Case Title: STATE v MCCLURE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-535

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-02-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
N O . 81-535 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 3 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f a n d R e s p o n d e n t , V S . HAROLD MCCLURE, D e f e n d a n t a n d A p p e l l a n t . A p p e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y o f M i s s o u l a H o n o r a b l e J a c k L . G r e e n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f R e c o r d : F o r A p p e l l a n t : P a t t e r s o n , M a r s i l l o , T o r n a b e n e & S c h u y l e r , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r R e s p o n d e n t : Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana R o b e r t L . Deschamps 111, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : J a n u a r y 2 0 , 1 9 8 3 D e c i d e d : February 2 4 , 1 9 8 3 F i l e d : FEB 2 4 1983 C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Defendant a p p e a l s a c o n v i c t i o n of b u r g l a r y e n t e r e d on O c t o b e r 3 , 1980, i n t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l District i n and f o r t h e County of Missoula. The n a t u r e of t h i s a p p e a l concerns t h e d e f e n s e of e n t r a p m e n t . The d e f e n d a n t is a s k i n g u s t o f i n d t h a t entrapment e x i s t e d as a matter of l a w . T h i s we cannot do. Whether o r not d e f e n d a n t was l u r e d o r induced i n t o committing t h e o f f e n s e was a f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n f o r t h e j u r y , e v i d e n c e being p r e s e n t e d on e i t h e r s i d e . I n such a s i t u a t i o n w e w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n a j u r y v e r d i c t . Consequently, we must a£ £ i r m t h e c o n v i c t i o n . On March 27, 1980, t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s f r i e n d , Merritt Brown, m e t w i t h T e r r y Padernos i n a Missoula b a r . Padernos had been c a s u a l l y a c q u a i n t e d w i t h McClure and Brown. A t t h i s m e e t i n g , Padernos was asked i f he wanted to buy an electric g u i t a r . Padernos t e s t i f i e d t h a t v a r i o u s o t h e r items were also o f f e r e d f o r s a l e , i n c l u d i n g a motorcycle. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he l e a r n e d t h a t t h e g u i t a r and o t h e r items had come from a t r a i l e r i n Frenchtown. Padernos purchased t h e g u i t a r and because he w a s s u s p i c i o u s , c o n t a c t e d Missoula County d e t e c t i v e Chuck McCall and informed him t h a t he t h o u g h t a b u r g l a r y had o c c u r r e d . The defen- d a n t d i s p u t e s t h i s v e r s i o n of t h e March 27 meeting. The defen- d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t Brown d i d s e l l a g u i t a r t o Padernos b u t t h e r e w a s no c o n v e r s a t i o n about o t h e r items f o r sale nor c o n v e r s a t i o n s a b o u t a t r a i l e r i n Frenchtown. Padernos also t e s t i f i e d t h a t on March 28 he a g a i n met w i t h McClure and Brown. T h i s t i m e , two r i f l e s were o f f e r e d f o r sale. I t was suggested t h a t Brown would b r i n g t h e r i f l e s f o r inspec- t i o n . P r i o r to s e e i n g t h e r i f l e s , Padernos c o n t a c t e d d e t e c t i v e M c C a l l and it was a r r a n g e d t h a t M c C a l l would w i t n e s s t h e t r a n s - a c t i o n from a d i s t a n c e . Brown produced t h e r i f l e s . Padernos t o o k t h e r i f l e s and had them i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n f o r about an hour. During t h i s time, Padernos showed t h e r i f l e s to McCall who marked them. Padernos r e t u r n e d t h e r i f l e s to Brown. N o purchase w a s made. Concerning t h i s t r a n s a c t i o n , McClure tes t i £ ied t h a t he was n o t p r e s e n t , b u t w a s o u t of town. L a t e r d u r i n g t h e same day, March 28, Padernos t e s t i f i e d t h a t McClure and Brown a g a i n o f f e r e d t o s e l l him a m o t o r c y c l e . H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e two d i s c u s s e d going back t o Frenchtown to see i f the motorcycle w a s s t i l l t h e r e . The n e x t c o n t a c t , a c c o r d i n g to t h e t e s t i m o n y of Padernos was on t h e a f t e r n o o n of A p r i l 1. A t t h a t t i m e Padernos and McClure had a t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n . McClure asked Padernos i f he was s t i l l i n t e r e s t e d i n p u r c h a s i n g t h e m o t o r c y c l e . Padernos s a i d he was, i f t h e p r i c e and s i z e were r i g h t . D e t e c t i v e McCal1 had i n s t r u c t e d Padernos t o i n d i c a t e i n t e r e s t i f an o f f e r was made. McClure s t a t e d t h a t he would g e t i n c o n t a c t w i t h Brown and they would go t o Frenchtown to see i f t h e motorcycle was still t h e r e and t o see what s i z e it was. W i t h i n a s h o r t t i m e Brown and McClure went to see Padernos i n p e r s o n . The p a r t i e s d i s c u s s e d p u r c h a s e p r i c e ; Padernos o f f e r e d $600, i f t h e s i z e was r i g h t . The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h i s meeting Padernos t o l d them where t o g e t t h e motorcycle and how to steal it. Meanwhile, d e t e c t i v e s had l e a r n e d of a t r a i l e r h o u s e i n Frenchtown t h a t had r e c e n t l y been b u r g l a r i z e d . Many of t h e items t a k e n from t h i s t r a i l e r were l a t e r recovered from Brown's house. The d e t e c t i v e s had noted t h a t a motorcycle was still parked i n t h e a t t a c h e d g a r a g e . Through i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from P a d e r n o s , it was b e l i e v e d t h a t McClure and Brown would come to steal t h e m o t o r c y c l e . A s t a k e o u t w a s set up on t h e evening of A p r i l 1. O f f i c e r s witnessed t h e crime and followed t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s accomplice back t o Missoula. The two c o n t a c t e d Padernos and a p l a n was set t o conclude t h e s a l e . T h e r e a f t e r , Brown and McClure were a r r e s t e d . The entrapment d e f e n s e is provided f o r i n s e c t i o n 45-2-213, MCAt "A person is n o t g u i l t y of an o f f e n s e i f h i s c o n d u c t is i n c i t e d or induced by a p u b l i c ser- v a n t o r h i s a g e n t f o r t h e purpose of o b t a i n i n g e v i d e n c e f o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of such p e r s o n . However, t h i s s e c t i o n is i n a p p l i c a b l e i f a p u b l i c s e r v a n t o r h i s a g e n t m e r e l y a f f o r d s to s u c h p e r s o n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y or f a c i l i t y f o r committing an o f f e n s e i n f u r t h e r a n c e of crimi- n a l purpose which such person has o r i g i n a t e d . " W e have s t a t e d t h a t entrapment is an af f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , as s u c h , t h e burden of proof is on t h e d e f e n d a n t . S t a t e v. Kamrud ( 1 9 8 0 ) I -- Mont . - . - , 6 1 1 P.2d 188, 37 St.Rep. 933. Although entrapment may e x i s t as a matter of l a w , Kamrud, -- s u p r a , and S t a t e v . G r e n f e l l ( 1 9 7 7 ) r 172 Mont. 345, 564 P.2d 171, where c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e is p r e s e n t e d , a s i n t h i s case, t h e i s s u e is one f o r t h e jury. S t a t e v. F r a t e s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 431, 503 P.2d 47. I t is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e j u r y d i d n o t a c c e p t d e f e n d a n t ' s entrapment t h e o r y . A r e v i e w of t h e record shows t h a t they were p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d . J u r y i n s t r u c t i o n number twelve c o n t a i n s language v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l to t h e above-ci t e d s t a t u t e . I n o u r r e v i e w of j u r y v e r d i c t s we have s a i d : " I t is t h e p r e r o g a t i v e of t h e j u r y t o d e c i d e t h e f a c t s , and t h i s Court must uphold such f i n d i n g s when t h e y a r e supported by substan- t i a l e v i d e n c e . A s we s t a t e d i n 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, 1305, 35 St.Rep. 1532, 1539, ' [ t l h e j u r y is t h e f a c t - f i n d i n g body and its d e c i s i o n is c o n t r o l l i n g . . . Given t h e r e q u i r e d l e g a l minimum of e v i d e n c e , we w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the f a c t s f o r t h a t of t h e j u r y . . . I f s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e is found t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , it w i l l s t a n d . . .' ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) " S t a t e v. Rumley ( 1 9 8 1 ) , I . - Mont . , 634 P.2d 446, 449, 38 St.Rep. 1 3 5 1 ~ ~ -1351-E. W e f i n d more t h a n s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e convic- t i o n . Padernos tes t i £ i e d t h a t Brown and McClure r e p e a t e d l y o f f e r e d i t e m s f o r sale. On s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s a motorcycle w a s o f f e r e d . Padernos f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t Brown and McClure s t a t e d t h e y had s e v e r a l i t e m s t h a t came from a t r a i l e r i n Frenchtown. I n t h e p r e s e n c e of P a d e r n o s , Brown and McClure d i s c u s s e d whether o r n o t t h e motorcycle w a s s t i l l a t French town. These f a c t s and o t h e r s , which were o b v i o u s l y b e l i e v e d by t h e j u r y , are c o n t r a r y to d e f e n d a n t ' s entrapment t h e o r y . The e v i - dence p r e s e n t e d s u p p o r t s t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t . The defendant's conviction is affirmed. We concur: