Title: STATE v JOHNSON

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

NO. 81-380 I N T H E SUPREFIE COURT O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1981 T H E STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- WAYNE JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of G a l l a t i n , The Honorable Joseph B. Gary, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: A. Michael Salvagni, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : December 11, 1981 Decided: 6EB 2 5 @ N % F i l e d : Nr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e 3 p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . On December 1, 1980, t h e d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d by i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f and a r s o n , s e c t i o n s 45-6- 1 0 1 (1) ( c ) and 45-6-103(a), MCA, r e s p e c t i v e l y , b o t h f e l o n i e s , i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e 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 o f t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of G a l l a t i n . The d e f e n d a n t p l e a d e d n o t g u i l t y t o b o t h c h a r g e s and a j u r y t r i a l was h e l d on A p r i l 21, 22 and 23, 1981. The j u r y found t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f e a c h o f f e n s e . The Honorable J o s e p h B. Gary s e n t e n c e d t h e d e f e n d a n t t o t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n f o r t e n y e a r s f o r c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f and f i f t e e n y e a r s f o r a r s o n , b u t suspended a l l b u t two y e a r s o f t h e s e n t e n c e . The d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s t h e c o n v i c t i o n on b o t h c o u n t s . D e f e n d a n t owned and o p e r a t e d t h e C o r a l Reef P e t Shop i n Bozeman, Montana, from 1975 t o May 30, 1980. The d e f e n d a n t l e a s e d t h e p r e m i s e s f rom L o v e l a c e R e a l t y u n t i l O c t o b e r 1 9 7 9 when t h e b u i l d i n g was c o n v e r t e d i n t o a condominium. D e f e n d a n t d i d n o t p u r c h a s e h i s u n i t . The owner o f t h e b u s i n e s s l o c a t e d n e x t t o d e f e n d a n t p u r c h a s e d t h e u n i t o c c u p i e d by t h e p e t s t o r e and assumed t h e l e a s e between d e f e n d a n t and L o v e l a c e R e a l t y . Sometime between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. on May 22, 1 9 8 0 , a f i r e was d i s c o v e r e d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s p e t s t o r e . I n v e s t i - g a t o r s o f t h e f i r e d e t e r m i n e d it t o h a v e been i n t e n t i o n a l l y s e t . Two Coleman f u e l c a n s were found i n s i d e , n e a r t h e r e a r door of t h e p e t s t o r e . I t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e f i r e had been i n d e p e n d e n t l y s e t i n t h r e e s e p a r a t e a r e a s of t h e s t o r e by t h e u s e of a p e t r o l e u m p r o d u c t s i m i l a r t o , i f n o t i d e n t i c a l w i t h , t h e Coleman f u e l . A l s o , t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e o f a b u r g l a r y o r a b r e a k - i n . Defendant was seen by t h e owner of t h e b u s i n e s s l o c a t e d n e x t door, Richard Wike, a t about 5:30 p.m. on May 22, 1980. Wike t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e defendant p a r t i a l l y emerged from t h e back door, stopped and then went back i n s i d e . Another w i t n e s s , Wayne Pederson, who l i v e d i n an apartment over t h e p e t s t o r e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he saw a man i n t h e p e t s t o r e watching t e l e v i s i o n between 6:00 and 6 : 3 8 p.m. Sgt. Green of t h e Bozeman P o l i c e Department t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had informed him t h a t he and h i s w i f e had t h e only keys t o t h e p e t s t o r e . However, a t t r i a l it was d i s c o v e r e d t h a t an employee, Norrna Blossom, a l s o had a key, b u t she had n o t worked i n o r been t o t h e s t o r e f o r s e v e r a l months. F u r t h e r testimony r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e morning a f t e r t h e f i r e , while firemen were i n s p e c t i n g t h e damage a t t h e s t o r e , t h e d e f e n d a n t appeared and asked i f he could r e t r i e v e c e r t a i n b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s from h i s desk i n t h e f r o n t of t h e s t o r e . He was allowed t o do so. He l a t e r t o l d p o l i c e , however, t h a t h i s b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s had been s t o r e d on a s h e l f i n t h e r e a r of t h e s t o r e and had been d e s t r o y e d by t h e f i r e . The defendant d i d n o t produce any r e c o r d s a t t r i a l and an i n s p e c t i o n of t h e back of t h e s t o r e d i d n o t r e v e a l any evidence t h a t r e c o r d s had been s t o r e d t h e r e . Wike t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t informed hirn t h e morning a f t e r t h e f i r e t h a t t h e l e a s e was ended and d i d n o t mention any p l a n s t o reopen. Testimony revealed t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , a f t e r he had a r r i v e d a t t h e s c e n e , made no i n q u i r y about t h e animals t h a t had been i n t h e s t o r e , nor d i d he s e a r c h f o r s u r v i v o r s o r r e q u e s t t h a t arrangements be rnade f o r t h e i r remains. However, Sgt. Green t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d t a l k q u i t e a l o t a b o u t i n s u r a n c e and i n v e n t o r y . E v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had d o u b l e d h i s i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e on i n v e n t o r y and f i x t u r e s from $25,000 t o $50,000 i n O c t o b e r 1979, A f t e r t h e f i r e , h e f i l e d a c l a i m w i t h h i s i n s u r a n c e company f o r $45,603.27 i n a l l e g e d i n v e n t o r y and f i x t u r e l o s s , T h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l t e s t i m o n y t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s i n v e n t o r y l e v e l was q u i t e low a t t h e time o f t h e f i r e . T h i s t e s t i m o n y was r e c e i v e d from a s a l e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r o n e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s u p p l i e r s , a t r u c k d r i v e r who d e l i v e r e d s u p p l i e s t o t h e p e t s t o r e and a n o t h e r s u p p l i e r who v i s i t e d t h e s t o r e i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1980. One w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t h o u g h t t h e d e f e n d a n t was g o i n g o u t o f b u s i n e s s . The o n l y t e s t i m o n y t o t h e c o n t r a r y came from a c o u p l e who had p u r c h a s e d f i s h f i v e d a y s b e f o r e t h e f i r e , The e v i d e n c e f u r t h e r r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was burdened by b u s i n e s s and p e r s o n a l d e b t s . He was p u t on a C.O.D. b a s i s by o n e o f h i s s u p p l i e r s i n t h e f a l l o f 1979. A judgment was o b t a i n e d a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t by a n o t h e r s u p p l i e r i n A p r i l 1980 f o r $1,985.23. A l s o , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e f i r e , d e f e n d a n t owed a t h i r d s u p p l i e r $967.37 f o r m e r c h a n d i s e a c q u i r e d i n December 1979. I n a d d i t i o n , it was shown t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t owed Montana Power $190.38; $414.45 f o r r e n t on a h o u s e i n Bozeman; $95.18 f o r r e n t on a h o u s e i n B e l g r a d e ; $325 f o r r e n t t o a former l a n d l a d y i n B e l g r a d e ; $800 f o r a t e l e v i s i o n s e t h e p u r c h a s e d f o r t h e s t o r e ; $259 i n back wages t o a f o r m e r employee; a s u b s t a n t i a l sum t o t h e Bozeman c l i n i c ; $545 t o a l o c a l f u r n i t u r e s t o r e ; and h e had a $14,000 unpaid bank d e b t . I t was brought o u t a t t r i a l t h a t t h e defendant had m i s r e p r e s e n t e d and suppressed c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g t h e o f f i c i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . He had r e p r e s e n t e d t o Sgt. Green, who was i n charge of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h a t he was indebted o n l y t o Western Bank and Pendelton E n t e r p r i s e s , an i n v e n t o r y s u p p l i e r from S a l t Lake. F u r t h e r , t h e defendant informed S y t . Green t h a t he had o n l y two b u s i n e s s s u p p l i e r s . A t t r i a l , under cross-examination, t h e d e f e n d a n t admitted t h a t n e i t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was i n f a c t t r u e . Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r review: 1. Were t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t t o a l l o w t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o conclude t h a t probable cause e x i s t e d t o charge t h e d e f e n d a n t with c r i m i n a l mischief and a r s o n ? 2. Was t h e evidence s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t s f o r c r i m i n a l mischief and arson? Defendant contends t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t of t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y d i d n o t c o n t a i n s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s f o r a showing of probable cause t h a t he, t h e d e f e n d a n t , committed e i t h e r t h e o f f e n s e of c r i m i n a l mischief o r a r s o n . Defendant c i t e s S t a t e v. Hallam ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 175 Mont. 492, 575 P.2d 55, a s a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s c o n t e n t i o n . The s p e c i f i c s e c t i o n of Hallam r e l i e d upon s t a t e s : "Obtaining l e a v e t o f i l e an i n f o r m a t i o n is n o t a mere p e r f u n c t o r y m a t t e r b u t r e s t s i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t judge, The a p p l i c a t i o n m u s t be complete i n i t s e l f , and c o n t a i n such s a l i e n t f a c t s a s w i l l a l l o w t h e d i s t r i c t judge t o make an independent d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t an o f f e n s e h a s been com- m i t t e d , " 575 P.2d a t 59, While t h e defendant is indeed p a r t i a l l y c o r r e c t i n c i t i n g Hallam a s a u t h o r i t y f o r h i s p o s i t i o n , he f a i l s t o p r e s e n t t h e r e q u i s i t e a u t h o r i t y t h a t completely d e f i n e s t h i s a r e a of t h e law. T h i s C o u r t h a s a d d r e s s e d t h e c o n t e n t i o n p r e s e n t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t i n s e v e r a l p r e v i o u s c a s e s , I n S t a t e v. Dunn ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 5 5 Mont. 319, 472 P.2d 288, 292, t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t , " [ i ] f t h e e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t is s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e t h a t p r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t s , n o t h i n g f u r t h e r is r e q u i r e d . " F u r t h e r , i n S t a t e v . Miner ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9 Mont. 260, 546 P.2d 252, t h i s C o u r t h e l d : " I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t d e f e n - d a n t committed an o f f e n s e , t h e g u i d e l i n e s s u g g e s t e d i n S p i n e l l i v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 393 U.S. 418, 89 S e c t . 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637, h a v e been n o t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l by t h i s C o u r t . S e e : S t a t e v . T r o g l i a , 157 Mont, 22, 482 P,2d 143. G e n e r a l l y , t h o s e g u i d e l i n e s s t a t e t h a t a mere p r o b a b i l i t y is s u f f i c i e n t f o r p r o b a b l e c a u s e , a prima f a c i e showing n o t b e i n g n e c e s s a r y . A l s o a f f i d a v i t s o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e a r e s u b j e c t t o much less r i g o r o u s s t a n d a r d s t h a n t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e , F i n a l l y , j u d g e s r e v i e w i n g s u c h a f f i d a v i t s s h o u l d u s e t h e i r cominon s e n s e i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r p r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t s . " 546 P.2d a t 254-255. (Empha- sis added.) S e e : S t a t e v . Hamilton ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. , 605 P.2d 1121, 1127, 37 St.Rep. 78, 75, f o r a r e a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e h o l d i n g i n Miner. W e h a v e reviewed t h e a f f i d a v i t o f t h e d e p u t y c o u n t y a t t o r n e y . The a f f i d a v i t c o n t a i n e d a l a r g e a r r a y o f f a c t s t h a t p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o w a r r r a n t t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e o f f e n s e s of c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f and a r s o n were committed by t h e d e f e n d a n t . The second i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w is t h e a l l e - g a t i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e , b e c a u s e o f its c i r c u m s t a n t i a l n a t u r e , was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t s . D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t under t h e s t a n d a r d s e t o u t i n S t a t e v. Cor ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 323, 396 P.2d 8 6 , and S t a t e v . F i t z p a t r i c k ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 220, 516 P.2d 605, t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o meet i t s b u r d e n o f p r o o f . The " s t a n d a r d , " a s a l l e g e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t is, " t h a t t o j u s t i f y a c o n v i c t i o n on c i r c u m s t a n - t i a l e v i d e n c e , t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s must n o t o n l y b e e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e t h e o r y o f g u i l t , b u t rnust b e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h any o t h e r r a t i o n a l ( e . r e a s o n a b l e ) c o n c l u s i o n . " F i t z p a t r i c k , 516 P.2d a t 609. Again, t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s o n l y p r e s e n t e d p a r t o f t h e l e g a l a n a l y s i s t h a t is r e q u i r e d when a s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e q u e s t i o n h a s been r a i s e d . T h i s C o u r t h e l d i n S t a t e v. Wilson ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. - 631 P.2d 1273, 38 St.Rep. 1840, 1047: "The c o r r e c t t e s t is w h e t h e r t h e r e is sub- s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e c o n v i c t i o n , viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e . S t a t e v. Brubaker ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. - , 625 P.2d 7 8 , 8 1 , 38 St.Rep. 432, 436; - S t a t e v. Azure ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. - , 5 9 1 P.2d 1125, 1 1 3 1 , 36 St.Rep. 514, 528. 'Sub- s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' is s u c h r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e a s a r e a s o n a b l e mind m i g h t a c c e p t a s a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n . S t a t e v. G r a v e s ( 1 9 8 1 ) - Mont. , 622 P.2d 203, 208, 38 St.Rep. 9 , 1 4 ; state v . M e r s e a l ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 7 filont. 412, 416, 538 P.2d 1 3 6 6 , 1368." 6 3 1 P.2d a t 1278. T h i s C o u r t must b e g i n a r e v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e w i t h t h e above p r i n c i p l e s o f l a w i n mind. The f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d b y t h e u s e o f c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e r a t h e r t h a n d i r e c t e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t a l t e r t h e p r o c e s s o f r e v i e w . S t a t e v. Cor ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 323, 396 P.2d 86; S t a t e v . S t o d d a r d ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 4 7 Mont. 402, 408, 412 P.2d 827, 831. While a c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d upon c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e may r e q u i r e a g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f s c r u t i n y by t h i s C o u r t , c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a s e p a r a t e o r u n i q u e t e s t a s t h e d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t it d o e s . The s t a n d a r d t h a t was c i t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t from - Cor and F i t z ~ a t r i c k was n o t t h e f u l l s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h a t is t o be a p p l i e d t o v e r d i c t s based p r i m a r i l y upon circumstan- t i a l evidence. I n - Cor, 396 P.2d a t 88-89, t h i s Court h e l d : " C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e is n o t a l w a y s i n f e r i o r i n q u a l i t y nor is it n e c e s s a r i l y r e l e g a t e d t o a 'second c l a s s s t a t u s ' i n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o be g i v e n it. The v e r y f a c t it is c i r c u m s t a n t i a l is n o t a s u f f i c i e n t a l l e g a t i o n t o j u s t i f y a r e v e r s a l o f t h e judgment f o r such evidence may be and f r e - q u e n t l y is, most convincing and s a t i s f a c t o r y . I n a n y c r i m i n a l c a s e , e v i d e n c e t h a t i s m a t e r i a l , r e l e v a n t and competent w i l l be ad- m i t t e d . ' n o t h i n a more and nothinq l e s s , ' The t e s t i s whethe; t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e o f s u c h a q u a l i t y a n d q u a n t i t y a s t o l e g a l l y j u s t i f y a j u r y i n d e t e r m i n i n g g u i l t bevond a r e a s o n a T l e d o u b t . I f s u c h be t h e c a s e , t h e n t h e c o u r t s h o u l d n o t , i n d e e d .................................... c a n n o t . s e t a s i d e t h e solemn f i n d i n a s o f t h e t r i e r of t h e f a c t s . d S t a t e v. E s p e l i n , 106 Mont. 231, 76 P,2d 629; S t a t e v , DeTonancour, 112 Mont, 94, 112 P.2d 1065," (Emphasis added. ) See: S t a t e v. S h u r t l i f f ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont, - , 635 P.2d 1294, 38 St.Rep. 1798; S t a t e v. Stoddard, s u p r a , 412 P,2d a t F u r t h e r , i n S t a t e v. S e i t z i n g e r ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Ploi-lt. , 589 P.2d 655, 36 St.Rep. 122, we s t a t e d : - "Given t h e f i r s t e x p l a n a t i o n , d e f e n d a n t c i t e s S t a t e v. F i t z p a t r i c k ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 163 Mont. 220, 516 P.2d 605, a s holding t h a t t o s u p p o r t a c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n t h e evidence must n o t o n l y be c o n s i s t e n t with d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t b u t a l s o i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s i n n o c e n c e , D e f e n d a n t ' s reading of t h e c a s e is n o t q u i t e complete. I n F i t z p a t r i c k , t h e Court went on t o s a y t h a t t h e j u r y is t h e f a c t - f i n d i n g body i n our l e g a l system and is f r e e t o pick and choose t h e evidence it wishes t o b e l i e v e . S t a t e v. F i t z p a t r i c k , supra a t 226, 516 P.2d a t 609." 589 P.2d a t 658. Here, t h e j u r y determined from a l l t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d , c i r c u m s t a n t i a l though it may have been, t h a t t h e defendant was g u i l t y of c r i m i n a l mischief and arson. The argument by defendant t h a t t h e r e were o t h e r " r a t i o n a l ( i . e . , r e a s o n a b l e ) " e x p l a n a t i o n s o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i s w i t h o u t merit. The j u r y d i d n o t c o n c l u d e from t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e was any o t h e r r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e e v i d e n c e , and we w i l l n o t second g u e s s t h e j u r y . I n t h e p a s t t h i s C o u r t reviewed t h e e v i d e n c e frorn a n a r s o n c a s e , S t a t e v. Murdock ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 95, 500 P.2d 387, t h a t was q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h a t p r e s e n t e d h e r e . When r e v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e , we s t a t e d : "To be s u r e t h e e v i d e n c e is c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , a s i n most a r s o n c a s e s . Nobody saw d e f e n d a n t s t a r t t h e f i r e o r saw him p r e p a r e t h e p r e m i s e s f o r t h e f i r e t h a t r e s u l t e d . But t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s show t h a t : d e f e n d a n t was t h e s o l e o c c u p a n t o f t h e h o u s e ; h e had t h e o n l y k e y s t o t h e house; t h e r e were no s i g n s o f f o r c e d e n t r y i n t o t h e house; t h e h o u s e was p r e p a r e d f o r a f i r e by jamming t h e s a f e t y d e v i c e s and e l e c t r i c a l c i r c u i t i n t h e f u r n a c e w i t h o i l y r a g e s l e a d i n g t o c o n t a i n e r s f i l l e d w i t h v o l a t i l e l i q u i d s ; g a s o l i n e , p r o p a n e , and o t h e r flammable m a t e r i a l s were p l a c e d on t h e f l o o r d i r e c t l y a b o v e t h e f u r n a c e ; t h e t h e r m o s t a t was set t o f i r e t h e f u r n a c e i n t h e e a r l y morning h o u r s when t h e t e m p e r a t u r e on t h e i n s i d e o f t h e h o u s e f e l l b e l o w 7 5 d e g r e e s ; t h e r u g s i n t h e h o u s e were soaked w i t h o i l ; t h e f u r n a c e h a d m a n u a l l y b e e n tampered w i t h t o c a u s e it t o m a l f u n c t i o n and e m i t a c o n t i n u o u s f l o w o f o i l when it t u r n e d o n ; and d e f e n d a n t , t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f anyone e l s e , had b o t h t h e m o t i v e and o p p o r t u n i t y t o b u r n t h e house down. Such c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e is s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t d e f e n d a n t c a u s e d t h e f i r e . " 500 P.2d a t 392. A r e v i e w of t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e p a r a l l e l s q u i t e c l o s e l y w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e i n Murdock. H e r e , a s i n Murdock, t h e d e f e n d a n t was n o t s e e n s t a r t i n g t h e f i r e . However, a s i n Murdock, t h e d e f e n d a n t c o n t r o l l e d t h e k e y s t o t h e p r e m i s e s ; t h e r e were no s i g n s o f f o r c e d e n t r y ; fiammable m a t e r i a l s were p l a c e d on t h e f l o o r ; and t h e d e f e n d a n t , t o t h e e x c l u s i o n of anyone else, had b o t h t h e m o t i v e and oppor- t u n i t y t o burn t h e s t o r e . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e above e v i d e n c e , t h e r e was f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s f i n d i n g s . T h i s e v i d e n c e i n c l u d e s t h e f a c t t h a t d e f e n d a n t had d o u b l e d h i s i n s u r a n c e s i x months b e f o r e t h e f i r e and a t t h e same time reduced h i s i n v e n t o r y ; he was s e e n a t t h e p e t s t o r e s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e f i r e ; h e was h e a v i l y i n d e b t e d and h i s b u s i n e s s showed s i g n s o f s e v e r e f i n a n c i a l s t r e s s ; a n d , t h e r e were a number o f u n t r u t h s t o l d by d e f e n d a n t t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s . The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t is a f f i r m e d . W e c o n c u r : C h i e f J u s t i c e