Case Title: STATE v TROMBLEY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-11-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 80-186 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1980 T H E STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS- G E O R G E W A R R E N TROMBLEY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of The Eighth 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 Cascade, The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Marcia Birkenbuel, Public Defender, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : September 1 7 , 1980 Decided : 'h%v 2 6 1980 Filed: /$W Z b k 3 $ $ Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant George Trombley a p p e a l s from t h e judgment of t h e C a s c a d e County E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , e n t e r e d p u r s u a n t t o a j u r y v e r d i c t f i n d i n g d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of t h e t h e f t of a t r u c k belonging t o Richard Show. Before t r i a l , defendant moved t h e c o u r t t o p r o h i b i t a t t r i a l p r o s e c u t i o n r e f e r e n c e t o d e f e n d a n t ' s use of Show's c r e d i t c a r d s a t t h e time of d e f e n d a n t ' s a r r e s t . I n t h i s motion, t h e d e f e n d a n t r e l i e d on o u r d e c i s i o n i n S t a t e v. J u s t (19791, Mont. , 602 P.2d 957, 36 St.Rep. 1649. Defendant b e l i e v e d t h a t r e f e r e n c e t o d e f e n d a n t ' s use of Show's c r e d i t c a r d s amounted t o t h e use of " o t h e r crimes" evidence by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . Defendant contended t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s mandated by J u s t f o r t h e use of t h i s evidence. D e f e n d a n t ' s motion was denied by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The s o l e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s Court by d e f e n d a n t is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by denying d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n . W e f i n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion. Evidence of d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n and use of Show's c r e d i t h e r e is n o t " o t h e r crimes" evidence. Defendant was accused of committing t h e t h e f t of Show's t r u c k . A t t h e time t h e t r u c k was s t o l e n , Show s t o r e d h i s w a l l e t and c r e d i t c a r d s i n t h e t r u c k . When t h e t r u c k was s t o l e n , t h e w a l l e t and c a r d s were s t o l e n a s w e l l . Defendant was apprehended and t h e t r u c k was c o n f i s c a t e d s h o r t l y a f t e r d e f e n d a n t used one of t h e c a r d s a t a G r e a t F a l l s s e r v i c e s t a t i o n . T h i s evidence of d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n and use of t h e c a r d is i n s e p a r a b l y r e l a t e d t o t h e t r u c k t h e f t . I t i s evidence of d e f e n d a n t ' s conduct simultaneous w i t h t h e a c t s a l l e g e d t o c o n s t i t u t e t r u c k t h e f t , n o t evidence of former c r i m e s o r former wrongful a c t i v i t y . Although t h i s evidence i n d i c a t e s misconduct on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h i s evidence n e i t h e r s u b j e c t s d e f e n d a n t t o u n f a i r s u r p r i s e nor t o t h e d e f e n s e of u n r e l a t e d i s s u e s . For t h i s reason Wigmore c l a s s i f i e s t h i s t y p e of evidence s e p a r a t e from evidence of " o t h e r crimes" . Wigmore Evidence 5218. I n S t a t e v. Jackson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 589 P.2d 1009, 36 St.Rep. 169, d e f e n d a n t was accused of t h e t h e f t of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y belonging t o S h e i l a and Donald Jeszenka. The d e f e n d a n t was charged w i t h t h e f t of o n l y t h e J e s z e n k a ' s s t e r e o e q u i p m e n t and M s . J e s z e n k a ' s c o a t , a l t h o u g h a d d i t i o n a l p r o p e r t y taken from t h e J e s z e n k a s was found i n d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n . I n o r d e r t o prove t h e i r t h e f t a c c u s a t i o n , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n p r e s e n t e d a s evidence t h a t t h i s o t h e r p r o p e r t y a l l e g e d l y t a k e n from t h e J e s z e n k a s d u r i n g t h e t h e f t was f o u n d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n . Defendant o b j e c t e d t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e evidence, l a b e l i n g it i n a d m i s s i b l e " o t h e r crimes" evidence. I n our o p i n i o n a f f i r m i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s admission of t h i s e v i d e n c e , we r e c o g n i z e d t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n " o t h e r crimes" evidence and evidence of d e f e n d a n t ' s s i m u l t a n e o u s misconduct i n s e p a r a b l y r e l a t e d t o t h e a l l e g e d c r i m i n a l a c t . " W e recognize t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t when a d e f e n d a n t is p u t on t r i a l f o r one o f f e n s e , he should be c o n v i c t e d , i f a t a l l , by evidence which shows t h a t he is g u i l t y of t h a t o f f e n s e a l o n e . Evidence which i n any manner shows, or t e n d s t o show, he h a s committed a n o t h e r crime wholly independent, even though it is a crime of t h e same s o r t , is i r r e l e v a n t and i n a d m i s s i b l e , s u b j e c t t o e x c e p t i o n s n o t p e r t i n e n t h e r e . ( C i t a t i o n omitted. ) " I n t h i s c a s e , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e evidence of o t h e r ' u n r e l a t e d ' o r 'wholly independent' crimes. The p r o s e c u t i o n o n l y sought t o prove t h a t d e f e n d a n t was exercising unauthorized control over various items, all of which belonged to Sheila and Donald Jeszenka. Defendant's possession of . . . (this other property) was inextricably related to the property referred to in the charging information. We are not, therefore, involved with the intro- duction of evidence of wholly independent or unrelated crimes. The evidence was properly admitted. " The prosecution here is not required to meet the Just requirements for the introduction of "other crimes" evidence because evidence of defendant's possession and use of the cards is not "wholly independent" or "unrelated" other crimes evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. We Concur: Chief Justice / Justice