Case Title: STATE v PLOUFFE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-094

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 81-94 I N T H E S U P R E M E COURT O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1982 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, vs. D A R R E L L ROSS PLOUFFE, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of 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 Honorable James Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hood and Sherwood, Missoula, Montana Randi Hood argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. Mark Murphy argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Ed McLean argued, Deputy County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted: March 29, 1982 Decided: June 15, 1982 F i l e d : J U N 1 5 19'2 aAim.WB.&* Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant, D a r r e l l R. P l o u f f e , a p p e a l s h i s d e l i b e r a t e homicide c o n v i c t i o n and t h e d e n i a l by 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 D i s t r i c t , Missoula County, of h i s motion t o s u p p r e s s s t a t e m e n t s he made t o p o l i c e . O n June 6 , 1980, defendant was a r r e s t e d f o r p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n . O n June 9 , 1980, d e f e n d a n t was charged with d e l i b e r a t e homicide, a s provided i n s e c t i o n 45-5-102, MCA. Defendant was a r r a i g n e d b e f o r e a Missoula County J u s t i c e of t h e Peace on June 10, 1980, and, on t h a t same day, t h e p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n charge was dropped. O n J u l y 14, 1980, an information was f i l e d charging d e f e n d a n t with d e l i b e r a t e homicide. Defendant pleaded n o t g u i l t y . Defendant's motion t o s u p p r e s s s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n t o t h e p o l i c e was denied by t h e D i s t r i c t Court on September 8 , 1980. A j u r y t r i a l was h e l d from September 15 t o 19; a g u i l t y v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d on September 19. Defendant made s e v e r a l motions t o d i s m i s s : t h e f i r s t a t t h e c l o s e of t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e ; t h e second a t t h e c l o s e of h i s own c a s e ; and t h e t h i r d a f t e r t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d , A 1 1 motions t o d i s m i s s were denied by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Defendant was sentenced t o f o r t y y e a r s i n t h e Flontana S t a t e P r i s o n , with twenty y e a r s suspended. I n t h e e a r l y a f t e r n o o n of June 5 , 1980, Rena Evans was found dead i n her t r a i l e r . The c a u s e of d e a t h was manual s t r a n g u l a t i o n , o c c u r r i n g sometime between 9: 00 p.m. on June 4 and 6: 47 a.m. on June 5. The t r a i l e r was d e s c r i b e d g e n e r a l l y a s " n e a t a s a pin," with no s i g n of a s t r u g g l e having taken place. Evans was c l o t h e d i n a red housecoat, zipped t o t h e neck. A w a l l e t was found underneath t h e couch i n t h e t r a i l e r . The w a l l e t c o n t a i n e d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a p e r s and t h e d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e of t h e d e f e n d a n t , a s well a s t h e b u s i n e s s c a r d of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p a r o l e o f f i c e r . O n t h e evening of June 5 , t h e Missoula County S h e r i f f c o n t a c t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p a r o l e o f f i c e r . O n t h e grounds t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s w a l l e t was found a t t h e scene of a homi- c i d e , t h e p a r o l e o f f i c e r a u t h o r i z e d an o r a l p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n warrant. A w r i t t e n warrant was executed on t h e morning of June 6. O n t h e morning of June 6 , d e f e n d a n t was s t a y i n g a t t h e r e s i d e n c e of B r e t t Tandy, S t a c y Lavin and Joe Phelps, who l i v e d a t No. 9 South Caravan i n a t r a i l e r c o u r t a c r o s s from d e f e n d a n t ' s l i s t e d r e s i d e n c e a t No. 3 South Caravan. k h i l e a t No. 9 South Caravan, on t h e morning of June 6 , d e f e n d a n t mixed some Drano w i t h m i l k and d r a n k i t . Defendant l e f t behind a n o t e which r e a d s : " B r e t t & S t a c y , "Take c a r e of Toke [ d e f e n d a n t ' s dog]. I ' m n o t going t o l e t m y l i f e be caged a s I would o n l y have t h a t chose [ s i c ] & I c a n ' t t a l k o r I ' d end up Ded [ s i c ] . Love ya a l l . Take c a r e and e n j o y l i f e . " I d i d n ' t do it. Three guy o u t of s t a t e . " The l a s t two s e n t e n c e s of t h e n o t e a r e w r i t t e n with seem- i n g l y l e s s c o n t r o l than t h e main body of t h e note. B r e t t Tandy found defendant a f t e r he drank t h e Drano and c a l l e d an ambulance. Defendant was taken t o S t . P a t r i c k ' s H o s p i t a l t h a t a f t e r n o o n of June 6 , 1980. Two p o l i c e o f f i c e r s t a l k e d with defendant i n t h e h o s p i t a l emergency room. The t a p e of t h i s i n t e r v i e w i n d i - c a t e s t h a t defendant was asked, "Can you t e l l me what hap- pened and what d i d you t a k e ? " The d e f e n d a n t was unable t o respond v e r b a l l y . O n t h e r e c o r d i n g , t h e defendant can be heard gagging, c l e a r i n g h i s t h r o a t , and s p i t t i n g . The o f f i c e r t h e n asked d e f e n d a n t i f he wished t o w r i t e h i s answers. E v i d e n t l y t h e defendant began t o w r i t e h i s answers s i n c e a few minutes l a t e r t h e o f f i c e r s a i d , "So t h e y w i l l k i l l you, i f you s a y anything." There is more w r i t i n g and and t h e o f f i c e r a s k s , "Who's they?'' Testimony a t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g s u g g e s t s t h a t about t h i s time t h e emergency room d o c t o r e n t e r e d and asked t h a t t h e t a p e be turned o f f while he examined defendant. A f t e r t h e t a p e r e c o r d e r was t u r n e d back on, t h e o f f i c e r informed defendant t h a t he was a t S t . P a t r i c k ' s H o s p i t a l and it was about 4:00 i n t h e a f t e r n o o n . At t h i s p o i n t , t h e o f f i c e r showed t h e defendant an a d v i c e of r i g h t s form and explained it t o him. Upon asking defendant i f he understood t h e form, t h e o f f i c e r s a i d , ". . . y o u ' r e nodding yes, t h a t you do understand t h o s e [ t h e r i g h t s ] ." The defen- d a n t then signed t h e waiver of r i g h t s and proceeded t o w r i t e h i s r e s p o n s e s t o p o l i c e q u e s t i o n s . Including t h e i n t e r v i e w a t t h e emergency roorn, defen- d a n t was interviewed by a u t h o r i t i e s f i v e times. He was i n t e r r o g a t e d by p o l i c e i n t h e evening of June 6 , and a g a i n on June 7. Defendant's p a r o l e o f f i c e r interviewed him on June 9. O n June 26, defendant was a g a i n i n t e r r o g a t e d by p o l i c e , b u t defendant had h i s a t t o r n e y s p r e s e n t . Guards were a s s i g n e d t o watch defendant on t h e evening of June 6. V i s i t o r s and telephone c a l l s were r e s t r i c t e d . The S t a t e , throughout its c a s e , h a s emphasized t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n t h e s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n by defendant. Def en- d a n t ' s f i n a l n a r r a t i o n of what happened on t h e n i g h t of June 4-5 is summarized a s follows: Defendant was o u t d r i n k i n g with f r i e n d s u n t i l t h e b a r s c l o s e d . I n t h e e a r l y morning hours o f June 5 , he stopped a t Evans' t r a i l e r . De- fendant and Evans engaged i n s e x u a l i n t e r - c o u r s e . Soon t h e r e a f t e r , two men e n t e r e d t h e r e s i d e n c e . One man was wearing a burgundy long-sleeve down j a c k e t and b l u e j e a n s ; t h e o n l y c l o t h i n g d e f e n d a n t could remember about t h e second man was t h a t he was a l s o wearing b l u e jeans. The man i n t h e goose down j a c k e t walked over t o Evans; t a l k e d with h e r , and slapped h e r . A t t h i s time, t h e second man p u l l e d d e f e n d a n t t o t h e f l o o r and kicked him. Defendant was t o l d n o t t o s a y anything o r he and h i s g i r l - f r i e n d , J a n i c e , would g e t h u r t . Defendant t h e n l e f t Evans' t r a i l e r , went back t o h i s t r a i l e r and drank some schnapps'. About a h a l f hour l a t e r , he r e t u r n e d t o Evans' t r a i l e r and found her l y i n g f a c e down on t h e f l o o r . He turned her o v e r , n o t i c e d t h a t her f a c e was d a r k , and thought he heard h e r gasping f o r b r e a t h . Thinking t h a t s h e would be a l l r i g h t , d e f e n d a n t l e f t t h e t r a i l e r . He n o t i c e d t h a t h i s w a l l e t was missing and went with a f r i e n d t o look f o r it i n a b a r parking l o t , b u t t h e y d i d n ' t f i n d it. The above s t a t e m e n t d i f f e r s f ram d e f e n d a n t ' s f i r s t t h r e e s t a t e m e n t s i n t h a t d e f e n d a n t f i r s t t o l d p o l i c e t h a t two men, with p o s s i b l y a t h i r d he heard i n a back room, were a l r e a d y a t Evans' house when he a r r i v e d . N o mention was made of h i s having s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e with t h e v i c t i m . I n s t e a d of j e a n s , t h e defendant f i r s t t o l d p o l i c e t h e men were wearing jumpsuits. In t h e l a s t two s t a t e m e n t s , defendant s a i d t h a t Evans was a l o n e when he a r r i v e d , t h a t t h e y had sexual i n t e r - c o u r s e , and then t h e two men a r r i v e d . Testimony i n d i c a t e d t h a t a f t e r defendant l e f t Evans' t r a i l e r t h e second time, he went t o No. 9 South Caravan, where he had been s t a y i n g . He s l e p t f o r a w h i l e and i n t h e evening of June 5 went t o a movie. Also, on t h a t evening, he was t o l d by one of h i s roommates t h a t Rena Evans had been found s t r a n g l e d . The n e x t morning d e f e n d a n t was found a f t e r he drank t h e Drano. The defendant h a s r a i s e d two b a s i c i s s u e s : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n denying h i s motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e s t a t e m e n t s l ~ e made t o t h e p o l i c e o r h i s p a r o l e o f f i c e r p r i o r t o June 10, 1980; and 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s . Four s u b s i d i a r y i s s u e s were r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t t o s u p p o r t h i s a r g u m e n t t h a t h i s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s was improperly denied: A. Whether t h e S t a t e proved a knowing and i n t e l l i - g e n t waiver of t h e r i g h t t o counsel and r i g h t a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n by t h e d e f e n d a n t p r i o r t o i n t e r r o g a t i o n s conducted on June 6 , 1980; l 3 . Whether subsequent s t a t e m e n t s made by d e f e n d a n t should have been suppressed under t h e " c a t o u t of t h e bag" t h e o r y ; C. Whether t h e s t a t e m e n t s t a k e n from defendant p r i o r t o June 10 a r e p r o d u c t s of an a r r e s t l a c k i n g probable cause; and D. Whether d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t s should have been suppressed because of t h e S t a t e ' s unnecessary d e l a y i n t a k i n g t h e defendant b e f o r e a judge. I. Motion t o Suppress The defendant f i r s t contends t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s he made t o p o l i c e i n t h e h o s p i t a l emergency room on June 6 , 1980, should have been suppressed because t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o show t h a t defendant made a knowing waiver of h i s r i g h t t o counsel and r i g h t a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n . Defendant c l a i m s t h a t while t h e r e is a showing t h a t he was read h i s r i g h t s , t h e r e is no showing t h a t he understood then. The Supreme Court of t h e United S t a t e s h a s r e c e n t l y s e t down a two-pronged t e s t t o determine whether a d e f e n d a n t h a s made a v a l i d waiver of h i s r i g h t s . I n Edwards v. Arizona (1981) I - U.S. - , 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378, t h e Court s a i d : ". . . I t is r e a s o n a b l y c l e a r under our c a s e s t h a t waivers of counsel m u s t n o t o n l y be vol- u n t a r y , b u t c o n s t i t u t e a knowing and i n t e l - l i g e n t r e l i n q u i s h m e n t of a known r i g h t o r p r i v i l e g e , a m a t t e r which depends i n each c a s e 'upon t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s and circum- s t a n c e s surrounding t h a t c a s e , i n c l u d i n g t h e background, e x p e r i e n c e , and conduct of t h e accused,' Johnson v. Zerbst ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1819, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461. [Other c i t a t i o n s omitted .] " 101 S.Ct. a t 1883-1884, 68 L.Ed.2d a t 385. T h i s Court h a s r e c e n t l y o u t l i n e d f u r t h e r r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s which must be considered i n determining whether t h e r e h a s been a v a l i d waiver: ". . . Other a p p r o p r i a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s in- c l u d e t h e a g e , e d u c a t i o n , and i n t e l l i g e n c e of t h e accused, and h i s c a p a c i t y t o understand t h e warnings g i v e n him, t h e n a t u r e of h i s F i f t h Amendment r i g h t s , and t h e consequences o f waiving t h o s e r i g h t s . . . [ C i t a t i o n s omitted.] I n a d d i t i o n , a v a l i d waiver must i n c l u d e n o t merely a comprehension of t h e b e n e f i t s being abandoned, b u t a l s o an a c t u a l relinquishment of t h o s e b e n e f i t s , a s e v i - denced by t h e a c t i o n s o r s t a t e m e n t s of t h e accused. [ C i t a t i o n s omitted.] " S t a t e v. Blakney (1982) , - Mont . , 641 P.2d 1845, 1049, 39 St.Rep. 436, 440.- The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t d e f e n d a n t made a know- ing w a i v e r o f h i s r i g h t s , drawing from t h e r e c o r d and t h e t e s t i m o n y a s t o h i s a p p e a r a n c e . W e w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h i s f i n d i n g of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i f t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i - b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t it. S t a t e v . Davison ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont . , 614 P.2d 489, 493, 37 St.Rep. 1135, 1139; S t a t e v . G r i m e s t a d (1979) , Mont. , 598 P.2d 1 9 8 , 36 St.Rep. - 1245. H e r e , t h e d e f e n d a n t s i g n e d a w a i v e r o f r i g h t s form. The t a p e of t h e f i r s t i n t e r v i e w s u g g e s t s t h a t d e f e n d a n t was a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d and respond t o p o l i c e q u e s t i o n i n g . The o f f i c e r who q u e s t i o n e d d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t seemed c o g n i z a n t o f h i s a c t i o n s . The d o c t o r who saw d e f e n - d a n t a f t e r he l e f t t h e emergency room t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n - d a n t was c o h e r e n t and a b l e t o g i v e a c o g n i z a n t s t a t e m e n t t o p o l i c e . A s t h e S t a t e h a s p o i n t e d o u t , t h e d e f e n d a n t is n o t a p e r s o n i n e x p e r i e n c e d w i t h p o l i c e p r o c e d u r e s ; h e w a s p r e v i o u s l y c o n v i c t e d o f a f e l o n y and on p a r o l e a t t h e time o f t h e o f f e n s e . The above e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o c o n c l u d e t h a t d e f e n d a n t made a knowing and i n t e l - l i g e n t w a i v e r o f h i s r i g h t s a t t h e f i r s t i n t e r v i e w i n t h e emergency room. S i n c e we a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t made a knowing and i n t e l l i g e n t w a i v e r , d e f e n d a n t ' s " c a t o u t o f t h e bag" argument need n o t b e a d d r e s s e d . D e f e n d a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t s made t o t h e p o l i c e on J u n e 6 , J u n e 7 , and J u n e 9 s h o u l d be sup- p r e s s e d b e c a u s e t h e y a r e t h e r e s u l t o f an a r r e s t l a c k i n g p r o b a b l e c a u s e . The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t t h e p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n w a r r a n t was p r o p e r l y i s s u e d and t h e a r r e s t p r o p e r l y made because d e f e n d a n t ' s w a l l e t was found a t t h e scene of a c r i m i n a l homicide. Even i f t h e warrant was n o t p r o p e r l y i s s u e d , t h e D i s t r i c t Court concluded t h a t no v i o l a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s would have r e s u l t e d . W e a g r e e . The test is whether t h e r e was probable cause o r r e a s o n a b l e grounds t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e defendant had com- m i t t e d a c t s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e d a v i o l a t i o r l of p a r o l e condi- t i o n s . Morrissey v. Brewer ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct, 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484. I n P e t i t i o n of Wing ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 501, 464 P.2d 302, we upheld t h e a r r e s t of a p a r o l e e f o r g i v i n g a f i c t i t i o u s name and " f r e q u e n t i n g t a v e r n s . " Under c o n d i t i o n of p a r o l e , Rule 1, t h e p a r o l e e is under a g e n e r a l d u t y t o obey and r e s p e c t t h e law and be a good c i t i z e n . The f a c t t h a t t h e p a r o l e e ' s w a l l e t was found a t t h e scene of a c r i m i n a l homicide gave t h e p o l i c e reason- a b l e grounds t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e was a breach of c o n d i t i o n o f p a r o l e o r a v i o l a t i o n of a law, The defendant n e x t contends t h a t t h e d e l a y between h i s a r r e s t on F r i d a y , June 6 , f o r p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n and h i s arraignment on June 10 f o r d e l i b e r a t e homicide c o n s t i t u t e d an "unnecessary d e l a y " i n b r i n g i n g him b e f o r e a judge and, t h e r e f o r e , h i s s t a t e m e n t s t o t h e p o l i c e d u r i n g t h a t time should be suppressed. A s we noted r e c e n t l y i n S t a t e v. Rodriguez ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . - - , 628 P.2d 280, 38 St,Rep. 578F, we w i l l n o t h e s i t a t e t o f a s h i o n an a p p r o p r i a t e remedy, " [ i ] f t h e defen- d a n t can show p r e j u d i c e o r a d e l i b e r a t e a t t e m p t by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o circumvent a speedy arraignment." 628 P.2d a t 284. The burden is f i r s t on t h e d e f e n d a n t t o show t h a t t h e d e l a y was u n n e c e s s a r y . S t a t e v . Benbo ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 252, 570 P.2d 894, 900. H e r e , t h e d e f e n d a n t o n l y showed t h a t a j u s t i c e o f t h e peace was a v a i l a b l e from J u n e 6 t o J u n e 9. D e f e n d a n t ' s p r e s e n c e i n t h e h o s p i t a l d u r i n g t h i s t i m e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e d e l a y i n b r i n g i n g him b e f o r e a m a g i s t r a t e was n e i t h e r unrea- s o n a b l e n o r p r e j u d i c i a l . More i m p o r t a n t l y , when s t a t e m e n t s t o p o l i c e a r e i n i s s u e , t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f a prompt i n i t i a l a p p e a r a n c e is viewed i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f t h e s t a t e m e n t . S e e , S t a t e v. Nelson ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 1 3 9 Mont. 1 8 0 , 362 P.2d 224; S t a t e v . White ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 226, 405 P.2d 761; and Benbo, s u p r a . Here, t h e r e is n o t h i n g t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e d e l a y i n f l u e n c e d t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t s t o p o l i c e w h i l e he was a t t h e h o s p i t a l . The s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n t o t h e p o l i c e by t h e d e f e n d a n t were t h e r e f o r e p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , and t h e m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s t h e s t a t e m e n t s was p r o p e r l y d e n i e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . 11. Motion t o D i s m i s s I n d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , t h e D i s - E r i c t C o u r t s t a t e d : ". . . Montana h a s n o t a d o p t e d t h e s t a n d a r d a r g u e d by t h e D e f e n d a n t . The S t a t e , i n t h e i r b r i e f , m i s t a k e n l y s a y s t h a t M o n t a n a h a s a d o p t e d t h e new s t a n d a r d of s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e s e t f o r t h i n J a c k s o n v . V i r g i n i a i n S t a t e v . A r m s t r o n g , 3 7 S t . R e p . 1 5 6 3 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . I n t h a t c a s e t h e C o u r t s a y s , 'The t e s t f o r t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n a c r i m i i l a l c a s e is w h e t h e r t h e r e is r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e which p e r s o n s o f r e a s o n a b l e m i n d s m i g h t a c c e p t a s 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 . ' 37 St.Rep. a t 1567. T h i s is s i m p l y a r e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e ' n o e v i d e n c e 1 r u l e : i f t h e r e is r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , t h e C o u r t w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e v e r d i c t . The C o u r t w i l l n o t rnake an i n d e p e n d e n t a n a l y s i s o f whether t h e S t a t e c a r r i e d its b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g its c a s e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . " D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d 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 by t h e above a n a l y s i s and t h a t , a t l e a s t s i n c e S t a t e v . R o d r i g u e z , s u p r a , t h i s C o u r t h a s a d o p t e d t h e s t a n d a r d s e t down i n J a c k s o n v. V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S e c t . I n J a c k s o n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e e v i d e n c e is s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n , ". . . t h e r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n is w h e t h e r , a f t e r v i e w i n g 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 , - a n y r a t i o n a l t r i e r o f 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 o f t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . " 443 U.S. a t 319. I n S t a t e v . R o d r i g u e z , s u p r a , t h i s C o u r t c i t e d J a c k s o n , s t a t i n g , " [ t ] h e e v i d e n c e is s u f f i c i e n t t o p e r m i t any r a t i o n a l t r i e r o f f a c t t o f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t i n f l i c t e d t h e d e a d l y blow o r blows." 628 P.2d a t 283. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t a p p l i e s a "no e v i d e n c e " r u l e on r e v i e w o f s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n s . T h i s C o u r t h a s c o n s i s - t e n t l y a p p l i e d i n r e c e n t y e a r s t h e t e s t o f w h e t h e r 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 t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n , viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e . S e e , e.g., S t a t e v. K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 283, 587 P.2d 1298; S t a t e v . Campbell ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. - , 615 P.2d 190, 37 St.Rep. 1337; and S t a t e v . Wilson ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont . - , 631 P.2d 1273, 38 St.Rep. 1040. " S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e is s u c h r e l e - v a n t e v i d e n c e a s a r e a s o n a b l e mind m i g h t a c c e p t a s a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t a conclusion." See, Wilson, 631 P.2d a t 1278, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . Moreover, i n Wilson, t h i s Court concluded t h a t t h e " s u b s t a n t i a l evidence" s t a n d a r d does n o t f a l l s h o r t of t h e Jackson s t a n d a r d , and we noted t h a t t h e Jackson s t a n d a r d was a p p l i e d i n Rodriguez. The q u e s t i o n h e r e then is simply whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n . The evidence a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t , i n summary, is t h a t he was with Rena Evans between approximately 2: 30 a .m. and 4:30 a.m. on June 5 , 1980. Defendant had sexual i n t e r - c o u r s e with Evans. Defendant's w a l l e t was found under Evans' couch. The Evans' home showed no s i g n s of a s t r u g g l e . Defendant attempted s u i c i d e by d r i n k i n g Drano on June 6 , 1980. Defendant gave f i v e s t a t e m e n t s t o p o l i c e c o n t a i n i n g s e v e r a l i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . I n h i s s t a t e m e n t s , d e f e n d a n t i m p l a u s i b l y claimed he heard Evans gasping f o r b r e a t h when he r e t u r n e d t o her t r a i l e r . He d i d n o t seek medical a t t e n - t i o n f o r h e r . Moreover, when d e f e n d a n t d i s c o v e r e d h i s w a l l e t was m i s s i n g , he d i d n o t r e t u r n t o Evans' t r a i l e r b u t r a t h e r went t o t h e parking l o t o f a b a r . W e b e l i e v e t h e s e f a c t s c o n s t i t u t e s u b s t a n t i a l evidence and a r e t h e r e f o r e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n . Defendant c l a i m s t h a t t h e above f a c t s show o n l y t h a t he had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o commit t h e a c t and nothing e l s e . There is l i t t l e q u e s t i o n t h a t t h i s is a c l o s e c a s e . The evidence a g a i n s t t h e defendant is h i g h l y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l . N e v e r t h e l e s s , a s we noted i n S t a t e v. Armstrong (1980) , Mont. , 616 P.2d 341, 37 St.Rep. 1563, c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence is not always i n f e r i o r q u a l i t y . "The d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence t o make a c a s e f o r t h e j u r y and t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n is one t o be made upon a l l t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s which a r e t o considered c o l l e c t i v e l y . " 616 P.2d a t 346. Based on t h e above f a c t s , any r a t i o n a l t r i e r of f a c t could f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. A s i n our p r i o r c a s e s , we a r e r e l u c t a n t t o t a k e t h i s f a c t - f i n d i n g d u t y away from t h e jury. W e concur: 34& J. w b&!QQ, Chief J u s t i c e