Title: STATE v THOMAS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12875 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T OF THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - WAYNE THOMAS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Frank E. B l a i r , ~ u d g e prescding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Jardine and McCarthy, Whitehall,., Montana Jack M. McCarthy argued, Whitehail, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Carl Mont? K r a f t , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , argued, Helena, Montana Chester L. Jones, County Attorney, argued, Ennis, Montana Submitted: January 22, 1975 -P. + . h. 2 - ' ; ; - Decided: - . i - I Filed : :-EL. L - , 5 , ''5 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an appeal by defendant, Wayne Thomas, from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Madison County, s i t t i n g without a jury, convicting him of t h e crime of s a l e of dangerous drugs. A t 2:00 p.m. on February 2 2 , 1974, Christy Johns, age 15, was brought before t h e Superintendent of t h e Twin Bridges High School. A t t h a t t i m e , she was found t o be i n possession of a blue p l a s t i c box, within which was a p l a s t i c sandwich bag containing some green m a t e r i a l , subsequently determined t o be marijuana . A t t r i a l , M i s s Johns t e s t i f i e d : That she and Rhonda Shelly approached defendant i n t h e Blue Anchor Restaurant i n Twin Bridges on February 2 0 , 1974, and t h a t t h e conversation concerned t h e purchase of marijuana from defendant; t h a t she and M i s s Shelly m e t with defendant a t approximately 8:00 a.m. on February 22, 1974, a t which t i m e defendant t r a n s f e r r e d a p l a s t i c bag t o M i s s Shelly. M i s s Johns s t a t e d she assumed t h e bag conta.ined marijuana. M i s s Shelly placed t h e bag i n her sock. M i s s Johns d i d not s e e t h e p l a s t i c bag again u n t i l about noon i n t h e washroom of t h e Blue Anchor; t h a t t h e r e M i s s Shelly t r a n s - f e r r e d t o her t h e blue box, within which was a p l a s t i c bag and i t s contents, which she put i n her sock. M i s s Johns indicated she and M i s s Shelly m e t with defendant, who was s i t t i n g alone a t a booth a t t h e Blue Anchor, between 12:15 and 1 2 : 2 0 p.m. on February 22, 1974, and they paid defendant t h e sum of $15. Defendant c a t a g o r i c a l l y denied he had ever m e t with M i s s Johns and M i s s Shelly e i t h e r a t approximately 8:00 a.m. o r a t noontime on February 2 2 , 1974. M i s s Shelly did not t e s t i f y . Bruce and Sheila Burke, husband and wife, t e s t i f i e d they meet each day a t noontime and have lunch a t t h e Blue Anchor, o f t e n with defendant. They t e s t i f i e d t h a t n e i t h e r M i s s Johns nor Miss Shelly ever came near their booth at any time they were having lunch with defendant. However, they were unable to recall whether or not they had Lunch with defendant on February 22, 1974. Mrs. Gage, a realtor, testified that she entered the Blue Anchor for lunch at approximately 12:25 or 12:30 p.m. on February 22, 1974, and saw defendant and Burkes eating lunch in the same booth. Mrs. Love joy, owner of the Blue Anchor, was working as a waitress on February 22, 1974. She testified that defendant did eat lunch with the Burkes on that day; that she saw no one go near the booth occupied by defendant and the Burkes; but added: "I mean, I was busy. I couldn't really say one way or the other." The issues presented by defendant can be summarized: (1) Whether the district court erred in admitting into evidence the blue plastic box containing the marijuana because it was not identified nor connected to defendant by competent evidence? (2) Whether the district court erred in determining that the plastic bag taken from Miss Johns at 2:00 p.m. was the same plastic bag given to Pliss Shelly at 8:00 a.m.? (3) Whether the district court erred in determining t h a t Yiss ,Johns and Miss Shelly were in the Blue Anchor and paid $15 to defendant on February 22, 1974? (4) Whether the evidence proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The district court did not err in admitting into evi- dence the blue plastic box containing the marijuana. Defendant contends the state failed to establish by competent evidence that the piastic bag delivered to Miss Shelly contained marijuana; that it was the same plastic bag delivered to Miss Johns at noontime; nor t h a t it was t h e same p l a s t i c bag taken from M i s s Johns. I n other words, defendant urges t h a t t h e s t a t e must e s t a b l i s h a continuous chain of possession from t h e de- fendant t o t h e Superintendent. I n support defendant c i t e s Joyner v. Utterback, 196 Iowa 1 0 4 0 , 195 N.W. 594, wherein t h e Iowa c o u r t held t h a t i f one l i n k i n a chain of possession is missing t h e e x h i b i t could not be introduced i n t o evidence, That case should be d i s t i n - guished, however, and t h e r u l e not applied i n t h e present sit- uation. I n Joyner, a u t h o r i t i e s seized a c e r t a i n b o t t l e from p e t i t i o n e r ' s place of business and found it t o be i n v i o l a t i o n of a s t a t u t e prescribing alcohol by content. The state f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a chain of possession from t h e time of confisca- t i o n u n t i l t h e time of introduction i n t o evidence. The c o u r t required a complete chain of possession a f t e r confiscation by law enforcement o f f i c i a l s . However, here M i s s Johns i d e n t i f i e d t h e p l a s t i c box and t h e p l a s t i c bag which were introduced by t h e s t a t e . Her testimony inexorably linked defendant t o them. Defendant, how- ever, simply a l l e g e s t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of tampering e x i s t e d while t h e p l a s t i c bag was i n t h e possession of M i s s Shelly. This m e r e conjecture by defendant i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o preclude t h e introduction of t h i s evidence. Defendant's burden was t o show a f f i r m a t i v e l y t h a t tampering had taken place. I n S t a t e v. Olsen, 152 Mont. 1, 1 0 , 445 P.2d 926, t h i s Court said: " I * * *In each case t h e t r i a l judge before he admits it i n evidence must be s a t i s f i e d t h a t i n reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h e a r t i c l e has not been changed i n important r e s p e c t s . Wigmore, Evidence, 3d Ed., S 437(1); 32 C . J . S . Evidence B 607. I n reaching h i s conclusion he must be guided by t h e nature of t h e a r t i c l e , t h e cir- cumstances surrounding the preservation and custody of it, and t h e likelihood of i n t e r - meddlers tampering with it.' " * * * A ietermination of whether a foundation has been properly l a i d i n order t o introduce e x h i b i t s i n t o evidence r e s t s with t h e lower c o u r t and such a determination w i l l not be overturned unless t h e r e is a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n , a s i t u a t i o n not present here." W e f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n admitting i n t o evidence t h e p l a s t i c box con- t a i n i n g t h e marijuana. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t acted within i t s d i s - c r e t i o n as t h e t r i e r of f a c t i n determining t h a t t h e p l a s t i c bag taken from M i s s Johns a t 2:00 p.m. was t h e same a s t h a t delivered t o M i s s Shelly by defendant t h a t morning; t h a t M i s s Johns and M i s s Shelly were i n t h e Blue Anchor and paid $15 t o defendant on February 2 2 , 1974; and t h a t defendant was g u i l t y beyond a reasonable doubt. Such decisions properly r e s t e d with t h e t r i e r of f a c t , giving whatever weight it deemed proper t o the evidence submitted t o it. After closing arguments, t h e d i s t r i c t court indicated t h e circumstances which compelled it t o believe t h e testimony of Xiss Johns and discount t h e testimony of defendant's witnesses. T h e testimony of M i s s Johns, together with t h e other witnesses f o r t h e s t a t e , was s u f f i c i e n t t o support a finding of g u i l t y be- yond a reasonable doubt of t h e crime of s a l e of dangerous drugs. Certainly, t h e giving o r t r a n s f e r of t h e marijuana, without even considering t h e cash trans£ e r , e s t a b l i s v t h e crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding no e r r o r , t h e judgment i s affirmed. W e concur: ' , . " [ d d . . ' , . t L*' ,-,,,,--,--,,L':~I ,----... a - d ~ ~ i ~ ~ * L . Chief J u s t i c e : Z : : / j , , ' f ----- - ~ - i -,-- ~-~i'i'i.~t~iii------ J u s t i c e s - 5 -