Title: STATE v CASAGRANDA

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 8 1 - 1 5 0 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 1 STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , VS . JOHN A. CASAGRANDA, D e f e n d a n t and 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 of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and for t h e C o u n t y of Silver Bow H o n o r a b l e M a r k P. Sullivan, Judge presid-ing C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : T h o m a s M. M a l e e , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : H o n . M i k e 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 , M o n t a n a R o b e r t M c C a r t h y , C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , B u t t e , M o n t a n a - S u b m i t t e d on briefs: A u g u s t 2 0 , 1 9 8 1 QEC l Q 1 9 8 1 F i l e d : - = - Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n of two c o u n t s of a g g r a v a t e d b u r g l a r y f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of S i l v e r Bow. T r i a l commenced on January 20, 1981, and on J a n u a r y 22, 1981, a j u r y found defendant g u i l t y of both o f f e n s e s . D e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l was d e n i e d , and t h i s appeal f o l l o w s . E a r l y i n t h e morning of J u l y 6, 1980, a d o c t o r ' s o f f i c e and an a d j o i n i n g pharmacy were b u r g l a r i z e d i n B u t t e , Montana. On J u l y 7 , 1980, William Hanley was a r r e s t e d i n Missoula, Montana, f o r a p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n . L a t e r t h a t day, a box of d r u g s was found i n some bushes near t h e motel where Hanley had been s t a y i n g . The box of d r u g s was l a t e r i d e n t i - f i e d a s being p a r t of t h e d r u g s t h a t were s t o l e n from t h e B u t t e pharmacy. Hanley was q u e s t i o n e d by t h e a u t h o r i t i e s concerning t h e b u r g l a r y i n B u t t e , and on J u l y 18, 1980, Hanley gave a s t a t e m e n t t o S i l v e r Bow County a u t h o r i t i e s c l a i m i n g t h a t he had been a p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e B u t t e b u r g l a r y . I t was a t t h i s time t h a t Hanley i m p l i c a t e d h i s accomplices i n t h e b u r g l a r y , and named t h e d e f e n d a n t and a n o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l . I n exchange f o r t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n and h i s testimony, Hanley was given complete immunity from p r o s e c u t i o n . Hanley informed t h e a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t and a n o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l b u r g l a r i z e d t h e pharmacy w h i l e he w a i t e d o u t s i d e i n t h e c a r . A f t e r t h e b u r g l a r y was completed, they a l l t h r e e went t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s home and examined t h e q u a n t i t y and t y p e s of d r u g s t h e y had s t o l e n . The n e x t day, t h e d e f e n d a n t , accompanied by h i s f a m i l y , some f r i e n d s and Hanley, drove t o Missoula, checked i n t o a motel and s p e n t t h e n i g h t i n a d j o i n i n g rooms. Hanley s t a t e d t h a t he saw a box of d r u g s i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s room t h e n i g h t b e f o r e he was a r r e s t e d f o r t h e p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n . T h i s was t h e same box of d r u g s , according t o H a n l e y ' s s t a t e m e n t , t h a t was found o u t s i d e t h e motel t h e n e x t day. Based upon Hanley's s t a t e m e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t was s u b s e q u e n t l y a r r e s t e d and brought t o t r i a l . Charges a g a i n s t t h e t h i r d i n d i v i d u a l were d i s m i s s e d on g r o u n d s o f i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence. The d e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t s two a l l e g a t i o n s of e r r o r : 1. Did c e r t a i n evidence c o n s t i t u t e evidence of o t h e r c r i m e s and t h e r e b y p r e j u d i c e t h e d e f e n d a n t ? 2 . Was t h e a c c o m p l i c e ' s t e s t i m o n y s u f f i c i e n t l y c o r r o b o r a t e d ? The f i r s t i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e is premised on t h e i d e a t h a t c e r t a i n evidence, a pharmaceutical b o t t l e , was evidence o f o t h e r c r i m e s and t h e r e b y c a u s e d t h e j u r y t o d r a w p r e j u d i c i a l i n f e r e n c e s about t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c h a r a c t e r . The pharmaceutical b o t t l e was f i r s t brought b e f o r e t h e j ury when counsel f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t was cross-examining t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r who i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e b u r g l a r y . The r e l e v a n t testimony was a s follows: "Q. Did you ever have o c c a s i o n t o s e a r c h Andy Casagranda's apartment? A. Yes, we d i d . "Q. Did you f i n d anything a t a l l i n t h a t apartment which would l i n k Andy Casagranda t o t h i s b u r g l a r y ? A. W e found some evidence a t t h e Casagranda . . . "Q. I am j u s t speaking of f r u i t s of t h e crime, s o t o speak, or evidence of t h e s e b u r g l a r i e s ? A. P o s s i b i l i t y t h e r e was a p r e s c r i p t i o n or a , n o t a p r e s c r i p t i o n b o t t l e b u t a pharmaceutical b o t t l e a t t h e Casagranda r e s i d e n c e t h a t was s i m i l a r . . . "Q. Now, I am n o t t a l k i n g about p o s s i b i l i - t i e s . Did you f i n d anything t h a t would l i n k Mr. C a s a g r a n d a t o t h e c r i m e ? A . Not d i r e c t l y . "Q. So t h e answer would be ' n o ' ? A . I still have t o q u a l i f y m y answer by s a y i n g t h e r e was b o t t l e found t h e r e t h a t was s i m i l a r t o one taken from t h e pharmacy, t h a t is used a t t h e pharmacy. P o s s i b i l i t y it could have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t . " Then, a f t e r s e v e r a l more q u e s t i o n s concerning t h e pharmaceutical b o t t l e , t h e s e q u e s t i o n s were asked of t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r : "Q. Did you d e t e r m i n e i f t h a t came from C e n t r a l Pharmacy? A . No, s i r , it was never determined. I I Q . So t h e n i t d o e s n o t c o n n e c t Mr. Casagranda? A. Could n o t d i r e c t l y connect it, no, s i r . " (Emphasis added.) The pharmaceutical b o t t l e was a g a i n brought b e f o r e t h e j u r y when d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was cross-examining t h e owner of t h e pharmacy. The r e l e v a n t testimony was a s f o l l o w s : "Q. A t any r a t e , t h e r e ' s a l o t of t h o s e l i t t l e b o t t l e s around, r i g h t [ r e f e r r i n g t o t h e b o t t l e i n q u e s t i o n ] ? A. I am s u r e t h e r e a r e . "Q. Can you p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f y t h a t a s coming from your pharmacy? "MR. WHEAT: Your honor, I t h i n k t h e e x h i b i t should be marked s o t h e r e c o r d can be c l e a r . "THE COURT: Is t h i s some o t h e r e x h i b i t t h a t i s n ' t marked now? "MR. MILLER: No, your honor, it is n o t marked . "THE COURT: T h i s is an item from box, E x h i b i t P, r i g h t ? "MR. MILLER: No, your honor. "MR. MALEE: T h i s is a b o t t l e , your honor, t h a t was f o u n d when Mr. C a s a g r a n d a ' s apartment was s e a r c h e d . "THE COURT: I f you want t o r e f e r t o it and it h a s n ' t been marked, l e t ' s have it marked s o you can r e f e r t o it and s o t h e r e c o r d w i l l show what you a r e r e f e r r i n g t o . The Clerk can mark it f o r you. "MR. MALEE: There is no c o n n e c t i o n shown t o t h i s c a s e , o r t h i s b o t t l e , your honor. "THE COURT: That is b e f o r e t h e J u r y now. I f you want t o pursue t h e m a t t e r , you a r e going t o have t o i d e n t i f y it. "MR. MALEE: Could w e have it marked Defen- d a n t ' s 1. ( C l e r k marked t h e e x h i b i t . ) "Q. Can you i d e n t i f y t h i s b o t t l e a s having come from your pharmacy? A. N O , t h e l a b e l h a s been s c r a t c h e d o f f . "Q. There is no way? A . Not t o m y knowledge. "Q. There a r e thousands of t h e s e b o t t l e s around? A. I am s u r e t h e r e a r e a l o t o f them. "MR. MALEE: I n t h a t c a s e , your honor, I won't even o f f e r t h i s . "MR. MILLER: No o b j e c t i o n , your honor." A f t e r t h i s c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of testimony e l i c i t e d by t h e d e f e n s e from two d i f f e r e n t w i t n e s s e s concerning t h e b o t t l e , t h e S t a t e responded by q u e s t i o n i n g t h e owner of t h e C e n t r a l Pharmacy on r e d i r e c t examination a s f o l l o w s : "Q. With r e f e r e n c e t o what h a s been marked D e f e n d a n t ' s No. 1 and what was marked e a r l i e r a s P l a i n t i f f ' s [P-21 a r e t h e y t h e same t y p e of b o t t l e . A. Same t y p e of b o t t l e e x a c t l y . "Q. Could you t e l l from t h e l a b e l on P-2 w h a t i s i n t h a t b o t t l e o r d i n a r i l y ? A . Codeine Phosphate, 15 miligrams. "Q. That is an a d d i c t i v e drug? A. Y e s . "Q. D o t h e drug companies p u t d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of d r u g s i n d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of b o t t l e ? A . Yes. "Q. Is t h i s t y p e of b o t t l e , t h e s e two b o t t l e s , D e f e n d a n t ' s No. 1 and S t a t e ' s P-2, is t h i s t y p e of b o t t l e used t o your knowledge f o r any o t h e r purpose t h a n t o keep v a r i o u s n a r c o t i c s u b s t a n c e s ? A. I d o n ' t r e c a l l s e e i n g it used f o r anything else . . ." L a t e r , d u r i n g f u r t h e r r e d i r e c t of t h e pharmacy owner, t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n took p l a c e : "MR. MILLER: I am going t o o f f e r S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t P-2 f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e purposes and I b e l i e v e t h a t I have provided f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h a t w i t h Mr. S t a j c a r . "MR. MALEE: Well, I make t h e same o b j e c t i o n . T h i s h a s n o t b e e n t i e d t o Mr. S t a j c a r ' s ................................. -- pharmacy and n e i t h e r h a s t h e o t h e r b o t t l e , s o what a r e t h e y demonstratinq? "THE COURT: L e t ' s s e e t h a t b o t t l e . T h i s d o e s n ' t have a c o s t l a b e l on it. "MR. MILLER: I t h a s a mark Mr. S t a j c a r t e s t i f i e d could be a p o r t i o n of h i s c o s t code number. W e a r e o f f e r i n g t h i s f o r comparative purposes. Mr. Malee held up what was l a b e l e d No. 1 and we f e e l t h e r e is a r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t t h e J u r y should be a b l e t o d i s c e r n and f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e purposes P-2 should go i n . "THE COURT: Not t h a t it n e c e s s a r i l y came from Mr. S t a j c a r ' s s t o r e b u t t o demonstrate t h i s i s t h e t y p e o f b o t t l e t h a t h o l d s n a r c o t i c s . "MR. MILLER: And a l s o , a s Mr. S t a j c a r t e s t i f i e d , p r e s c r i p t i o n s a r e n o t g i v e n o u t i n t h a t t y p e of b o t t l e . "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . Well, f o r demon- s t r a t i v e purposes o n l y we w i l l a c c e p t i n t o evidence P-2 and o v e r r u l e t h e o b j e c t i o n . "MR. MILLER: Thank you. For t h e same reason I would o f f e r D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 a t t h i s t i m e s o it can be compared f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e purposes by t h e J u r y w i t h [ S t a t e ' s ] P-2. "MR. MALEE: Your honor, I t h i n k w e a r e l e a d i n g t o a c o n c l u s i o n h e r e . I d o n ' t b e l i e v e it h a s been s a i d p o s i t i v e l y t h a t t h a t is t h e o n l y drug t h a t goes i n t o t h i s b o t t l e . . . "MR. M I L L E R : Your h o n o r , Mr. Malee i d e n t i f i e d t h i s b o t t l e w i t h D e t e c t i v e Lee a s coming from t h e Casagranda apartment. W e f e e l t h a t is . . . "THE COURT: I f I understand what you a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o do is show t h a t D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 now, f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s o n l y , is t h e t y p e of b o t t l e t h a t u s u a l l y c o n t a i n s n a r c o t i c s . "MR. MILLER: T h a t ' s r i g h t . "THE: COURT: And i t ' s a l s o a t y p e of b o t t l e t h a t is n o t normally i s s u e d o r handled by drug s t o r e s a s a p r e s c r i p t i v e i t e m . "MR. MILLER: Yes, your honor. "THE COURT: I t ' s a pharmaceutical b o t t l e r a t h e r t h a n a p r e s c r i p t i o n t y p e b o t t l e ? "MR. MILLER: T h a t ' s c o r r e c t . "THE COURT: For o n l y t h o s e purposes t h e n , we w i l l o v e r r u l e t h e o b j e c t i o n and admit Defen- d a n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 a s -- w e l l , I g u e s s we w i l l j u s t r e f e r t o it a s Defendant's E x h i b i t 1, a c c e p t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e by m o t i o n o f t h e P l a i n t i f f . " (Emphasis added.) I n S t a t e v. F r a t e s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 431, 436, 503 P.2d 4 7 , 5 0 , t h i s C o u r t r e i t e r a t e s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e c o n c e r n i n g e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r c r i m e s by s t a t i n g : ". . . when a d e f e n d a n t is p u t upon 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 e o f f e n s e a l o n e ; and evidence which i n any manner shows o r t e n d s t o show, t h a t he h a s committed another crime wholly independent, even though it be 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 . " T h i s g e n e r a l r u l e , along w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n s , h a s been c o d i f i e d i n Rule 4 0 4 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid., which s t a t e s : "Evidence of o t h e r c r i m e s , wrongs, o r a c t s is n o t a d m i s s i b l e t o prove t h e c h a r a c t e r of a person i n o r d e r t o show t h a t he a c t e d i n conformity t h e r e w i t h . I t may, however, be a d m i s s i b l e f o r o t h e r purposes, such a s proof of motive, o p p o r t u n i t y , i n t e n t , p r e p a r a t i o n , p l a n , knowledge, i d e n t i t y , o r a b s e n c e o f m i s t a k e o r a c c i d e n t . " The important language of t h i s r u l e overlooked by t h e S t a t e is t h a t t h e r u l e is n o t l i m i t e d t o " o t h e r c r i m e s . " The r u l e a l s o a p p l i e s t o "wrongs o r a c t s " o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . Here, t h e testimony concerning t h e pharmaceutical b o t t l e was such t h a t a jury could i n f e r from i t t n a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had i l l e g a l l y acquired a b o t t l e used f o r n a r c o t i c s . C l e a r l y , t h i s b o t t l e was evidence of "wrongs o r a c t s , " i f n o t t h e evidence of " o t h e r c r i m e s , " of t h e d e f e n d a n t . The g e n e r a l r u l e s e t o u t i n F r a t e s , s u p r a , and c o d i f i e d i n Rule 4 0 4 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid., is t o be s t r i c t l y e n f o r c e d . T h i s Court i n S t a t e v . J u s t ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. , 602 P.2d 957, 962, 36 St.Rep. 1649, when reviewing o t h e r crimes e v i d e n c e , s t a t e d : "The g e n e r a l r u l e should be s t r i c t l y enforced i n a l l c a s e s where a p p l i c a b l e , because of t h e p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t and i n j u s t i c e o f s u c h evidence, and should n o t be d e p a r t e d from e x c e p t under c o n d i t i o n s which c l e a r l y j u s t i f y such a d e p a r t u r e . The e x c e p t i o n s should be c a r e f u l l y l i m i t e d , and t h e i r number and scope n o t i n c r e a s e d . S t a t e v. Tiedemann ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 139 Mont. 237, 242-243, 362 P.2d 529, 531." The S t a t e contends t h a t under t h e t e s t s e t o u t i n S t a t e v. Jackson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 181 Mont. 257, 589 P.2d 1009, 36 St.Rep. 169, o t h e r crimes evidence i n c l u d e s o n l y evidence t h a t is c o n n e c t e d t o w h o l l y i n d e p e n d e n t and u n r e l a t e d c r i m e s , and does n o t i n c l u d e evidence t h a t is i n e x t r i c a b l y r e l a t e d t o t h e crime charged. F u r t h e r , t h e S t a t e contends t h a t t h e defendant f a i l e d t o prove t h a t t h e b o t t l e was n o t evidence from another crime and t h e r e f o r e under Jackson t h e evidence cannot be c o n s t r u e d t o be evidence of o t h e r crimes. T h i s argument is flawed i n s e v e r a l important ways. F i r s t , it is a x i o m a t i c t h a t t h e burden of proof does n o t r e s t w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t , b u t w i t h t h e S t a t e . Second, t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o prove t h a t t h e b o t t l e was i n f a c t connected w i t h t h e b u r g l a r y i n B u t t e . The w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e S t a t e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e was no c o n n e c t i o n between t h e pharmaceutical b o t t l e i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s apartment and t h e B u t t e pharmacy. Again, t h e b o t t l e was evidence of " o t h e r crimes, wrongs o r a c t s " of t h e d e f e n d a n t and was t h e r e b y s e v e r e l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . The S t a t e ' s f i n a l c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t is estopped from a l l e g i n g e r r o r because h i s counsel opened up t h e i s s u e of t h e pharmaceutical b o t t l e . The g e n e r a l r u l e concerning t h i s c o n t e n t i o n is s e t o u t i n S t a t e v. Tiedemann ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 139 Mont. 237, 243, 362 P.2d 529, 532, a s f o l l o w s : "A p a r t y d o e s n o t o r d i n a r i l y w a i v e h i s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e e r r o n e o u s a d m i s s i o n o f evidence by s u b s e q u e n t l y i n t r o d u c i n g evidence t o d i s p r o v e t h e m a t t e r t e s t i f i e d t o , t o e x p l a i n them o r t o prove f a c t s i n c o n s i s t e n t t h e r e w i t h , even though it is of t h e same kind o r n a t u r e . " Here, d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l had r e c e i v e d an u n s o l i c i t e d response from t h e S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s concerning t h e pharmaceu- t i c a l b o t t l e found i n t h e d e f e n d a n t 1 s apartment. T h i s Court, i n S t a t e v. R i v e r s ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 133 Mont. 129, 135, 320 P.2d 1004, 1007, when r e f e r r i n g t o d e f e n s e counsel i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n , s t a t e d : "His e f f o r t s t o s a v e t h e day f o r h i s c l i e n t by e x p l a i n i n g t h e m a t t e r i n r e d i r e c t is n o t waiver." D e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l may have d i s c u s s e d t h e pharma- c e u t i c a l b o t t l e b e f o r e t h e S t a t e i n t r o d u c e d i t i n t o evidence, b u t t h i s d i d n o t waive t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o o b j e c t o r t o urge t h i s a s e r r o r on a p p e a l . Tiedemann, s u p r a . F i n a l l y , t h e s e i s s u e s were b e s t summarized by t h i s Court i n Tiedemann, where it was s t a t e d : "The e r r o r i n t h e admission of t h e s t a t e m e n t was p r e j u d i c i a l , was n o t waived by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n t o meet t h a t of t h e S t a t e , and was of such a n a t u r e t h a t it could n o t be cured by s t r i k i n g t h e o b j e c t i o n a b l e p o r t i o n , nor by i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e j u r y t h a t i t was n o t t o c o n s i d e r a n y r e m a r k s n o t supported by t h e evidence." 362 P.2d a t 532- The second i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e is premised on t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e a c c o m p l i c e ' s testimony was i n s u f f i - c i e n t l y c o r r o b o r a t e d by t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e . I n S t a t e v. S t a n d l e y ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 153, 586 P.2d 1075, 1077, 35 St.Rep. 1631, 1634, t h i s Court held: "The r u l e on c o r r o b o r a t i o n is s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. Cobb ( 1 9 2 6 ) , 76 Mont. 89, 245 P. 265. I n t h a t c a s e , we held t h a t t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence may be s u p p l i e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t o r h i s w i t n e s s e s ; it may b e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ; i t need n o t b e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n or e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i a c a s e of g u i l t ; and it need n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o connect t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e crime b u t must t e n d t o connect him w i t h t h e crime. I n S t a t e v . Keckonen ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 107 Mont. 253, 84 P.2d 341, w e h e l d t h a t where t h e a l l e g e d c o r r o b o r a t i v e evidence is e q u a l l y c o n s o n a n t w i t h a r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n p o i n t i n g toward i n n o c e n t conduct on t h e p a r t of d e f e n d a n t , t h e n such e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t tend t o connect him w i t h t h e commission of t h e o f f e n s e and is i n t h e realm of specula- t i o n , n o t c o r r o b o r a t i o n . Where t h e claimed c o r r o b o r a t i o n shows no more t h a n an oppor- t u n i t y t o commit a crime and simply proves s u s p i c i o n , it is n o t s u f f i c e n t c o r r o b o r a t i o n t o j u s t i f y a c o n v i c t i o n upon t h e testimony of an accomplice. S t a t e v. J o n e s ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 95 Mont. 317, 26 P.2d 341; S t a t e v. Coleman Here, t h e S t a t e ' s evidence merely i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o commit a crime. The e v i d e n c e , a s a m a t t e r of law, was n o t s u f f i c i e n t when coupled w i t h t h e testimony of t h e accomplice t o s u p p o r t a c o n v i c t i o n . The p r y marks, f o o t p r i n t s and s t o l e n d r u g s were never shown t o have been connected w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h e r e b y do n o t tend t o connect t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e crime. The motel r e c o r d s , t h e box c o n t a i n i n g t h e s t o l e n d r u g s , and d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e ' s p r e s c r i p t i o n b o t t l e t h a t was found i n t h e bushes o u t s i d e t h e motel do no more t h a n p l a c e t h e d e f e n d a n t i n a s u s p i c l o u s c i r c u m s t a n c e . The explanation given t o t h e s e f a c t s and circuinstances by t h e accomplice is no more r e a s o n a b l e t h a n t h e e x p l a n a t i o n provided by defendant and h i s wife. C l e a r l y , t h e S t a t e d i d n o t p r e s e n t s u f f i c i e n t c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e a c c o m p l i c e ' s testimony. The c o n v i c t i o n is r e v e r s e d and t h e c h a r g e s d i s m i s s e d . W e concur: