Title: STATE v JENKINS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 80-213 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1981 THE STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, V S . JAMES CLIFTON JENKINS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth 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 Cascade. Honorable J o e l G. Roth, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Marcia Birkenbuel, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: J. Bourdeau, Great F a l l s , Montana and Mike Greely, Helena, Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : February 1.8, 1981 Decided: June 1 0 , 1981 1 0 1981 F i l e d : M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. James C l i f t o n Jenkins was charged i n August 1979 with two counts of robbery. H e was t r i e d by jury i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County, t h e Honorable J o e l Roth presiding. Jenkins was found g u i l t y on both counts and sentenced t o 20 years on each, t h e sentences t o run consecu- t i v e l y . He appeals from both convictions. Pam Rains, manager of t h e Feedlot Restaurant i n Great F a l l s , was alone i n the r e s t a u r a n t and taking a break a t 4:00 p.m. on August 18, 1979. She noticed a man o u t s i d e who was looking through t h e f r o n t window of the r e s t a u r a n t . The man entered t h e r e s t a u r a n t and Rains went behind t h e counter t o take h i s o r d e r . The man s a i d : "Do as I say", and gave her a note which read: "Take a l l t h e money from t h e r e g i s t e r and g i v e it t o me." The man placed a gun on t h e counter. Two people entered t h e restau- r a n t before Rains gave t h e man any money. The man r e t r i e v e d h i s note and l e f t . Rains described him a s a light-complected white male, 39 o r 4 0 years o l d , 6' t o 6'2", 150 pounds, c l e a n shaven, with s h o r t receding h a i r of a sandy-grey c o l o r , wearing t a n pants and an open-collared s h i r t with horizontal white and green s t r i p e s . A few minutes a f t e r t h e attempted robbery of t h e Feedlot, a man entered t h e Mode OIDay s t o r e i n Great F a l l s . The s t o r e was n o t open f o r business, b u t Mavis Bean, who owned the s t o r e , and Teresa Bean, M r s . Robert Anderson and Roberta King were i n s i d e unpacking a c l o t h i n g shipment. The man, who was armed with a k n i f e and gun, approached Teresa Bean and asked where t h e till was located. Mavis Bean t o l d him they were not open f o r business and t h e man l e f t the s t o r e . Mavis Bean described t h e man a s Caucasion, 5'10" t o 6 ' l " , 37 t o 40 years of age, with l i g h t receding h a i r , and wearing o l d denim pants and a s t r i p e d T - s h i r t . Teresa Bean described t h e man a s being 6 ' t a l l , slender, clean shaven, fair-complected, with l i g h t brown h a i r and a receding h a i r l i n e and wearing jeans and a white sweater with s h o r t sleeves and aqua s t r i p e s . Great F a l l s p o l i c e d e t e c t i v e s Dave Warrington and Eugene Bernardi were involved i n the robbery i n v e s t i g a t i o n . On August 20 a t 11:30 a.m., they entered t h e Lobby Bar i n Great F a l l s and noticed James C l i f t o n Jenkins. Warrington approached Jenkins and t o l d him he f i t t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of a robbery suspect. Jenkins had no i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and gave h i s name a s Larry White. Jenkins was p a t t e d down i n t h e w a i s t a r e a and asked i f he would accompany t h e o f f i c e r s so t h a t a witness could s e e him. Jenkins went with t h e o f f i c e r s v o l u n t a r i l y . H e was not a r r e s t e d o r handcuffed. H e was placed i n the backseat of an unmarked p o l i c e c a r , a yellow two-door Ford Fairmont. The t h r e e men then drove t o the Mode 0 ' Day s t o r e . Mavis Bean w a s n o t a t t h e s t o r e . Warrington telephoned Pam Rains a t her home and requested t h a t they meet a t a c e r t a i n parking l o t so Rains could see Jenkins f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n pur- poses. The d e t e c t i v e s and Jenkins drove a c r o s s town t o m e e t Rains. The p o l i c e v e h i c l e a r r i v e d a t t h e parking l o t f i r s t . When Rains a r r i v e d , Warrington g o t o u t of t h e c a r and went t o Rains' vehicle, which was parked 60 f e e t away. Warrington t o l d Rains he had two men seated i n h i s c a r and asked her i f she could i d e n t i f y e i t h e r man a s the robber. Detective ~ e r n a r d i i s 6'1" t a l l and weighs 200 pounds. H e was s i t t i n g i n t h e f r o n t seat. Jenkins i s 5 ' 9 " t a l l and weighs 150 pounds and was i n t h e backseat of t h e two-door vehicle. Rains approached t h e p o l i c e c a r . When she was about 25 f e e t away,she pointed a t Jenkins and said: "That's him." Warrington asked Rains t o walk c l o s e r t o t h e c a r . When she w a s 8-10 f e e t away, she s t a t e d t h a t she was p o s i t i v e t h a t t h e man i n the backseat was t h e robber. Jenkins was then t o l d he was under a r r e s t f o r t h e attempted robbery of t h e Feedlot. He was transported t o t h e Great F a l l s P o l i c e Department and photographed there. While i n custody, Jenkins gave a signed consent t o search h i s apartment. A short- sleeve, open-collared s h i r t , off-white with aqua-green s t r i p e s , w a s found a t t h e apartment. A photographic a r r a y containing Jenkins' photograph was shown t o t h r e e of t h e witnesses t o t h e robbery a t t h e Mode OIDay and t o t h e two customers of t h e Feed- l o t . Mavis Bean, Teresa Bean and M r s . Robert Anderson a l l i d e n t i f i e d t h e photograph of Jenkins a s t h e man who t r i e d t o rob the s t o r e . The Feedlot customers were unable t o make a p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Mavis Bean, Teresa Bean and Pam Rains a l s o iden- t i f i e d t h e s h i r t seized a s t h e one worn by t h e man who attempted t o rob them. Jenkins was then charged with t h e attempted robbery of t h e Mode OIDay. Jenkins entered p l e a s of "not g u i l t y " t o both counts and moved t o suppress i d e n t i f i c a t i o n testimony on the grounds t h a t it was t h e f r u i t of an i l l e g a l a r r e s t and made pursuant t o a suggestive one-man show up. The motion t o suppress w a s denied. Jenkins was t r i e d by jury on November 19-21, 1979. The jury returned v e r d i c t s of g u i l t y on both counts. Jenkins was sen- tenced t o 20 years imprisonment on each count, the sentences t o run consecutively. H e was a l s o designated a dangerous of- fender, s e c t i o n 46-18-404, MCA, and a p e r s i s t e n t felony offender, s e c t i o n 46-18-501, MCA, and found t o be i n e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i-n t h e prison furlough program. Jenkins r a i s e s two i s s u e s on appeal: 1. Was the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n testimony derived from t h e trans- p o r t a t i o n of Jenkins f o r t h e purpose of e x h i b i t i n g him t o a witness suppressible because h i s Fourth Amendment r i g h t t o be secure i n h i s person a g a i n s t unreasonable s e i z u r e s had been vio- l a t e d ? 2. Was t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a t t h e parking l o t , and t h e subsequent i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a t t r i a l , s u p p r e s s i b l e because Jenkins' F i f t h Amendment due process r i g h t s had been v i o l a t e d ? Jenkins argues t h a t although he was n o t formally a r r e s t e d before Rains i d e n t i f i e d him, t h e p o l i c e conduct was i n d i s - t i n g u i s h a b l e from a r r e s t under t h e standard of Dunaway v. New York (1979), 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824. This contention i s based upon t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t h i s journey w i t h t h e o f f i c e r s was i n v o l u n t a r y because, i n view of a l l t h e cir- cumstances surrounding t h e i n c i d e n t , a reasonable person would have believed t h a t he was n o t f r e e t o leave. United S t a t e s v. Mendenhall (1980), 446 U.S. 544, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497. Jenkins f u r t h e r contends t h a t because t h e pol-ice lacked probable cause f o r t h e " a r r e s t " , t h e f r u i t s thereof should have been suppressed by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Not every c o n f r o n t a t i o n i n i t i a t e d by a p o l i c e o f f i c e r must be based on probable cause. Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. I-, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868. To j u s t i f y i n t r u s i o n upon t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s of a c i t i z e n , " t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r must be a b l e t o p o i n t t o s p e c i f i c and a r t i c u l a b l e f a c t s which, taken to- g e t h e r w i t h r a t i o n a l i n f e r e n c e s from t h o s e f a c t s , reasonably warrant t h a t i n t r u s i o n . " Terry, 392 U.S. a t 21. ~ e t e c t i v e s Warrington and Bernardi w e r e a b l e t o p o i n t t o s p e c i f i c and a r t i c u l a b l e f a c t s which reasonably warranted t h e i n t r u s i o n t h a t Jenkins now questions. They were assigned t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e r o b b e r i e s of t h e F e e d l o t and t h e Mode O'Day. They w e r e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e robber. While i n t h e Lobby Bar, j u s t two days a f t e r t h e r o b b e r i e s , they observed a man who f i t t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e suspect. They approached t h e man. War- r i n g t o n t o l d him t h a t t h e r e had been two attempted r o b b e r i e s two days before and t h a t it was Warrington's opinion t h a t t h e man resembled t h e person who had committed t h e crimes. When Warrington asked the man h i s name, he responded t h a t it was Larry White. The man had no i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Warrington p a t t e d t h e man i n t h e w a i s t a r e a t o determine i f he had any weapons. Under t h e f a c t s o u t l i n e d above, the p o l i c e conduct was reasonable and not v i o l a t i v e of Jenkins' Fourth Amendment r i g h t s . The p o l i c e must be allowed t o approach and question persons who f a i r l y resemble d e s c r i p t i o n s of p e r p e t r a t o r s of criminal a c t s . While t h e p a t down of Jenkins was i n t r u s i v e , it was just- i f i e d because it was l i m i t e d t o a search f o r weapons, Jenkins f i t t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e robber, and t h e robber had been armed with a k n i f e and a gun. P o l i c e o f f i c e r s a r e not required t o take unnecessary r i s k s i n the performance of t h e i r d u t i e s . "[Tlhere must be a narrowly drawn a u t h o r i t y t o permit a rea- sonable search f o r weapons f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e pol-ice o f f i c e r , where he has reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t he i s d e a l i n g with an armed and dangerous i n d i v i d u a l , r e g a r d l e s s of whether he has probable cause t o a r r e s t . " Terry, supra, 392 U.S. a t 27. The i n i t i a l encounter between Jenkins and t h e d e t e c t i v e s was lawful. Whether Jenkins' consent t o accompany t h e d e t e c t i v e s was voluntary is t o be determined by the t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r - cumstances. Mendenhall, supra, 446 U.S. a t 557. The ~ i s t r i c t Judge had t h e opportunity t o observe Warrington, Bernardi and Jenkins a t t h e suppression hearing and evaluate t h e i r testimony. Warrington t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r t h e p a t down, he asked Jenkins i f he would "mind going" with the o f f i c e r s . Warrington f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t Jenkins r e p l i e d t h a t he d i d not mind because they had t h e wrong man. The rest of t h e d e t e c t i v e s ' testimony i n - d i c a t e d t h a t Jenkins was not handcuffed, f u r t h e r searched, o r otherwise coerced u n t i l a f t e r Rains made her i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . When Jenkins asked t h e d e t e c t i v e s i f he was under a r r e s t , they r e p l i e d t h a t he was not. Jenkins argues t h a t h i s placement i n t h e backseat of a two-door p o l i c e v e h i c l e was a r e s t r i c t i o n amounting t o a s e i z u r e . However, t h e p o i n t i s whether h i s presence t h e r e was voluntary. The f a c t t h a t he was t h e r e i s l i t t l e o r no evidence t h a t he was i n any way coerced. Menden- h a l l , supra, 446 U.S. a t 559. W e f i n d t h a t t h e record supports t h e D i s t r i c t Court's conclusion t h a t Jenkins agreed t o accompany t h e o f f i c e r s and had n o t been " a r r e s t e d " p r i o r t o h i s formal a r r e s t upon i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Rains. Jenkins was not i l l e g a l l y seized, and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n testimony was not suppressible because obtained i n v i o l a t i o n of h i s Fourth Amendment r i g h t s . Jenkins' second i s s u e concerns t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Rains i n t h e parking l o t and t h e subsequent i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of him a t t r i a l . He contends t h a t he was denied due process because t h e show up was unnecessarily suggestive and conducive t o irre- parable m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . S t o v a l l v. Denno (1967), 388 U.S. 293, 302, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1206, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1972. The test we mustuse i n resolving t h i s i s s u e i s two-pronged. F i r s t , w a s t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n procedure impermissibly suggestive; and, i f so, d i d it have such a tendency t o g i v e rise t o a s u b s t a n t i a l likelihood of i r r e p a r a b l e m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t h a t t o allow t h e witness t o make an in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n would v i o l a t e due process. N e i l v. Biggers (1972), 409 U.S. 188, 198, 34 L.Ed.2d 401, 410-1.1, 93 S.Ct. 375, 381. The procedure used t o i d e n t i f y Jenkins was undoubtedly suggestive, and one-on-one confronta- t i o n s have been widely and properly condemned by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court. However, under t h e second prong of t h e test we employ, we must consider whether t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e circumstances gives rise t o a s u b s t a n t i a l likelihood of m i s - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . W e must weigh t h e c o r r u p t i v e e f f e c t of t h e suggestive procedure a g a i n s t f a c t o r s t o be considered i n evaluating t h e likelihood of m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Manson v. ~ r a t h w a i t e (1977), 432 U.S. 98, 53 L.Ed.2d 140, 97 S.Ct. 2243. The f a c t o r s are: (1) t h e opportunity of t h e witness t o view t h e criminal a t t h e time of t h e crime, ( 2 ) t h e witness' degree of a t t e n t i o n , (3) t h e accuracy of t h e witness' p r i o r d e s c r i p t i o n , ( 4 ) t h e l e v e l of c e r t a i n t y demonstrated by t h e witness a t t h e confrontation, and ( 5 ) t h e length of time between t h e crime and the confrontation. Neil v. Biggers, supra, 409 U.S. a t 199. Rains had a c l e a r view of Jenkins before he entered t h e restau- r a n t . She viewed him face-to-face a c r o s s t h e counter, i n good l i g h t , during t h e robbery attempt. He was t h e only o t h e r per- son i n t h e r e s t a u r a n t , so her l e v e l of a t t e n t i o n was high. With t h e exception of height, her d e s c r i p t i o n was accurate. The record r e v e a l s t h a t she was q u i t e c e r t a i n t h a t Jenkins was t h e man who t r i e d t o rob her, and only two days had passed between the crime and the confrontation. W e cannot conclude t h a t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Jenkins by Rains was so u n r e l i a b l e a s t o c o n s t i t u t e a v i o l a t i o n of due process. Considering t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e circumstances, we hold t h a t while t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n procedure was suggestive, it d i d n o t c r e a t e a s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e r e was a s u b s t a n t i a l likelihood of m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . W e affirm. W e concur: 4;&4, W , & \ Chief J u s t i c e