Case Title: STATE v MICHELSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-06-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13309 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T OF THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1977 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, LELAND (TOBY) PIICKELSON, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert J. Boyd, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: William A. Brolin argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Mayo Ashley argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana Joseph Connors, County Attorney, Anaconda, Montana Submitted: March 2 2 , 1977 Decided: JUN - (3 197-f F i l e d : d J N - 3 1 $ & a M r . Justice Gene B , Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment of guilty of felony theft i n violation of section 94-6-302(1), R.C.M. 1947, by the d i s t r i c t court, Deer Lodge County, s i t t i n g without a jury. The s t a t e agrees with the facts presented by defendant i n h i s brief on appeal which include: "The Information alleged that: 'I40n o r about October 6, 1974, i n Deer Lodge County, Montana, the defendant, Toby Mickelson, purposely or knowingly obtained or exerted unauthorized control over property, a 1972 Chevrolet pickup, gold with white t r i m , V I N Number CCE142Z135099, of a value of more than $150.00, owned by Thompson's Motor Company, and purposely or knowingly used, concealed or abandoned the property i n such manner a s t o deprive the owner of the property which was i n viola- tion of the above statute and against the peace and dignity of the State of Montana."' Section 94-6-302(1), R.C.M. 1947, states: "(1) A person commits the offense of t h e f t when he purposely or knowingly obtains or exerts unauthor- ized control over property of the owner, and: "(a) has the purpose of depriving the owner of the property; or "(b) purposely or knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the property i n such manner as t o deprive the owner of the property; o r "(c) uses, conceals, or abandons the property knowing such use, concealment or abandonment probably w i l l deprive the owner of the property," O n June 15, 1975, nine months a f t e r the alleged theft, Toby Michelson, the defendant, was arrested. O n June 25, 1975, an Information was f i l e d i n the d i s t r i c t court charging defendant with theft. The public defender of Deer Lodge County was appointed as counsel for defendant. The Information l i s t e d the names of witnesses, five i n number: B i l l Rhoades, Joe Thompson, Eugene Thompson, Gary Jacobs, and Anthony Bamonte. O n September 8, 1975 defendant f i l e d h i s notice of intent t o rely on the defense of a l i b i , which notice contained the names of various witnesses upon whom defendant intended t o rely t o establish h i s defense. Included i n that l i s t was one Forest Walter of Polson, Montana. The county attorney thereupon f i l e d an a l t e r - native motion to s t r i k e the defense of a l i b i a s being untimely, or t o continue the t r i a l date of September 15, 19 The court allowed the defense and continued the t r i a l date u n t i l January 5, 1976. O n December 31, 1975, the s t a t e requested another continuance based on the unavailability of witness William Rhoades, because of health. Rhoades was the witness the s t a t e alleged purchased the stolen pickup from defendant. ~hoades"testimony was continued, however the t r i a l commenced as scheduled. The matter was submitted to the court on January 19, 1976. O n January 23, 1976, the court entered judgment finding defendant guilty; motion for a new t r i a l was denied and defendant thereafter f i l e d t h i s appeal. Owner Thompson t e s t i f i e d h i s truck was missing from h i s l o t October 7, 1974, and l a t e r was located i n the s t a t e of Washington i n the possession of B i l l Rhoades i n November. Dan Gochanour t e s t i f i e d he met defendant i n Polson, Montana around the f i r s t of October on a weekend or a Monday. Defendant was driving a 1972 Chevrolet truck, the same as the one i n question here. H e and defendant went t o defendant's s i s t e r ' s home i n Wallace, Idaho, where defendant told him how he stole the truck from Thompson Motors. Then he and defendant went t o Winthrop, Washington and picked apples for one "Ed Bryan". Three or four weeks l a t e r they went t o the home of M r . & Mrs. B i l l Rhoades a t Metaline Falls, Washington. There defendant purchased mirrors for the truck and traded it t o B i l l Rhoades for a Dodge. Marlin Gochanour t e s t i f i e d he knew defendant who stayed over- night a t ''about the time of the pickup." Defendant drove a gold and white 1972 Chevrolet pickup i n t o the witness' yard. Defendant had another pickup i n the yard but Marlin could not affirm the p l a t e s were switched. He could not f i x a date even a s t o t h e month when he saw defendant, except it was a weekend. The s t a t e received a week's continuance f o r witness Rhoades' testimony but rested the following week a s witness Rhoades passed away. Defendant t e s t i f i e d : 1. That a t no time did he ever have i n h i s possession a gold and white 1972 Chevrolet pickup. 2. That he had owned a 1971 Chevrolet pickup blue and white i n color, which was sold t o c r a f t ' s Conoco i n Missoula. 3 . That when t h e blue and white pickup was sold t o c r a f t ' s Conoco the license p l a t e s were l e f t on the truck, along with the registration. 4. That he purchased from Craft a t the same time he sold h i s pickup, a 1968 Chevrolet convertible which he kept about two weeks and then traded Craft again, t h i s time f o r a white '67 Plymouth automobile. These transactions occurred approximately i n June 1974. 5. That on October 6 , 1974 he was i n Polson, Montana with Forest Walter. 6. That witness Daniel Gochanour was not a t Forest Walter's residence i n Polson on October 6, 1974. 7. That witness Daniel Gochanour did not accompany him (de- fendant) t o the s t a t e of Washington, stopping a t h i s s i s t e r ' s home i n Wallace, Idaho. 8. That he l e f t Polson a week and a half a f t e r October 6 , 1974 f o r the s t a t e of Washington i n a white '67 Plymouth automobile i n the company of one Howard White. 9. That he returned t o Montana from Washington the following spring (1975) with a white '67 Plymouth and sold the car t o Dale Combs. 10. That he saw a pickup, otherwise unidentified, i n the garage owned by B i l l Rhoades early i n November 1974 but he did not s e l l a car nor pickup t o B i l l Rhoades, nor did he get one from him, 11. That B i l l Rhoades' wife i s the mother of Daniel Gochanour and formerly was married t o Merlin Gochanour. Mrs. Rhoades i s a s i s t e r t o h i s former wife (defendant's) and that bad feelings exist between defendant and the Gochanours. A t t h i s point of the t r i a l defendant endeavored t o introduce an affidavit from Forest Walter into evidence, and upon objection of the s t a t e being sustained, defendant moved for a continuance t o allow a subpoena t o issue and be served requiring the attendance of t h i s witness. The motion was granted and the t r i a l was again recessed u n t i l January 19, 1976. O n January 14, 1976, the s t a t e f i l e d a document entitled '!Notice of Additional Witnesses" i n which defendant was apprised of the s t a t e ' s intent t o c a l l Mrs, William Rhoades of Hot Springs, Montana, a s an additional witness for the prosecution. Upon t r i a l reconvening on January 19, the court directed the county attorney t o secure a bench warrant for the a r r e s t of Forest Walter for contempt of court, a s being unavailable t o the defendant a s directed by the subpoena issued and served. A t the request of the defense attorney the court allowed the defendant t o personally address the court. Defendant f i r s t raised the question of lack of speedy t r i a l and then requested the court to appoint a new lawyer. The court denied both requests. The de- fendant then, through h i s attorney, moved for dismissal for failure t o establish a prima facie case. The motion was denied. Thereafter defendant testified: 12. That he was not a t the home of Nerlin Gochanour or i n Anaconda a t any time on October 5, 6, o r 7, 1974. 13. He denied telling Daniel Gochanour that he, the defendant, broke a window from the pickup, crossed the wires and stole the truck. H e denied buying any mirrors, denied staying a t the ~hoades' residence except for a half hour, denied going t o a bar with B i l l Rhoades f o r a drink, and denied ever having seen the stolen pickup. Without being able t o introduce any further testimony because of the failure of witness Forest Walter t o appear, the defense rested. The s t a t e recalled Daniel Gochanour a s a rebuttal witness, he testified: 1. That he was i n Polson on October 6, 1974, residing with Forest Walter, h i s wife and family. 2. That he was involved with auto repair work for Forest Walter;, 3. That defendant Michelson did not work for Forest Walter on the days of October 4, 5, 6, and 7, 1974. That defendant arrived i n Polson on October 7, 1974. The witness Daniel Gochanour then generally gave the same testimony on going t o Washington, that he previously gave. F i r s t , we s t a r t t h i s discussion with the affidavit of Forest Walter, defendant's proposed Exhibit B , dated August 11, 1975, a t Polson, Montana. Although not admitted, it s e t s forth that de- fendant and Howard White spent October 3,4,5,6, and 7, 1974, with Forest Walter fixing a 1940 Chevrolet pickup truck and defendant was driving a 1967 white Plymouth car. Second, w e have i n the record for the s t a t e the two Gochanours' testimony, which i s f a r from unbiased, considering the relationship, t o testified/by the defendant and unrebutteii by the;-state. Thompson was just a corpus delecti witness and thus t h i s proved only the vehicle was stolen. Third, we have the two witnesses, William Rhoades and Forest Walter, who could have cleared up the matter, but the power of the s t a t e could not get them t o court. Defendant denied each and every fact i n the record against him and gave the names of raft'^ Conoco, Missoula; B i l l Combs, Polson; Howard White; and of course Mrs. Rhoades and Mrs. Forest Walter, a l l of whom could have been called t o determine the truth. This was never done. The search for truth was less than vigorous by counsel i n t h i s matter and t h i s writer feels that, particularly on a bench t r i a l , the judge has the inherent power, right and yes, duty, t o sua sponte demand'that a search for the t r u t h be exhausted before the matter be accepted for decision. Otherwise, the defendant, as here, has been denied a f a i r t r i a l and due process under A r t . 11, Section 24, 1972 Montana Constitution. The judgment of the t r i a l court is reversed and the cause Chief Justice