Case Title: STATE v WILSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-291

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-07-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
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 M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Donald Earl Wilson a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n by a j u r y on t h e c h a r g e s of f e l o n y b u r g l a r y and misdemeanor f o r g e r y , rendered 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 Fourth J u d i c i a l District , Missoula County, t h e Honorable John S. Henson, p r e s i d i n g . The d e f e n d a n t was sentenced 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 on 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 months i n t h e Missoula County j a i l on t h e misdemeanor f o r g e r y c h a r g e , t h e s e n t e n c e s t o run c o n c u r r e n t l y . Both p a r t i e s recommend t h a t t h e misdemeanor c o n v i c t i o n be r e v e r s e d , based on 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. District Court ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 615 P.2d 231, 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 do n o t have 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 misdemeanors p u n i s h a b l e by a f i n e n o t exceeding $500 and/or imprisonment n o t e x c e e d i n g s i x months was found 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. Rasmussen, 615 P.2d 231, 232, 37 St.Rep. 1499; S t a t e v. Campbell ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 622 P.2d 200, 202, 38 St.Rep. 19, 21-22. Misdemeanor f o r g e r y is p u n i s h a b l e w i t h i n t h e above-stated l i m i t s . 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 Court d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n to t r y t h e c h a r g e . Defendant1 s misdemeanor f o r g e r y c o n v i c t i o n must 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 f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e b u r g l a r y c o n v i c t i o n : 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 motion 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 of h i s Miranda r i g h t s to remain s i l e n t ? 2. Whether t h e District Court 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 motion 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 an 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 or s o l i c i t i n g any 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 evidence to convict t h e defendant of burglary? W e af f i r m the defendant's c o n v i c t i o n . The undisputed f a c t s include the following: The home of P a t r i c k and Gwen Thibodeau was burglarized while they were away on v a c a t i o n during June and J u l y of 1978. The owners returned home on J u l y 15, and found the s i d e door a j a r . M r . Thibodeau disco- vered t h a t h i s checkbook was missing a t t h a t time. A t a l a t e r d a t e , when the c o u p l e t s account statement and c a n c e l l e d checks a r r i v e d from the bank, they discovered a check w r i t t e n t o S h a f f e r ' s Market i n Missoula i n the amount of $79.50, which n e i t h e r had issued. The check was endorsed 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 inquiring about the check a t S h a f f e r ' s Market, t h e couple contacted the p o l i c e , and then f u r t h e r searched t h e i r home. They discovered t h a t e i g h t 1879 s i l v e r d o l l a r s , a watch and a gold ring were a l s o missing. The watch and r i n g were l a t e r recovered by p o l i c e a t t h e r e s i d e n c e of one Anna Doney. The defendant had given t h e items t o Doney's c h i l d r e n . Defendant was a r r e s t e d near Glasgow i n December 1978. H e was charged by information with felony b u r g l a r y and misdemeanor f o r g e r y . Defendant pleaded not g u i l t y t o each. T r i a l was held on January 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 the s u b j e c t check on June 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 , f i r s t , t h a t Thibodeau had given the check t o t h e defendant i n payment f o r work which he had done on Thibodeau's ranch, and second, t h a t defendant had asked Thibodeau t o make t h e check payable to S h a f f e r ' s Market because t h e banks were closed t h a t day and because t h e defendant intended t o cash 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 defendant had used part of the money received t o pay a b i l l owed by one Judy Crosby and p a r t t o buy g r o c e r i e s , and the rest he had received i n cash. 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 defendant had returned t o the 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 check had been given t o him i n payment f o r a t r u c k s o l d by t h e defendant, t h a t the check had been made out by another person 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 defendant knew 40 w i t n e s s e s who could t e s t i f y to t h a t e f f e c t . The c l e r k testi- f ied the defendant wanted t o know why the c l e r k did not l i k e him. Defendant t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t o h i s version of events. According t o h i s testimony, he had been l i v i n g a t t h e home of Judy Crosby. H e had v e h i c l e s parked i n t h e yard. One, a 1966 Ford, he sold t o a man named Levi af ter Judy Crosby had s t a t e d t h a t she wanted t h e v e h i c l e moved. Levi wanted the c a r f o r p a r t s . The s a l e p r i c e was $75. Defendant helped Levi tow t h e c a r away. Levi promised t o pay a t some l a t e r d a t e . The defen- d a n t did not know t h e man by any o t h e r name. Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he did not see Levi again f o r s e v e r a l weeks, u n t i l Saturday, June 24, when he noticed Levi i n a c i t y park. Defendant approached Levi t o demand payment. Levi s t a t e d t h a t he could go and g e t the money, and asked to borrow t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r . The defendant agreed, on the c o n d i t i o n t h a t Levi pay f o r the gas he would use, and l e n t Levi h i s white Ford s t a t ion wagon. The defendant t e s t i f ied t h a t Levi returned approximately two hours l a t e r with the s u b j e c t check. Defendant and Levi then went t o S h a f f e r l s Market t o cash t h e check. Levi wrote 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 included $4.50 f o r the gas he had used. Because t h e defendant d i d not know Levi's r e a l name, he had no reason to suspect t h a t Levi was not P a t r i c k Thibodeau. The defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he and Levi presented t h e check t o t h e c l e r k . The defendant produced h i s chauf f e u r l s l i c e n s e , and endorsed the check on the back with h i s name and a d d r e s s . The defendant 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 June 24, he found the watch and gold r i n g between the s e a t s of h i s white Ford wagon, the one t h a t Levi had used. The defendant thought the items were junk and gave them t o the c h i l d r e n of Anna Doney, whose family were f r i e n d s with the Crosbys . The defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he continued t o frequent S h a f f e r ' s Market u n t i l he got a job moving houses i n North Dakota. H e phoned the Crosby residence a f t e r he had moved, and was informed t h a t t h e r e were problems with the check. H e d i r e c t e d Judy Crosby t o c o n t a c t t h e p o l i c e and find out what was going on. When the defendant c a l l e d back, Judy Crosby t o l d him t h e check was no good and the 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 defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he immediately set out to r e t u r n t o Missoula. In Glasgow, he needed gas but had run o u t of money. H e stopped a t t h e Glasgow P o l i c e Department t o ask 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 Missoula t o s t r a i g h t e n o u t a l e g a l problem. H e was given t e n g a l l o n s of gas, but was t h e n stopped 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 the defendant was returned t o Missoula, he was r e l e a s e d on b a i l . H e never was a b l e t o l o c a t e Levi. H e 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 out t h e d i s p u t e t h e c l e r k acted llsnottyvl and " s a r c a s t i c " towards him. Appellant's I s s u e One. A s p a r t of its cross-examination of t h e defendant, t h e S t a t e asked whether defendant had ever discussed t h e check with 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 Missoula, i n an attempt t o r e c t i f y the m a t t e r . Defendant o b j e c t e d and, i n chambers, moved f o r an o r d e r i n limine t o pre- v e n t t h e S t a t e from asking any q u e s t i o n s which might r e f l e c t o r comment upon defendant's e x e r c i s e of h i s Miranda r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t . The Court denied the motion on the grounds t h a t defen- d a n t had opened t h e a r e a himself upon d i r e c t . The c o u r t and counsel then returned t o the courtroom and t h e p r o s e c u t o r , a f t e r reviewing with defendant h i s testimony on d i r e c t examination, e l i c i t e d the following: "Q. Did you ever 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 out then? A. No. I never g o t back here. "Q. So then you never gave anyone, you never t a l k e d t o anyone t o c l e a r the m a t t e r up, then? A. NO, sir." Defendant includes, 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 prosecutor during c l o s i n g argument, a s follows: 1. "Then, w e hear from Allen Kimery again . . . Allen Kimery a t t e m p t s t o l o c a t e people down t h e r e t o find out i f anyone e l s e knows of t h i s Levi. The f i r s t w e have heard of Levi was -- --- yesterday, and had we known about t h i s --- mysterious Levi f i r s t or b e f o r e , then, w e would have attempted t o l o c a E him t o have h i m h e r e . ----- So w e go t o t h e B o n n e r a r e a through A 1 Kimery and check o u t and see i f anyone knows t h i s Levi. Nobody but t h e Defendant and J i m Gates and t h e i r w i t n e s s e s have ever heard of Levi." (Emphasis added. ) 2. "When [defense counsel] began t o address you, he t o l d you about t h e S t a t e having t h e resources o f t h e s h e r i f f ' s department and whatever. One t h i n g he did not t e l l you a t t h a t time was t h a t t h e s h e r i f f 's department s e r v e s t h e subpoenas f o r both t h e S t a t e and the Defendant. Another t h i n g he did not t e l l you is whether o r not he issued a subpoena f o r M r . Levi when he has 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 t o him t o attempt t o l o c a t e t h i s M r . Levi o r Levi. W e d i d n o t know of Levi u n t i l y e s t e r d a y -- ------ "MR. S H E R W O O D : Your honor, 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 t h e Miranda r i g h t . "THE COURT: M r . McLean? I1MR. McLEAN: Your Honor, I d o n ' t believe--He mentioned about t h i s Levi and our sources and I ' m t e l l i n g t h e 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 s u s t a i n the o b j e c t i o n . "MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Your Honor . . . II ( Emphasis added. ) Defendant argues t h e emphasized p o r t i o n s above were a l s o impermissible 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 asked of defendant on cross-examination did n o t comment upon h i s f a i l u r e t o give an e x p l a n a t i o n to l a w enforce- ment o f f i c i a l s w i t h i n the context of t h e r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t . Rather, t h e q u e s t i o n s l e g i t i m a t e l y explored a s u b j e c t which defendant himself had placed i n t o d i s p u t e during d i r e c t examination. " I f [a defendant i n a criminal case] t a k e s t h e 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 cre- d i b i l i t y may be impeached and h i s testimony a s s a i l e d l i k e t h a t of any o t h e r witness, and the b r e a d t h of h i s waiver is determined by the scope 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 the jury a l l the f a c t s which tend i n h i s favor without laying himself open t o a cross-examination upon those f a c t s . ' . . .I1 Brown v. United S t a t e s (1958), 356 U.S. 148, 154-155, 78 S.Ct. 622, 626, 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 596-597. Defendant c l e a r l y conveyed t o the jury, i n h i s d i r e c t testimony, h i s understanding t h a t the c h e c k m s good, and t h a t he a t a l l t i m e s acted i n good f a i t h , intending t o speak 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 . A f t e r the d e f e n d a n t ' s d i r e c t testimony, 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 the scope of r e l e v a n t cross-examination. Rule 611 ( 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 £-incrimination is amply respected without need of accepting testimony f r e e d from the a n t i s e p t i c test of t h e adversary p r o c e s s . The w i t n e s s himself, c e r t a i n l y i f he is a p a r t y , determines the 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 inquiry. Such a w i t n e s s has t h e choice, a f t e r weighing t h e advantage of t h e p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e advantage of p u t t i n g forward 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 witness, not 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 not o n l y t h i s choice b u t , i f he elects t o t e s t i f y , an immunity from cross-examination on t h e matters he has himself put i n d i s p u t e . It would make of t h e F i f t h Amendment not o n l y a humane safeguard 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 p o s i t i v e i n v i t a t i o n t o m u t i l a t e t h e t r u t h a p a r t y o f f e r s t o t e l l . . . 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 regard 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 the balance of con- s i d e r a t i o n s determining t h e scope and l i m i t s of t h e p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n . 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 w i t n e s s . She could n o t t a k e t h e stand to t e s t i f y i n h e r own b e h a l f and also claim t h e r i g h t t o be f r e e from cross-examination on mat- ters r a i s e d by h e r own t e s t i m o n y on d i r e c t examination." Brown, 356 U.S. 155-156, 78 S.Ct. 627, 2 L.Ed.2d 597. D e f e n d a n t ' s r e l i a n c e upon Doyle v. Ohio (1976), 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 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 accused d i d n o t t e s t i f y about t h e i r post-arrest acts, 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 to a s t o r y which t h e p r o s e c u t i o n had n o t heard b e f o r e . The S t a t e , on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , i n q u i r e d i n t o t h e f a c t of 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 to p r e s e n t to 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 t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' c r e d i b i l i t y . Doyle, 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 whether i n t e r r o g a t i o n of a n accused upon t h e p o i n t of c r e d i b i l i t y is w i t h i n t h e scope of cross-examination is a t h o r n y problem i n c r i m i n a l cases; b u t t h e r e can be no doubt t h a t matters p u t i n d i s p u t e by t h e accused himself by d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y are always p r o p e r s u b j e c t s of cross-examination. 3 W e i n s t e i n ' s Evidence, 5 611[031. Defendantt s c o n t e n t i o n about 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 e n o t e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t o b j e c t to t h e S t a t e ' s f i r s t r e f e r e n c e to its l a c k of knowledge concerning t h e man c a l l e d "Levi .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 they so stress a n i n f e r e n c e of g u i l t based on 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 error. Anderson v. Nelson ( 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 motions i n l i m i n e . Motion N o . 4 was a s follows: " . . . Defendant . . . r e s p e c t f u l l y moves t h e Court a s follows: 4. To o r d e r t h e prosecution t o r e f r a i n from asking any q u e s t i o n s o r s o l i c i t i n g any testimony from any witness regarding s t a t e m e n t s made by an Ann Doney . . ." The District Court granted the motion. Defendant claims t h e S t a t e v i o l a t e d the 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 motion was prompted by the following exchange between t h e prosecutor 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 Exhibit 2 and ask you i f you can i d e n t i f y it. A. Yes, sir, I can. "Q. Would you i d e n t i f y it, p l e a s e ? A. This is t h e watch t h a t I recovered on t h a t search warrant. "Q. To whom was t h i s watch l i s t e d i n t h e s h e r i f f ' s department a s belonging t o ? A. Pat Thibodeau . "Q. Did you have occasion t o ask Mrs. Doney how s h e came i n t o possession of t h e watch? A. Y e s , I d i d . "Q. Did she t e l l you who gave you ( s i c ) t h e watch? A. Y e s . "MR. S H E R W O O D : Objection, Your Honor, t h i s is beyond the scope of t h e Motions i n Limine and it's hearsay. "THE COURT: Sustained .I' The c o u r t denied 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 not t e c h n i c a l l y hearsay, but t h a t the o b j e c t i o n was sustained because of t h e i n f e r e n c e which might have been l e f t with t h e jury. W e dispose of t h i s issue by noting t h a t defendant, on cross-examination, t e s t i f i e d he gave t h e r i n g and the watch to " l i t t l e k i d s " " a t a house out i n Wheeler V i l l a g e , " who "were f r i e n d s of t h e people t h a t I l i v e d with." 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 witness 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 whether t h e j u r y might have gleaned an 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 above q u e s t i o n s was rendered moot by Anna Doney's t e s t i m o n y t h a t d e f e n d a n t gave t h e watch 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 1978, and t h a t she w a s p r e s e n t when d e f e n d a n t gave t h e items to t h e d a u g h t e r . W e f i n d Doney's c r e d i b i l i t y was f u l l y c h a l l e n g e d bythe d e f e n s e . The evidence was p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e j u r y by o t h e r means; any e r r o r caused 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 merely t e c h n i c a l , and d i d n o t a f f e c t any substan- t i a l r i g h t . S e c t i o n 46-20-702, MCA; S t a t e v. Grady ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 168, 174-175, 531 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 cites an a l l e g e d i n s u f f i c i e n c y of e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e b u r g l a r y c o n v i c t i o n . The correct test is whether 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 , viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e S t a t e . S t a t e v. Brubaker ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 625 P.2d 78, 81, 38 St.Rep. 432, 436; S t a t e v. Azure ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . I 591 P.2d 1125, 1131, 36 St.Rep. 514, 520. " S u b s t a n t i a l evidence" is such 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 might a c c e p t as a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n . S t a t e v. Graves ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 622 P.2d 203, 208, 38 St.Rep. 9, 14; S t a t e v. Merseal ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 412, 416, 538 P.2d 1366, 1368. Defendant a r g u e s t h e p r o p e r test upon review is t h a t arti- c u l a t e d i n Jackson v. V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 " . . . t h e r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n is whether, a f t e r viewing 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 , any r a t i o n a l trier of f a c t c o u l d have found 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 doubt ." W e f i n d t h e s t a n d a r d of review a p p l i e d i n Montana s i n c e b e f o r e 1979 d o e s n o t f a l l s h o r t of 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 test 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. Rodriguez ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . -' - P .2d , 38 St.Rep. 578F, 5781. The S t a t e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t defendant had possession of the s t o l e n property. While it is t r u e t h a t such f a c t alone is insuf- f i c i e n t t o support the c o n v i c t i o n , it is one of the f a c t o r s which t h e jury may consider. S t a t e v. Pepperling (1974), 166 Mont. 293, 298, 533 P.2d 283, 286; S t a t e v. Lane (1973), 161 Mont. 369, 372-373, 506 P.2d 446, 447-448. A review of t h e record i n a l i g h t most favorable 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 evidence upon which a r a t i o n a l j u r y could have found defendant g u i l t y . The testimony 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 possession of the s t o l e n goods; c o n s t i t u t e substan- t i a l evidence on which t o base a v e r d i c t . W e a f f i r m the burglary c o n v i c t i o n and the e i g h t y e a r s e n t e n c e . 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 sentence, and W e concur: --------------- /' ................................ J u s t i c e s M r . J u s t i c e Daniel 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.