Case Title: STATE v PALMER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 83-313

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-12-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 83-313 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T I E STATE O F M O N T A P J A 1983 STATE OF MONTAXA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- GARY L. PALMER, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL F R O M : D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Nineteenth 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 Lincoln, The Honorable Robert M. H o l t e r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O F RECORD: For Appellant: Sverdru2 & Spencer, Libby, Montana For Respondent: Eon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana W i l l i a m L. Douglas, County Attorney, Libby, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : September 2 2 , 1983 Decided: December 8 , 1983 @EC c- - F i l e d : L , 1983 Mr. J u s t i c e L.C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Gary Palmer a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n on c h a r g e s o f f e l o n y t h e f t and f e l o n y c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e N i n e t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Lincoln County. For t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d below, w e a f f i r m d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n . On November 1 3 , 1982, two employees of t h e S t . Regis Paper Company observed Palmer and f o u r companions, George Busse, William Glidden, Donald Souder and Bruce Bothum, c u t t i n g trees on l a n d owned by S t . Regis. The employees n o t i f i e d t h e county s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e , which d i s p a t c h e d a d e p u t y t o t h e scene. En r o u t e , t h e d e p u t y was j o i n e d by two law enforcement o f f i c e r s from t h e Kootenai N a t i o n a l F o r e s t . A s t h e t h r e e men approached t h e s c e n e of t h e t r e e c u t t i n g , one of t h e c u t t e r s , l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s Glidden, r a n behind some bushes. Glidden d i d n o t emerge from t h e bushes u n t i l t h e o f f i c e r y e l l e d f o r him t o come o u t . Glidden e x p l a i n e d t h a t he had gone behind t h e bushes o n l y t o r e l i e v e h i m s e l f , b u t t h e o f f i c e r could f i n d no t r a c e s of u r i n a t i o n i n t h e brush. The o f f i c e r s and t h e deputy asked Glidden and t h e o t h e r s f o r evidence of p e r m i s s i o n t o be c u t t i n g t r e e s on t h e s e c t i o n . They were r e f e r r e d t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , Palmer, who produced a s m a l l s l i p of paper i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Palmer had a u t h o r i t y t o c u t t r e e s on s e c t i o n 3 6 , a t r a c t owned by t h e S t a t e of Montana. The s l i p was s i g n e d by Ralph James, who had a Christmas t r e e c u t t i n g p e r m i t from t h e S t a t e f o r s e c t i o n 36. However, one of t h e o f f i c e r s noted t h a t t h e a r e a t h e men were working was s e c t i o n 35, owned by S t . Regis, which l i e s a d j a c e n t t o t h e state-owned s e c t i o n . Palmer, h i s c o l l e a g u e s , and t h e o f f i c e r s l e f t t h e s c e n e and went t o t h e s h e r i f f I s o f f i c e t o d i s c u s s t h e problem f u r t h e r . The n e x t day, November 14, t h e s h e r i f f I s deputy and S t . Regis employees r e t u r n e d t o s e c t i o n 35 t o conduct an i n v e s t i g a t i o n . One of t h e employees determined t h a t t h e most r e c e n t c u t t i n g had been done on S t . Regis l a n d , and found no evidence of r e c e n t c u t t i n g on state-owned s e c t i o n 3 6 . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n was confirmed by a s t a t e f o r e s t e r o b s e r v i n g t h e a r e a a few days l a t e r . Palmer had i n s i s t e d t h a t he and h i s c o l l e a g u e s were c u t t i n g on s e c t i o n 36. Photographs taken a t t h e s c e n e r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e s were c l e a r l y demarcated by p o s t e d n o t i c e s , although Palmer maintained t h a t he had n o t s e e n t h e s e n o t i c e s u n t i l t h e f o r e s t s e r v i c e o f f i c e r s and t h e deputy had d i s c o v e r e d t h e c u t t i n g on November 13. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l e d t h a t Palmer and t h e o t h e r s had been c u t t i n g t h e t r e e s near t h e ground, and "topping" t h e f e l l e d t r e e s s o t h a t t h e t o p s could be used a s Christmas t r e e s . S t . Regis employees and t h e s h e r i f f ' s deputy were a b l e t o match t h e b u t t s of t h e trees t o stumps on s e c t i o n 3 5 . The deputy r e t a i n e d some of t h e t r e e s , b u t t s and stumps a s evidence. S t . Regis r e t a i n e d t h e topped Christmas t r e e s and o t h e r b u t t s . The t r e e s were l a t e r s o l d a t wholesale f o r approximately $1,600. The employees a l s o took e s t i m a t e s of damages t o t h e land. The e s t i m a t e s i n c l u d e d $200 t o remove t h e stumps; $329 f o r replacement of p l a n t s e e d l i n g s , and $1,849 f o r l o s s of t h i r t y y e a r ' s tree growth. Palmer and h i s f o u r a s s o c i a t e s were charged w i t h f e l o n y t h e f t and f e l o n y c r i m i n a l m i s c l ~ i e f f o r i l l e g a l l y removing and damaging t h e t r e e s . The f o u r a s s o c i a t e s n e g o t i a t e d a p l e a b a r g a i n and p l e a d g u i l t y t o misdemeanor t h e f t . Palmer p l e d n o t g u i l t y t o a l l t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him. Although h i s c o l l e a g u e s t e s t i f i e d on h i s b e h a l f a t t r i a l , Palmer was c o n v i c t e d and s e n t e n c e d t o two y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . Palmer a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n , and r a i s e s t h r e e 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 f a i l i n g t o d i s m i s s t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t Palmer because of t h e S t a t e ' s a l l e g e d s u p p r e s s i o n o r d e s t r u c t i o n o f m a t e r i a l a n d e x c u l p a t o r y evidence? ( 2 ) Whether P a l m e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n o f b o t h f e l o n y t h e f t and f e l o n y c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f v i o l a t e s m u l t i p l e punishment s t a t u t e s ? ( 3 ) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y of monetary v a l u e s o t h e r t h a n " c u r r e n t market v a l u e " t o e s t a b l i s h proof of f e l o n y c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f ? ISSUE ONE: P r i o r t o t r i a l , and immediately f o l l o w i n g p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f , P a l m e r ' s c o u n s e l moved f o r d i s m i s s a l of t h e c h a r g e s on t h e grounds t h a t t h e s t a t e had s u p p r e s s e d o r d e s t r o y e d m a t e r i a l , e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e . Palmer maintained t h a t , because t h e S t a t e had d i s p o s e d o f a l l b u t f o u r o r f i v e of t h e t r e e s c u t by Palmer and h i s a s s o c i a t e s , he had no e v i d e n c e which would t e n d t o prove t h a t t h e y had been c u t t i n g t r e e s on State-owned s e c t i o n 36. S u p p r e s s i o n o r d e s t r u c t i o n o f m a t e r i a l , e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e by t h e S t a t e amounts t o a v i o l a t i o n of a d e f e n d a n t ' s due p r o c e s s r i g h t s and w a r r a n t s d i s m i s s a l of c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him. See Brady v. Maryland ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 373 U . S . 53, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215; S t a t e v. C r a i g ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 150, 545 P.2d 649. The D i s t r i c t Court d e n i e d a l l motions by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t o d i s m i s s t h e c h a r g e s . W e f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e c o u r t ' s a c t i o n s . When t h e d e p u t y a n d t h e S t . R e g i s e m p l o y e e s r e t u r n e d t o t h e s c e n e o f c u t t i n g , t h e y i n v e s t i g a t e d both s e c t i o n s i n d i s p u t e . They found no e v i d e n c e of r e c e n t c u t t i n g on State-owned s e c t i o n 36, b u t d i d f i n d s u c h e v i d e n c e on s e c t i o n 3 5 , and g a t h e r e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t t o t h a t a r e a . Although a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n of s e c t i o n 36 i n F e b r u a r y , 1983, r e v e a l e d t h a t t r e e s had been f e l l e d on t h a t s e c t i o n around November, 1982, t h e method of c u t t i n g was markedly d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h a t used by Palmer and h i s c o l l e a g u e s on s e c t i o n 35. Furthermore, t h e t r e e s i n q u e s t i o n were r e t a i n e d and l a t e r s o l d by S t . R e g i s , and n o t t h e S t a t e , a s Palmer h a s argued s i n c e t r i a l . P a l m e r ' s c o u n s e l f i l e d a motion t o produce a l l t h e t r e e s c u t on t h e a r e a s i n q u e s t i o n n e a r l y f i v e months a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t a r o s e . I n S t a t e v. Clements ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 52 0r.App. 309, 628 P.2d 433, under f a c t s v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h o s e a t b a r i n t h e immediate c a s e , t h e Court of Appeals of Oregon h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t could n o t a v a i l h i m s e l f of t h e p r o t e c t i o n s a f f o r d e d under Brady, s u p r a , where a motion t o d i s c l o s e e v i d e n c e was f i l e d l o n g a f t e r t h e e v i d e n c e h a d b e e n d e s t r o y e d and where t h e s t a t e had no r e a s o n t o know o f d e f e n d a n t ' s c l a i m s p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e motion. Clements involved t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f meat a l l e g e d l y s t o l e n from a g r o c e r y s t o r e . Although t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h a t c a s e was aware of a p o s s i b l e e x c u l p a t o r y v a l u e i n t h e meat, i.e., t h a t he a l l e g e d l y had n o t s t o l e n it, b u t w a s r e t u r n i n g it t o t h e s t o r e because it was supposedly t a i n t e d , t h e s t a t e had no r e a s o n t o know t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e meat w a s m a t e r i a l t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c a s e u n t i l t h e motion was f i l e d . 52 0r.App. 309, 628 P.2d a t 435-36. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d have moved v e r y e a r l y i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o p r e s e r v e any e v i d e n c e having some, i f any, c o n n e c t i o n t o s e c t i o n 36. However, t h e i n i t i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e two s e c t i o n s gave n e i t h e r t h e S t a t e nor S t . Regis any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e t r e e s s e i z e d were connected t o s e c t i o n 36, o r t h a t any m a t e r i a l s g a t h e r e d from s e c t i o n 36 would be c r i t i c a l t o e s t a b l i s h i n g P a l m e r ' s innocence. Indeed, we f i n d no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e r e was any e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e t o Palmer. Moreover, t h e a l l e g e d l y e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e w a s never i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n of t h e S t a t e . The r e c o r d is c l e a r t h a t S t . R e g i s was i n e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l of t h e remaining t r e e s , s t u m p s and b u t t s f o u n d on s e c t i o n 3 5 . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e S t a t e d i d n o t have p o s s e s s i o n o r c o n t r o l of t h e s e items f o r Brady purposes. Clements, s u p r a , 52 0r.App. 309, 628 P.2d a t 436 n. 5. ISSUE TWO: Palmer f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r b o t h f e l o n y t h e f t and f e l o n y c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f v i o l a t e s t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e m u l t i p l e p u n i s h m e n t s t a t u t e , S e c t i o n 46-11-502, MCA, and t h i s C o u r t ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h a t s t a t u t e . S e c t i o n 46-11-502 p r o v i d e s t h a t : "When t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n may e s t a b l i s h t h e commission o f more t h a n one o f f e n s e , a p e r s o n charged w i t h s u c h conduct may be p r o s e c u t e d f o r e a c h s u c h o f f e n s e . H e may not, however, be convicted of more than one offense if: (1) one offense is included in the other; (2) one offense consists only of a conspiracy or other form of preparation to commit the other; (3) inconsistent findings of fact are required to establish the commission of the offenses; (4) the offenses differ only in that one is defined to prohibit a designated kind of conduct generally and the other to prohibit a specific instance of such conduct; or (5) the offense is defined to prohibit a continuing course of conduct and the defendant's course of conduct was interrupted, unless the law provides that the specific periods of such conduct constitute separate offenses." In a recent decision, State v. Wells (Mont. 1983), 658 P.2d 381, 40 St.Rep. 127, we had this to say about multiple punishments: "The double jeopardy prohibition contained in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been applied to state proceedings since 1969. Benton v. Maryland (1969), 395 U.S. 784, 796, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2063, 23 L.Ed.2d 707, 717. This prohibition protects a defendant from both multiple prosecutions for offenses arising out of the same transaction and from multiple punishments imposed at a single prosecution for the same offense. See North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656,664-665. Where, as here, defendant was tried at a single prosecution for all of the statutory crimes in question, the issue is one of multiple punishments. State v. Close (1981), Mont . , 623 P.2d 940, 949, 38 St.Rep. 177, 188. "The analysis that this Court has consistently applied in determining whether one offense is included within another offense is the test set forth in Blockburger v . United States (1932), 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306, 309. In Blockburger, the Court ruled: 'The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a v i o l a t i o n o f two d i s t i n c t s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , t h e t e s t t o be a p p l i e d t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e a r e two o f f e n s e s o r o n l y o n e , is whether e a c h p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r e s proof of a f a c t which t h e o t h e r d o e s n o t . ' 284 U.S. a t 304, 52 S.Ct. a t 182, 76 L.Ed. a t 309. "The B l o c k b u r g e r t e s t is c o d i f i e d i n s e c t i o n 46-11-502, MCA. " T h i s C o u r t h a s a d o p t e d t h e a p p r o a c h whereby t h e a n a l y s i s is a p p l i e d t o t h e s t a t u t e s i n q u e s t i o n r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e f a c t s of t h e i n d i v i d u a l c a s e . S t a t e v. R i t c h s o n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. , 630 P.2d 234, 237, 38 St.Rep. 1 0 1 5 , 1 0 1 8 . I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether m u l t i p l e punishments s h o u l d be allowed f o r o f f e n s e s a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n , t h e d i s p o s i t i v e q u e s t i o n t h e n becomes whether t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e f o r m u l t i p l e p u n i s h m e n t s . S t a t e v . C l o s e ( 1 9 8 1 ) , s u p r a , 623 P.2d a t 9 4 9 , 38 St.Rep. a t 188. ' B l o c k b u r g e r ' s a n a l y s i s must s t a n d o r f a l l on t h e working of t h e s t a t u t e s a l o n e , n o t on t h e i n d i c t m e n t . ' C l o s e , 623 P.2d a t 950, 38 St.Rep. a t 189. See a l s o , S t a t e v. Buckman ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. , 630 P.2d 743, 745, 38 S t . R e p . 1 0 0 r 1 0 0 9 ; S t a t e v . Coleman 11979). Mont. , 605 P.2d 1000. 1008-i009,3 St.Rep. i i 3 4 , 1 1 3 8 - 1 1 4 0 ~ ; S t a t e v . P e r r y ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 0 Mont. 3 6 4 , 368. 590 P.2d 1129. 1131: S t a t e v. Davis & c i o s e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 ~ o n t ' . 196, 199, 577 P.2d 375, 377; S t a t e v. Radi, s u p r a , 176 Mont. a t 462, 578 P.2d a t 1176." Adhering t o t h e s e s t a n d a r d s , w e f i n d no e r r o r i n c o n v i c t i n g Palmer on b o t h f e l o n y t h e f t and f e l o n y c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f . T h e f t i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h i s c a s e c o n s i s t s of p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly t a k i n g t h e p r o p e r t y of a n o t h e r w i t h t h e p u r p o s e t o d e p r i v e . S e c t i o n 4 5 - 6 - 3 0 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA. C r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h i s c a s e c o n s i s t s of p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly damaging o r d e s t r o y i n g t h e p r o p e r t y of a n o t h e r w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t . S e c t i o n 4 5 - 6 - 1 0 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA. C l e a r l y , t h e two s t a t u t e s a r e s i m i l a r o n l y i n t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g m e n t a l s t a t e , a n d p r o o f o f a r e q u i s i t e mental s t a t e is a f e a t u r e of any c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e . P a l m e r , h o w e v e r , i n s i s t s t h a t t h e a c t o f " t a k i n g " o r " d e p r i v i n g " involved i n t h e f t is synonomous w i t h t h e a c t of " d e s t r o y i n g " o r "damaging" involved i n c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f . Common s e n s e d i c t a t e s t h a t t h e o f f e n s e s of t h e f t and c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f a r e n e i t h e r c o e x t e n s i v e n o r w h o l l y i n c l u d i b l e w i t h i n each o t h e r . There a r e many s i t u a t i o n s where t h e a c t s of a wrongdoer i n v o l v e both t h e f t and c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f , and t h e i n s t a n t c a s e is b u t one example. Palmer d e p r i v e d S t . R e g i s o f i t s p r o p e r t y , by t a k i n g p o r t i o n s of t r e e s t o u s e o r s e l l a s Christmas t r e e s . Palmer damaged S t . R e g i s p r o p e r t y , a s t h e r e was e v i d e n c e o f diminished v a l u e t o t h e l a n d because of t h e d e s t r u c t i o n . The c o n v i c t i o n on c h a r g e s of t h e f t and c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f was l e g a l l y p e r m i s s i b l e . ISSUE THREE: Palmer contends t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e of v a l u e used t o charge and c o n v i c t him of f e l o n y c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f was i n a d m i s s i b l e . I n t h e absence of any a c c e p t a b l e v a l u e s , Palmer m a i n t a i n s t h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n on t h a t c h a r g e c a n n o t s t a n d . The g i s t of P a l m e r ' s d e f e n s e is t h a t proof of " v a l u e , " f o r t h e purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g commission of a f e l o n y , is c o n t r o l l e d by S e c t i o n 4 5 - 2 - 1 0 1 ( 6 9 ) ( a ) , MCA, which s t a t e s t h a t v a l u e "means t h e market v a l u e a t t h e time and p l a c e of t h e crime o r , i f such cannot be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y a s c e r t a i n e d , t h e c o s t of t h e replacement of t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e a f t e r t h e crime." The evidence of " v a l u e " produced a t t r i a l t o e s t a b l i s h t h e a c t of f e l o n y c r i m i n a l mischief c o n s i s t e d of c o s t s of stump removal, r e p l a n t i n g , and l o s t f u t u r e t r e e growth. While t h e c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s e items a r e n o t w i t h i n t h e scope of "value" a s d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 4 5 - 2 - 1 0 1 ( 6 9 ) ( a ) , w e f i n d t h a t t h e y a r e still a d m i s s i b l e t o e s t a b l i s h proof of f e l o n y c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f . Most c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e f t , draw t h e l i n e between a f e l o n y and a misdemeanor based upon t h e "value" o f t h e p r o p e r t y involved. I t is t o t h e s e s t a t u t e s t h a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n S e c t i o n 45-2-101(69)(a) a p p l i e s . The d i s t i n c t i o n between f e l o n y and misdemeanor c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f , h o w e v e r , is n o t m e a s u r e d by t h e " v a l u e " o f p r o p e r t y damaged o r d e s t r o y e d . On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e d i f f e r e n c e is c o n t r o l l e d by t h e amount of " p e c u n i a r y l o s s " t o t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y . See S e c t i o n 45-6-101(3). The term " v a l u e , " a s d e f i n e d by S e c t i o n 4 5 - 2 - 1 0 1 ( 6 9 ) ( a ) , d o e s n o t appear i n t h e c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f s t a t u t e . Palmer p o i n t s t o c e r t a i n Compiler's Comments t o t h e s t a t u t e which u s e t h e word "value" i n t h e c o n t e x t of c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f , b u t t h e s e comments, a p p a r a n t l y d r a f t e d by t h e Montana C r i m i n a l Law I n f o r m a t i o n and Research C e n t e r a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Montana Law School, a r e n o t p a r t of t h e s t a t u t e and t h u s do n o t have t h e f o r c e of law. Moreover, t h e y a r e c l e a r l y m i s l e a d i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o c l a s s i f y i n g c a t e g o r i e s of c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f . S e c t i o n 4 5 - 1 - 1 0 2 ( 2 ) r e q u i r e s p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e c r i m i n a l code " t o be c o n s t r u e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f a i r import of t h e i r terms w i t h a view t o e f f e c t [ t h e o b j e c t of t h e code] . . . and t o promote j u s t i c e . " Simply d e f i n e d , " p e c u n i a r y l o s s " means " [ a ] l o s s o f money, o r something by which money o r something o f money v a l u e may be a c q u i r e d . " B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 1018 ( 5 t h ed. 1 9 7 9 ) . Evidence o f damages from loss of future tree growth, as well as the out-of-pocket expense of removing stumps and replanting, is includible within the concept of pecuniary loss. Obviously, the statute was carefully drafted to avoid reference to "value," because property damaged or destroyed by criminal mischief may not, in some instances, have a market value or replacement cost. The trial court properly allowed the State's evidence to show the monetary losses arising from defendant's damage to St. Regis property. This evidence clearly established more than $150 of pecuniary loss---enough to charge and convict Palmer of felony criminal mischief. Even if we accept as true one of Palmer's subarguments, i.e., that there was insufficient evidence to establish any attempt by St. Regis to remove stumps and reseed the harvested portions of section 35, the evidence of money damages from lost future tree growth clearly exceeds the $150 minimum necessary to impose a felony conviction. Accordingly, the conviction of the defendant Palmer is affirmed. We concur: > h a - $1 $%iMdk Chief Justice