No. 80-412
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1981
STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs-
T O A D L ROEERTS,
H M S AE
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f M i s s o u l a , The H o n o r a b l e
J a c k L. Green, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
Hood & Sherwood, M i s s o u l a , Montana
F o r Respondent:
Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana
R o b e r t L. Deschamps, County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a ,
Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : June 24, 1 9 8 1
Decided: September 1 5 , 1981
Filed: $23) 15 1981
M r . C h i e f ~ u s t i c eF r a n k I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.
D e f e n d a n t Thomas D a l e R o b e r t s was c o n v i c t e d o f b u r g l a r y
f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f M i s s o u l a County.
J u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d t h e r e o n s e n t e n c i n g him to f i v e y e a r s i m p r i -
sonment w i t h t w o y e a r s suspended. D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from t h e
j udgment and s e n t e n c e .
On S e p t e m b e r 2 9 , 1 9 7 9 , d e f e n d a n t and h i s e x - w i f e Carol
were t r a v e l i n g i n d e f e n d a n t ' s g r e e n B u i c k s t a t i o n wagon from
D i l l o n , Montana t o C o e u r D I A l e n e , I d a h o , w h e r e t h e y i n t e n d e d to
be remarried. They s t o p p e d i n B u t t e w h e r e t h e y p i c k e d u p H a r o l d
N i x o n , Carol s s t e p f a t h e r , and two j u v e n i l e s - - D a l e Chelini,
d e f e n d a n t 1 s nephew, and D e n n i s O I D o n n e l l , C h e l i n i l s f r i e n d . They
proceeded to Missoula where t h e y s t o p p e d a t t h e r e s i d e n c e of
E d r i e B o u l t e r who was a g i r l f r i e n d o f C h e l i n i and t h e d a u g h t e r
o f R o b e r t B o u l t e r , p a r t owner o f t h e S n a k e Eyes S t o r e i n Lolo.
C h e l i n i and O I D o n n e l l g o t o u t o f t h e car and t a l k e d to E d r i e f o r
a p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f an hour. They t h e n r e j o i n e d t h e t h r e e a d u l t s
i n t h e car and t h e f i v e o f them d r o v e to t h e L o l o T a v e r n which i s
l o c a t e d n e a r t h e Snake Eyes S t o r e i n Lolo. A c c o r d i n g to
d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y , t h e o c c u p a n t s o f t h e car had b e e n d r i n k i n g
s u b s t a n t i a l a m o u n t s o f b e e r and Snap-E-Tom tomato c o c k t a i l
during the t r i p .
The f i v e o f them c o n t i n u e d d r i n k i n g i n t h e L o l o T a v e r n f a r
i n t o the night. A c c o r d i n g t o d e f e n d a n t , he and Carol g o t i n t o a n
a r g u m e n t i n t h e T a v e r n , he g o t mad and h e w e n t t o t h e c a r . Carol
f o l l o w e d him t o t h e car where t h e a r g u m e n t c o n t i n u e d . Defendant
t e s t i f i e d h e " g r a b b e d up a l l of t h e s t u f f " i n t h e c a r , l e f t t h e
c a r and w a l k e d t o w a r d t h e highway i n t e n d i n g to h i t c h h i k e t o
Butte. H e s t a t e d he was u n s u c c e s s f u l i n h i t c h h i k i n g , g o t c o l d and
b e g a n t o w a l k b a c k t o t h e t a v e r n l o c a t e d n e a r t h e S n a k e Eyes
Store.
About 2:00 a . m . Deputy S h e r i f f Newlon who w a s t h e n i n t h e
a r e a r e c e i v e d a d i s p a t c h e r ' s c a l l a b o u t a p o s s i b l e b u r g l a r y of a
small g r o c e r y s t o r e . The r e p o r t a l s o d e s c r i b e d a s u s p e c t g r e e n
s t a t i o n wagon. Deputy Newlon n o t i c e d a g r e e n s t a t i o n wagon o u t -
s i d e t h e L o l o T a v e r n and upon i n v e s t i g a t i o n l e a r n e d t h a t t h e
r e g i s t e r e d owner was Thomas Dale R o b e r t s . Deputy Newlon
t e s t i f i e d he o b s e r v e d someone i n t h e g a r a g e p o r t i o n of t h e
b u i l d i n g i n which t h e Snake Eyes s t o r e is l o c a t e d . The o f f i c e r
w e n t t o i n v e s t i g a t e , h e a r d someone b e h i n d t h e s t o r e , and a p p r e -
h e n d e d d e f e n d a n t who f i t t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e p e r s o n
t h e o f f i c e r had s e e n i n t h e g a r a g e . R o b e r t s was found to be
c a r r y i n g t w o t h r e e - p a c k s o f Snap-E-Tom tomato c o c k t a i l , 1 6 p a c k s
o f c i g a r e t t e s o f f i v e d i f f e r e n t b r a n d s , t w o m a g a z i n e s , and a c a n of
lighter fluid, a l l stuffed inside h i s shirt. R o b e r t s was
a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d w i t h b u r g l a r y .
I n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e f r o n t d o o r of t h e s t o r e
was u n l o c k e d and t h e r e were no s i g n s o f f o r c e d e n t r y i n t o t h e
s t o r e or g a r a g e . Numerous items from t h e s h e l v e s and cooler were
s c a t t e r e d o n t h e f l o o r i n c l u d i n g cases of b e e r and p a c k s o f
Snap-E-Tom tomato c o c k t a i l . Robert B o u l t e r , part-owner of t h e
s t o r e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e g r e a s e p e n c i l p r i c e m a r k i n g s on t h e
Snap-E-Tom t o m a t o c o c k t a i l s i n t h e s t o r e a p p e a r e d to be t h e same
a s t h o s e found i n d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n , b u t t h a t t h e o t h e r
items c o u l d n o t be i d e n t i f i e d a s coming from h i s s t o r e a s t h e y
were e i t h e r p r e p r i c e d when t h e y came to t h e store or had no p r i c e
m a r k i n g s o n them. B o u l t e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l items found i n
d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n were s o l d i n h i s s t o r e . He f u r t h e r
t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s d a u g h t e r , E d r i e , had a k e y to t h e s t o r e .
D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w a s m a r r i e d to C a r o l a t t h e
t i m e of t r i a l . Over d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n , C a r o l was c a l l e d a s a
p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s a t h i s t r i a l and was p e r m i t t e d to t e s t i f y
c o n c e r n i n g h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s o f d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s on t h e n i g h t
i n question. The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t a l l o w h e r to t e s t i f y con-
c e r n i n g a n y c o m m u n i c a t i o n s made t o h e r by t h e d e f e n d a n t .
On a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s (1) t h a t 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 h i s w i f e t o t e s t i f y o v e r h i s o b j e c t i o n , and ( 2 )
t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t h i s c o n v i c t i o n o f
burglary.
The a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f a s p o u s e ' s t e s t i m o n y i n Montana is
g o v e r n e d by two s e p a r a t e s t a t u t e s . S e c t i o n 46-16-212, MCA
provides :
.-
.
" E x c e p t w i t h t h e c o n s e n t - -t h o r i n c a s e s o f
of bo
c r i m i n a l v i o l e n c e by o n e upon t h e o t h e r , aban-
d o n m e n t or n e g l e c t o f c h i l d r e n by e i t h e r p a r t y ,
o r a b a n d o n m e n t or n e g l e c t o f o n e by t h e o t h e r ,
n e i t h e r s p o u s e i s a c o m p e t e n t w i t n e s s -r-r
fo o
a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n-a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n - - -
- or pro
c e e d i n g t o w h i c h ---- a r e p a r t i e s . "
one o r both
( ~ m p h a iss a d d e d ).
S e c t i o n 26-1-802, MCA, h e r e a f t e r i d e n t i f i e d as t h e marital p r i v i -
l e g e s t a t u t e , provides :
"A h u s b a n d c a n n o t be examined f o r or a g a i n s t h i s
w i f e w i t h o u t h e r c o n s e n t or a w i f e f o r or
a g a i n s t h e r husband w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t ; n o r c a n
e i t h e r , during the marriage o r afterward, be,
w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e o t h e r , examined a s t o
a n y c o m m u n i c a t i o n made by o n e t o t h e o t h e r
d u r i n g the marriage; b u t t h i s exception does not
a p p l y t o a c i v i l a c t i o n o r proceeding by one
a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r o r t o a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n or
p r o c e e d i n g f o r a crime c o m m i t t e d b y o n e a g a i n s t
the other."
I n a c r i m i n a l case t h a t d o e s n o t i n v o l v e v i o l e n c e or aban-
d o n m e n t o r n e g l e c t o f s p o u s e o r c h i l d r e n and where t h e parties a r e
m a r r i e d a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l , t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e is s e c t i o n
46-16-212. S t a t e v. T a y l o r ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 1 0 6 , 515 P.2d 695.
Both p a r t i e s a g r e e . However, t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e
d o e s n o t impose a b l a n k e t e x c l u s i o n o f t h e s p o u s e a s a w i t n e s s ,
b u t r a t h e r e x c l u d e s o n l y t h e s p o u s e ' s t e s t i m o n y as t o com-
m u n i c a t i o n s made by t h e d e f e n d a n t to h i s s p o u s e d u r i n g t h e
marriage. The t r i a l c o u r t a g r e e d w i t h t h e S t a t e ' s t h e o r y and
p e r m i t t e d Carol t o t e s t i f y b u t e x c l u d e d a n y t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g
c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b e t w e e n d e f e n d a n t and C a r o l . This w a s error.
B o t h t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e and Montana case l a w
e s t a b l i s h the contrary. The e x p r e s s l a n g u a g e o f s e c t i o n
46-16-212, MCA, i n d i c a t e s t h a t a w i f e is n o t - c o m p e t e n t w i t n e s s
a
a g a i n s t h e r husband w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t i n a c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g
a g a i n s t him ( s u b j e c t to e x c e p t i o n s n o t r e l e v a n t to t h i s c a s e ) .
" E x c e p t w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of b o t h . . . neither i s a com-
spouse - - -
p e t e n t w i t n e s s f o r or a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r
p r o c e e d i n g t o which o n e or b o t h are p a r t i e s . " S e c t i o n 46-16-212,
MCA. (Emphasis added.) Where t h e l a n g u a g e o f a s t a t u t e is p l a i n ,
u n a m b i g u o u s , d i r e c t and c e r t a i n , t h e s t a t u t e s p e a k s f o r i t s e l f
a n d t h e r e is n o t h i n g l e f t f o r t h e c o u r t t o c o n s t r u e . Dunphy v .
Anaconda Company ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 7 6 , 438 P.2d 6 6 0 and cases
cited therein. The f u n c t i o n of t h e c o u r t i n s u c h cases is s i m p l y
t o a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e w h a t i n terms or i n s u b s t a n c e is con-
t a i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e and n o t t o i n s e r t w h a t h a s b e e n o m i t t e d o r
t o o m i t what h a s been i n s e r t e d . S e c t i o n 1-2-101, MCA. A person
who is n o t a c o m p e t e n t w i t n e s s c a n n o t t e s t i f y a t a l l .
Montana case l a w c o m p e l s t h e same r e s u l t . S t a t e v . Storm
( 1 9 5 0 ) , 1 2 4 Mont. 1 0 2 , 220 P.2d 6 7 4 . T h e r e we a p p l i e d t h e p r e d e -
cessor to s e c t i o n 46-16-212, MCA, to r e v e r s e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c -
t i o n of a s s a u l t where d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e w a s p e r m i t t e d to t e s t i f y
o v e r h e r h u s b a n d ' s o b j e c t i o n t h a t i n p o i n t i n g a l o a d e d gun a t t h e
s h e r i f f , h e was r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t . T h e r e , as h e r e , t h e p r e d e -
cessor s t a t u t e e x p r e s s l y d e a l t w i t h t h e c o m p e t e n c y o f a h u s b a n d
and w i f e as a w i t n e s s a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n a c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g .
The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t S t o r m is i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h S t a t e
v . D i x s o n ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 8 0 Mont. 1 8 1 , 2 6 0 P. 1 3 8 , and S t a t e v . H o u c h i n
( 1 9 6 7 ) , 1 4 9 Mont. 5 0 3 , 428 P.2d 9 7 1 . W e f i n d no i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n
these decisions. Dixson i n v o l v e d a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n where
t h e m a r r i a g e o f d e f e n d a n t and t h e w i t n e s s had b e e n a n n u l l e d p r i o r
t o t r i a l and a c c o r d i n g l y t h e p r e d e c e s s o r o f s e c t i o n 26-1-802,
MCA, t h e m a r i t a l p r i v i l e g e s t a t u t e , was a p p l i e d r a t h e r t h a n t h e
p r e d e c e s s o r o f t h e s t a t u t e i n v o l v e d i n t h i s case. The s t a t u t e i n
~ i x s o nd i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e s t a t u t e a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s
case. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h a t d e c i s i o n is n o t g e r m a n e t o t h e s i t u a t i o n
p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s case.
H o u c h i n is i n a p p o s i t e . I t also involved t h e p r e d e c e s s o r
o f s e c t i o n 26-1-802, MCA, t h e m a r i t a l p r i v i l e g e s t a t u t e , which
s e r v e s t o p r o t e c t c o n f i d e n t i a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s be t w e e n s p o u s e s
during marriage. I n Houchin s i n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e was n o t
c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s , t h e m a r i t a l p r i v i l e g e s t a t u t e d i d n o t p r o h i -
b i t a deputy s h e r i f f ' s testimony t h a t defendant's wife pointed
o u t t h e l o c a t i o n o f s t o l e n c o p p e r wire.
T h u s t h e r e a r e two d i s t i n c t s p o u s a l p r i v i l e g e s which may
apply i n a criminal proceeding. I f t h e d e f e n d a n t is m a r r i e d a t
t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , t h e s p o u s e i s i n c o m p e t e n t to t e s t i f y e i t h e r
f o r or a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t s u b j e c t to t h e
s t a t u t o r y exceptions. S e c t i o n 46-16-212, MCA. If d e f e n d a n t i s
n o t m a r r i e d a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , h i s f o r m e r s p o u s e is c o m p e t e n t
t o t e s t i f y b u t c a n n o t be examined w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t as to a n y
c o m m u n i c a t i o n made be t w e e n t h e s p o u s e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e .
S e c t i o n 26-1-802, MCA.
The S t a t e c r i t i c i z e s t h e s w e e p i n g m a r i t a l p r i v i l e g e of
s e c t i o n 46-16-212, MCA, which p e r m i t s t h e d e f e n d a n t to p r e v e n t
h i s spouse from t a k i n g t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d . We note the current
t r e n d i n o t h e r s t a t e s and i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s toward e r o s i o n o f
t h e marital p r i v i l e g e . Trammel v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 4 4 5
U.S. 40, 100 S e c t . 906, L.Ed. 2d . The U n i t e d S t a t e s
Supreme C o u r t i n Trammel m o d i f i e d t h e common law m a r i t a l p r i v i -
l e g e so t h a t t h e s p o u s a l w i t n e s s a l o n e may e x e r c i s e t h e p r i v i l e g e
t o r e f u s e t o t e s t i f y a d v e r s e l y and may n e i t h e r be c o m p e l l e d n o r
f o r e c l o s e d from t e s t i f y i n g i n f e d e r a l c o u r t . The C o u r t r e a s o n e d :
"The c o n t e m p o r a r y j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a f f o r d i n g a n
a c c u s e d [ t h e p r i v i l e g e to e x c l u d e a l l a d v e r s e
s p o u s a l testimony] is also u n p e r s u a s i v e .
o n e s p o u s e is w i l l i n g t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t t h e
When
o t h e r i n a c r i m i n a l proceed ing--whatever t h e
m o t i v a t i o n - - t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p is a l m o s t cer-
t a i n l y i n d i s r e p a i r ; t h e r e is p r o b a b l y l i t t l e i n
t h e way o f m a r i t a l harmony f o r t h e p r i v i l e g e t o
preserve. I n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a r u l e of
e v i d e n c e t h a t permits a n a c c u s e d t o p r e v e n t
a d v e r s e s p o u s a l t e s t i m o n y seems f a r more l i k e l y
t o f r u s t r a t e j u s t i c e t h a n to f o s t e r f a m i l y
peace ." ( B r a c k e t e d material p a r a p h r a s e d . )
Trammel, s u p r a , 4 4 5 U.S. a t 5 2 , 1 0 0 S . C t . a t 913.
W h a t e v e r merit t h i s v i e w may p o s s e s s , it a p p l i e s o n l y i n
t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s and is c o n t r a r y to t h e s t a t u t o r y l a w o f
Montana. Our d u t y is t o c o n s t r u e t h e l a w as we f i n d i t . Dunphy
v . Anaconda Company, s u p r a , and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . Absent
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or s t a t u t o r y i n £ i r m i t i e s , t h i s C o u r t is n o t
empowered t o c h a n g e t h e s t a t u t o r y law o f t h i s s t a t e .
However, w e h o l d t h a t t h e e r r o r i n p e r m i t t i n g Carol to
t e s t i f y is h a r m l e s s e r r o r u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e case.
Montana l a w p r o v i d e s t h a t no c a u s e s h a l l be r e v e r s e d by r e a s o n of
a n y error c o m m i t t e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e c o r d shows
t h a t t h e e r r o r was p r e j u d i c i a l ( s e c t i o n 46-20-701, MCA) and t h a t
a n y e r r o r which d o e s n o t a f f e c t s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s s h a l l be
disregarded. ( s e c t i o n 46-20-702, MCA. )
The f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t e s t o f h a r m l e s s e r r o r i s
w h e t h e r t h e r e is a r e a s o n a b l e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e
complained o f m i g h t have c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e c o n v i c t i o n . Fahy v .
C o n n e c t i c u t ( 1 9 6 3 ) r 3 7 5 U.S. 8 5 , 8 4 S.Ct. 2 2 9 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171.
O r s t a t e d a n o t h e r way, c a n we as a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t d e c l a r e a
b e l i e f t h a t t h e e r r o r was h a r m l e s s beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ?
Chapman v. C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 6 7 ) t 386 U.S. 1 8 , 8 7 S.Ct. 824, 17
L.Ed.2d 705. Under e i t h e r t h e Montana t e s t or t h e f e d e r a l
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t e s t , t h e e r r o r i n p e r m i t t i n g Carol to t e s t i f y is
harmless.
Here Carol s t e s t i m o n y was e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l to t h e
defendant's. Her t e s t i m o n y d i d n o t c o n t r a d i c t or v a r y
d e f e n d a n t ' s own t e s t i m o n y i n a n y m a t e r i a l respect. The d e f e n d a n t
himself agreed with her testimony:
"Q. Is t h e r e a n y t h i n g s u b s t a n t i v e l y o r
m a t e r i a l l y d i f f e r e n t as you remember i t from
w h a t Carol remembers and t e s t i f i e d t o ? A. No."
Under s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e error was c l e a r l y n o t p r e j u d i c i a l t o
d e f e n d a n t , d i d n o t a f f e c t a n y s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t o f d e f e n d a n t , and
t h e r e is no r e a s o n a b l e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t Carol I s testimony could
have c o n t r i b u t e d to d e f e n d a n t ts c o n v i c t i o n .
D e f e n d a n t a l s o c o n t e n d s t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to
s u p p o r t h i s c o n v i c t i o n of b u r g l a r y . A p e r s o n commits b u r g l a r y i f
h e k n o w i n g l y e n t e r s or r e m a i n s i n a n o c c u p i e d s t r u c t u r e w i t h t h e
p u r p o s e of committing a n o f f e n s e t h e r e i n . S e c t i o n 45-6-204, MCA.
Here t h e e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g e n t r y i n t o t h e s t o r e by d e f e n d a n t i s
c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , b u t it is s u f f i c i e n t to e n a b l e t h e j u r y to r e a s o n -
a b l y i n f e r t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e crime. The f r o n t d o o r of t h e
s t o r e was u n l o c k e d ; d e f e n d a n t was a p p r e h e n d e d b e h i n d t h e s t o r e
s h o r t l y a f t e r 2:00 a . m . ; h e had i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n v a r i o u s
a r t i c l e s o f m e r c h a n d i s e s o l d i n t h e s t o r e ; and a p e r s o n was
o b s e r v e d i n t h e g a r a g e p o r t i o n of t h e s t o r e b u i l d i n g s h o r t l y
b e f o r e d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p r e h e n s i o n and a r r e s t whose g e n e r a l d e s c r i p -
t i o n matched d e f e n d a n t ' s. E v i d e n c e t h a t t h e m e r c h a n d i s e found
i n d e f e n d a n t f s p o s s e s s i o n came from t h e s t o r e r a t h e r t h a n from
d e f e n d a n t ' s car is found i n t h e t e s t i m o n y o f R o b e r t B o u l t e r t h a t
t h e g r e a s e p e n c i l p r i c e m a r k i n g o n t h e Snap-E-Tom tomato c o c k -
t a i l s a p p e a r e d t o be t h e same as t h o s e i n t h e s t o r e ; t h e f a c t
t h a t f i v e p a c k s o f C a m e l f i l t e r c i g a r e t t e s were found among t h e
m e r c h a n d i s e s t u f f e d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s s h i r t and none o f t h e f i v e
p e r s o n s t r a v e l i n g i n h i s car smoked t h a t b r a n d ; and t h e
i m p l a u s i b i l i t y of d e f e n d a n t ' s e x p l a n a t i o n of h i s p o s s e s s i o n of
the articles. T h i s is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e crime
of burglary.
The i s s u e o f s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e b o i l e d down t o
t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of the S t a t e ' s witnesses vis-a-vis the
defendant's testimony. The j u r y b y i t s v e r d i c t r e s o l v e d t h i s
c o n f l i c t i n f a v o r of t h e S t a t e .
Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e q u a l i t y of t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e
i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o meet t h e s t a n d a r d o f s u f f i c i e n c y i n J a c k s o n v.
V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 4 4 3 U.S. 3 0 7 r 99 S . C t . 2781r 6 1 L.Ed.2d 560. We
disagree.
Jackson states t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d i n t h i s language:
" ... t h e r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n is w h e t h e r , a f t e r
v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e
t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , - r a t i o n a l t r i e r of f a c t
any
c o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of t h e
crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ." Jackson, supra,
4 4 3 U.S. a t 3 1 9 , 99 S . C t . a t 2 7 8 9 , 6 1 L.Ed.2d a t 573.
W e f i n d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e meets t h i s s t a n d a r d . Although
t h e d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e o f f i c e r s con-
c e r n i n g h i s o b s e r v a t i o n o f a p e r s o n i n t h e g a r a g e p o r t i o n of t h e
s t o r e b u i l d i n g s h o r t l y b e f o r e d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p r e h e n s i o n is
u n w o r t h y o f b e l i e f and t h a t m i s s i n g t o o l s from t h e g a r a g e were
n e v e r r e c o v e r e d , t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s i n no way p r e v e n t a n y r a t i o n a l
j u r o r from c o n c l u d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t u n l a w f u l l y e n t e r e d t h e Snake
Eyes S t o r e w i t h t h e i n t e n t of committing t h e £ t t h e r e i n .
Af f i r m e d .
3 -kg pa,4--
----------- -- ----- ---------
Chief ust tic-e 1
W e concur: