State v. Shaw

No. 82-06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1982

STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS.

DENNY DEAN SHAW,
Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District,
In and for the County of McCone
Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Francis J. McCarvel, Glasgow, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Arnie A. Hove, County Attorney, Circle, Montana

Submitted on briefs: April 29, 1982
Decided: J u l y 15, 1982
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f
the Court.

The d e f e n d a n t was f o u n d g u i l t y o f felorly t h e f t fol-

lowing a jury trial i n t h e McCone C o u n t y D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
The d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from the District Court's denial of

h i s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l .

At the t r i a l , Jacque Kutzler and J a m e s Norwood, who

a l l e g e d l y had b e e n w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e t i m e t h e c r i m e

was c o m m i t t e d , testified for the prosecution. They s t a t e d

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

Glendive, Montana, to Circle, Montana, on the evening of

March 2, 1981, and that the three of them were at the

Traveller's Inn in Circle from a b o u t 10:00 p.m. until the

b a r c l o s e d a t a b o u t 2:00 a.m. They t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e t h r e e

of them then visited the defendant's wife staying until

about 4:00 a.m. and that they then proceeded to the Vets

C l u b w h e r e t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d Norwood b r o k e i n t o t h e b u i l d i n g

and s t o l e c a s h and m e r c h a n d i s e .

Kutzler also testified, over the defendant's objec-

tions, regarding t h r e a t s a l l e g e d l y made a g a i n s t h e r by t h e

defendant shortly before the trial. In addition, the

defendant's wife testified, also over the defendant's

objections, regarding a visit she received from the

defendant, Kutzler and Norwood on the night of the theft.

The S t a t e a l s o i n t r o d u c e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e t i r e

tracks found o u t s i d e t h e door t o t h e V e t s Club matched the

t r a c k s made by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s S u b u r b a n . In addition, there

was e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e l a y o u t

of t h e V e t s C l u b a s he had d o n e e l e c t r i c a l work a t t h e b a r

four or f i v e years prior t o the t h e f t .

The d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y d i f f e r e d from t h a t g i v e n by
Kutzler and Norwood. He testified that he drove from

G l e n d i v e t o C i r c l e a l o n e i n h i s E l Camino and t h a t Norwood

and Kutzler had borrowed his Suburban that night. He

a d m i t t e d m e e t i n g Norwood and K u t z l e r a t t h e T r a v e l l e r ' s I n n

and p r o c e e d i n g w i t h them t o h i s w i f e ' s house a f t e r leaving

the bar, b u t he c l a i m s t h a t t h e t h r e e p a r t e d company a f t e r

t h e y l e f t h i s w i f e ' s house. He s t a t e d t h a t he knew n o t h i n g

about t h e t h e f t . Ron Hedstrom t e s t i f i e d for the defendant

s t a t i n y t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d h a v e h i s E l Camino i n C i r c l e

that night. However, there was also evidence to the

contrary. The p o l i c e o f f i c e r who had been on d u t y t h e n i g h t

of t h e t h e f t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he saw t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s S u b u r b a n

i n C i r c l e t h a t n i g h t b u t h e d i d n o t s e e t h e E l Camino.

Three issues a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r review:

1. Did the District Court err in allowing the

defendant's wife t o t e s t i f y ?

2. Did the D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n allowing witness

Kutzler to testify as to threats allegedly made by the

defendant?

3. Was s u f f i c i e n t i n d e p e n d e n t e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t

t r i a l t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h e accomplice testimony?

The d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t i t was p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r

to allow his wife to testify. This issue was recently

addressed i n S t a t e v. Roberts (1981), - Mont. , 633

P.2d 1214, 38 St.Rep. 1551. I n t h a t c a s e we s t a t e d t h a t
u n d e r Montana law i f t h e d e f e n d a n t i s m a r r i e d a t t h e t i m e o f

trial, the spouse is incompetent to testify either for or

against the defendant without his consent, subject to

c e r t a i n e x c e p t i o n s which a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e h e r e . Section

46-16-212, MCA; S t a t e v. Roberts, supra. T h i s C o u r t went on
t o h o l d t h a t t h e e r r o r i n a l l o w i n g t h e s p o u s e t o t e s t i f y was

h a r m l e s s i n t h a t c a s e b e c a u s e t h e s p o u s e ' s t e s t i m o n y was

essentially identical t o the defendant's, W have a s i m i l a r
e

s i t u a t i o n h e r e , and we f i n d t h a t t h e e r r o r i n t h i s c a s e was

a l s o h a r m l e s s , The e n t i r e t e s t i m o n y g i v e n by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s

w i f e is s e t f o r t h below:

"Q. What is your name and a d d r e s s for the
record, please? A. Anne Shaw, Circle,
Montana,

"Q. What i s your o c c u p a t i o n ? A. N u r s e ' s a i d e .

" Q . What is y o u r a f f i l i a t i o n -- what i s y o u r
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t , Denny Dean
Shaw? A. I ' m h i s w i f e .

" Q . Where were you i n t h e e a r l y morning of
March 3 , 1 9 8 1 ? A. A t my home i n b e d .

"Q. Were you awakened in the e a r l y morning
h o u r s ? A. Yes.

" Q . Can you remember a b o u t what t i m e you were
awakened? A. A t 2:35.

"Q. Who awoke you? A. Denny.

. Who were t h o s e -- were t h e r e a n y p e o p l e
w i t h Denny? A. Yes, t h e r e w e r e ,

"Q. Can you r e c a l l who t h e s e p e o p l e w e r e ? A ,
T h e r e was a g i r l named J a c k i e and a boy named
Jamie.

"Q. Did you t a l k with these people? A. A
l i t t l e bit.

"Q. About what t i m e d i d t h e s e people leave?
A. Ten t o f o u r ,

" Q . Do you remember t h e o r d e r i n which t h e s e
p e o p l e l e f t ? A. Yes.

" Q . Could you g i v e me t h a t o r d e r ? A. Jackie
and t h e n Denny and t h e n J a m i e .

"Q, How many m i n u t e s a p a r t would t h a t be? A.
Two o r t h r e e m i n u t e s . "

The d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f testified t h a t h e went t o h i s

w i f e ' s h o u s e w i t h Norwood and K u t z l e r a b o u t 2:30 and s t a y e d

u n t i l j u s t a b o u t 4:00. He went on t o s t a t e t h a t J a c k i e l e f t

f i r s t , t h e n he l e f t and went o u t t o t h e p o r c h , and t h e n
Jamie left, and t h e n he went back in the house just long

enough t o p i c k up some p a n t s . S i n c e t h e t e s t i m o n y g i v e n by

the defendant's wife was essentially identical to the

defendant's, t h e e r r o r was c l e a r l y n o t p r e j u d i c i a l .

The n e x t i s s u e is w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n

allowing witness Kutzler to testify regarding threats

a l l e g e d l y made by t h e d e f e n d a n t . The 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 was e v i d e n c e of o t h e r c r i m e s , wrongs o r a c t s

and a s s u c h was i n a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid.

The d e f e n d a n t f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t e v e n i f t h i s C o u r t were

t o f i n d t h a t t h e evidence is a d m i s s i b l e under Rule 4 8 4 ( b ) ,

Mont . R . E v i d . , the D i s t r i c t Court nevertheless erred in

allowing t h e e v i d e n c e t o be i n t r o d u c e d when the procedural

safeguards established i n S t a t e v. Just ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont.

, 6 0 2 P.2d 9 5 7 , 36 S t . R e p . 1 6 4 9 , were n o t f o l l o w e d .

The s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n p r o v i d e s a s f o l l o w s :

"Evidence of o t h e r c r i m e s , wrongs, o r a c t s is
n o t a d m i s s i b l e t o p r o v e t h e c h a r a c t e r of a
p e r s o n i n o r d e r t o show t h a t h e a c t e d i n
conformity therewith. I t may, however, b e
a d m i s s i b l e f o r o t h e r purposes, such a s proof
of m o t i v e , o p p o r t u n i t y , i n t e n t , p r e p a r a t i o n ,
p l a n , knowledge, i d e n t i t y , o r a b s e n c e of m i s -
take or accident." R u l e 404 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid.

The s t a t u t o r y l i s t o f p u r p o s e s f o r which o t h e r c r i m e

e v i d e n c e may be a d m i t t e d is not inclusive. S t a t e v. Gone

( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 2 7 1 , 587 P.2d 1291. Such e v i d e n c e may be

admitted to prove c o n s c i o u s n e s s of guilt. S t a t e v. Gone,

supra. In this case the testimony regarding the threats

a l l e g e d l y made by t h e d e f e n d a n t t o one o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s

key w i t n e s s e s was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d f o r t h a t p u r p o s e . "In a

c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n any a t t e m p t e d i n t i m i d a t i o n of a w i t n e s s

is p r o p e r l y attributable to a consciousness of guilt and

testimony relating thereto is relevant and admissible in
evidence." People v. Smith ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 3 Ill.App.3d 958, 279

The d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e s h o u l d n o t

h a v e been a d m i t t e d b e c a u s e t h e f o u r e l e m e n t t e s t o f a d m i s s i -

bility established in Just, supra, was not met and the

m a n d a t o r y p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n J u s t were n o t

followed. W disagree.
e Both t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y t e s t and 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 found i n J u s t p e r t a i n t o e v i d e n c e o f

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

consciousness of guilt regarding t h e c r i m e w i t h which the

d e f e n d a n t is c h a r g e d .

" ' G e n e r a l l y , e v i d e n c e of o t h e r o f f e n s e s o r o f
o t h e r s i m i l a r a c t s a t o t h e r t i m e s is inadmis-
s i b l e f o r t h e p u r p o s e of showing t h e commis-
s i o n of t h e p a r t i c u l a r c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e
charged. S t a t e v , T a y l o r , 1 6 3 Mont. 1 0 6 ,
1 2 0 , 515 P,2d 695 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . The r e a s o n i s t h a t
t h e d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o be i n f o r m e d o f
t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e [ s i c ] s o t h a t he need
prepare h i s defense only t o t h a t particular
offense. Proof o f o t h e r o f f e n s e s s u b j e c t s
him t o s u r p r i s e and t o a d e f e n s e o f m u l t i p l e
c o l l a t e r a l or unrelated issues. S t a t e v.
J e n s e n , 1 6 3 Mont. 233, 455 P.2d 6 3 1 ( 1 9 6 9 )
. . . I 11
J u s t , s u p r a , 602 P.2d
q u o t i n g S t a t e v. Lave ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. 401,
a t 960,

571 P.2d 9 7 , 1 0 0 .

Presenting evidence of an attempted intimidation of a

witness does not i n t e r f e r e with the defendant's r i g h t t o be

i n f o r m e d of the offense charged; such evidence p e r t a i n s to

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

The d e f e n d a n t n e x t a r g u e s t h a t even i f such evidence

was r e l e v a n t i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e is s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d

by t h e d a n g e r o f unfair prejudice, c o n f u s i o n of the issues

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

h a v e been a d m i t t e d a c c o r d i n g t o R u l e 4P13, Mont.R.Evid. We

disagree. The e v i d e n c e was i m p o r t a n t a s p r o o f of c o n s c i o u s -

n e s s o f g u i l t , and i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e o u t w e i g h s a n y p r e j u -
d i c e t o the defendant. This evidence did not cause confusion

of the i s s u e s nor did it mislead the jury. The D i s t r i c t

Court d i d n o t e r r in allowing Kutzler t o t e s t i f y regarding

the alleged threats.

The l a s t i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t i n d e -

pendent evidence to corroborate the accomplice testimony.

Under Montana l a w a d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t be c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i m e

s o l e l y upon t h e t e s t i m o n y of an a c c o m p l i c e . S e c t i o n 46-16-

213, MCA, provides:

"A c o n v i c t i o n c a n n o t be had on t h e t e s t i m o n y
of one r e s p o n s i b l e o r l e g a l l y a c c o u n t a b l e f o r
t h e same o f f e n s e , a s d e f i n e d i n 45-2-301,
u n l e s s t h e t e s t i m o n y is c o r r o b o r a t e d by o t h e r
e v i d e n c e which i n i t s e l f and w i t h o u t t h e a i d
of t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e one r e s p o n s i b l e o r
l e g a l l y a c c o u n t a b l e f o r t h e same o f f e n s e
t e n d s t o c o n n e c t t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e com-
mission of t h e o f f e n s e . The c o r r o b o r a t i o n is
n o t s u f f i c i e n t i f i t m e r e l y shows t h e commis-
s i o n of t h e o f f e n s e o r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s
thereof."

Kutzler and Norwood were accomplices of the defendant and

the defendant contends that their testimony was insuffi-

c i e n t l y corroborated.

hit11 r e g a r d t o corroborating evidence t h e Court has

stated:

" I . . . t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e may be
s u p p l i e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t o r h i s w i t n e s s e s ;
i t may be c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ; i t need
n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n o r
e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i a c a s e o f g u i l t ; and i t
need n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n n e c t t h e d e f e n -
d a n t w i t h t h e c r i m e b u t must t e n d t o c o n n e c t
him w i t h t h e c r i m e . . .'" S t a t e v. Casagranda
( 1 9 8 1 ) t - Mont. , 637 P.2d 8 2 6 , 830, 38
St.Rep. 2122, 2128-2129, quoting S t a t e v.
S t a n d l e y ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 1 5 3 , 586 P.2d
1 0 7 5 , 11377.

We find that there is sufficient corroborating

evidence t o tend t o connect t h e defendant with t h e t h e f t a t

the Vets Club. The defendant admitted that he was with
 Norwood and Kutzler the evening of the crime, the tire

t r a c k s f o u n d n e a r t h e V e t s C l u b m a t c h e d t h e t i r e t r a c k s made

by the defendant's Suburban, there was evidence that the

S u b u r b a n was t h e o n l y v e h i c l e owned by the defendant that

was in Circle that night, and the defendant was familiar

with the layout of the Vets Club. This evidence was

s u f f i c i e n t t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h e t e s t i m o n y g i v e n by Norwood and

Kutzler .
Affirmed.

%4d#%4
Chief Justice

We concur: