Case Title: STATE v JIMISON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-09-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12986 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - C A R L J IMISON , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Seventh Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge presiding Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Gene Huntley argued, Baker, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Richard A. Simonton, County Attorney, argued, Glendive, Montana Submitted: June 12, 1975 Decided : $F/3 . , 1 8.. a r\ F- L, Filed: N r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendant Carl Jimison appeals from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court, Dawson County, a f t e r a jury verdict convicting him of two counts of t h e f t and imposing a three year sentence of imprisonment i n the Montana s t a t e prison. The controlling f a c t s here a r e not disputed. Defendant came i n t o possession of some items of pe~cnalproperty i n 1973, which were stolen by someone i n 1973. Defendant has never been accused of the a c t u a l t h e f t , but of criminal possession. There- fore, i f the possession was i n f a c t criminal, defendant was chargeable i n 1973 under section 94-2721, R.C.M. 1947, which i n pertinent part provided: 11 Receiver of stolen property. Every person who f o r h i s own gain o r t o prevent the owner from again possessing h i s own property buys or receives any personal property, knowing t h e same t o have been stolen, i s punishable by imprisonment i n the s t a t e prison not exceeding f i v e (5) years or i n a county j a i l not exceeding s i x (6) months A- * *." (Emphasis added). The Forty-third Montana Legislative Assembly enacted a new criminal code "Criminal Code of 1973", e f f e c t i v e January 1, 1974. The new criminal code t r a n s i t i o n section, section 94-1-103, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "A l i c a t i o n t o offenses committed before and a Pe t e r enactment. "(1) The provisions of t h i s code s h a l l apply t o any offense defined i n t h i s code and committed a f t e r the e f f e c t i v e date thereof. "(2) Unless otherwise expressly provided, o r unless the context otherwise requires, the provisions of t h i s code s h a l l govern the construction of and punishment f o r any offense defined outside of t h i s code and committed a f t e r the e f f e c t i v e date thereof, as well a s the construction and application of any de- fense t o a prosecution f o r such an offense. I r (3) The provisions of t h i s code do not apply t o any offense defined outside of t h i s code and committed before the e f f e c t i v e date thereof. Such an offense must be construed and punished according t o the provisions of law e x i s t i n g a t the time of the commission thereof i n the same manner as i f t h i s code had not been enacted. I I Here, on o r about June 5 and 6, 1974, the s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e r s searched defendant's farm premises and seized the personal property upon which the prosecution was based. Defendant was charged under the new criminal code section 94-6-302, R.C.M. 1947, the "theft" s t a t u t e under the new code, which i n pertinent part reads: h heft. (1) A person commits the offense of t h e f t when he purposely o r knowingly obtains or exerts un- authorized control over property of the owner, and: "(a) has t h e purpose of depriving the owner of the property; o r I I (b) purposely or knowingly uses, conceals, o r abandons the property in such manner a s t o deprive the owner of the property; o r 11 (c) uses, conceals, or abandons the property knowing such use, concealment or abandonment probably w i l l deprive the owner of the property." The s t a t e contends the new s t a t u t e a l s o includes the old offense of receiving stolen property and i n i t s b r i e f contends: I I While evidence of the taking i s unnecessary t o sustain a con- viction f o r t h e f t under t h i s s t a t u t e , some evidence of the taking i s required i n order t o demonstrate t h a t t h e defendant was not the lawful owner of the property. Therefore any evidence of the taking i n the present case was necessarily presented i n order t o e s t a b l i s h the i d e n t i t y of the owner and the criminal i n t e n t of the , \ defendant. 9 : * - L " A l l t h a t i s necessary t o support a conviction f o r t h e f t under 94-6-302 i s some exercise of control over the property of the owner. That exercise of control need not be f o r any p a r t i c u l a r length of time but r a t h e r , any length of time which i s s u f f i c i e n t t o show an i n t e n t t o deprive the owner of t h e use of the property i s s u f f i c i e n t . The defendant here exercised control over the property i n question which was demonstrated t o have been owned by another person and without t h a t person's authorization. The information charged him with having exercised t h a t control 'on o r about the 5th and 6th days of June, 1974'. N o allega.tion was made t h a t defendant a c t u a l l y took the property from the owner nor t h a t he exerted control over the property a t any time other than on the 5th and 6th day of June, 1974. N o such allegations were necessary. 9 : * * I f (Emphasis added.) F i r s t , we consider the t r a n s i t i o n s t a t u t e , section 94-1- 103(3). The language of the s t a t u t e i s c l e a r , unambiguous and mandatory. It i s obviously intended t o provide an orderly t r a n s i - t i o n t o the new code. It offers no exceptions unless expressly provided, yet the s t a t e bases i t s e n t i r e case on an alleged con- tinuing offense t o come around the language "any offense defined outside of t h i s code and committed before the e f f e c t i v e date thereof." The Code Commision Comment on t h i s section r e f e r s t o Chapter 513, Section 33, Laws of 1973, which c l e a r l y s t a t e s the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e : "The Montana Criminal Code and a l l other provisions of t h i s a c t a r e effective January 1, 1974, and s h a l l apply t o a l l offenses alleged t o have been committed on o r a f t e r t h a t date. The Montana Criminal Code and a l l other provisions of t h i s a c t do not apply t o offenses committed prior t o i t s e f f e c t i v e date and prosecutions f o r such offenses s h a l l be governed by the prior law, which i s continued i n e f f e c t f o r t h a t urpose, a s i f t h i s a c t were not i n force. For the :urpose of t h i s section, an offense was committed prior t o the e f f e c t i v e date of t h i s a c t i f any of the elements - of the offense occurred prior thereto." (Emphasis added.) Clearly, the alleged offense could only be prosecuted under section94-2721, R.C.M. 1947, of the old code. Second, f o r future guidance, the s t a t e i s i n e r r o r i n i t s argument a s it pertains t o proof of criminal i n t e n t of the defendant through proof of taking and t h e exercise of control a s s u f f i c i e n t proof to support a conviction of t h e f t under the new code. This i s a specific i n t e n t crime and the proof required i s t h a t f o r specific i n t e n t . In t h e i n s t a n t case, suspicious circumstances i n connection with the control do not meet t h i s burden of proof, a f t e r an unrefuted explanation of possession by the defendant. See: Section 94-6-314, R.C.M. 1947, and Com- mission Comment thereunder. Extensive arguments were presented on other aspects of this problem such as ex post facto application, statute of limitations, etc. We see no need to burden this opinion with a discussion of these because, as the transition period comes to an end, it is unlikely these problems will arise in the future. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause ordered dismissed. Justice We Concur: -I----------------------------- Chief Justice u Justices.