Case Title: STATE v BROWN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-290

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-08-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-290 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. MARET BROWN, Defendant and Appellant. Appeai from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula Honorable James Wheeiis, Judge presiding Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Anthony F. Keast, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs: June 15, 1982 Decided: August 19, 1982 Filed: AUG 1 9 1982 M r . Justice Gece B. Daly delivered the Opicioc of the Court. The defecdact, Maret Browc, appeals from a judgmect issued by the District Court of the Fourth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Missoula Coucty, upoc a jury cocvictioc for felocy t h e f t as provided i c sectioc 45-6-301(3), MCA. Defecdact was sectecced to eight years i e the Moctaca State Prisoc w i t h a l l b u t cicety days suspecded. T h i s case arises out of the burglary of a mobile home owced by Robert White acd located sear Arlee, Moctaca. White had moved t o Alaska w i t h h i s family acd l e f t h i s mobile home to be sold by a real e s t a t e agect. Ic Juce 1980, the real e s t a t e agect disco- vered that someoce had broker! icto the mobile home acd garage. The agect cotif ied the Lake Coucty Sherif f 1 s departmert acd oe Juce 30 west through the home with Lake Coucty deputy s h e r i f f , Racdy Merrymar?. Or? July 25, 1980, White foucd out ic a cocversatioc with his brother that the mobile home had beep burglarized. White quit h i s job acd moved h i s family back to Arlee, Moctaca. White acd o f f i c e r Merrymac thee wect through the home acd the garage, makicg a l i s t of the persocal property t h a t was s t o l e s , which iccluded a weldicg torch owced by White. White told ac acquairtacce, J i m Fleischauer, t h a t h i s torch had beep stolec. A couple of weeks l a t e r , Fleischauer telephoced White acd told him that he had h i s torch. Fleischauer said he had purchased the torch from ore Louis Goodsell. White aed Fleischauer wept to see Goodsell. Goodsell said he had purchased the torch from the defecdact, Maret Browc. Accordicg to the testimocy of White, Fleischauer, acd Goodsell, the three thee wect to the house of the defecdact, Maret Browc. They wept up oc defecdactls closed-ic porch ard kcocked or? h i s door. Whec Browc acswered the door, White ictro- duced himself acd asked d e f e ~ d a c t if he had a receipt for the torch he had sold Goodsell. Defecdact said he had a receipt acd icvited White ir?si.de the house. White refused, sayicg he would remaic oc the porch. While oe the porch, White coticed that some of h i s stolec belocgicgs, sleepicg bags, a i r mattresses, a grinding wheel, a shovel, acd a red box, were lyicg i c the corcers of the porch. White told Fleischauer acd Goodsell to go get a search warrapt. Fleischauer acd Goodsell returced w i t h a deputy sheriff but co search warrapt. The officer asked defecdact i f they could search h i s house; defecdact refused. The officer thee wept to g e t a search warract. A search warract was obtaiced upoc icformatioc giver by White. Several officers acd White returced to defeedact's house l a t e that evecicg acd completed the search. White accmpacied the officers i c the search. The officers seized a l l the items t h a t they f e l t White had positively idectified. Defecdact was very upset whee the officers came to the house ard stated that he owced everythicg or! the porch. A short time icto the search, a f t e r White had idectified a few persocal items such as a bleeder ard ac iror! that had a persocal icscriptioc oe it, defeedact was arrested. The sole issue raised by defecdert oe appeal is whether a warractless search cocducted by White, Fleischauer acd Goodsell was ic violatioc of defecdact's rights ucder the Fourth Arnerdmeet of the Ucited States Cocstitutioc, acd defecdar?t1s right of pri- vacy a s provided i c Sectioe 1 0 , A r t . I1 of the Moctaca Cocsti tutioc . I t is very importact here to cote that defecdact does - cot raise the issue based upoc the facts related above. H e does cot claim that ac uccocstitutiocal search occurred whee White acd h i s compaciocs were icvitees oc the defecdact's porch acd saw several of White's possesiocs ic plaic view. Rather, defecdact claims t h a t the uccocstitutior?al search occurred e a r l i e r it? the aftercooc. The ocly evidecce or? the record t h a t White acd h i s compaciocs were a t the defecdact's residecce e a r l i e r ir! the aftercooc comes from the testimocy of the defecdact's father. The father of the defecdact t e s t i f i e d as follows : I'Q. What time i c the aftercooc d i d you observe somethicg, ard t e l l u s what you observed? A. Oh, it was a r o u ~ d ope, two o'clock somewheres ic there, maybe a l i t t l e l a t e r , I coticed a car drive up to Goodsell's. T w o guys got out acd walked over to Goodsell I s house. Louis came out acd they talked. From there they wept to Maret's house. "Q. They? Who's they? A. The two guys that got out of the car was White acd Fleischauer, o r whatever you c a l l him, acd Louis Goodsell. "Q. The three of them? A. Three of them, yes. "Q. What happeced, thee? A. They wept dowr t o Maret's house. They wept i c , White ard Goodsell wept i n the porch. "Q. Did you see them go icto the door? A. Yes, I did. "Q. What made it irterestil?g that you would watch them? A. Maret was cot home a t that time, acd I d i d c ' t know what was goirg or?. I was curious. "Q. Did you watch i t ? A. I watched them. "Q. H o w lorg were they ic there? A. Five to tei? micutes. "Q. That's icside a t l e a s t , icside the porch? A. They was icside out of sight oc the porch. "Q. Wher they came out, did you say acythirg t o them? A. No. They wept over to Goodsell's to their car. "Q. Thee what did you observe? A. Well, they stood there acd talked, acd f i c a l l y they wept back. I doc' t how, I thick they drove out orto Stoce Street. "Q. Did you have occasioc that day to see those mer, agair? A. Yeah, l a t e r oc that day they returced . I coticed ore with the s h e r i f f , acd Maret was home a t that time." The above testimocy does cot support a claim t h a t White acd h i s compar iocs cocducted a search of deferdart' s residecce . The f a t h e r ' s testimocy o ~ l y icdicates that White acd h i s compaciocs may have ectered deferdact's porch acd were there for five to tee micutes. Nothicg oe the record suggests that a search took place duricg t h i s time. The cocvictioc must therefore be affirmed sicce " [w] e w i l l not cocsider r e p r e s e ~ t a t i o c s of parties af t e r the fact o r represertatiocs dehors the records." S t a t e ex re1 Woodahl v. District Court ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 M o ~ t . 514, 518, 540 P.2d 312, 314. See also S t a t e v. Rumley ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -- MOI? t . ---- , 634 P.2d 446, 38 St.Rep. 1351A; a ~ d S t a t e v. Lamb ( 1 9 8 2 ) , f - - - - MOP t - - - - 646 p.2d 516, 39 St.Rep. 1621. The j u d g e m e ~ t o f t h e District Court is a f f i r m e d . We concur: