Title: STATE v STOKES

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-169 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- SIDNEY MILES STOKES, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The Honorable Cardon Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Herron, Meloy and Llewellyn, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Charles Graveley, County Attorney, Helena, P l l o n t a n a Submitted on briefs; August 21, 1981 Decided: November 12, 1981 ROY 1 2 1987 Filed: M r . ~ u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Defendant, Sidney Miles S t o k e s , was c o n v i c t e d on January 1 4 , 1 9 8 1 , of robbery, the£ t , aggravated a s s a u l t and aggravated b u r g l a r y . H e was sentenced on March 1 3 , 1981 , b y t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l District C o u r t , to t e n y e a r s on each of t h e f o u r c o u n t s , to r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y . Five y e a r s on each c o u n t were suspended. The d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n on a l l f o u r c o u n t s . A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8:45 a.m. on November 25, 1980, C a r o l y K e l l y and Fred Ketron s u r p r i s e d a man who w a s b u r g l a r i z i n g K e l l y ' s r e s i d e n c e on Van O r s d a l Road i n t h e Helena V a l l e y . The b u r g l a r ' s lower f a c e was covered w i t h a p i l l o w case. H e f o r c e d K e l l y and Ketron a t g u n p o i n t to l i e on t h e f l o o r and covered t h e t w o w i t h b l a n k e t s . The b u r g l a r r e p e a t e d l y t o l d t h e t w o i f they looked a t him he would k i l l them. H e c o n t i n u e d w i t h t h e t h e f t of items from t h e r e s i d e n c e . A f t e r he d e p a r t e d t h e L e w i s and C l a r k County S h e r i f f s Department was summoned. The t w o v i c t i m s and a n e x t d o o r n e i g h b o r , Jewel Hurley, who had n o t i c e d an unusual-looking s t r a n g e r i n f r o n t of t h e house on t h e morning of t h e crime, were r e q u e s t e d by t h e s h e r i f f I s o f f ice t o view photographs c o n t a i n e d i n mug s h o t books i n an a t t e m p t to i d e n t i f y t h e i n d i v i d u a l . The viewings were con- d u c t e d s e p a r a t e l y and w i t h i n a few d a y s f o l l o w i n g t h e b u r g l a r y . K e l l y , Hurley, and Ketron d i d n o t d i s c u s s w i t h each o t h e r , t h e i r a t t e n d a n c e a t t h e s e photographic d i s p l a y s . A l l t h r e e i d e n t i f i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t as t h e person s e e n on November 25, 1980. The t h r e e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s were made from a mug s h o t book c o n t a i n i n g s e v e r a l hundred photographs of d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s . The d e f e n d a n t ' s photographs were contained i n t h e book as a r e s u l t of p r e v i o u s DWI a r r e s t s . N o l i n e u p was e v e r conducted. The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r e q u e s t e d a l i n e u p from t h e s h e r i f f I s department. The county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f ice contended t h a t no such r e q u e s t was e v e r t r a n s m i t t e d to it. P r i o r to t r i a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t made a motion i n l i m i n e to e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e or r e f e r e n c e s to t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had p r e v i o u s l y been a r r e s t e d , c h a r g e d , o r c o n v i c t e d of o t h e r crimes. The d e f e n d a n t ' s motion made s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e s to t h e booking photographs of t h e d e f e n d a n t which had been i d e n t i f i e d by K e t r o n , K e l l y , and Hurley. The District Court denied t h e motion i n l i m i n e b u t agreed t o g i v e a c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n to t h e j u r y concerning t h e pho- t o g r a p h s of t h e d e f e n d a n t . A t t r i a l , t h e S t a t e introduced t h e photographs of t h e d e f e n d a n t . Ketron, K e l l y , and Hurley also made in-court iden- t i f i c a t i o n s of t h e d e f e n d a n t . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s of t h e mug s h o t s of d e f e n d a n t and t h e i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s of d e f e n d a n t comprised a l l of t h e evidence submitted by t h e S t a t e , c o n n e c t i n g d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e b u r g l a r y . The d e f e n d a n t r e l i e d on an a l i b i d e f e n s e , c l a i m i n g he had been a t h i s m o t h e r ' s house on t h e o t h e r s i d e of town a t t h e t i m e o f t h e b u r g l a r y . The d e f e n d a n t ' s mother, b r o t h e r , w i f e and a f r i e n d t e s t i f i e d on h i s b e h a l f . A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e t r i a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t submitted two proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s concerning e y e w i t n e s s testimony. The District Court r e f u s e d one as being r e d u n d a n t i n l i g h t of o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s . The r e f u s e d i n s t r u c t i o n r e l a t e d e y e w i t n e s s testi- mony t o t h e w i t n e s s ' s a b i l i t y to o b s e r v e t h e e v e n t . The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y on a l l f o u r c o u n t s . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s are p r e s e n t e d on appeal: 1). Whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g to exclude t h e mug s h o t photographs? 2 ) . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n by a l l o w i n g an in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ? 3 ) . Whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n by r e f u s i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n r e l a t i n g e y e w i t n e s s tes ti- mony t o t h e w i t n e s s ' s a b i l i t y to o b s e r v e t h e e v e n t ? 4 ) . Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n denying t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t ? Defendant f i r s t contends t h a t allowing t h e DWI booking photographs of t h e d e f e n d a n t to go to t h e j u r y , n e c e s s a r i l y pre- j u d i c e d t h e j u r y because t h o s e photographs implied t h a t d e f e n d a n t had committed p r i o r c r i m i n a l acts. The d e f e n d a n t does not con- t e n d t h a t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s made by t h e e y e w i t n e s s e s using t h e photographs were t a i n t e d or made under s u g g e s t i v e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; o n l y t h a t t h e mug s h o t s c r e a t e d a p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t on t h e j u r y t h a t could n o t be e r a s e d . Defendant relies on Rules 4 0 4 ( b ) and 609, Mont.R.Evid. i n s u p p o r t of h i s c o n t e n t i o n . Rule 609, Mont .R. Evid. p r o v i d e s t h a t "For t h e purpose of a t t a c k i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of a w i t n e s s , e v i - dence t h a t he has been convicted of a crime is not a d m i s s i b l e ." T h i s r u l e is c l e a r l y i n a p p l i c a b l e to t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s i t u a t i o n . The booking photographs a r e n o t evidence of c o n v i c t i o n s ; t h e y m e r e l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was booked on p r i o r o c c a s i o n s . Secondly, t h e photographs were introduced f o r purposes of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . No evidence was adduced by t h e S t a t e a t t r i a l i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had e v e r been convicted of any crime, n o r was such s u g g e s t i o n made d u r i n g t r i a l . T h e r e f o r e t h e photographs were - n o t used to a t t a c k t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e d e f e n d a n t . Rule 4 0 4 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid. p r o v i d e s : "Evidence of o t h e r crimes, wrongs, or 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 p e r s o n i n o r d e r to show t h a t he a c t e d i n confor- m i t y t h e r e w i t h . I t may, however, be a d m i s s i b l e for o t h e r purposes, such a s . . . i d e n t i t y . . ." T h i s e v i d e n t i a r y r u l e must be viewed i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h Rule 403 , Mont .R. Evid. which states : "Although r e l e v a n t , evidence may be excluded i f its p r o b a t i v e v a l u e is s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed b y t h e danger of u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e . . ." I n t h e i n s t a n t case, t h e v e r y i s s u e b e f o r e t h e j u r y w a s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t . A s a r e s u l t t h e photographs used by t h e e y e w i t n e s s e s t o i d e n t i f y t h e d e f e n d a n t were r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e District Court was faced w i t h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e photographs, n e c e s s a r y f o r p u r p o s e s o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , were u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c i a l . I t is w e l l - s e t t l e d i n Montana t h a t " . . . t h e q u e s t i o n of a d m i s s i b i l i t y of . . . e v i d e n c e must i n e v e r y case be l e f t l a r g e l y t o t h e sound l e g a l d i s c r e t i o n of t h e trial c o u r t , s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w o n l y i n case of m a n i f e s t abuse." S t a t e v. Medicine B u l l ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 152 Mont. 34, 45, 445 P.2d 916, 922. In t h e i n s t a n t case, t h e District Court chose to allow t h e photographs to go to t h e j u r y , coupled w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n : "The f a c t , as it a p p e a r s i n e v i d e n c e , t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d and photographed i n con- n e c t i o n w i t h a c h a r g e n o t r e l a t e d i n any way to t h i s case is n o t to be c o n s i d e r e d by you as e v i - d e n c e of h i s g u i l t i n t h i s case, n o r is such f a c t to be c o n s i d e r e d by you as e v i d e n c e of t h e d e f e n d a n t 1 s c r e d i b i l i t y . " A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e photographs stemmed from DWI c h a r g e s was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y by t h e d e f e n d a n t . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s it is i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h i s Court to s a y t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n of t h e s e photographs c o n s t i t u t e s "a case of m a n i f e s t abuse ." Whatever p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t was c r e a t e d by t h e pho- t o g r a p h s w a s negated by t h e c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n and t h e expla- n a t i o n of t h e background of t h e photographs. D e f e n d a n t ' s second i s s u e stems from t h e i n - c o u r t iden- t i £ i c a t i o n s of t h e d e f e n d a n t made by t h e S t a t e ' s e y e w i t n e s s e s , Fred Ketron, C a r o l y K e l l y , and Jewel Hurley. Counsel f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t o b j e c t e d to t h e i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s on t h e b a s i s t h a t no one o t h e r t h a n t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s i n t h e courtroom and t h a t s e v e r a l months had passed s i n c e t h e b u r g l a r y . The District C o u r t p e r m i t t e d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , r u l i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n s went to t h e weight of t h e e v i d e n c e , n o t to its a d m i s s i b i l i t y . With r e g a r d t o p o t e n t i a l l y t a i n t e d out-of-court photo l i n e u p i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , t h i s Court h a s s t a t e d t h a t : " . . . u n l e s s t h e error is obvious and t h e pre- j u d i c e c l e a r , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s remedy is i n ef f e c - t i v e cross-examination with t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n q u e s t i o n t h e n becoming one of weight to be determined by t h e j u r y and n o t one of a d m i s s i b i l i t y . " S t a t e v. Miner ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 260, 266, 546 P.2d 252, 256. T h i s s t a n d a r d is e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to t h e i n s t a n t s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v i n g an i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h no claim of t a i n t or s u g g e s t i v e n e s s i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g out-of - c o u r t photo i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court r u l e d c o r r e c t l y and committed no error. The l i n e of cases c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t mandating a review of " t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s " s u r r o u n d i n g t h e in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e p r o f f e r e d i n - c o u r t iden- t i £ i c a t i o n s " p o s s e s s s u f f i c i e n t a s p e c t s of r e l i a b i l i t y " a p p l i e s o n l y where a s u g g e s t i v e o r t a i n t e d out-of - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n h a s o c c u r r e d . Such is n o t t h e case h e r e and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s argument, a1 though n o v e l , is i n a p p l i c a b l e . Defendant n e x t asserts t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d by r e f u s i n g to g i v e t h e f o l l o w i n g proposed i n s t r u c t i o n : " I n s t r u c t i o n No. 13. Every p e r s o n who t e s t i f i e s under o a t h o r x f i r m a t i o n is a w i t n e s s . You are t h e sole judges of t h e b e l i e v a b i i t y of a w i t n e s s and t h e weight to be g i v e n to h i s testimony. " I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e b e l i e v a b i l i t y of a w i t n e s s you may c o n s i d e r a n y t h i n g t h a t h a s a tendency i n r e a s o n to prove or d i s p r o v e t h e t r u t h f u l n e s s of h i s testimony, i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d to t h e e x t e n t of h i s o p p o r t u n i t y and a b i l i t y to see any matter about which he t e s t i f i e s . " The d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e above i n s t r u c t i o n must be g i v e n i n con j u n c t i o n with h i s i n s t r u c t i o n r e g a r d i n g e y e w i t n e s s iden- t i f i c a t i o n and g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , which was g i v e n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court as I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 16. However, t h e District Court determined t h a t d e f e n d a n t 1 s proposed I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 1 3 was s u b s t a n t i a l l y g i v e n i n I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 1 which read i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "You are t h e sole judges of t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of a l l t h e w i t n e s s e s who w i l l t e s t i f y i n t h i s case, and of t h e weight to be g i v e n t h e i r testimony. "A w i t n e s s is presumed to speak t h e t r u t h ; b u t t h i s presumption may be r e p e l l e d by t h e manner i n which he t e s t i f i e s , b y t h e n a t u r e of h i s t e s t i m o n y , or by e v i d e n c e a f f e c t i n g h i s c h a r a c t e r f o r t r u t h , h o n e s t y , or i n t e g r i t y , or h i s m o t i v e s , or by c o n t r a d i c t o r y e v i d e n c e . I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e weight to be g i v e n to t h e testi- mony of any w i t n e s s , you have a r i g h t to con- s i d e r t h e appearance of each w i t n e s s on t h e s t a n d , h i s manner of t e s t i f y i n g , h i s a p p a r e n t c a n d o r or l a c k of c a n d o r , h i s a p p a r e n t f a i r n e s s or l a c k of f a i r n e s s , h i s a p p a r e n t i n t e l l i g e n c e or l a c k of i n t e l l i g e n c e , h i s knowledge and means o f knowledge on t h e s u b j e c t upon which h e - t e s t i f i e s , t o s t = w i t h a l l t h e o t h e r dir- cumstances a p p e a r i n g i n e v i d e n c e on t h e t r i a l ." ( Emphasis added. ) A f t e r reviewing t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s a t i s s u e h e r e , t h i s Court a g r e e s w i t h t h e District Court; d e f e n d a n t 1 s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 3 is s u b s t a n t i a l l y covered by I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 1. T h i s Court h a s s t a t e d many times t h a t t h e r e f u s a l to g i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e same s u b j e c t is n o t p r e j u d i c i a l error. S t a t e v. S u l l i v a n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mon t . , 595 P.2d 372, 36 St.Rep. 936. F i n a l l y , d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g h i s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , because t h e r e was a l a c k of e v i d e n c e to go to t h e jury. The d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d by K e t r o n , K e l l y , and H u r l e y was i n s u f f i c i e n t to t a k e t h e case to t h e jury. T h i s Court r e c e n t l y s t a t e d t h e grounds on which a motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t should be g r a n t e d : "A d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i n a c r i m i n a l case is g r a n t e d . . . o n l y where t h e S t a t e f a i l s t o p r o v e its case and t h e r e is no e v i d e n c e upon which a j u r y could base its v e r d i c t . " S t a t e v. F i t z p a t r i c k ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . I 606 P.2d 1343, 1356, 37 ~ t . ~ e p . 9 4 , 2 0 9 . I n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s case, t h r e e people t e s t i f i e d to e i t h e r s e e i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t a t or around t h e s c e n e of t h e b u r g l a r y . These t h r e e w i t n e s s e s s e p a r a t e l y s e l e c t e d d e f e n d a n t s photograph from a g r o u p of s e v e r a l hundred p i c t u r e s . A l l t h r e e later iden- t i f i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t i n c o u r t as e i t h e r being p o s i t i v e l y t h e i n d i v i d u a l who committed t h e b u r g l a r y or as having a l l t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e person observed a t t h e crime s c e n e . Absent a t a i n t e d or s u g g e s t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n procedure , which is n o t t h e case h e r e , t h i s e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y p l a c e s d e f e n d a n t a t t h e s c e n e of t h e crime p r i o r to t h e b u r g l a r y and also i d e n t i f i e s him as t h e i n d i v i d u a l committing t h e o f f e n s e . Such e v i d e n c e , a l t h o u g h s u b j e c t to j u r y e v a l u a t i o n , would i f b e l i e v e d by t h e j u r y , be s u f f i c i e n t on which to base a v e r d i c t . The District Court p r o p e r l y denied t h e motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t . The c o n v i c t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t is af f irmed. W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e