No. 80-291
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS .
DONALD E. WILSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Missoula.
Honorable John Henson, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Hood and Sherwood, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Robert Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana
-
Submitted on briefs: April 2, 1981
Decided: Ju1.y 2, 1981.
I/ I
w w Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .
D e f e n d a n t Donald E a r l W i l s o n a p p e a l s f r o m h i s c o n v i c t i o n
b y a j u r y on t h e c h a r g e s o f f e l o n y b u r g l a r y and m i s d e m e a n o r
f o r g e r y , r e n d e r e d a f t e r t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F o u r t h
J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , M i s s o u l a C o u n t y , t h e H o n o r a b l e J o h n S. Henson,
presiding. The d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d to s e r v e e i g h t y e a r s a t
h a r d l a b o r i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n o n t h e f e l o n y b u r g l a r y c h a r g e and
s i x m o n t h s i n t h e M i s s o u l a County j a i l o n t h e m i s d e m e a n o r f o r g e r y
charge, t h e s e n t e n c e s t o run concurrently.
B o t h p a r t i e s recommend t h a t t h e m i s d e m e a n o r c o n v i c t i o n be
r e v e r s e d , b a s e d o n t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n S t a t e ex re1 .
Rasmussen v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 6 1 5 P.2d 2 3 1 ,
37 St.Rep. 1498. T h a t case h e l d t h a t d i s t r i c t c o u r t s d o n o t h a v e
j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r misdemeanor c h a r g e s o t h e r w i s e provided f o r ,
c i t i n g s e c t i o n 3-5-302 (1) d ) , MCA; j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r m i s d e m e a n o r s
(
p u n i s h a b l e by a f i n e n o t e x c e e d i n g $ 5 0 0 a n d / o r imprisonment not
e x c e e d i n g s i x m o n t h s was f o u n d to be g i v e n to j u s t i c e c o u r t s
under s e c t i o n 3-10-303(1), MCA. R a s m u s s e n , 6 1 5 P.2d 231, 232, 37
St.Rep. 1 4 9 9 ; S t a t e v. C a m p b e l l ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 6 2 2 P.2d
200, 202, 38 S t . R e p . 1 9 , 21-22. Misdemeanor f o r g e r y i s p u n i s h a b l e
w i t h i n t h e above-stated limits. S e c t i o n 45-6-325 ( 4 ) , MCA.
T h e r e f o r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n to t r y
t h e charge. D e f e n d a n t 1 s m i s d e m e a n o r f o r g e r y c o n v i c t i o n m u s t be
r e v e r s e d , h i s s e n t e n c e v a c a t e d , and t h e c h a r g e d i s m i s s e d .
Defendant p r e s e n t s t h e following i s s u e s concerning t h e
burglary conviction:
1. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s
m o t i o n i n l i m i n e and a l l o w i n g t h e p r o s e c u t i o n to i n q u i r e i n t o t h e
d e f e n d a n t ' s e x e r c i s e o f h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s to r e m a i n s i l e n t ?
2. 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 to g r a n t
d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r a m i s t r i a l a f t e r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n had
v i o l a t e d a n o r d e r i n l i m i n e p r o h i b i t i n g t h e p r o s e c u t i o n from
i n q u i r i n g i n t o o r s o l i c i t i n g a n y h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y w i t h respect
t o t h i n g s s a i d by Anna Doney t o i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s ?
3. Whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to c o n v i c t t h e
d e f e n d a n t of b u r g l a r y ?
W e af f i r m the defendant's conviction.
The u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : The home of
P a t r i c k and Gwen Thibodeau was b u r g l a r i z e d w h i l e t h e y were away on
v a c a t i o n d u r i n g J u n e and J u l y of 1978. The owners r e t u r n e d home
on J u l y 1 5 , and found t h e s i d e d o o r a j a r . Mr. Thibodeau d i s c o -
v e r e d t h a t h i s checkbook was m i s s i n g a t t h a t t i m e .
A t a l a t e r d a t e , when t h e c o u p l e t s a c c o u n t s t a t e m e n t and
c a n c e l l e d c h e c k s a r r i v e d from t h e bank, t h e y d i s c o v e r e d a c h e c k
w r i t t e n t o S h a f f e r ' s Market i n M i s s o u l a i n t h e amount of $79.50,
which n e i t h e r had i s s u e d . The check was e n d o r s e d on t h e back i n
t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s name. A f t e r i n q u i r i n g a b o u t t h e check a t
S h a f f e r ' s Market, t h e c o u p l e c o n t a c t e d t h e p o l i c e , and t h e n
f u r t h e r s e a r c h e d t h e i r home. They d i s c o v e r e d t h a t e i g h t 1 8 7 9
s i l v e r d o l l a r s , a watch and a g o l d r i n g were a l s o m i s s i n g . The
w a t c h and r i n g were l a t e r r e c o v e r e d by p o l i c e a t t h e r e s i d e n c e of
o n e Anna Doney. The d e f e n d a n t had g i v e n t h e items t o Doney's
children.
D e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d n e a r Glasgow i n December 1978. He
was c h a r g e d by i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h f e l o n y b u r g l a r y and misdemeanor
forgery. Defendant pleaded n o t g u i l t y t o each. T r i a l was h e l d
o n J a n u a r y 3 and 4, 1980.
A t t r i a l , a s t o r e c l e r k from S h a f f e r t s Market t e s t i f i e d
t h a t he had cashed t h e s u b j e c t check on J u n e 24, 1978, f o r t h e
defendant; and, t h a t t h e defendant s t a t e d a t t h e t i m e , first, that
Thibodeau had g i v e n t h e check t o t h e d e f e n d a n t i n payment f o r
work which he had done on T h i b o d e a u ' s r a n c h , and s e c o n d , t h a t
d e f e n d a n t had asked Thibodeau t o make t h e check p a y a b l e to
S h a f f e r ' s Market b e c a u s e t h e banks were c l o s e d t h a t day and
b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t e n d e d t o c a s h it a t t h e s t o r e . The
c l e r k t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t had used part of t h e money
r e c e i v e d t o pay a b i l l owed by one J u d y Crosby and p a r t t o buy
g r o c e r i e s , and t h e rest he had r e c e i v e d i n c a s h . The c l e r k
f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a few weeks p r i o r t o t r i a l d e f e n d a n t had
r e t u r n e d t o t h e s t o r e t o d i s c u s s t h e check; t h e defendant s t a t e d
t h e c h e c k had been g i v e n t o him i n payment f o r a t r u c k s o l d by
t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h a t t h e check had been made o u t by a n o t h e r p e r s o n
i n t h e s t o r e i n f r o n t of t h e c l e r k , and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t knew
40 w i t n e s s e s who c o u l d t e s t i f y to t h a t e f f e c t . The c l e r k t e s t i -
f i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t wanted t o know why t h e c l e r k d i d n o t l i k e him.
D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t o h i s v e r s i o n of e v e n t s .
According t o h i s t e s t i m o n y , he had been l i v i n g a t t h e home of
J u d y Crosby. H e had v e h i c l e s parked i n t h e y a r d . One, a 1966
F o r d , he s o l d t o a man named L e v i a f t e r J u d y Crosby had s t a t e d
t h a t s h e wanted t h e v e h i c l e moved. Levi wanted t h e c a r f o r
parts. The s a l e p r i c e was $75. D e f e n d a n t h e l p e d L e v i tow t h e
c a r away. L e v i promised t o pay a t some l a t e r d a t e . The d e f e n -
d a n t d i d n o t know t h e man by any o t h e r name.
D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t s e e L e v i a g a i n f o r
s e v e r a l weeks, u n t i l S a t u r d a y , J u n e 24, when he n o t i c e d L e v i i n a
c i t y park. D e f e n d a n t approached L e v i t o demand payment. Levi
s t a t e d t h a t he c o u l d go and g e t t h e money, and asked to borrow
the defendant's car. The d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d , on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t
L e v i pay f o r t h e g a s he would u s e , and l e n t L e v i h i s w h i t e Ford
s t a t i o n wagon.
The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t L e v i r e t u r n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y
two h o u r s l a t e r w i t h t h e s u b j e c t check. D e f e n d a n t and L e v i t h e n
went t o S h a f f e r l s Market t o c a s h t h e check. Levi w r o t e t h e check
i n e i t h e r t h e c a r o r t h e s t o r e , i n t h e amount of $79.50, which
i n c l u d e d $4.50 f o r t h e g a s he had used. Because t h e d e f e n d a n t
d i d n o t know L e v i ' s r e a l name, he had no r e a s o n to s u s p e c t t h a t
L e v i was n o t P a t r i c k Thibodeau.
The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he and L e v i p r e s e n t e d t h e
check t o the c l e r k . The d e f e n d a n t produced h i s chauf f e u r l s
l i c e n s e , and e n d o r s e d t h e check on t h e back w i t h h i s name and
address.
The d e f e n d a n t f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s e v e r a l weeks a f t e r
J u n e 24, he found t h e watch and g o l d r i n g between t h e s e a t s of
h i s w h i t e Ford wagon, t h e one t h a t L e v i had used. The d e f e n d a n t
t h o u g h t t h e items were junk and gave them t o t h e c h i l d r e n of Anna
Doney, whose f a m i l y were f r i e n d s w i t h t h e Crosbys .
The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he c o n t i n u e d t o f r e q u e n t
S h a f f e r ' s Market u n t i l he g o t a job moving h o u s e s i n N o r t h
Dakota. H e phoned t h e Crosby r e s i d e n c e a f t e r he had moved, and
was informed t h a t t h e r e were problems w i t h t h e check. He
d i r e c t e d J u d y Crosby t o c o n t a c t t h e p o l i c e and f i n d o u t what was
g o i n g on. When t h e d e f e n d a n t c a l l e d back, J u d y Crosby t o l d him
t h e c h e c k was no good and t h e p o l i c e were i n t e r e s t e d i n t a l k i n g
t o him.
The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i m m e d i a t e l y s e t o u t to
r e t u r n t o Missoula. I n Glasgow, he needed g a s b u t had r u n o u t of
money. H e s t o p p e d a t t h e Glasgow P o l i c e Department t o a s k f o r
h e l p , and t o l d them t h a t he had t o g e t t o M i s s o u l a t o s t r a i g h t e n
o u t a l e g a l problem. He was g i v e n t e n g a l l o n s of g a s , b u t was
t h e n s t o p p e d and a r r e s t e d a s h o r t d i s t a n c e o u t s i d e of Glasgow.
A f t e r t h e d e f e n d a n t was r e t u r n e d t o M i s s o u l a , he was
r e l e a s e d on b a i l . H e n e v e r was a b l e t o l o c a t e L e v i . He t e s t i f i e d
t h a t on h i s r e t u r n to S h a f f e r ' s Market t o s t r a i g h t e n o u t t h e
d i s p u t e t h e c l e r k a c t e d l l s n o t t y v l and " s a r c a s t i c " t o w a r d s him.
A p p e l l a n t ' s I s s u e One. A s p a r t of its cross-examination
o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e S t a t e asked w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t had e v e r
d i s c u s s e d t h e check w i t h any p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , e i t h e r i n Glasgow
o r M i s s o u l a , i n an a t t e m p t t o r e c t i f y t h e m a t t e r . Defendant
o b j e c t e d a n d , i n chambers, moved f o r an o r d e r i n l i m i n e t o pre-
v e n t t h e S t a t e from a s k i n g any q u e s t i o n s which might r e f l e c t o r
comment upon d e f e n d a n t ' s e x e r c i s e of h i s Miranda r i g h t t o remain
silent. The C o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion on t h e grounds t h a t d e f e n -
d a n t had opened t h e a r e a h i m s e l f upon d i r e c t .
The c o u r t and c o u n s e l t h e n r e t u r n e d t o t h e c o u r t r o o m and
t h e p r o s e c u t o r , a f t e r r e v i e w i n g w i t h d e f e n d a n t h i s t e s t i m o n y on
d i r e c t examination, e l i c i t e d the following:
"Q. Did you e v e r t a l k t o anyone t o g e t t h e
m a t t e r s t r a i g h t e n e d o u t t h e n ? A. No. I n e v e r
g o t back h e r e .
"Q. So t h e n you n e v e r gave anyone, you n e v e r
t a l k e d t o anyone t o c l e a r t h e m a t t e r up, t h e n ?
A. NO, s i r . "
D e f e n d a n t i n c l u d e s , a s p a r t of t h i s i s s u e , two s t a t e m e n t s
made by t h e p r o s e c u t o r d u r i n g c l o s i n g argument, a s f o l l o w s :
1. "Then, w e h e a r from A l l e n Kimery a g a i n
A l l e n Kimery a t t e m p t s t o l o c a t e p e o p l e down
...
t h e r e t o f i n d o u t i f anyone e l s e knows of t h i s
w e ha
L e v i . The f i r s t - -v e h e a r d --- was of Levi
y e s t e r d a y , - - -we known a b o u t t h i s
and had
m y s t e r i o u s L e v i f i r s t o r b e f o r e , t h e n , w e would
have a t t e m p t e d t o l o c a E - - - -h e r e .
him t o h a v e h i m -
So w e go t o t h e B o n n e r a r e a t h r o u g h A 1 Kimery
and check o u t and see i f anyone knows t h i s L e v i .
Nobody b u t t h e D e f e n d a n t and J i m G a t e s and t h e i r
w i t n e s s e s have e v e r heard of L e v i . " (Emphasis
added. )
2. "When [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] began t o a d d r e s s you,
h e t o l d you a b o u t t h e S t a t e h a v i n g t h e r e s o u r c e s
o f t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t and w h a t e v e r . One
t h i n g he d i d n o t t e l l you a t t h a t t i m e was t h a t
t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t s e r v e s t h e subpoenas
f o r b o t h t h e S t a t e and t h e D e f e n d a n t . Another
t h i n g he d i d n o t t e l l you i s w h e t h e r o r n o t he
i s s u e d a subpoena f o r M r . Levi when he h a s t h a t
s h e r i f f ' s department a v a i l a b l e a s a resource to
him t o a t t e m p t t o l o c a t e t h i s M r . Levi o r L e v i .
- di ----
W e -d n o t know o f L e v i u n t i l y e s t e r d a y --
"MR. SHERWOOD: Your h o n o r , I ' m going t o o b j e c t
t o t h i s l i n e of d i s c u s s i o n . It v i o l a t e s the
Miranda r i g h t .
"THE COURT: Mr. McLean?
I1MR. McLEAN: Your Honor, I d o n ' t believe--He
mentioned a b o u t t h i s L e v i and o u r s o u r c e s and
I ' m t e l l i n g the jury t h a t we t r i e d t o l o c a t e M r .
Levi.
"THE COURT: I w i l l sustain the objection.
"MR. McLEAN:Thank you, Your Honor ... II
( Emphasis added. )
D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h e emphasized p o r t i o n s above were a l s o
i m p e r m i s s i b l e comments upon h i s e x e r c i s e of t h e r i g h t t o remain
s i l e n t , and amount t o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r .
The q u e s t i o n s a s k e d of d e f e n d a n t on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n d i d
n o t comment upon h i s f a i l u r e t o g i v e an e x p l a n a t i o n to l a w e n f o r c e -
ment o f f i c i a l s w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t .
R a t h e r , t h e q u e s t i o n s l e g i t i m a t e l y e x p l o r e d a s u b j e c t which
d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f had p l a c e d i n t o d i s p u t e d u r i n g d i r e c t
examination.
" I f [a defendant in a criminal case] takes the
s t a n d and t e s t i f i e s i n h i s own d e f e n s e , h i s c r e -
d i b i l i t y may be impeached and h i s t e s t i m o n y
a s s a i l e d l i k e t h a t of any o t h e r w i t n e s s , and t h e
b r e a d t h of h i s w a i v e r is d e t e r m i n e d by t h e s c o p e
of r e l e v a n t cross-examination. ' [He] h a s no
r i g h t t o set f o r t h t o t h e j u r y a l l t h e f a c t s
which t e n d i n h i s f a v o r w i t h o u t l a y i n g h i m s e l f
o p e n t o a c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n upon t h o s e f a c t s . '
.. .I1 Brown v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 356 U.S.
1 4 8 , 154-155, 78 S . C t . 622, 626, 2 L.Ed.2d 589,
596-597.
D e f e n d a n t c l e a r l y conveyed t o t h e j u r y , in h i s direct
t e s t i m o n y , h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e c h e c k m s good, and t h a t
h e a t a l l t i m e s a c t e d i n good f a i t h , i n t e n d i n g t o s p e a k t o and
r e s o l v e t h e m a t t e r with l a w enforcement o f f i c i a l s . After the
d e f e n d a n t ' s d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y , t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s q u e s t i o n s were
w i t h i n t h e s c o p e of r e l e v a n t c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . Rule 6 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ,
" [W] hen a w i t n e s s v o l u n t a r i l y t e s t i f i e s , t h e
p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s t sel £ - i n c r i m i n a t i o n is amply
r e s p e c t e d w i t h o u t need of a c c e p t i n g t e s t i m o n y
f r e e d from t h e a n t i s e p t i c t e s t of t h e a d v e r s a r y
p r o c e s s . The w i t n e s s h i m s e l f , c e r t a i n l y i f he
i s a p a r t y , d e t e r m i n e s t h e a r e a of d i s c l o s u r e
and t h e r e f o r e of i n q u i r y . Such a w i t n e s s h a s
t h e c h o i c e , a f t e r weighing t h e a d v a n t a g e of t h e
privilege against self -incrimination against
t h e a d v a n t a g e of p u t t i n g f o r w a r d h i s v e r s i o n of
t h e f a c t s and h i s r e l i a b i l i t y a s a w i t n e s s , n o t
t o t e s t i f y a t a l l . H e cannot reasonably claim
t h a t t h e F i f t h Amendment g i v e s him n o t o n l y t h i s
c h o i c e b u t , i f he e l e c t s t o t e s t i f y , a n immunity
from c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n on t h e matters he h a s
himself put i n dispute. I t would make of t h e
F i f t h Amendment n o t o n l y a humane s a f e g u a r d
a g a i n s t j u d i c i a l l y coerced s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e but a
positive invitation to mutilate the t r u t h a
party offers to tell. .. The i n t e r e s t s of t h e
o t h e r p a r t y and r e g a r d f o r t h e f u n c t i o n of
c o u r t s of j u s t i c e t o a s c e r t a i n t h e t r u t h become
r e l e v a n t , and p r e v a i l i n t h e b a l a n c e of con-
s i d e r a t i o n s d e t e r m i n i n g t h e s c o p e and l i m i t s of
the privilege against self -incrimination.
P e t i t i o n e r , a s a p a r t y t o t h e s u i t , was a volun-
t a r y witness. She c o u l d n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d to
t e s t i f y i n h e r own b e h a l f and a l s o claim t h e
r i g h t t o b e f r e e from c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n on mat-
t e r s r a i s e d b y h e r own t e s t i m o n y o n d i r e c t
examination." Brown, 356 U.S. 155-156, 78 S . C t .
6 2 7 , 2 L.Ed.2d 597.
D e f e n d a n t ' s r e l i a n c e upon D o y l e v. Ohio ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 426 U.S.
6 1 0 , 96 S . C t . 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91, is misplaced. The f a c t s t h e r e
i n d i c a t e t h e a c c u s e d d i d n o t t e s t i f y a b o u t t h e i r post-arrest
a c t s , i n t e n t i o n s or s i l e n c e . They m e r e l y t e s t i f i e d t o a s t o r y
w h i c h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n had n o t h e a r d b e f o r e . The S t a t e , o n
cross-examination, i n q u i r e d i n t o t h e f a c t o f and t h e r e a s o n s
behind d e f e n d a n t s t p r e v i o u s s i l e n c e , j u s t i f y i n g t h e q u e s t i o n s by
a s s e r t i n g a need t o p r e s e n t t o t h e j u r y a l l i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t
t o the defendants' c r e d i b i l i t y . D o y l e , 426 U.S. 613-616, 96
S.Ct. 2242-2244, 49 L.Ed.2d 95-97. I n t h i s case t h e d e f e n d a n t
t e s t i f i e d a t l e n g t h about h i s a c t i o n s immediately b e f o r e as w e l l
as a f t e r h i s arrest.
The i s s u e w h e t h e r i n t e r r o g a t i o n o f a n a c c u s e d upon t h e
p o i n t o f c r e d i b i l i t y is w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n
i s a t h o r n y p r o b l e m i n c r i m i n a l cases; b u t t h e r e c a n be no d o u b t
t h a t matters p u t i n d i s p u t e by t h e a c c u s e d h i m s e l f by d i r e c t
t e s t i m o n y are a l w a y s p r o p e r s u b j e c t s o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . 3
W e i n s t e i n ' s Evidence, 5 611[031.
D e f e n d a n t t s c o n t e n t i o n a b o u t t h e p r o s e c u t o r 's comments
d u r i n g c l o s i n g argument remains. W note t h a t the defendant did
e
n o t o b j e c t t o t h e S t a t e ' s f i r s t r e f e r e n c e to i t s l a c k o f
k n o w l e d g e c o n c e r n i n g t h e man c a l l e d " L e v i .If Defendant d i d o b j e c t
t o t h e second r e f e r e n c e ; t h e o b j e c t i o n w a s immediately s u s t a i n e d ,
and t h e State d i d n o t mention t h e s u b j e c t a g a i n . The comments
were n o t so e x t e n s i v e , n o r d i d t h e y so stress a n i n f e r e n c e of
g u i l t b a s e d o n s i l e n c e , as t o c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r .
A n d e r s o n v. N e l s o n ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 390 U.S. 523-524, 88 S.Ct. 1133, 1134,
A p p e l l a n t ' s I s s u e Two:
P r i o r t o t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t made s e v e r a l m o t i o n s i n l i m i n e .
Motion N o . 4 was a s f o l l o w s :
" ... Defendant
Court a s follows:
. . . r e s p e c t f u l l y moves the
4. To o r d e r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o r e f r a i n from
a s k i n g any q u e s t i o n s o r s o l i c i t i n g any t e s t i m o n y
from any w i t n e s s r e g a r d i n g s t a t e m e n t s made by an
Ann Doney . . ."
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n .
Defendant c l a i m s t h e S t a t e v i o l a t e d t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r
i n limine. H e moved f o r a m i s t r i a l a t t h e t i m e . The m o t i o n was
prompted by t h e f o l l o w i n g exchange between t h e p r o s e c u t o r and a
p o l i c e o f f i c e r during the S t a t e I s case-in-chief :
"Q. I ' m handing you S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 2 and a s k
you i f you can i d e n t i f y i t . A. Yes, s i r , I
can.
"Q. Would you i d e n t i f y i t , p l e a s e ? A. T h i s is
t h e watch t h a t I r e c o v e r e d on t h a t s e a r c h
warrant.
"Q. To whom was t h i s watch l i s t e d i n t h e
Thibodeau .
s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t a s b e l o n g i n g t o ? A. Pat
"Q. Did you have o c c a s i o n t o a s k Mrs. Doney how
s h e came i n t o p o s s e s s i o n of t h e watch? A. Yes,
I did.
"Q. Did s h e t e l l you who gave you ( s i c ) t h e watch?
A. Yes.
"MR. SHERWOOD: O b j e c t i o n , Your Honor, t h i s is
beyond t h e scope of t h e Motions i n Limine and
i t ' s hearsay.
"THE COURT: Sustained .I'
The c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion f o r m i s t r i a l s t a t i n g t h a t t h e
o f f i c e r ' s answer was n o t t e c h n i c a l l y h e a r s a y , b u t t h a t t h e
o b j e c t i o n was s u s t a i n e d b e c a u s e of t h e i n f e r e n c e which m i g h t have
been l e f t with t h e jury.
W e d i s p o s e of t h i s i s s u e by n o t i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t , on
cross-examination, t e s t i f i e d he gave t h e r i n g and t h e watch to
" l i t t l e k i d s " " a t a house o u t i n Wheeler V i l l a g e , " who "were
f r i e n d s of t h e p e o p l e t h a t I l i v e d w i t h . " I n a d d i t i o n , Anna
Doney was c a l l e d a s a r e b u t t a l w i t n e s s by t h e S t a t e . She
t e s t i f i e d t o t h e same p o i n t s . The i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e j u r y m i g h t
h a v e g l e a n e d a n i m p e r m i s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e from t h e a b o v e q u e s t i o n s
was r e n d e r e d moot by Anna D o n e y ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t d e f e n d a n t g a v e
t h e w a t c h and r i n g t o h e r d a u g h t e r f o r t h e d a u g h t e r ' s b i r t h d a y i n
J u n e o f 1 9 7 8 , and t h a t s h e w a s p r e s e n t when d e f e n d a n t g a v e t h e
items t o t h e d a u g h t e r . W e f i n d D o n e y ' s c r e d i b i l i t y was f u l l y
challenged bythe defense. The e v i d e n c e was p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e
j u r y b y o t h e r means; a n y e r r o r c a u s e d by t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s
t e s t i m o n y was m e r e l y t e c h n i c a l , and d i d n o t a f f e c t a n y s u b s t a n -
tial right. S e c t i o n 46-20-702, MCA; S t a t e v. Grady ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6
Mont. 1 6 8 , 174-175, 5 3 1 P.2d 681, 684.
A p p e l l a n t ' s I s s u e Three:
The f i n a l i s s u e c i t e s a n a l l e g e d i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f e v i d e n c e
to support the burglary conviction.
The c o r r e c t t e s t is w h e t h e r t h e r e 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 c o n v i c t i o n , v i e w e d i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e to
the State. S t a t e v. B r u b a k e r ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 6 2 5 P.2d 78,
8 1 , 38 S t . R e p . 432, 436; S t a t e v. A z u r e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . I
5 9 1 P.2d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 3 1 , 36 S t . R e p . 514, 520. "Substantial evidence"
i s s u c h r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e as a r e a s o n a b l e mind m i g h t a c c e p t a s
adequate t o support a conclusion. S t a t e v. G r a v e s ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,
Mont . , 622 P.2d 203, 208, 38 S t . R e p . 9 , 1 4 ; S t a t e v. Merseal
( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 7 Mont. 412, 416, 538 P.2d 1366, 1368.
D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h e p r o p e r t e s t upon r e v i e w i s t h a t a r t i -
c u l a t e d 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. 307, 3 1 9 , 9 9
" ... 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 , a n y r a t i o n a l trier of f a c t
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 ."
W e f i n d t h e s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w a p p l i e d i n Montana s i n c e
b e f o r e 1 9 7 9 d o e s n o t f a l l s h o r t o f t h e s t a n d a r d mandated i n
Jackson. Indeed, t h e J a c k s o n t e s t h a s p r e v i o u s l y been a p p l i e d by
t h i s Court. S t a t e v. R o d r i g u e z ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont .-' - .2d
P
, 38 S t . R e p . 578F, 5781.
The S t a t e 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 p o s s e s s i o n of t h e
s t o l e n property. While it is t r u e t h a t s u c h f a c t a l o n e is i n s u f -
f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n , i t is one of t h e f a c t o r s which
t h e j u r y may c o n s i d e r . S t a t e v. P e p p e r l i n g ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 166 Mont.
293, 298, 533 P.2d 283, 286; S t a t e v. Lane ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 1 Mont.
369, 372-373, 5 0 6 P.2d 446, 447-448.
A r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e
S t a t e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e upon which a
r a t i o n a l j u r y c o u l d have found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y . The t e s t i m o n y
o f t h e c l e r k i n S h a f f e r ' s Market and of Anna Doney, and t h e
d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n of t h e s t o l e n goods; c o n s t i t u t e s u b s t a n -
t i a l e v i d e n c e on which t o b a s e a v e r d i c t .
W a f f i r m t h e b u r g l a r y c o n v i c t i o n and t h e e i g h t y e a r
e
sentence. W e r e v e r s e t h e misdemeanor f o r g e r y c o n v i c t i o n , v a c a t e
t h e s i x months s e n t e n c e , and
W e concur:
---------------
/'
................................
Justices
Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea d i s s e n t s and w i l l f i l e a w r i t t e n
d i s s e n t later.