l from them. This
p r i o r i n t e n t i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i n t e n t element
p r e s e n t i n t h e c r i m e of Larceny by B a i l e e where, d e f e n d a n t

argues, the i n t e n t t o s t e a l a r i s e s a f t e r t h e point i n t i m e
when t h e embezzler g a i n s c o n t r o l of t h e f u n d s .
 Here, a f i d u c i a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p w a s c r e a t e d when d e f e n -

d a n t a c t e d on b e h a l f o f h i s c l i e n t s as t h e i r a t t o r n e y .

Defendant i s e s t o p p e d , under t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , from

a s s e r t i n g a s a defense t h a t he harbored a f e l o n i o u s i n t e n t

p r i o r t o t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e f i d u c i a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p . State

v . Gould ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 329 Mo. 828, 46 S.W.2d 886. Furthermore,

t h e e l e m e n t of i n t e n t and t h e t i m e of i t s f o r m a t i o n i s a

q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y , a q u e s t i o n which w a s r e s o l v e d a g a i n s t

defendant. Therefore, w e f i n d t h a t t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l

evidence i n t h e record t o support t h e j u r y ' s determination

t h a t d e f e n d a n t was g u i l t y of t h e c r i m e o f Larceny by B a i l e e .

OVERZEALOUS PROSECUTION

Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t of a series

o f a c t s by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n d e n i e d him h i s b a s i c c o n s t i t u -

tional right to a f a i r trial. He l i s t s s i x s p e c i f i c a c t s :

1. F i l i n g of m u l t i p l e counts;

2. Participation i n pretrial publicity;

3. R e s i s t a n c e of payment of a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l ;

4. D i s m i s s a l and r e f i l i n g of c h a r g e s w i t h o u t n o t i c e o r

opportunity f o r hearing being afforded t o t h e defendant;

5. Demand of document from t h e d e f e n s e i n v i o l a t i o n of

d e f e n d a n t ' s F i f t h Amendment r i g h t t o s i l e n c e ; and,

6. S t a t e ' s w i t h h o l d i n g of names of w i t n e s s e s .

W have p r e v i o u s l y a d d r e s s e d t h e u n d e r l y i n g f a c t u a l
e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e f i r s t t h r e e p o i n t s made by d e f e n d a n t .

Number 4 r e f e r s t o t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e J u l y 30, 1974,

Information. Defendant s t a t e s t h a t i f h e "had been a l l o w e d

t o a p p e a r , t h i s c a s e m i g h t w e l l have been p r o s e c u t e d on a

s h o r t e r , o r i g i n a l 29-count I n f o r m a t i o n w i t h a r e s u l t i n g

speedup i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of t h e i s s u e s and

minimi z i n g of p u b l i c i t y . "
 ÿ umber 5 r e f e r s t o a n exchange a p p e a r i n g on p a g e s 2 3 4 6

and 2 3 4 7 of t h e t r a n s c r i p t . P r o s e c u t o r G i l b e r t was ques-

t i o n i n g w i t n e s s E a r l e y a b o u t a v i s i t h e had r e c e i v e d from

d e f e n s e c o u n s e l Connor. G i l b e r t a s k e d E a r l e y i f Connor had

shown him a l e t t e r a t t h a t time. E a r l e y answered a f f i r m a -

t i v e l y and G i l b e r t t h e n a s k e d him i f a l e t t e r he was h o l d i n g
was t h e same l e t t e r . E a r l e y s a i d i t w a s n o t and G i l b e r t

t h e n asked Connor t o check h i s f i l e s f o r t h e l e t t e r . After

a b r i e f exchange, t h e two a t t o r n e y s approached t h e bench f o r

some d i s c u s s i o n o f f t h e r e c o r d . Defense c o u n s e l t h e n moved

f o r a m i s t r i a l due t o t h i s r e q u e s t , c i t i n g i t a s v i o l a t i v e

of t h e F i f t h Amendment g u a r a n t e e t h a t a d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t b e

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

Number 6 r e f e r s t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e S t a t e was p e r -

m i t t e d t o add c e r t a i n w i t n e s s e s t o i t s l i s t o f w i t n e s s e s

following v o i r d i r e . Three of t h e s e w i t n e s s e s were u l t i -

mately c a l l e d t o t h e stand i n t h e course of t h e t r i a l .

A d d r e s s i n g t h i s l a s t i s s u e f i r s t , w e n o t e t h a t one of

t h e t h r e e w i t n e s s e s who c o u l d have p o s s i b l y p r e j u d i c e d

d e f e n d a n t ' s case w a s a w i t n e s s d e f e n d a n t had l i s t e d a s h i s
own. A s i d e from t h i s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a t e d a t t h e t i m e

t h e w i t n e s s e s were l i s t e d t h a t h e would g r a n t a c o n t i n u a n c e

on d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t p r i o r t o t h e e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e s e

w i t n e s s e s i f d e f e n s e c o u n s e l needed e x t r a t i m e t o i n t e r v i e w

t h e w i t n e s s e s and d e v e l o p t h e i r q u e s t i o n s . This opportunity

c u r e d any p r e j u d i c e which m i g h t have o t h e r w i s e d e v e l o p e d .
Concerning t h e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s F i f t h
Amendment r i g h t s , w e n o t e t h a t no o b j e c t i o n was made on
F i f t h Amendment grounds a t t h e t i m e of t h e i n c i d e n t . More-

o v e r , t h e r e q u e s t was made of c o u n s e l and n o t of t h e d e f e n -

dant. ~ e v i e w i n gt h e t r a n s c r i p t w e c a n n o t d i s c e r n how d e f e n -
d a n t c o u l d have been p r e j u d i c e d by t h e exchange. C e r t a i n l y
i t i s n o t a p p a r e n t from t h e r e c o r d . I n addition, t h e record

f i l e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t d o e s n o t c o n t a i n a n o b j e c t i o n by

d e f e n d a n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e f i r s t I n f o r -

mation and t h e f i l i n g of t h e second.

Having p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d t h e f i r s t t h r e e m a t t e r s

w i t h r e s p e c t t o o t h e r i s s u e s , we a r e l e f t w i t h t h e t a s k of

a s s e s s i n g t h e o v e r a l l i m p a c t of t h e s e matters c o n s i d e r e d

together. W f i n d t h a t t h e i s s u e s presented here, i f they
e

were t o be c o n s i d e r e d e r r o r , a r e n o t of t h e q u a l i t y t o be

i n any s e n s e p r e j u d i c i a l .

DENIAL - OPPORTUNITY - PRESENT DEFENSE
OF TO

Defendant c o n t e n d s t h a t c e r t a i n a l l e g e d e r r o r s and

e r r o n e o u s r u l i n g a t t e n d a n t t o t h i s case had t h e e f f e c t of

v i o l a t i n g h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t " t o have compulsory

process f o r obtaining witnesses i n h i s favor a s guaranteed

by t h e S i x t h 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 and
A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 2 4 o f t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1972."

H e b r e a k s t h i s a s s i g n m e n t of e r r o r i n t o f i v e p a r t s .

1. F a i l u r e t o pay a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l ;

2. D e n i a l and q u a s h i n g of subpoenas w i t h o u t p r o p e r

basis;

3. R e f u s a l t o a l l o w i n e v i d e n c e of a c c o u n t i n g s sub-

m i t t e d by d e f e n d a n t t o a n a l l e g e d v i c t i m ;
4. The r e f u s a l t o a l l o w t e s t i m o n y a s t o work p e r -

formed;

5. Having t o clear o u t - o f - s t a t e witnesses with the

c o u r t and S t a t e b e f o r e o b t a i n i n g subpoenas.
W e have p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d d e f e n d a n t ' s f i r s t a s s i g n -

ment of e r r o r i n t h i s r e g a r d and found no showing of p r e j u -

d i c e t o h i s defense.
 The d e n i a l and q u a s h i n g of subpoenas mentioned r e f e r t o

two i n c i d e n t s . The f i r s t i n v o l v e d d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o

o b t a i n a a subpoena d u c e s tecum commanding M r s . R o b e r t

M o r r i s , t h e w i f e of a n a l l e g e d v i c t i m , t o b r i n g c o p i e s of

t h e c o u p l e ' s I n t e r n a l Revenue r e t u r n s f o r a number of y e a r s .

Defendant h i m s e l f s t a t e d t h e p u r p o s e f o r which h e wished t o

subpoena t h e r e c o r d s :

"Mrs. M o r r i s w i l l b e a w i t n e s s i n t h i s c a s e f o r
t h e d e f e n d a n t , and t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s subpoena,
Your Honor, i t i s g o i n g t o become r e l e v a n t i n
t h i s c a s e c o n c e r n i n g t h e a d d r e s s e s and employers
and e a r n i n g s of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r w i t n e s s f o r t h e
S t a t e . And t h e b e s t e v i d e n c e p r o b a b l y of t h e
e a r n i n g s , employer and a d d r e s s e s and s o f o r t h
w i l l by t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue r e c o r d s . If Mr.
and M r s . M o r r i s have f i l e d a j o i n t r e t u r n of
c o u r s e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s t h e r e and M r s . M o r r i s
c a n p r o v i d e it. And i t i s most r e l e v a n t on t h i s
i s s u e . T h i s i s o n e of t h e main p a r t s of t h e
Morris count. "

The S t a t e o b j e c t e d t o t h e g r a n t i n g of t h e subpoena on t h e

grounds t h a t it w a s n o t t h e b e s t e v i d e n c e and no need was

shown f o r t h e r e c o r d s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i n denying t h e

subpoena, s t a t e d t h a t " [ w l h e n you e s t a b l i s h a f o u n d a t i o n and

b a s i s f o r it, then t h e c o u r t w i l l look a t i t . " I t i s not

e r r o r t o r e q u i r e a proper foundation.
A s i m i l a r i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d c o n c e r n i n g a subpoena by

t h e d e f e n s e of a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e C r e d i t Bureau. The

C r e d i t Bureau moved t o q u a s h and t h e S t a t e s u p p o r t e d t h e

motion a r g u i n g t h a t t h e r e was no f o u n d a t i o n l a i d f o r t h e

e v i d e n c e t o be g a i n e d . A f t e r some argument, d e f e n s e c o u n s e l
Barron asked t h a t t h e m a t t e r be postponed u n t i l a s u f f i c i e n t
f o u n d a t i o n was l a i d . The d e f e n s e a p p a r e n t l y d i d n o t p u r s u e
t h i s matter f o l l o w i n g t h a t a c q u i e s c e n c e . This s p e c i f i c a t i o n

r e q u i r e s no comment.
Turning t o d e f e n d a n t ' s n e x t argument r e g a r d i n g e v i d e n c e

of a c c o u n t i n g s , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y of Greg
Warner, an a t t o r n e y who r e p r e s e n t e d v i c t i m H o r t i c k i n a

l a w s u i t a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t , was e x c l u d e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t .

~ e f e n d a n t ' so f f e r o f proof was t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t M r . War-

n e r ' s t e s t i m o n y would show t h a t d e f e n d a n t was h o l d i n g t h e

money o p e n l y under a c l a i m of r i g h t . However, t h i s pur-

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

n e a r l y a y e a r a f t e r t h e s e t t l e m e n t had been o b t a i n e d and

o n l y a f t e r a demand by t h e v i c t i m t h r o u g h h i s a t t o r n e y had

been made f o l l o w i n g H o r t i c k ' s b e i n g c o n t a c t e d by t h e a t t o r -

ney g e n e r a l ' s o f f i c e t h u s becoming aware of t h e s e t t l e m e n t .

A s such, t h i s e v i d e n c e w a s n o t r e l e v a n t t o h i s d e f e n s e of

good f a i t h .

Next, d e f e n d a n t claims t h a t h e o f f e r e d t o p r o v e t h a t

v i c t i m H o r t i c k had been i n v o l v e d i n c r i m i n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s ,

t h a t h e had r e t a i n e d d e f e n d a n t t o d e f e n d him, t h a t d e f e n d a n t

d i d some work i n t h i s m a t t e r and was e n t i t l e d t o a fee.

T h i s f e e was t h e n c l a i m e d a s a n o f f s e t a g a i n s t t h e H o r t i c k

settlement. But d e f e n d a n t a t t e m p t e d t o i n t r o d u c e t h i s

t e s t i m o n y t h r o u g h a former d e p u t y c o u n t y a t t o r n e y . Only
H o r t i c k ' s o r d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y c o u l d have e s t a b l i s h e d

t h a t d e f e n d a n t had been h i r e d by H o r t i c k , t h a t a f e e a g r e e -

ment had been r e a c h e d , t h a t h e performed a c e r t a i n amount of

work, t h a t he was t h e r e f o r e e n t i t l e d t o a f e e and t h a t , i n

f a c t , h e r e t a i n e d a p o r t i o n of H o r t i c k ' s Workers' Compensa-

t i o n s e t t l e m e n t f o r t h a t purpose. Hortick d i d n o t t e s t i f y
t h a t he had r e t a i n e d d e f e n d a n t i n t h e matter and t h e d e f e n s e
d i d n o t examine him on t h a t p o i n t . Defendant c h o s e n o t t o
t e s t i f y , and we a r e p r e c l u d e d from drawing any c o n c l u s i o n s

from t h a t f a c t . However, i n t h e a b s e n c e of t h e p r o p e r
f o u n d a t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y , t h e e v i d e n c e was p r o p e r l y e x c l u d e d .
 F i n a l l y , b e f o r e o b t a i n i n g subpoenas f o r o u t - o f - s t a t e

w i t n e s s e s , t h e d e f e n s e was r e q u i r e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e

m a t e r i a l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s ' testimony. The S t a t e was a l -

lowed t o b e p r e s e n t d u r i n g s u c h d e m o n s t r a t i o n s . D e f e n d a n t

a r g u e s t h a t h i s d e f e n s e was t h e r e b y r e v e a l e d and p r e j u d i c e d .

T h i s i s s u e a r i s e s o u t of a l i s t o f o u t - o f - s t a t e witnesses

c o n t a i n i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 0 names s u b m i t t e d j u s t two weeks

before trial. The l i s t i n c l u d e d p e r s o n s from A l a s k a ,

Nevada, I l l i n o i s , and West Germany. The p u r p o s e o f t h e

i n q u i r y was t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e s e were l e g i t i m a t e

witnesses. Again, d e f e n d a n t h a s made no showing o f p r e j u -

d i c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s i n a b i l i t y t o o b t a i n any o f t h e s e

witnesses. W i t h o u t s u c h a showing, t h e r e i s no e r r o r .

TESTIMONY REGARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES

These i s s u e s r e l a t e t o t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g r e a s o n a b l e

a t t o r n e y ' s fees. The f i r s t t e s t i m o n y which i s o b j e c t e d t o

by d e f e n d a n t came from Bud P i l l e n , Bureau Chief of t h e S t a t e

I n s u r a n c e Fund. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n h i s observation a t t o r -

n e y s r e g u l a r l y c h a r g e d " t w e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t [of s e t t l e m e n t s ]

u n l e s s t h e c a s e went t o h e a r i n g , and t h e n i t was u s u a l l y

one-third." I f i t went t o t h e Supreme C o u r t , p o s s i b l y f o r t y

percent. Next, N e i l K e e f e r , a Montana a t t o r n e y s p e c i a l i z i n g

i n Workers' Compensation, t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s normal f e e t o

Workers' Compensation c l i e n t s was 2 5 p e r c e n t .

D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h i s t e s t i m o n y s h o u l d n o t have
been a d m i t t e d b e c a u s e i t had n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e i s s u e
b e f o r e t h e j u r y , w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t embezzled from t h e c l i -
ent. A t t h e t i m e t h e r e w a s no s t a t u t o r y l i m i t o n Workers'

Compensation f e e s . A s a r e s u l t , defendant claims t h i s

testimony's only e f f e c t w a s t o "inflame t h e passions of t h e

j u r y and c o n f u s e t h e t r u e i s s u e s . "
 Thereafter, defendant attempted t o p r e s e n t t h e testi-

mony of James Walsh, Deputy County A t t o r n e y f o r Cascade

County. H i s testimony r e l a t e d t o t h e a l l e g e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

o f Donald H o r t i c k i n t h e c r i m i n a l matter p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d .

The t e s t i m o n y of w i t n e s s e s P i l l e n and Keefer a b o u t t h e

r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of a t t o r n e y f e e s w a s r e l e v a n t t o t h e t r a n -

s a c t i o n s i n which no f e e agreement w a s made between t h e

c l i e n t and B r e t z . K e e f e r ' s t e s t i m o n y was p r i m a r i l y l i m i t e d

t o t h e S t a n l e y G a i n e s f i l e and d e f e n d a n t w a s u l t i m a t e l y

a c q u i t t e d of t h e c o u n t . Beyond t h a t , t h e p u r p o s e of e x p e r t

t e s t i m o n y i s t o a s s i s t t h e j u r y i n making i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n ;

it does n o t l i m i t t h e j u r y ' s capacity t o decide f o r i t s e l f .

Since t h e s t a t u t e i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e provided t h a t an

agreement a s t o a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s c o u l d b e i m p l i e d , some

s t a n d a r d by which t h e j u r y c o u l d d e t e r m i n e what such a n
i m p l i e d agreement m i g h t b e w a s e s s e n t i a l . I n addition t o

t h i s , even where t h e r e was a n a g r e e d f e e , d e f e n d a n t o f t e n

d i d n o t a d h e r e t o t h e agreement though t h i s gave t h e j u r y a n
independent b a s i s f o r i t s determination. In the Gilbert

case, f o r example, d e f e n d a n t k e p t 8 0 p e r c e n t f o r h i s f e e .
W have a l r e a d y a d d r e s s e d t h e f o u n d a t i o n a l d e f i c i e n c i e s
e

o f W a l s h ' s t e s t i m o n y and f i n d no e r r o r .

TESTIMONY - GERLACH CONCERNING OTHER CRIMES
BY

D r . W i l l i a m G e r l a c h was c a l l e d by t h e S t a t e t o r e f u t e

c e r t a i n medical r e p o r t s t h a t appeared i n t h e IAB f i l e s . Dr.

G e r l a c h t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e would d i c t a t e m e d i c a l r e p o r t s on
v a r i o u s p a t i e n t s and t h e n would have them t y p e d by d e f e n -
dant's office. They would be r e t u r n e d t o him f o r h i s r e v i e w

o r signature. Dr. G e r l a c h went on t o t e s t i f y t h a t t h e
m e d i c a l r e p o r t s on Ray P o h j o l a and E a r l T a n n e h i l l w e r e n o t

p r e p a r e d o r s i g n e d by him.

Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h i s t e s t i m o n y was i r r e l e v a n t i n

t h a t i t amounted t o an a c c u s a t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t had com-

m i t t e d t h e crimes o f f o r g e r y and o b t a i n i n g money by f a l s e

p r e t e n s e s , c r i m e s which h e was n o t c h a r g e d w i t h i n t h e

Pohjola o r Tannehill counts. F u r t h e r m o r e , d e f e n d a n t was

c h a r g e d i n t h e T a n n e h i l l matter w i t h p r e p a r i n g a f a l s e

p e t i t i o n f o r compromise s e t t l e m e n t and t h e j u r y may have

c o n f u s e d t h e i s s u e s and t h e p r o o f .

I n S t a t e v . P h i l l i p s ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 127 Mont. 381, 394, 264

P.2d 1009, 1016, w e s t a t e d :

". . . t r a n s a c t i o n s which a r e s o r e l a t e d t o , and
connected with, t h e forgery charged a s t o be
otherwise admissible a r e n o t inadmissible because
t h e y t e n d t o p r o v e a wholly d i s s i m i l a r c r i m e ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y where t h e y c o n s t i t u t e p a r t of a con-
n e c t e d o r c o n t i n u o u s t r a n s a c t i o n on t h e p a r t of
t h e accused. "

The e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e t e n d s t o show t h a t t h e G e r l a c h

m e d i c a l r e p o r t s had been f r a u d u l e n t l y s u b m i t t e d t o t h e I A B

and c o n s t i t u t e p a r t of a connected o r c o n t i n u o u s t r a n s a c t i o n

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

t h e manner i n which d e f e n d a n t s e t up t h e system by which h e

c o u l d commit t h e crimes w i t h which h e was e v e n t u a l l y c h a r g e d .

IMPEACHMENT - WITNESS McMASTER BY STATE
OF -
George McMaster w a s t h e S t a t e ' s second w i t n e s s and o n c e

h e w a s on t h e s t a n d t h e c o u r t a l l o w e d t h e S t a t e t o impeach

him.

S e c t i o n 93-1901-8, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s :

"The p a r t y p r o d u c i n g a w i t n e s s i s n o t a l l o w e d t o
impeach h i s c r e d i t by e v i d e n c e of bad c h a r a c t e r
b u t h e may c o n t r a d i c t him by o t h e r e v i d e n c e , and
may a l s o show t h a t h e h a s made a t o t h e r t i m e s
statements i n c o n s i s t e n t with h i s present testi-
mony, as p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 93-1901-12."
Because t h e S t a t e made no showing of s u r p r i s e and b e c a u s e i t

w a s l o n g aware t h a t McMaster's p o s i t i o n was t h a t he had n o t

been a v i c t i m , d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n

p e r m i t t i n g h i s testimony.

Witness McMaster t e s t i f i e d t h a t when h e f i r s t v i s i t e d

d e f e n d a n t ' s o f f i c e , t h e men a g r e e d t h e y would s p l i t t h e

s e t t l m e n t 50-50. This w a s a s u r p r i s e t o t h e S t a t e because

t h e S t a t e b e l i e v e d h e would t e s t i f y t h e r e had been no f e e

agreement. McMaster was a h o s t i l e w i t n e s s as w e l l b e c a u s e

h e was s u i n g t h e S t a t e f o r $100,000 a s a r e s u l t o f having

been named a s a v i c t i m i n t h e I n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d a g a i n s t

defendant. The S t a t e w a s o n l y aware of t h e l a t t e r hos-

t i l i t y of McMaster y e t d i d n o t want t o d i s m i s s t h e McMaster

count. I n S t a t e v . Bloor ( 1 8 9 8 ) , 20 Mont. 574, 585, 52 P.

611, t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d :

" I t n o t i n f r e q u e n t l y happens t h a t a w i t n e s s i s
b r o u g h t under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a n a d v e r s e p a r t y ,
and upon t h e t r i a l c o m p l e t e l y d e c e i v e s t h e p a r t y
c a l l i n g him. When s u c h i n s t a n c e s a r i s e i n c r i m -
i n a l c a s e s , by t h e g r e a t w e i g h t o f a u t h o r i t y t h e
r i g h t t o cross-examine arises as o n e n e c e s s a r y
f o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f t h e r i g h t s of t h e S t a t e
a g a i n s t t h e p e r j u r y o r evasion of an unwilling
w i t n e s s . 'I

I n S t a t e v. T r a u f e r ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 109 Mont. 275, 285, 97 P.2d

336, w e s t a t e d :

" ... A p a r t y i s n o t bound t o a c c e p t t h e t e s t i -
mony o f h i s own w i t n e s s a s c o r r e c t , p a r t i c u l a r l y
i n c a s e s o f t h i s n a t u r e where t h e r e i s motive i n
changing t h e e f f e c t o f a p r e v i o u s l y made s t a t e -
ment. . ."
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t err i n a l l o w i n g t h e S t a t e t o

impeach t h e t e s t i m o n y of McMaster under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

presented i n t h i s case. This s e e m s p a r t i c u l a r l y compelling

i n l i g h t of McMaster's t e s t i m o n y t h a t i t was d e f e n d a n t ' s

i d e a t h a t h e make t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e .
LARRY SANFORD TESTIMONY

I n t h e Swims Under Count (Count 4 7 ) , a n i s s u e a r o s e a s

t o whether d e f e n d a n t had p r o s e c u t e d a p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y

s u i t f o r M r . S w i m s Under a g a i n s t Heston C o r p o r a t i o n . Larry

S a n f o r d , s t a f f a t t o r n e y f o r Heston, t e s t i f i e d t h a t c o r p o r a -

t i o n p o l i c y was t o immediately i n f o r m i t s l i a b i l i t y c a r r i e r

by l e t t e r of any claims a g a i n s t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . Then h e

t e s t i f i e d no such l e t t e r a p p e a r e d i n t h e i r f i l e .

Defendant o b j e c t s t o t h i s t e s t i m o n y b e c a u s e S a n f o r d w a s

n o t employed by Heston when t h e s u i t was a l l e g e d l y b r o u g h t

and had o n l y been t o l d t h a t t h a t was t h e p o l i c y a t Heston a t

t h a t t i m e a s well.

S e c t i o n 93-401-2, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s :

"A w i t n e s s c a n t e s t i f y t o t h o s e f a c t s o n l y which
h e knows o f h i s own knowledge; t h a t i s , which a r e
d e r i v e d from h i s own p e r c e p t i o n s , e x c e p t i n t h o s e
few e x p r e s s c a s e s i n which h i s o p i n i o n s o r i n f e r -
e n c e s , o r t h e d e c l a r a t i o n s of o t h e r s , a r e admis-
sible. "

Any problem w i t h S a n f o r d ' s t e s t i m o n y i s a problem of

weight. Defendant had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o cross-examine w i t h

r e s p e c t t o t h e c o m p l e t e n e s s of Heston C o r p o r a t i o n r e c o r d s of

t h e d a t e i n question. H e was f u r t h e r e n t i t l e d t o a r g u e t o

t h e jury t h a t t h i s testimony could n o t be conclusive.

J U R Y INSTRUCTIONS

Counts 6 and 50 o f t h e amended I n f o r m a t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t

d e f e n d a n t o b t a i n e d money from t h e I A B by f a l s e p r e t e n s e s i n
t h e B a r r y and T a n n e h i l l c a s e s . Counts 7 and 51 of t h e
amended I n f o r m a t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t p r e p a r e d f a l s e
evidence i n those cases. I n a l l four counts t h e i t e m s
a l l e g e d t o be f a l s e were P e t i t i o n s f o r Compromise S e t t l e -

ment and P e t i t i o n s f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t . Though t h e j u r y was
a d e q u a t e l y i n s t r u c t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e n a t u r e and ele-

ments o f t h e c r i m e s c h a r g e d , d e f e n d a n t o b j e c t s b e c a u s e no

i n s t r u c t i o n explained t o t h e jury t h a t t h e items alleged t o

be false w e r e t h e p e t i t i o n s .

F i r s t w e n o t e t h a t d u r i n g h i s o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t , de-

fense counsel requested t h a t t h e c o u r t read t h e charging

document t o t h e j u r y and t h e c o u r t a d v i s e d him t h a t h e m i g h t

read those charges t o t h e jury himself. Defense c o u n s e l

Barron r e a d t h e c h a r g e s which a r e r e f e r r e d t o i n t h i s i s s u e

a t that time. I n addition t o t h i s , prosecutor G i l b e r t , i n

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

evidence r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e Information. Reviewing h i s

s t a t e m e n t s i n t h i s r e g a r d , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e j u r y w a s ade-

q u a t e l y a p p r i s e d of t h e n a t u r e and s u b j e c t of t h e s e c h a r g e s .

Beyond t h i s , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s which were g i v e n i n t h i s
a r e a were n o t e r r o n e o u s ; i f d e f e n d a n t f e l t f u t h e r i n s t r u c -

t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g more s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s were n e c e s s a r y ,

i t was incumbent upon him t o r e q u e s t more s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c -

tions. No such r e q u e s t a p p e a r s i n t h e r e c o r d .

Defendant g o e s on t o o b j e c t t o t h e g i v i n g of t h r e e

particular instructions. The f i r s t i n s t r u c t i o n s t a t e d , i n

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

i s n o t a d e f e n s e when t h e c r i m i n a l i n t e n t e x i s t e d a t t h e

t i m e of t h e t a k i n g . I n o t h e r words, t h e crime i s c o m p l e t e
a t t h e p o i n t o f t a k i n g w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o permanently de-

prive. R e s t i t u t i o n i s o n l y a d e f e n s e when t h e d e f e n d a n t
i n t e n d e d t o r e t u r n t h e p r o p e r t y a t t h e t i m e i t was t a k e n .
T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s e c t i o n 94-2717,

R.C.M. 1947.
Defendant n e x t o b j e c t s t o t h e g i v i n g of t h e f o l l o w i n g

instruction:
 "When, as i n t h i s c a s e , i t i s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e
c r i m e c h a r g e d was committed on o r a b o u t a cer-
t a i n d a t e , i f t h e j u r y f i n d s t h a t t h e crime was
committed, i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e proof
show t h a t i t was committed on t h a t p r e c i s e d a t e ;
i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t h a t t h e proof shows t h a t t h e
crime was committed p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g o f t h e
information. "

Defendant m a i n t a i n s t h a t no e v i d e n c e w a s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e

j u r y as t o when t h e I n f o r m a t i o n w a s f i l e d s o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n

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

t h e offense. To p r o p e r l y u t i l i z e t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n , a j u r y

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

document. However, i n t h e a b s e n c e of any showing of p r e j u -

d i c e , t h e f a i l u r e of t h i s a p p r i s a l i s n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r .
I n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e i s no showing t h a t any proof was p r e -

s e n t e d which tended t o p r o v e t h a t any o f f e n s e had been

committed a f t e r t h e I n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d .

The n e x t i n s t r u c t i o n o b j e c t e d t o by d e f e n d a n t r e a d s a s
follows:

" I f t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t d e f e n d a n t made s i m i -
l a r f a l s e representations o r pretenses t o persons
o t h e r t h a n t h e owner, such e v i d e n c e , i f b e l i e v e d
by you, i s s u f f i c i e n t c o r r o b o r a t i o n . "

Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e of f a l s e r e p r e -

s e n t a t i o n s t o o t h e r s a s t o t h e f a l s e p r e t e n s e c o u n t s and t h e

i n s t r u c t i o n s s h o u l d n o t have been g i v e n . The S t a t e a r g u e s

t h a t c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e was t o be c o n s i d e r e d a s such and i t i s
w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e j u r y t o have c o n s i d e r e d i t . In

e i t h e r c a s e , i t would n o t b e p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r upon which t o
gain a r e v e r s a l .

Defendant n e x t complains of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l
t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t h a t i n o r d e r t o c o n v i c t d e f e n d a n t of

embezzlement o r l a r c e n y by b a i l e e , t h e y must f i n d t h a t t h e
i n t e n t t o s t e a l w a s n o t p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e he took posses-
s i o n of t h e f u n d s . T h i s i s s u e h a s been p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d

and w e f i n d no e r r o r . The c r u c i a l e l e m e n t h e r e i s t h a t t h e

d e f e n d a n t s t o l e t h e money by v i r t u e o f h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h
his client.

Defendant n e x t o b j e c t s t o c e r t a i n i n s t r u c t i o n s b e i n g

r e f u s e d and o t h e r s g i v e n w i t h r e s p e c t t o d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i -

t i o n t h a t h e had a l i e n upon t h e s e t t l e m e n t f u n d s of t h e

victims f o r l e g a l s e r v i c e s rendered. Our r e v i e w of t h e

i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s r e f u s e d i n d i c a t e s no

error.

F i n a l l y d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t i t w a s improper f o r t h e

c o u r t t o give t h e jury an i n s t r u c t i o n pertaining t o t h e
p u r p o s e s f o r which t h e j u r y c o u l d c o n s i d e r e v i d e n c e of o t h e r

crimes n o t charged. This i n s t r u c t i o n b e n e f i t s t h e defen-

d a n t , n o t t h e S t a t e , i n t h a t i t narrowly r e s t r i c t s t h e
c o n s i d e r a t i o n which may b e g i v e n such e v i d e n c e .

An i n t e n s e r e v i e w o f t h i s complex r e c o r d r e v e a l s no

p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r upon which a r e v e r s a l of t h e t r i a l c o u r t

c o u l d b e founded. The judgment and s e n t e n c e of t h e ~ i s t r i c t

Court i s affirmed.
W e concur:

3~4$.%4L
~ l x l e fJ u s t i c e F-

ono or- ~ o b e r p Boyd, @ i s -
J.
t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e
of M r . J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea.

M r . J u s t i c e John C . Sheehy s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g :

I concur only i n t h e r e s u l t . The d e f e n d a n t i s u n d o u b t e d l y

guilty. I am u n a b l e t o condone t h e i g n o b l e a c t i o n s o f t h e

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

t o pay d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y s u n t i l f o r c e d by t h e c o u r t . Were

d e f e n d a n t n o t an a t t o r n e y , I should have d i s s e n t e d .