Case Title: STATE v WEST

Citation: 

Docket Number: 79-065

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-10-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 79-65 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1980 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, R O D N E Y ALLEN WEST, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourth 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 Missoula, The Honorable John S. Henson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Smith, Connor & Van Valkenburg, Missoula, Montana Paul Smith argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Mike McGrath argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps, 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Michael Sehestedt argued, Deputy County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted: September 1 6 , 1980 Decided: OCT 2 3 198TJ M r . ~ u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Rodney Allen West appeals from a conviction and judgment of felony t h e f t i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 45-6- 301, MCA. Judgment was entered i n t h e District Court, Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Missoula County. I n t h e summer of 1977, a pickup truck was s t o l e n from ~ i t t e r r o o t Toyota i n Missoula. O n J u l y 26, 1977, defendant sold a truck, matching t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s t o l e n truck, t o John Wright i n t h e S t a t e of Idaho. Wright was given a b i l l of s a l e and t o l d t h e t i t l e would be d e l i v e r e d t o him from Montana. When Wright took t h e truck i n f o r insurance coverage, he discovered t h e v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number had been o b l i t e r a t e d . Wright turned t h e b i l l of s a l e and t h e truck over t o Idaho a u t h o r i t i e s who were a b l e t o o b t a i n a series of p o t e n t i a l s e r i a l numbers from t h e p a r t i a l numbers a v a i l a b l e on t h e truck. O n February 26, 1979, defendant was charged by informa- t i o n with t h e felony t h e f t of a truck bearing the v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number of CE142515821. A t t h e beginning of t h e t r i a l on J u l y 9, 1979, t h e S t a t e moved t o amend t h e v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number t o read CCE142515821. The amendment was allowed over defendant's objection. 'The jury w a s then generally i n s t r u c t e d t h a t defendant was charged with t h e felony t h e f t of a truck bearing t h e amended v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. Defendant moved i n limine t o exclude any testimony from Ted Beyers, an a l l e g e d accomplice of West. The motion was denied. During t h e S t a t e ' s opening remarks, t h e jury w a s t o l d t h a t t h e S t a t e would c a l l a d e t e c t i v e , Sgt. ~ i l s o n , who would r e l a t e a conversation he had with Beyers concerning how Beyers and defendant had s t o l e n t h e truck. Defendant objected and moved f o r a mistrial. The objection was sus- tained, b u t the motion was denied. ~ e f e n d a n t e l e c t e d t o give an opening statement follow- ing t h e S t a t e ' s . H e propounded h i s defense which was based on f a u l t y vehicle i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers which d i d n o t o r could n o t i d e n t i f y the s t o i e n truck. A t t h i s point, the S t a t e admitted an e r r o r i n t h e information regarding t h e vehicle i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. The S t a t e was permitted t o amend the number i n the information f o r a second t i m e , t h i s t i m e s t r i k i n g t h e vehicle i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number from t h e information. Defendant then moved f o r a motion i n limine of any testimony concerning t h e vehicle i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number s t r i c k e n from t h e information. The motion w a s denied. During the S t a t e ' s case-in-chief, defendant was granted a continuing objection t o any testimony regarding vehicle i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers. O n J u l y 11, 1979, t h e jury rendered a v e r d i c t finding defendant g u i l t y of felony t h e f t . Defendant moved f o r a new t r i a l on t h e ground t h a t John Wright's testimony w a s n o t corroborated. This motion w a s denied. On August 13, 1979, defendant, a nondangerous offender, was sentenced t o t e n years i n the s t a t e prison with c r e d i t f o r t i m e already served. Defendant has presented some twenty i s s u e s t o be examined by t h i s Court. However, only examination of (1) t h e i s s u e of ~ e t e c t i v e Sgt. Wilson's testimony and i t s use i n t h e S t a t e ' s opening argument, and ( 2 ) t h e sufficiency of t h e evidence need be reviewed by t h i s Court. Defendant contends t h a t the D i s t r i c t Court erred i n refusing t o g r a n t a motion i n limine and a m i s t r i a l based on proposed testimony of a S t a t e ' s witness which was l a t e r held t o be inadmissible. This claim of e r r o r s t e m s from defen- d a n t ' s contention t h a t c e r t a i n remarks made by the prose- cuting attorney during h i s opening statement w e r e prejudi- c i a l . These remarks r e f e r r e d t o information Ted Beyers, an alleged accomplice of defendant, had given t o Detective Sgt. Michael Wilson. P r i o r t o t r i a l defendant submitted a motion i n limine precluding and prohibiting the S t a t e of Montana, i t s a t t o r - neys o r witnesses from mentioning, r e f e r r i n g t o , o r i n t e r - rogating about any information t h a t Ted Beyers had given t o anyone, including Wilson. This motion w a s made on t h e b a s i s t h a t any such testimony would be s t r i c t l y hearsay and would deprive defendant of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o confront and examine t h e witnesses a g a i n s t him. The motion w a s denied, and the c o u r t advised counsel t h a t it could be reviewed when and i f t h e witness was sworn and an o f f e r of proof made i n chambers. During h i s opening remarks, t h e prosecutor made t h e following statement: "We w i l l then c a l l Mike Wilson of the Clear- water County, Idaho S h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e . Detec- t i v e Sergeant Wilson w i l l t e s t i f y t h a t indi- vidual known t o him a s Ted Beyers, t h e same ---- -- Ted Beyers which was with M r . Wright who he - --- -- c a n ' t l o c a t e c u r r e n t l y and who he has been ----- lookina f o r f o r some t i m e , came i n s h o r t l y ~ - - a f t e r M r . Wright had bought the pickup and wanted t o t a l k t o him about a pickup t h a t he and Rodney Allen West had sold t o John Wright. M r . ~ i l s o n w i l l r e l a t e t h e substance -- of t h a t conversation was t h a t M r . Beyers and Carla --- Bray and t h e Defendant were i n Missoula stay- --- -- i n g a t t h e Palace Hotel. That they went o u t --- ---- t o t h e B i t t e r r o o t Toyota. The Defendant drove -- t h e vehicle from B i t t e r r o o t Toyota --" (Em- phasis supplied.) Defendant objected t o t h i s statement and i n chambers moved f o r a m i s t r i a l based on the prejudice t h e statement would have on the jury. Counsel's objection was sustained, b u t t h e c o u r t denied t h e motion f o r m i s t r i a l . The hearsay testimony of Detective Sgt. Wilson regard- i n g t h e statement made by Beyers w a s subsequently deemed inadmissible and n o t presented t o t h e jury. Defendant asserts t h a t t h e statement made by t h e prosecuting a t t o r n e y during h i s opening remarks was highly p r e j u d i c i a l t o defen- dant, could n o t be erased from t h e j u r y ' s mind and c o n s t i - t u t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . This Court has faced s i m i l a r i s s u e s on a number of previous occasions: S t a t e v. Zachmeier (1968) , 151 Mont. 256, 4 4 1 P.2d 737; S t a t e v. Ruona (1972), 159 Mont. 507, 499 P.2d 797; S t a t e v. Kolstad (1975), 166 Mont. 185, 531 P.2d 1346. Zachmeier was a homicide case. P r i o r t o t r i a l t h e defendant had f i l e d a motion t o suppress a confession f o r v i o l a t i o n of Miranda warnings. A t t h a t t i m e t h e c o u r t reserved r u l i n g on t h e motion. A t t h e beginning of t r i a l t h e motion was renewed. The c o u r t denied t h e motion b u t granted t h e defense counsel leave t o renew t h e motion a t a later p o i n t i n t r i a l . When t h e confession was l a t e r o f f e r e d i n t o evidence t h e c o u r t r u l e d it w a s inadmissible. However, during opening remarks t h e county a t t o r n e y made a d e t a i l e d r e c i t a t i o n of t h e admission of g u i l t made by t h e defendant. This Court held t h a t those remarks i n c o u n s e l ' s opening statement w e r e r e v e r s i b l e s t a t i n g t h a t , " [wle do n o t think t h a t t h e jury would completely disregard t h i s d e t a i l e d admission of g u i l t . " 4 4 1 P.2d a t 741. I n both Ruona and Kolstad, Zachmeier was d i s t i n g u i s e d on t h e f a c t s : "Zachmeier held t h a t t h e damaging opening statements of prosecution were n o t of t h e nature t h a t t h e jury would completely d i s - regard. Too, w e a r e n o t unmindful of t h i s Court's admonitions i n S t a t e v. Langan, 151 Mont. 558, 568, 445 P.2d 565 and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . Furthermore, a s s t a t e d i n Fahy v. S t a t e of Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 84 S.Ct. 229, 1 1 L.Ed.2d 171, c i t e d i n Langan, t h e test remains: " ' I s t h e r e a reasonable p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the inadmissible evidence might have contributed t o t h e conviction? ' " S t a t e v. Ruona, 499 P.2d a t 800. W e g r a n t t h a t Zachmeier i s t h e extreme example and t h e statement made by t h e prosecuting a t t o r n e y i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e f a l l s s h o r t of being a s b l a t a n t . However, t h e r e i s no doubt a s t o what he was t r y i n g t o convey t o t h e jury and l i t t l e doubt t h a t they picked it up. I t n e c e s s a r i l y follows t h a t t h e r e remained a "reasonable p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e -- inadmissible evidence contributed t o t h e conviction." -- W e next address defendant's i s s u e concerning t h e suf- f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence. A t t r i a l Detective W i l l i a m Faust t e s t i f i e d about t h e Chevrolet truck i n Idaho being t h e same one s t o l e n i n Missoula from B i t t e r r o o t Toyota. This testi- mony was based s o l e l y o r wholly on conjecture and p r o b a b i l i t y . The process of balancing v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers and p r o b a b i l i t i e s t o i d e n t i f y a machine never seen and bearing no complete set of v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers i s n o t t h e q u a l i t y of evidence t o be considered f o r conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. N o t i t l e i n B i t t e r r o o t w a s ever furnished. The truck was never returned from Idaho. B i t t e r r o o t had two d i f f e r e n t v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers f o r t h e s t o l e n pickup truck i n i t s f i l e . The e x a c t year model was never determined on t h e Idaho truck. The Idaho pickup was s o l d t o an insurance c a r r i e r on October 31, 1977, and t h i s d a t e f a i l e d t o compliment o t h e r d a t e s deemed of importance by t h e S t a t e . I n s h o r t , nothing i n evidence proves t h a t t h e truck sold i n Idaho was t h e truck taken from Missoula. And, t h e r e -- i s no proof t h a t defendant took t h e truck i n Missoula. Furthermore, any proof t h a t i s acceptable would tend t o prove a crime i n the S t a t e of Idaho; t h e r e i s no proof t h a t defendant committed a crime i n t h e S t a t e of Montana. The admission of the evidence heretofore discussed w a s highly p r e j u d i c i a l and requires a r e v e r s a l of defendant's conviction. Further examination of t h e remaining evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e was lacking any s u f f i c i e n t , c r e d i b l e evidence f o r conviction of a crime i n Montana, and t h e r e i s l i t t l e o r no chance t o improve the matter inasmuch as t i m e has seen the truck and o t h e r evidence destroyed. It appears too many years elapsed, as is, t o have obtained b e t t e r evidence, i f b e t t e r evidence t h e r e was. The conviction and judgment of t h e District Court i s reversed, and t h e cause i s dismissed with prejudice. W e concur: Ph 4 - e & ! / Chief J u s t i c e ~ o n o F a b l e Gordon R. Bennett, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of M r . J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy Mr. J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea c o n c u r r i n g : I concur w i t h both t h e r e v e r s a l and d i s m i s s a l ordered i n t h i s c a s e . I add, however, t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s should, a s a m a t t e r of c o u r s e when r e s e r v i n g a d e c i s i o n on a motion i n l i m i n e , r e f u s e t o l e t t h e a t t o r n e y s mention t h e a l l e g e d l y a d m i s s i b l e evidence t o t h e j u r y b e f o r e t h e t i m e comes f o r an a c t u a l r u l i n g on its a d m i s s i b i l i t y . I f t h a t is done, t h e r e would t h e n be no danger of c r e a t i n g t h e p r e j u d i c i a l s i t u a t i o n such a s occurred h e r e . Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t u l t i m a t e l y and p r o p e r l y r u l e d t h e evidence t o be i n a d m i s s i b l e b u t t h e j u r y had a l r e a d y heard what t h e evidence would be when t h e p r o s e c u t o r made h i s opening s t a t e m e n t . T h e j u r y could n o t e r a d i c a t e t h e s e harmful s t a t e m e n t s from i t s mind i n r e a c h i n g its d e c i s i o n , and w e must n o t d e l u d e o u r s e l v e s i n t o t h i n k i n g it could do so. J u s t i