Case Title: STATE v LAPP

Citation: 

Docket Number: 82-127

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-02-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 82-127 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1 9 8 3 STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . CLIVE LAPP, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Sixteenth 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 of Custer Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Brown and Huss, Miles City, Montana George Huss argued, M i l e s C i t y , Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana James M. Scheier argued, Legal I n t e r n , Office of Attorney General, Helena, Montana Keith D. Haker, County Attorney, Pliles City, Montana Submitted: November 2 4 , 1982 Decided: February 4 , 1983 Mr. Chief J u s t l c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Lapp was charged and c o n v i c t e d of n e g l i g e n t homicide by a C u s t e r County j u r y . H e now a p p e a l s t h e judg- ment of c o n v i c t i o n and t h e d e n i a l of h i s motion t o s u p p r e s s . W e a f f i r m . A t around 6:00 a.m. on September 16, 1981, d e f e n d a n t Lapp was involved i n a two-car c o l l i s i o n i n C u s t e r County. Lapp's v e h i c l e was proceeding e a s t i n t h e west-bound l a n e of I n t e r s t a t e 94, a d i v i d e d highway, when it c o l l i d e d w i t h a v e h i c l e d r i v e n by Merlin Benjamin. Benjamin d i e d a s a r e s u l t of i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t . Lapp was t a k e n t o t h e h o s p i t a l by ambulance b e f o r e t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g highway patrolman, Robert Bishop, a r r i v e d a t t h e scene. Bishop' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n showed t h a t t h e Benjamin v e h i c l e had been t r a v e l i n g v e r y s l o w l y a t t h e moment o f c o l l i s i o n , w h i l e t h e v e h i c l e w i t h l i c e n s e p l a t e s r e g i s t e r e d t o Lapp was t r a v e l i n g a t approximately 80 m.p.h. Bishop l e f t t h e a c c i d e n t s c e n e but was c a l l e d back a s h o r t t i m e l a t e r . On t h e second v i s i t , Bishop t a l k e d t o Dale Cunningham, t h e o t h e r occupant of t h e Lapp v e h i c l e . Cunningham had l e f t t h e c a r a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t and l a t e r r e t u r n e d a f t e r B i s h o p ' s i n i t i a l d e p a r t u r e . Bishop ques- t i o n e d Cunningham b r i e f l y a b o u t t h e a c c i d e n t . Cunningham t o l d t h e o f f i c e r h i s name, s t a t e d t h a t h e had n o t been d r i v i n g and t o l d Bishop t h a t Lapp was t h e d r i v e r . Cunning- ham was t h e n t a k e n t o t h e h o s p i t a l by ambulance. Bishop f i r s t q u e s t i o n e d Lapp a t t h e h o s p i t a l a t 10:25 a . m . t h a t morning. Lapp had been admitted t o t h e emergency room f o r minor i n j u r i e s and f o r o b s e r v a t i o n . Bishop asked Lapp h i s name, d a t e of b i r t h , and whether he had been d r i v i n g t h e v e h i c l e a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t . Lapp responded w i t h h i s name and d a t e of b i r t h . He t h e n s t a t e d t h a t he was d r i v i n g , t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t was " a l l h i s f a u l t , " and t h a t t h e y "could do a n y t h i n g t h e y wanted t o " w i t h him. Lapp was n o t g i v e n a Miranda warning p r i o r t o ques- t i o n i n g . There were two n u r s e s p r e s e n t w h i l e Lapp was q u e s t i o n e d . A t no time p r i o r t o , d u r i n g o r immediately a f t e r h i s t a l k w i t h Lapp d i d Bishop p l a c e d e f e n d a n t under a r r e s t . L a p p ' s b l o o d - a l c o h o l a n a l y s i s e s t a b l i s h e d a b l o o d a l c o h o l c o n t e n t of approximately .225% a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . Bishop f u r t h e r examined both v e h i c l e s and d i s - covered a t o o t h imbedded i n Lapp's dashboard near t h e c e n t e r b u t on t h e passenger s i d e . I t was l a t e r e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e t o o t h was Cunningham's. Lapp p r e s e n t s f o u r i s s u e s on a p p e a l : ( I ) Whether d e f e n d a n t was " i n custody" when q u e s t i o n e d by Patrolman Bishop; ( 2 ) Whether t h e a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n should have been allowed t o t e s t i f y a s t o whether i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d by t h e o t h e r occupant of d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s having s t r u c k t h e s t e e r i n g wheel; ( 3 ) Whether t h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d on t h e f a c t o r s t o c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f d e f e n d a n t ' s admission; and ( 4 ) Whether s u b s t a n t i a l evidence s u p p o r t s t h e v e r d i c t . Lapp f i r s t contends t h a t he was " i n custody" when q u e s t i o n e d by Patrolman Bishop a t t h e h o s p i t a l . H e a r g u e s t h a t a t t h a t p o i n t of q u e s t i o n i n g h e had become t h e f o c u s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n i n g had t h e r e f o r e p a s s e d from t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t a g e t o t h e a c c u s a t o r y s t a g e a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n Escobedo v. I l l i n o i s ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 378 U . S . 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. Defendant a s s e r t s t h a t where such a c c u s a t o r i a l a t t e n t i o n had focused upon him, t h e q u e s t i o n i n g became c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n and t h e p a t r o l m a n was r e q u i r e d t o g i v e Miranda warnings p r i o r t o q u e s t i o n i n g . Miranda v. Arizona ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 E.Ed.2d 694. Where t h e p a t r o l m a n f a i l e d t o g i v e s u c h warnings, Lapp c o n c l u d e s 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 f a i l i n g t o s u p p r e s s h i s s t a t e m e n t . Lapp a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of q u e s t i o n i n g were such as t o s i g n i f i - c a n t l y d e p r i v e him of h i s freedom of a c t i o n . W e r e j e c t b o t h arguments. L a p p ' s r e l i a n c e on E s c o b e d o ' s d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n i n v e s t i g a t o r y and a c c u s a t o r y s t a g e s is misplaced. The United S t a t e s Supreme Court, i n Miranda, d e f i n e d " c u s t o d i a l i r r t e r r o g a t i o n " a s " q u e s t i o n i n g i n i t i a t e d by law enforcement o f f i c e r s a f t e r a p e r s o n h a s been t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y o r o t h e r w i s e d e p r i v e d of h i s freedom o f a c t i o n i n any s i g n i f i - c a n t way." 384 U . S . a t 444, 86 S.Ct. a t 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d a t 706. (Emphasis added.) I n F o o t n o t e 4 f o l l o w i n g t h a t d e f i n i t i o n t h e C o u r t s t a t e d : " T h i s is what we meant i n Escobedo when w e spoke of a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n which had f o c u s e d on an accused." Miranda, 384 U.S. a t 444, 86 S.Ct. a t 1612, 1 6 L.Ed.2d a t 706. The C o u r t h a s s i n c e f l a t l y a p p l i e d t h e r u l e t n a t "Miranda warnings are r e q u i r e d o n l y when t h e r e h a s been such a r e s t r i c t i o n on a p e r s o n ' s freedom a s t o r e n d e r him ' i n c u s t o d y . ' " Oregon v. lblathiason ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714, 719. (Emphasis added. ) T h i s Court h a s followed Oregon v. Xathiason i n apply- ing t h a t test. S t a t e v. Graves ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. I 622 P.2d 203, 207, 38 St.Rep. 9 , 12; S t a t e v. Dupre ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Nont . , 650 P.2d 1381, 39 St.Rep. 1660. I n Dupre, t h i s Court s t a t e d t h a t " [ a ] c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n s i t u a - t i o n r e q u i r i n g M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s i s n o t c r e a t e d s i m p l y because an i n d i v i d u a l is t h e f o c u s of an i n v e s t i g a t i o n . " 650 P.2d a t 1384, 39 St.Rep. a t 1663. The i s s u e t h e n becomes whether Lapp was "deprived of h i s freedom of a c t i o n i n any s i g n i f i c a n t way." W e hold t h a t he was not. C o u r t s have c o n s i d e r e d a number of f a c t o r s i n d e t e r - mining whether a s u s p e c t is i n c u s t o d y o r h a s been s i g n i - f i c a n t l y d e p r i v e d of h i s freedom of a c t i o n f o r p u r p o s e s of iqiranda warnings. The f a c t o r s i n c l u d e t h e p l a c e of i n t e r r o - g a t i o n , t h e t i m e of i n t e r r o g a t i o n , p e r s o n s p r e s e n t d u r i n g i n t e r r o g a t i o n , whether Miranda warnings were g r a t u i t o u s l y g i v e n , t h e l e n g t h and mood of i n t e r r o g a t i o n , and whether o r n o t t h e s u s p e c t was a r r e s t e d f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n i n g . Cummings v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 27 Md.App. 361, 341 A.2d 294, 303-305. I n Cummings, t h e c o u r t a l s o noted t h e i r r e l e v a n c y of t h e " i n v e s t i g a t i v e f o c u s " c r i t e r i a f o l l o w i n g Miranda. 341 A. 2d a t 306. I t d i s t i n g u i s h e d Escobedo's s u b j e c t i v e r u l e (whe- t h e r a p o l i c e o f f i c e r t h i n k s t h a t t h e s u s p e c t is t h e f o c u s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n ) from t h e o b j e c t i v e Miranda s t a n d a r d (whether o r n o t a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n b e i n g i n t e r r o g a t e d would f e e l h e was i n c u s t o d y or o t h e r w i s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e p r i v e d of h i s freedom). See a l s o , Lowe v. United S t a t e s ( 9 t h C i r . 1969), 407 F.2d 1391, 1397; W i l l i a m s v. United S t a t e s ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 6 7 ) , 381 F.2d 20, 22. The c o u r t i n Cummings n o t e d t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y of c a s e s have h e l d t h a t i n - h o s p i t a l q u e s t i o n i n g does n o t amount t o c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n . 341 A.2d a t 301. There t h e q u e s t i o n i n g took p l a c e i n a h o s p i t a l room a t a b o u t noon. The s u s p e c t ' s w i f e and a n o t h e r p e r s o n were p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e b r i e f and n o n a c c u s a t o r y i n t e r v i e w . R e was n o t p l a c e d under a r r e s t b e f o r e , d u r i n g o r a f t e r t h e q u e s t i o n i n g . The c o u r t found t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n i n g was n o n c u s t o d i a l i n n a t u r e . I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , Lapp was q u e s t i o n e d i n t h e emergency room of t h e h o s p i t a l w i t h two n u r s e s p r e s e n t . Patrolman Bishop asked Lapp o n l y h i s name, h i s d a t e of b i r t h , whether he was d r i v i n g , what speed he was t r a v e l i n g , and whether he would be w i l l i n g t o t a k e a blood test. H e was n o t p l a c e d under a r r e s t b e f o r e , d u r i n g or immediately f o l l o w i n g t h e q u e s t i o n i n g . T h i s C o u r t h a s p r e v i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d i n - h o s p i t a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n . S t a t e e x r e l . Berger v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t (1967), 150 Mont. 128, 432 P.2d 93. T h e r e , w e n o t e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was n o t " i n c u s t o d y " i n any l e g a l s e n s e o f t h e word. Nor was s h e o t h e r w i s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e p r i v e d of h e r f r e e d o m . W e h e l d 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 s u p p r e s s i n g s t a t e m e n t s when no c o e r c i o n w a s used t o overcome t h e s u s p e c t ' s freedom of c h o i c e . Our p o s i t i o n h a s n o t changed. See a l s o : People v. G i l b e r t ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 8 Plich.App. 393, 154 N.W.2d 800; S t a t e v. Sandoval ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 92 Idaho 853, 452 P.2d 350; S t a t e v. Brunner ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 211 Kan. 596, 507 P.2d 233. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d Lapp's motion t o s u p p r e s s upon f i n d i n g t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n i n g was noncusto- d i a l i n n a t u r e . Lapp n e x t r a i s e s t h e argument t h a t t h e a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n should have Seen allowed t o t e s t i f y a s t o whether i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d by Cunningham were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s having s t r u c k t h e s t e e r i n g wheel. During cross-examination of t h e p h y s i c i a n by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , t h e f o l l o w i n g exchange took p l a c e : "Q. A r e t h e r e anything--is t h e r e any- t h i n g about Mr. Lapp's i n j u r i e s from your examination of him, t h a t is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s being t h e d r i v e r ? "MR. HAKER: I ' m going t o o b j e c t t o t h a t . "THE COURT: S u s t a i n e d . "BY MR. HUSS: Q. Bave you i n your y e a r s of t r a i n i n g and a s a p h y s i c i a n and s u r - geon, had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o view v i c t i m s of automobile a c c i d e n t s ? A. Y e s . "Q. Approximately how many v i c t i m s of automobile a c c i d e n t s would you s a y y o u ' v e seen? A. Hundreds. Q. I n viewing t h o s e v i c t i m s , a r e you a b l e to--and t h e t y p e s of i n j u r i e s t h a t they r e c e i v e d , a r e you a b l e t o a r r i v e a t any c o n c l u s i o n s a s t o how t h e y r e c e i v e d t h e i r i n j u r i e s i n an autornobile a c c i d e n t ? A. You normally d o n ' t do t h a t , because I t h i n k i t ' s c o n j e c t u r e on our p a r t , s o w e t a k e c a r e of what is wrong and u s u a l l y f o c u s on t h a t . " Deiense c o u n s e l t h e n made f o u r a t t e m p t s t o a s k t h e d o c t o r whether t h e i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d by Cunningham were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i n j u r i e s t h a t can be s u s t a i n e d by s t r i k i n g a s t e e r i n g wheel. The S t a t e o b j e c t e d i n each i n s t a n c e on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e w i t n e s s had i n d i c a t e d it would be c o n j e c t u r e on h i s p a r t t o t r y t o s t a t e t h a t . The D i s t r i c t Court s u s t a i n e d each o b j e c t i o n . On t h e t h i r d a t t e m p t , t h e c o u r t s u s t a i n e d on t h e b a s i s t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was i n v a d i n g t h e p r o v i n c e of t h e j u r y . Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e p h y s i c i a n was n o t asked t o draw t h e u l t i m a t e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Cunningham had s t r u c k t h e s t e e r l n g wheel w i t h h i s c h e s t . R a t h e r , t h e d o c t o r was p r o p e r l y asked a s a n e x p e r t w i t n e s s t o g i v e a n o p i n i o n a s t o t h e c a u s e of i n j u r i e s . W e a g r e e t h a t under normal circum- s t a n c e s t h e d o c t o r ' s o p i n i o n a s t o t h e c a u s e o f Cunningham's i n j u r i e s would have been a d m i s s i b l e . S t a t e v. C l o s e ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 623 P.2d 940, 946, 38 St.Rep. 177, 184. The D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n s u s t a i n i n g t h e o b j e c t i o n on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n invaded t h e p r o v i n c e of t h e j u r y . Where p r e j u d i c e is a l l e g e d i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e , it w i l l n o t be presumed b u r must be e s t a b l i s h e d from t h e r e c o r d t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t h a s been d e n i e d . S t a t e v. Dupre, 650 P.2d a t 1386, 39 St.Rep. a t 1666. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l l a i d a n i n a d e q u a t e f o u n d a t i o n f o r e l i c i t i n g t e s t i m o n y on t h e c a u s e o f t h e i n j u r i e s . The p h y s i c i a n s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t normally form c o n c l u s i o n s a s t o t h e c a u s e of i n j u r i e s i n automobile a c c i d e n t s because it would o n l y b e c o n j e c t u r e on h i s p a r t . The o b j e c t i o n s s h o u l d have been s u s t a i n e d on t h a t b a s i s . F u r t h e r , d e t a i l e d t e s t i m o n y was e l i c i t e d on L a p p ' s f a i r l y m i n o r i n j u r i e s a n d o n C u n n i n g h a m ' s e x t e n s i v e i n j u r i e s . F i n a l l y , t h e two ambulance a t t e n d a n t s t e s t i f i e d t h a t Cunningham's i n j u r i e s were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h impact w i t h a s t e e r i n g wheel and t h a t Lapp had no i n j u r i e s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h such impact. T h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e j u r y on t h e e x t e n t of both i n d i v i d u a l s ' i n j u r i e s and t h e p o s s i b l e c a u s e s of t h o s e i n j u r i e s t o a l l o w a j u r y d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Cf. Weber v. B i d d l e ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 72 Wash.2d 22, 431 P.2d 705, 708. Defen- d a n t h a s f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e p r e j u d i c e . Any e r r o r was h a r m l e s s . S t a t e v. F i t z p a t r i c k ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. I Defendant n e x t c h a l l e n g e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o g i v e a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n d e t a i l i n g f a c t o r s t h e j u r y should c o n s i d e r i n determining t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of d e f e n d a n t ' s ad- mission. H e contends t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n should have been given: " I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e weight and e f f e c t of p r i o r s t a t e m e n t s , i f any, by a w i t n e s s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e w i t n e s s e s [ s i c ] testimony a t t r i a l , you may c o n s i d e r t h e w i t n e s s e s [ s i c ] p h y s i c a l and mental con- d i t i o n a t t h e time of t h e making of such s t a t e m e n t , h i s i n t o x i c a t i o n o r l a c k of i n t o x i c a t i o n , whether such s t a t e m e n t was g i v e n under o a t h , any b i a s , p r e j u d i c e , i n t e r e s t o r motive t h a t t h e w i t n e s s may have had i n making such s t a t e m e n t and whether t h e w i t n e s s a d m i t s o r d e n i e s t h e making of such p r i o r s t a t e m e n t . " T h i s Court has p r e v i o u s l y held t h a t "where t h e j u r y is ade- q u a t e l y i n s t r u c t e d no e r r o r o c c u r s f o r f a i l u r e t o g i v e a p a r t y ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n which is a l r e a d y covered." S t a t e v. Smith ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 93, 100, 541 P.2d 351, 355. I n such a s i t u a t i o n , c o u n s e l h a s f u l l o p p o r t u n i t y t o argue t h e m e r i t s of t h e d e f e n s e . Here, s u b s t a n c e of t h e r e f u s e d i n s t r u c t i o n was a d e q u a t e l y covered by I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 7 , which d e f i n e d admissions and then s t a t e d : "You a r e t h e e x c l u s i v e judges a s t o whe- t h e r an admission was made by t h e defen- d a n t and i f t h e s t a t e m e n t is t r u e i n whole o r i n p a r t . I f you should f i n d t h a t such s t a t e m e n t is e n t i r e l y u n t r u e , you must r e j e c t it. I f you f i n d it is t r u e i n p a r t , you may c o n s i d e r t h a t p a r t which you f i n d t o be t r u e . "Evidence of an o r a l admission of t h e de- f e n d a n t ought t o be viewed w i t h c a u t i o n . " Defense counsel e l i c i t e d e x t e n s i v e testimony concern- ing Lapp's i n j u r i e s , h i s d i s o r i e n t a t i o n , and a l l of t h e circumstances surrounding t h e admission. The j u r y was a d e q u a t e l y i n s t r u c t e d . Defendant f i n a l l y c h a l l e n g e s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence. He a r g u e s t h a t u n r e f u t e d e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e d e f e n s e e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t it was p h y s i - c a l l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r Lapp t o have beer: i n t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t and f o r Cunningham t o have been i n t h e p a s s e n g e r ' s s e a t . D e f e n d a n t ' s e x p e r t w i t n e s s , a former p h y s i c s i n s t r u c t o r a t Miles C i t y Community C o l l e g e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t i f t h e r e a r of t h e Lapp v e h i c l e swung t o t h e r i g h t a f t e r impact, t h e o c c u p a n t s of t h e c a r would have been thrown toward t h e r i g h t of t h e v e h i c l e . Lapp concluded t h a t Cunningham must have been i n t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t s i n c e h i s t o o t h was imbedded i n t h e dashboard t o t h e r i g h t of t h e s t e e r i n g wheel. Defendant a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d by t h e two o c c u p a n t s of t h e c a r a r e c o n s i s t e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e d e f e n s e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t Cunningham was t h e d r i v e r . T h i s Court a p p l i e s t h e s t a n d a r d s e t f o r t h by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n Jackson v. V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573, and adopted i n S t a t e v. P l o u f f e ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont. I 646 P.2d 533, 538, 39 St.Rep. 1064, 1070. The Jackson s t a n d a r d is "whether, a f t e r viewing t h e evidence 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 t r i e r of f a c t could have found t h e e s s e n t i a l elements of t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt." 646 P.2d a t 538, 39 St.Rep. a t 1070. Applying t h a t s t a n d a r d , w e f i n d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t . When faced w i t h c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e , t h i s Court w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e a j u r y ' s v e r d i c t where s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u s t a i n t h e c o n v i c t i o n is c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d even though enough evidence t o prove t h e c o n t r a r y c o n c l u s i o n is a l s o p r e s e n t i n t h e record. S t a t e v. Campbell ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 615 P.2d 190, 200, 37 St.Kep. 1337, 1348. The d e f e n d a n t i n Campbell was a l s o charged w i t h n e g l i g e n t homi- c i d e a f t e r a d e a t h r e s u l t i n g from an a c c i d e n t . D e f e n d a n t ' s p h y s i c s e x p e r t t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d r i v e r of t h e v e h i c l e would have been thrown from t h e c a r a s a r e s u l t of t h e c o l - l i s i o n . Defendant was found i n s i d e t h e v e h i c l e . The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d c o n f l i c t i n g testimony t h a t included a s t a t e m e n t by one of t h e p a s s e n g e r s t h a t Campbell was t h e d r i v e r . W e upheld Campbell's c o n v i c t i o n . Here, t h e S t a t e i n t r o d u c e d evidence showing t h a t t h e l i c e n s e p l a t e s on t h e v e h i c l e were i s s u e d t o Lapp. Defen- d a n t and Cunningham each t o l d Patrolman Bishop t h a t Lapp was d r i v i n g . Cunningham t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t remember e v e r having d r i v e n Lapp's v e h i c l e . F i n a l l y , Cunningham's t o o t h was imbedded i n t h e dashboard on t h e passenger s i d e of t h e v e h i c l e . S u b s t a n t i a l evidence s u p p o r t s t h e c o n v i c t i o n . Af f irmed. % w J A t p - , Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: / J u s t i c e s fl