Case Title: STATE v CAMPBELL

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-025

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-01-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 80-25 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- MERRILL CAMPBELL, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable Joesph Gary, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Christopher G . Miller, Butte, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Submitted on Briefs: September 17, 1980 Decided : JAN - 7 1981 S 4 C Q 4 JA[q - f ~,,i, i Filed: M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. O n J u l y 26, 1979, an information was f i l e d i n t h e ~ i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of the S t a t e of Montana, County of G a l l a t i n , charging defendant, Merrill Campbell, with t h e f t , a felony, i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n s 45-6-301 and 53-2- 1 0 7 , MCA, and endangering t h e welfare of c h i l d r e n , a m i s - demeanor, i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 45-5-622, MCA. A f t e r s e v e r a l continuances, defendant f i l e d motions t o dismiss t h e information f o r n o t s t a t i n g a p u b l i c offense and f o r lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e misdemeanor. Defendant a l s o requested an e l e c t i o n between t h e two charges of felony. The motions were denied. Subsequently, on August 6, 1979, defendant entered p l e a s of n o t g u i l t y t o Counts I and I1 of t h e information. On September 7 , 1979, a f t e r s u b s t i t u t i o n of counsel, defendant made a motion t o reconsider t h e previously pre- sented consolidated motions. The D i s t r i c t Court denied the motion on September 20, 1979. O n October 11, 1979, t h i s Court denied without preju- d i c e defendant's r e q u e s t f o r w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l t o dismiss t h e misdemeanor count f o r lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Once again, defendant's motion f o r severance of t h e two counts was made and denied. This was followed by a motion i n limine which, among o t h e r things, requested a r u l i n g on t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of p r i o r a p p l i c a t i o n s of welfare a s s i s - tance made by defendant i n t h e S t a t e of ~ y o m i n g and an order d i r e c t i n g t h e State t o r e f r a i n from c a l l i n g L i l l y Campbell, one of defendant's wives, a s a witness a t t r i a l . O n November 7, 1979, t h e D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e motion i n limine b u t ordered t h a t t h e testimony of illy Campbell be l i m i t e d t o t h e misdemeanor charge, endangering t h e welfare of c h i l d r e n , and not include testimony on t h e felony charge of t h e f t . T r i a l began on November 20, 1979, and concluded November 21, 1979. Defendant w a s found g u i l t y by t h e jury on Counts I and I1 of t h e information. O n December 10, 1979, defendant was sentenced t o t e n years i n t h e Montana S t a t e Prison on Count I, the felony, and t o s i x months on Count 11, t h e misdemeanor. The sen- tences w e r e t o run concurrently. Defendant f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal on December 10, 1979. I n mid-May of 1979, defendant, along with h i s two wives, L i l l y and Cheryl, and h i s f i v e c h i l d r e n , a r r i v e d i n t h e Bozeman, Montana, a r e a a f t e r a long period of i t i n e r a n t t r a v e l i n g . Defendant and h i s family, t r a v e l i n g i n t h e i r converted 1968 C a d i l l a c camper, stopped a t t h e KOA campground a t Four Corners, G a l l a t i n County, Montana. Neither defendant nor h i s wives w e r e employed. I n an attempt t o o b t a i n food and money, defendant devised a plan. Defendant would go t o Butte t o t r y t o sell t h e C a d i l l a c camper, and L i l l y would go t o t h e welfare o f f i c e i n Bozeman, give f a l s e information and o b t a i n welfare money. Defendant took h i s wives and c h i l d r e n t o the T h r i f t y Scot Motel i n Bozeman. A f t e r paying f o r two n i g h t s of lodging and moving t h e family and belongings i n t o a room, defendant went t o Butte, leaving t h e family with approxi- mately s i x d o l l a r s , no housing provisions beyond t h e two n i g h t s ' lodging, l i t t l e o r no food, and no t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Two of t h e younger c h i l d r e n were running high temperatures and had s e r i o u s e a r i n f e c t i o n s . Defendant knew of t h e i r i l l n e s s e s b u t d i d n o t consider them s e r i o u s enough t o w a r - r a n t medical a t t e n t i o n .  he n e x t day L i l l y Campbell went t o t h e Bozeman w e l - f a r e o f f i c e and made an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r emergency b e n e f i t s under t h e name of J a n e t Brown. She w a s given $227 worth of food stamps and was aided i n g e t t i n g an apartment i n Boze- man, t o which she moved t h e family. O n May 23, 1979, defendant returned t o t h e f a m i l y ' s apartment i n Bozeman. H e spent only a few minutes t h e r e and returned t o Butte. One week later, on May 30, 1979, defen- d a n t returned t o t h e Bozeman apartment. A t t h i s t i m e , defendant's wife Cheryl had gone t o t h e unemployment o f f i c e t o apply f o r work. While t h e r e she was a r r e s t e d and charged with forgery. Meanwhile, t h e G a l l a t i n County a u t h o r i t i e s had determined t h a t L i l l y Campbell had given f a l s e informa- t i o n t o t h e welfare o f f i c e and a r r i v e d a t t h e apartment t o a r r e s t her. She was subsequently charged with welfare fraud and forgery. A search of t h e apartment revealed defendant hiding i n t h e c l o s e t , and he too w a s a r r e s t e d . The f i v e c h i l d r e n were placed i n f o s t e r c a r e . A f t e r lengthy i n v e s t i g a t i o n , defendant's p a r t i n t h e welfare fraud came t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e Bozeman autho- rities and charges were f i l e d . Defendant was charged with t h e f t , a felony ( s e c t i o n s 45-6-301 and 53-2-107, MCA), and endangering t h e welfare of c h i l d r e n a misdemeanor ( s e c t i o n 45-5-622, MCA). A f t e r a t r i a l by jury, defendant was found g u i l t y as charged and sentenced t o confinement i n t h e Mon- tana S t a t e Prison. The two charges i n t h e information i n d i c a t e t h a t on May 23, 1979, defendant s o l i c i t e d L i l l y Campbell t o knowingly o b t a i n , by making f a l s e statements, welfare a s s i s t a n c e i n t h e amount of $227 from t h e G a l l a t i n County Department of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Services. Also, on May 23, 1979, defendant l e f t h i s c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers i n Bozeman, Montana, without proper food, s h e l t e r o r medical c a r e . Defendant contends t h e D i s t r i c t Court has no j u r i s d i c - t i o n t o t r y him f o r a misdemeanor, endangering t h e welfare of children. The S t a t e contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r y a felony and a misdemeanor together where t h e two a r e connected together i n t h e i r commission, pursuant t o s e c t i o n 46-11-404(1), MCA, which provides: "An . . . information . . . may charge two o r more d i f f e r e n t offenses connected together i n t h e i r commission . . ." The f i r s t of t h r e e i s s u e s r a i s e d on appeal, t h e r e f o r e , i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r y defen- d a n t f o r t h e misdemeanor offense of endangering t h e welfare of children. W e r e c e n t l y held i n S t a t e ex rel. Rasmussen v. D i s t r i c t Court (1980), Mont. , 615 P.2d 231, 37 St-Rep. 1498, t h a t s e c t i o n 46-11-404(1), MCA, i s n o t a g r a n t of j u r i s d i c t i o n b u t simply a permissive joinder s t a t u t e f o r o f f e n s e s within t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of a given court. Rasmussen s t a t e d t h a t s e c t i o n 45-1-201 (1) , MCA, provides t h a t a c o u r t 1 s j u r i s d i c t i o n over criminal matters depends upon t h e maximum sentence which may be imposed f o r committing t h e crime. Under s e c t i o n 3-5-302(1), MCA, t h e District Court i s given o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l felony criminal cases and "cases of misdemeanor n o t otherwise provided f o r . " The J u s t i c e Court, on t h e o t h e r hand, i s given criminal j u r i s - d i c t i o n of a l l misdemeanors punishable by a f i n e n o t ex- ceeding $500 o r imprisonment not exceeding s i x months o r both. The maximum sentence which may be imposed upon a person convicted of f i r s t offense endangering t h e welfare of c h i l - dren is a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not ex- ceeding six months, or both. Section 45-5-622(3), MCA. Jurisdiction in this matter, therefore, lies with the JUS- tice Court. The second issue is whether the jury was properly instructed on the issues peculiar to the charge of soli- citing or aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. After reviewing the instructions given, we find that the jury was properly instructed and that appellant's conten- tions are without merit. The final issue raised by appellant is whether he was entitled to a jury instruction that no inference be drawn from the county attorney's reference to the husband/wife privilege. During the State's cross-examination of defen- dant, the county attorney asked him if he was aware of the husband/wife privilege in Montana. Defendant's attorney objected to the question, and the objection was sustained by the court. Cross-examination of defendant then continued. The record here contains no evidence that defendant requested the court to give an instruction that no infer- ence be drawn from the county attorney's reference to the husband/wife privilege. In fact, this issue is raised for the first time on appeal. It is a well-settled rule that on appeal this Court will consider for review only those questions raised in the trial court. Spencer v . Robertson (1968), 151 Mont. 507, 445 P.2d 48; Clark v . Worrall (1965)r 146 Mont. 374, 406 P.2d 822; State Highway Cornm'n v. Milanovich (1963), 142 Mont. 410, 384 P.2d 752. Therefore, we decline to address defendant's final issue. Accordingly, the felony conviction is affirmed, and the misdemeanor conviction is reversed and dismissed. Justice L /d We concur: ~ c R ~ & & Chief Justice Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea concurs and will file a specially concurring opinion later.