Case Title: STATE v KOLSTAD

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12822 IN THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 THE STATE OF M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - MARLIN KOLSTAD, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : John L. Adams, Jr. argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Charles A. Bradley, Deputy County Attorney, appeared, B i l l i n g s , Montana 1- t ? 1 'j r3/5 Filed : Submitted: January 17, 1975 Decided : FEB 1 1 . 1995 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s is an a p p e a l by defendant Marlin Kolstad from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, rendered upon a j u r y v e r d i c t , c o n v i c t i n g him of b u r g l a r y i n t h e f i r s t degree. O n August 1 9 , 1973, a t approximately 12:30 a.m., o f f i c e r s of t h e B i l l i n g s P o l i c e Department responded t o an alarm a t t h e C a r l Wiseman and Sons, I n c . warehouse. Upon a r r i v i n g a t t h e warehouse, they found a 1 1 doors s e c u r e except f o r t h e door on t h e e a s t s i d e . They e n t e r e d t h e b u i l d i n g by t h i s door and found t h e b u i l d i n g d a r k i n s i d e . I n s i d e t h e door t h e y found a b o l t c u t t e r and a severed padlock. These two i t e m s were e n t e r e d i n t o evidence. The l i g h t s were turned on and a s y s t e m a t i c s e a r c h of t h e b u i l d i n g was conducted. The s e a r c h r e v e a l e d Robert Johnson and defendant l y i n g beneath a t r u c k parked i n t h e warehouse. There was beer i n t h e hand o f each of t h e p a r t i e s . Neither o f t h e s e men were employees of Wiseman and Sons, nor d i d t h e y e n t e r t h e warehouse with permission of any employee. Testimony a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d o n l y Johnson and defendant were a t t h e scene when t h e o f f i c e r s a r r i v e d and t h e r e was no evidence of o t h e r s being p r e s e n t e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e occurrence. Although defendant d i d n o t t e s t i f y , h i s v e r s i o n of what occurred was set f o r t h i n S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t No. 1 2 , an unsigned s t a t e m e n t , t h e c o n t e n t s of which w e r e r e a d t o t h e j u r y by a p o l i c e o f f i c e r f o r t h e c i t y of ~ i l l i n g s . The statement i n d i c a t e d t h a t Bob Johnson, h i s wife, Sandy Wirtman, and defendant w e r e i n Johnson's home when t h e y heard a n o i s e and n o t i c e d t h e wind- s n i e l d of Johnson's c a r had been broken. They s t a r t e d i n p u r s u i t 01 t h e supposed vandals when t h e y saw them run i n t o t h e warehouse. 'l'he door being open, Johnson and defendant pursued them i n t o t h e warehouse. A s t h e y were about t o l e a v e , t h e y s a w p o l i c e c a r s o u t s i d e and hid t o prevent discovery of t h e i r presence t h e premises. N o f u r t h e r testimony o r evidence was presented t o subs t a n t i a t e t h i s explanat ion. I n h i s opening statement t o t h e jury, t h e prosecutor made t h e following comment which is alleged by defendant t o be p r e j u d i c i a l , r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r : "You w i l l hear t h i s o f f i c e r , along with o t h e r s , t e s t i f y t o t h i s , t h a t i n s i d e t h e building they found t h e lock from t h e building, c u t , lying on t h e f l o o r , and t h e r e w i l l be a photograph of it. Near t h e lock was a s e t of b o l t c u t t e r s and t h e b o l t c u t t e r s had t h e l e t t e r s S. M. on them. You w i l l hear one of t h e o f f i c e r s test- i f y t h a t i n t h e pickup truck, which was r e g i s - t e r e d t o t h e other man under t h e truck, i n s i d e t h e building, was a s e t of pipe c u t t e r s with t h e same i n i t i a l s , S.M." During t h e course of t h e t r i a l , t h e prosecutor made an o f f e r of proof t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e B i l l i n g s police o f f i c e r on t h e stand would t e s t i f y t h a t he looked i n t o a pickup truck parked approximately 2QQ yards from t h e warehouse and t h a t he observed i n p l a i n view a s e t of pipe c u t t e r s , stamped with t h e i n i t i a l s S.M. The o f f e r of proof f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t o t h e r witnesses would t e s t i f y t h a t t h i s is t h e same manner i n which t o o l s belonging t o Swain & Morris a r e marked and t h a t t h i s pickup was r e g i s t e r e d t o M r . Johnson. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t excluded any evidence t h a t t h i s was t h e manner i n which Swain & Morris stamp t h e i r t o o l s but, with t h e proper foundation a s t o t h e ownership of t h e pickup, would allow t h e pipe c u t t e r s t o be admitted i n evidence and t o be examined by t h e jury. The S t a t e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h i s foundation and, a s a r e s u l t , t h e evidence was n o t presented t o t h e jury. This appeal presents a s i n g l e i s s u e , namely, whether f a i l u r e of t h e S t a t e t o present evidence r e f e r r e d t o i n i t s opening statement c o n s t i t u t e s r e v e r s i b l e , p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r warranting a new t r i a l ? W e hold t h a t it does not. T h i s Court on two previous occasions d i s c u s s e d t h i s very i s s u e : S t a t e v. Zachrneier, 151 Mont. 256, 263, 4 4 1 P.2d 7 3 7 , 741; S t a t e v . Ruona, 159 Mont. 507, 513, 499 P.2d 797, 800. I n Zachmeier, a p r o s e c u t i o n f o r murder, t h e county a t t o r n e y , i n h i s opening s t a t e m e n t , made a d e t a i l e d r e c i t a t i o n of an admission of g u i l t made by t h e defendant, which included: " ' I t h e n grabbed a s i l k s t o c k i n g and t i e d it around h e r t h r o a t . I wasn't s u r e she was dead and I k e p t l i s t e n i n g f o r a h e a r t b e a t . I could n o t be s u r e she was dead s o I went i n t o t h e k i t c h e n and g o t a butcher k n i f e and pushed it i n t o her h e a r t . I l i s t e n e d f o r a h e a r t b e a t and f e l t h e r p u l s e . I was s u r e s h e was dead s o I l e f t t h e house g o t i n t o m y c a r and went t o t h e Lobby Lounge * * *. ' " The admission, however, was found t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y defec- t l v e . T h i s Court recognized t h e h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l n a t u r e of t h i s t y p e of statement and remanded f o r a new t r i a l . I n Ruona, a p r o s e c u t i o n f o r c r i m i n a l possession of danger- ous d r u g s , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n made r e f e r e n c e i n i t s opening s t a t e - rnent t o t h e jury t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t drugs had been found a t 805 S . 27th S t r e e t . Throughout t h e t r i a l , t h e S t a t e made r e p e a t e d a t t e m p t s t o i n t r o d u c e evidence concerning t h e house, which was c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s a "hippy pad". This Court found t h e r e was a f a i l u r e of proof by t h e S t a t e of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between defend- a n t and t h e named premises. The Court affirmed t h e c o n v i c t i o n s t a t i n g t h e test was: " ' I s t h e r e a reasonable p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e i n - a d m i s s i b l e evidence might have c c n t r i b u t e d t o t h e c o n v i c t i o n ? ' " I n t h e i n s t a n t a p p e a l , defendant f a i l e d t o o b j e c t t o t h e s e opening remarks. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r u c - t e d t h e j u r y , p r i o r t o opening s t a t e m e n t s , t h a t it was t o d i s - r e g a r d any s t a t e m e n t s of counsel n o t supported by t h e evidence and it was only t o c o n s i d e r t h e testimony o f t h e w i t n e s s e s upon the w i t n e s s s t a n d and such e x h i b i t s a s were admitted i n e v i - dence. The jury was reminded of t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n a t t h e c l o s e of t h e t r i a l , and t h e w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n went t o t h e jury room. Except f o r t h e one sentence i n t h e opening statement, no f u r t h e r comment regarding t h e pipe c u t t e r s was made within t h e hearing of t h e jury. The opening remarks of t h i s case do not compare t o t h e g r a v i t y of t h e remarks i n Zachmeier. Therefore, we hold t h i s reference i n t h e opening statement was not of such a nature as t o contribute t o defendant's conviction. The judgment of t h e t r i a l court i s affirmed. W e concur: .t * * ; , " p ' *" , lr t " . . , r n A ,> . , - L ---,- --~;-LY%L. ---- ---- i---ff2* . Chief J u s t i c e