Case Title: STATE v BLACK

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1973-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12459 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1973 THE STATE OF M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - W E N D E L E N P. BLACK, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. J. Nelson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : John C. Hall argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L , Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. C. Weingartner, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana Thomas H. Clary, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: September 10, 1973 Decided : 'QTC 1 3 1973 M r . Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a conviction of the crime of burglary entered i n the d i s t r i c t court of Cascade County. De- fendant Wendelen P. Black was sentenced t o twenty years imprison- ment, with the l a s t f i v e years suspended. The s t a t e sought in- creased punishment due t o previous convictions. O n the evening of August 5 , 1972, D , J . ' s Mazda, an auto- mobile dealership i n Great F a l l s , Montana, was burglarized. A t about 10:OO p.m. t h a t evening persons i n a residence behind the automobile agency building observed suspicious a c t i v i t y , apparently while the burglary was i n progress. The police were n o t i f i e d and a description of a c a r involved was given them. Within an hour the c a r was located and the three occupants arrested. One was defendant Black who had a fresh c u t on h i s arm. Glass fragments found i n h i s shoes matched the broken g l a s s a t the r e a r entrance of D.J.'s Mazda, through which entrance had been gained. A footprint found inside D . J , ' s Mazda matched lack's shoe. The heel of a shoe found outside the Mazda building came from a shoe worn by another man arrested with Black i n the car. The a r t i c l e s taken i n the burglary, along with a r t i c l e s belonging t o the owner of the c a r , were l a t e r found on Riverfront road near the c i t y . O n appeal defendant presents four issues: (1) Whether the prosecutor committed reversible e r r o r i n c e r t a i n remarks made during the course of h i s closing argument7 (2) Whether a c e r t a i n large t o o l box, Exhibit /Ill, was erroneously admitted i n t o evidence? (3) Whether the t r i a l court erred i n giving instructions numbered 17, 35 and 36 and i n refusing t o give defendant's offered instruction number 7? (4) Whether the evidence against defendant was s u f f i c i e n t t o support the verdict of g u i l t y ? Issue ( I ) , concerning the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument i s not properly before t h i s Court. Although it appears from the record t h a t some personal opinion comment was made, and defense counsel did object a t the time, no complete record was perfected t h a t would indicate t o t h i s Court what was a c t u a l l y said so t h a t t h e e f f e c t , i f any, on the s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of defendant could be determined. S t a t e v. Watkins, 156 Mont. 456, 481 P.2d 689. Issue (2) concerns the lack of foundation f o r admitting i n t o evidence a large t o o l box, Exhibit #11, over objection. It appears from the record t h a t Exhibit //I1 was t h e base p a r t of a smaller t o o l box introduced e a r l i e r i n the t r i a l a s Exhibit {/3. Patrolman Dan Loomis t e s t i f i e d about both t o o l boxes and t h e i r r e l a t i o n one t o the other. He explained t h e larger box, Exhibit 1/11, was not produced by him because it was too heavy t o carry. Charles James, a mechanic f o r D . J . ' s Mazda, a l s o t e s t i f i e d con- cerning both tool boxes; t h a t they were stolen from D . J . ' s Mazda and he had i d e n t i f i e d them a t the police s t a t i o n . Later i n the t r i a l Detective Macek produced the larger and heavier t o o l box and t e s t i f i e d a s t o it. Considering a l l the t r i a l testimony, both the large and small t o o l boxes were s u f f i c i e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d and con- nected with the crime charged. Issue (3) concerns instructions given and refused. In- s t r u c t i o n number 35, gi.ven by the court reads: 1 1 Duly qualified experts may give t h e i r opinions on questions i n controversy a t t h i s t r i a l . To a s s i s t you i n deciding such questions, you may consider the opinion with the reasons s t a t e d there- f o r , i f any, by the expert who gives t h e opinion. You a r e not bound t o a c c e E the opinion of an expert a s conclusive, but youshould give t o it the weight t o which you s h a l l find i t t o be e n t i t l e d . You may disregard any such opinion, i f you find it t o be un- reasonable." (Emphasis supplied). Instruction number 35 i s a proper instruction on expert testimony, a s the defense admits, and we a r e not inclined t o con- s i d e r the court's f a i l u r e t o give defendant's proposed instruction number 14 a s error. It may be t h a t defendant's proposed number 14 s t a t e s the r u l e i n language t h a t applies t o h i s f a c t s i t u a t i o n more d i r e c t l y but t h i s could be t r u e with any of the instructions. Court's given instruction number 17 explained criminal g u i l t derived from aiding and abetting commission of a crime. Court's given instruction number 36 explained the r e q u i s i t e s of a l i b i a s a complete defense. Defendant contends t h a t these in- structions were inconsi.stent and conflicting a s t o whether de- fendant's physical presence was required a t the scene of the crime f o r conviction. W e find no inconsistency because the instructions r e l a t e d t o separate issues before the jury. One was given on the s t a t e ' s theory of the case and the other t o accomodate the de- fendant's defense of a l i b i . S t a t e v. Quinlan, 84 Mont. 364, 275 P. 750; S t a t e v. Donges, 126 Mont. 341, 251 P.2d 254. I n any case, i t appears t h a t both instructions were framed so a s t o be favorable t o defendant. Defendant's offered instruction number 7 r e l a t e d t o pre- sumption of innocence. The jury was amply instructed concerning presumption of innocence i n four other instructions given by the court and r e f u s a l of offered instruction number 7 was not e r r o r . S t a t e v. Logan, 156 Mont. 48, 473 P.2d 833; State v. Meidinger, M o n t . , 502 P.2d 58, 29 St.Rep. 861. Finally, concerning issue (4)---sufficiency of the evi- dence---we find there was ample substantial and credible evidence before the jury upon which it could find defendant g u i l t y beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing t h i s evidence, a s we must, i n a l i g h t most favorable t o the jury's verdict, we find no reason t o disturb the verdict and judgment of conviction. S t a t e v. Peschon, 131 Mont. The judgment of convicti Chief Justice ................................... Justices.