Title: STATE v ADAMS NORTHWIND

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 80-58 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1980 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, BUDDY L E O N A D A M S and JOHN CHARLES NORTHWIND, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Twelfth 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 Blaine. Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Altman and L i l l e t v e d t , Havre, Montana Brian L i l l e t v e d t argued, Havre, Montana Weber, Bosch, Kuhr, Dugdale, Warner and Martin, Havre, Montana Keith A. Maristuen argued, Havre, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Allen C h r o n i s t e r argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, OlMontana Donald A. Ranstrom, County Attorney, argued, Chinook, Montana F i l e d : T E C k Submitted: November 1 4 , 1980 Decided: DEC 2 9 4980 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendants Adams and Northwind appeal t h e i r convictions of felony t h e f t from Blaine County D i s t r i c t Court. Adams and Northwind w e r e charged by complaint on August 28, 1979, with the offense of misdemeanor t h e f t i n Blaine County. On September 5, 1979, both defendants were charged with felony t h e f t . Defendants f i l e d a motion t o dismiss on t h e grounds t h a t t h e S t a t e could n o t prove t h a t the amount taken exceeded $150. The prosecution f i l e d an amended in- formation on t h e 27th of September. On November 1, 1979, defendants moved t o dismiss the amended information, as it r e l a t e d t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of an offense i n Poplar, Roose- v e l t County, Montana, on the grounds of improper venue. The S t a t e was granted leave t o f i l e a second amended information, and defendants renewed t h e i r objections based on improper venue. T r i a l began on November 2. The jury returned a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y on t h e charge of felony t h e f t . Adams, found t o be a p e r s i s t e n t felony offender, w a s sentenced t o e i g h t years i n t h e state prison. Northwind was sentenced t o s i x years with t h r e e years suspended. This appeal follows. O n Friday, August 2 4 , 1979, defendant Adams was seen i n Don's B a r i n the town of Poplar, Roosevelt County, Montana, by Elizabeth S t e e l e (a customer) and S t e l l a Moran, the bartender. They observed Adams s i t t i n g next t o t h e jukebox when S t e e l e went t o play it. When S t e e l e asked Adams what he was doing, he walked away without responding. Moran i n t u r n reported t h i s t o her boss, Roberta Fredrick, who then examined the jukebox and determined t h a t the machine was not disturbed. Fredrick and Moran saw Adams i n the bar on Saturday, August 25, 1979. Fredrick d i d n o t r e c a l l seeing e i t h e r of t h e defendants i n t h e bar a f t e r 4:00 p.m. Saturday afternoon. A t approximately 8:00 p.m. t h a t day, she discovered t h a t her jukebox had been broken i n t o and t h e money taken. Fredrick had been i n and o u t of t h e bar a l l day running errands, checking I D ' S and doing whatever needed t o be done. She never p o s i t i v e l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t she s a w defendant Northwind i n the bar on Saturday; however, she d i d i n d i c a t e t h a t she d i d n o t pay much a t t e n t i o n o r watch t h a t c l o s e l y . A t approximately 11:30 p.m. on August 25, 1979, defen- d a n t s Adams and Northwind entered t h e Stockmans Bar i n Chinook, Montana, i n i3laine County. They ordered frorn t h e bar and then moved t o a t a b l e beside t h e jukebox. Adams placed s e v e r a l coins i n t o t h e jukebox, and Northwind began t o s e l e c t t h e songs. Carol Upshaw, t h e owner and bartender, was behind t h e bar. The music began t o play, and Upshaw heard t h e sound of c o i n s h i t t i n g something. Immediately t h e r e a f t e r , t h e t h r e e men a t the t a b l e g o t up and l e f t t h e bar. Upshaw followed them o u t s i d e and saw them leave i n a gold Chevrolet. She went back i n , closed t h e bar and went home. On Sunday, August 26, 1979, Upshaw t o l d her husband, Robert Upshaw, t h a t she believed someone had taken t h e money from t h e jukebox. Robert Upshaw then went t o the b a r , ex- amined t h e jukebox, dropped two coins i n t o it, and d i s - covered t h a t t h e coin box w a s empty. Adams and Northwind p r e s e n t t h e following question f o r our review: Was Blaine County t h e proper forum i n which t o proceed when t h e information a l s o charged defendants with a t h e f t occurring i n Roosevelt County? W e f i n d it was n o t and remand t h e cause f o r proceedings c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion. I n view of the f a c t t h a t t h e venue i s s u e warrants remand, a l l o t h e r i s s u e s r a i s e d by defendants w i l l n o t be addressed. By s t a t u t e , the general r u l e i n Montana is t h a t , i n criminal actions, venue i s proper only i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n where the c r i m e occurred. Section 46-3-101, MCA. The code does provide c e r t a i n exceptions t o t h a t general statement of law. One of these exceptions is embodied i n s e c t i o n 46-3- 102, MCA, wherein it provides t h a t "[wlhere two o r more a c t s a r e r e q u i s i t e t o the commission of any offense, t h e t r i a l may be i n any county i n which any of such a c t s occur." The S t a t e adopted t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e t h e f t s i n Blaine County and Roosevelt County w e r e two acts which, when linked together by a common scheme, c o n s t i t u t e d one crime-- felony t h e f t . Defendants argued t h a t , i f indeed they were g u i l t y , t h e most they w e r e g u i l t y of w a s two misdemeanor t h e f t s , those t h e f t s being separate and d i s t i n c t offenses, not t r i a b l e i n t h e same county. The concept of "common scheme" appears i n s e v e r a l sec- t i o n s of Montana's Criminal Code. Section 45-2-101(7), MCA, defines t h e term a s a series of a c t s o r omissions "motivated by a purpose t o accomplish a s i n g l e criminal o b j e c t i v e o r by a common purpose o r plan which r e s u l t s i n t h e repeated com- mission of the same offense o r a f f e c t s t h e s a m e person o r same persons o r t h e property thereof." This d e f i n i t i o n , as applied i n the bad check, deceptive p r a c t i c e s , and forgery s t a t u t e s , imposes a higher penalty f o r offenses committed pursuant t o an elaborate plan, i n c o n t r a s t t o the p e n a l t i e s imposed f o r the s i n g l e fraudulent a c t . See Annotator's Note, Montana Criminal Code 1973 Annot., (1980 Rev. Ed.). See a l s o sections 45-6-316, 45-6-317 and 45-6-325, MCA. The S t a t e argues t h a t t h e r e is no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e common scheme concept i s limited t o bad check and forgery s i t u a t i o n s , and, therefore, the prosecution properly imposed a'higlier penalty f o r t h e two offenses o r a c t s , thus estab- l i s h i n g venue i n e i t h e r Blaine o r Roosevelt County. A t t h e h e a r t of t h e S t a t e ' s a n a l y s i s is t h e assumption t h a t t h e two criminal a c t s were continuing; one t h e f t foreshadowing o r preparing t h e way f o r t h e second. I f w e accept t h i s assump- t i o n , w e come within t h e ambit of s e c t i o n 46-3-102, MCA, where a c t s r e q u i s i t e t o t h e commission of a crime, occurring i n more than one j u r i s d i c t i o n , e s t a b l i s h proper venue i n any one of the a f f e c t e d counties. This Court i s convinced, however, t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s assumption i s a flawed and inadequate b a s i s f o r the t r i a l of t h e Roosevelt County offense i n Blaine County. W e f i n d t h a t t h e offenses were linked together by s i m i l a r i t y and nothing more. I n no apparent way w a s the Chinook t h e f t a continu- a t i o n of t h e t h e f t i n Poplar; nor w a s t h e Poplar offense incomplete s o t h a t when t h e offense took p l a c e i n Chinook a s i n g l e crime of felony t h e f t was consummated. I n our view, two s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t offenses occurred i n two d i f f e r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Under t h e law of t h i s S t a t e , the crimes must be charged and t r i e d i n t h e counties i n which they occurred. Section 46-3-101, MCA. W e reverse t h e convictions on t h e Poplar t h e f t , reduce t h e felony t h e f t convictions from Blaine County t o misde- meanors, and remand f o r resentencing i n Blaine County. W e concur: 4 4 g A.;l.epp_ Chief J u s t i c e M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea w i l l f i l e a s e p a r a t e opinion l a t e r .