Title: STATE v POUND

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12346 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1973 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , Plaint i f f and Respondent, -VS - JOHN EDWARD P O U N D , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Twelfth J u d i c i a l District, Honorable B e W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Morrison and Ettien, Havre, Montana Robert D. Morrison argued, Havre, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Jonathan B e Smith, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana William M. Solem appeared, Chinook, Montana Submitted: January 26, 1973 Decided *Rfik 2 7 55'73 Filed : $f&R 2 '2 . - M r . J u s t i c e Sene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This appeal i s talten from a judgment entered on a jury verdict i n the d i s t r i c t court of Blaine County, convicting John Edward Pound of one count of grand larceny and sentencing him t o serve f i v e years i n the Montana S t a t e Prison. Pound was charged by amended Information with twelve counts of grand larceny and one count of second degree burglary. He entered a plea of not g u i l t y t o a l l charges. The jury verdict of May 10, 1972, found defendant g u i l t y of count one of the amended Infor- mation of grand larceny and not g u i l t y of a l l other counts. From the judgment of conviction and from the c o u r t ' s order denying h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l , Pound brings t h i s appeal. From t h e t r i a l record unusual and often contradictory f a c t s appear. One Joseph Lewis DeSaye, an American c i t i z e n , brought the charges against Pound f o r alleged a c t s t h a t took place on h i s farm near Turner, Montana. DeSaye i s a farmer and a l s o a dealer i n firearms, r e l a t e d supplies and coins. H i s a c t i v i t y i n t h i s area was not j u s t casual a s DeSaye t e s t i f i e d h i s business volume i n 1971 was approximately $475,000. Defendant Pound i s 38 years of age, married, and a Canadian c i t i z e n residing i n the c i t y of Swift Current, Saskatch- ewan, Canada. For f i f t e e n years he had been employed by the Saskatchewan government a s a petroleum engineer. He had been acquainted with DeSaye f o r approximately ten years. Over the course of t h e i r acquaintance Pound had done carpentry and gun- smithing work f o r DeSaye and i n doing so had been given f r e e access t o DeSaye's property. A t times previous t o the present incident Pound had loaned substantial sums of money t o DeSaye and had purchased guns from BeSaye. B y t h e i r custom, i n t e r e s t on loans and wage payments from DeSaye t o Pound took the form of g i f t s o r discounts on guns o r r e l a t e d equipment. The two men were a l s o involved i n some type of "coin importing scheme". Pound would take delivery of coins ordered by DeSaye from Canadian sources and e i t h e r transport them across the border o r give them t o DeSaye i n Canada f o r h i s transportation across the border. DeSaye would then reimburse Pound by a check on h i s Canadian bank account f o r f r e i g h t charges and other expenses. Problems arose between DeSaye and Pound i n 1967 when they were charged with v i o l a t i o n of smuggling laws by Canadian author- i t i e s . In successfully defending the case, Pound incurred a t t o r - ney fees of $2,075. Pound claimed he had been promised by DeSaye t h a t he would reimburse Pound f o r a l l of h i s costs incurred i n defending the charges. Pound t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was only given $800 by DeSaye toward those expenses; DeSaye t e s t i f i e d t h a t he give Pound over $1,000 f o r t h a t purpose. As a r e s u l t , Pound claimed he was owed the amount of $1,275 by DeSaye; DeSaye denied any indebtedness. Pound a l s o claimed he was owed an additional $100 by DeSaye i n connection with a bag of coins he had given DeSaye i n 1968 t o s e l l f o r him i n the United States. It appears t h a t p r i o r t o t r i a l , the court instructed DeSaye t o produce a l l of h i s records which had t o do with the international coin transactions with Pound and others. The court further issued a subpoena duces tecum f o r t h e production of these records which was properly served and return made t o the court. A t t r i a l these records were not produced and DeSaye claimed t o have only incom- p l e t e o r p a r i t a l records of these transactions, On cross-examina- t i o n DeSaye was extremely vague and evasive concerning c e r t a i n areas of these transactions, The court denied defendant's motion made a t t r i a l t o compel production of these records. On September 1 7 , 1971, DeSaye by telephone extended an in- v i t a t i o n t o the Pounds t o come t o h i s farm suggesting Pound could complete some carpentry work he had i n progress and they could view some t r a v e l slides. O n September 19, 1971, Mr. and Mrs. Pound traveled from Canada t o the DeSaye home arriving about 10:30 o r 1 l : O O a.m. M r . and Mrs. DeSaye were not a t home when the Pounds arrived. A Montana highway patrol c a r was parked on the premises and Patrolman Harold Savik waited u n t i l DeSaye returned a t about L:OO p.m., purchased firearm supplies, and departed shortly a f t e r that. Savik and Pound saw each other but did not converse, Also v i s i b l y present i n the area were: Osmond Olson, an elderly r e t i r e d farmer who lived on the premises; Joseph ~ e ~ a y e ' s 2 1 year old son Gregory and h i s wife; Mrs, P a t t i Anderson, who was babysitting; and the three younger DeSaye children, Greta, Grant and Brad, Lee Thomas, an agent of the United States Border Pacrol, was a l s o present but had concealed h i s government c a r behind an outlying barn and had concealed himself i n a straw stack. 1 1 DeSaye had furnished Thomas with two super-8" movie cameras which he used t o take motion pictures of Pound without h i s know- ,-edge. The films taken by Thomas were introduced i n t o evidence a t t r i a l and shown t o the jury. The films showed Pound taking r i f l e s , supplies and a sack t o h i s Bronco vehicle and placing them inside. Between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m., Pound claims DeSaye pursued a discussion with him i n which he was questioned extensively about h i s financial s t a t u s . A t approximately 2:00 p.m. DeSaye suggested they should e a t , and Pound went t o wash h i s hands. Looking out the window Pound saw a man creeping by and mentioned it t o DeSaye. Pound then went t o h i s Bronco f o r the claimed pur- pose of getting h i s contact lens cleaning equipment. A t t h i s point, t h e testimony i s i n c o n f l i c t as t o subsequent events. It appears t h a t a pickup truck had been placed by Gregory DeSaye close i n front of the defendant's Bronco and the border p a t r o l c a r had been parked d i r e c t l y behind, so a s t o wedge the Bronco in. Pound claimed he did not s t a r t the Bronco, but reached i n t o get the contact lens cleaning equipment when DeSaye pulled him out and began struggling with him. DeSaye claimed t h a t Pound s t a r t e d the Bronco and attempted t o drive forward, s t r i k i n g the pickup, whereupon he and h i s son, Greg, pulled Pound out and "subdued him". Lee Thomas, the border p a t r o l o f f i c e r , then came on the scene and locked the Bronco vehicle, and the three men took Pound t o a t r a i l e r adjacent t o the house. It appears t h a t Thomas l e f t the t r a i l e r a t the request of Pound, leaving DeSaye and Pound alone. There i s c o n f l i c t a s t o what was said by the p a r t i e s during t h i s period of time. DeSaye t e s t i f i e d t h a t Pound brought up the subject of making a deal. Pound s t a t e d t h a t DeSaye brought up the subject and requested a payment of $25,000 t o turn over the films which had been taken by patrolman Thomas. About an hour a f t e r he had been taken t o the t r a i l e r and the other men had returned t o the t r a i l e r , Pound wished t o go t o the bathroom. Patrolman Thomas said t h a t he would go with him. Pound asked i f he were under a r r e s t and Thomas replied t h a t he was. During the period of Pound's confinement i n the t r a i l e r DeSaye made a phone c a l l t o the BlaimCounty s h e r i f f . A t about 5:00 p.m. Sheriff I4urdo MacLean and Deputy Sheriff Homer Duffner arrived a t the DeSaye ranch and were met by Osmond Olson and Floyd Robinson, an acquaintance of DeSaye, who had arrived i n t h e meantime. Upon a r r i v a l a t t h e t r a i l e r the s h e r i f f s t a t e d t o Pound t h a t he was under a r r e s t , read a "Miranda warning" s t a t e - ment, handcuffed him, and took him t o the s h e r i f f ' s c a r where he w a s placed i n the r e a r s e a t accompanied by deputy Duffner. After a few minutes the s h e r i f f , accompanied by the other men, took Pound over t o h i s Bronco vehicle. It i s undisputed t h a t no search warrant had been obtained by the s h e r i f f and t h a t he did conduct a search of pound's vehicle a t t h a t time. There i s , however, con- f l i c t i n the testimony concerning whether Pound gave h i s permission t o search the vehicle. The s h e r i f f removed some r i f l e s , firearm supplies, and a bag of coins belonging t o DeSaye which were l a t e r introduced i n t o evidence against Pound a t t r i a l . Pound t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t he took the property from Deaaye, hut s t a t e d he f e l t he had n o t i f i e d DeSaye he would take sumething i f no payment was made on the debt of $1,375. Defendant has assigned six issues for review but we will consider only two inasmuch as four pertain to matters associated with the counts in the Information of which defendant was acquited and they cannot occur again during a new trial. ~efendant's issue one alleges the court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized in the search of defendant's vehicle and admitting into evidence the items so seized. Issue three, the second of the two we will discuss, alleges the court erred in denying defendant's motion requiring the witness Joseph DeSaye to produce all of his records concerning his past transactions with defendant and others. Defendant contends the search conducted on the Bronco vehicle was in violation of rights guaranteed under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and under Article 111, Sec. 7 of the Montana Constitution. Section 95-602(a), R.C.M. 1947, provides: I I An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest." By application of that section Pound was placed under arrest at the time he was taken from the Bronco and into the trailer by Joe and Gregory DeSaye and border patrolman Thomas. Patrolman ~homas' testimony indicates that there was no doubt the law officer considered Pound to be under arrest. At any rate the initial arrest took place some hours before sheriff MacLean arrived at the scene. We cannot accept the state's contention that the sheriff's search of Pound's vehicle was "incident to the arrest". The search was not substantially contemporaneous in time with the arrest. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 T2 ed 2d 576; Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L ed 2d 409. The state showed no exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search, such as physical danger to the law enforcement o f f i c e r o r l o s s of evidence. Preston v. United S t a t e s , 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 1 1 L ed 2d 777; Coolidge v. N e w Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L ed 2d 564; S t a t e v, Langan, 151 Mont. 558, 445 P,2d 565. The s t a t e then contends Pound gave h i s permission t o the s h e r i f f t o make the search of h i s vehicle. The s h e r i f f t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r he arrived a t the t r a i l e r where Pound was being held he read a "Miranda statement", again informed Pound he was under a r r e s t , and handcuffed him. Then, according t o the s h e r i f f ' s testimony, he said "Knowing t h i s , do you wish t o answer any questions a t t h i s time?" Pound replied "No", There i s nothing i n the record t o indicate Pound was ever informed t h a t he had a r i g h t t o refuse a search of h i s vehicle without a warrant. Pound was taken handcuffed, i n the custody of the s h e r i f f , the deputy *exiff, Lee Thomas the border patrol o f f i c e r , Joe and Gregory DeSaye, Osmond Olson and Floyd Robinson, out t o h i s Bronco vehicle. The s h e r i f f t e s t i f i e d he then asked Pound "Do I have your per- mission t o search t h i s vehicle?" Pound replied "yes, go ahead". Pound denied he had been asked f o r h i s consent or had given h i s consent f o r the search. The s h e r i f f t e s t i f i e d he thought t h a t consent o r a warrant f o r the search was unnecessary because he considered the search t o be incident t o the a r r e s t . W e have already determined the search did not meet the requirements of being "incident t o the a r r e s t " and, concerning the c o n f l i c t i n testimony a s t o consent, we find t h a t regardless of which version i s accepted, a consent given under these circum- stances would not qualify a s an i n t e l l i g e n t and voluntary waiver of a constitutional r i g h t , Pound was a Canadian c i t i z e n born i n England, presumably not knowledgeable of r i g h t s granted under our system of law, He had not been informed of h i s r i g h t t o refuse a warrantless search. He had been held under a r r e s t f o r several hours, handcuffed, and taken t o the vehicle i n the custody of three law o f f i c e r s and four other men who were antagonistic t o h i s Triterests. When the s t a t e seeks t o introduce evidence obtained i n a consent search, it must bear the burden of proving t h a t the consent was i n t e l l i g e n t l y and voluntarily given. Kovach v. United S t a t e s , 53 F.2d 639; Rigby v, United S t a t e s , 247 F.2d 584, Here, the s t a t e has not sustained i t s burden of proof, and the circumstances attendant t o t h i s search appear inherently coercive. I n defendant's t h i r d assignment of e r r o r , he contends the t r i a l court erred i n denying the motion t o require the witness Joseph DeSaye t o produce a l l h i s records concerning h i s past coin transactions with defendant and other persons which r e l a t e d t o transactions with defendant. The record discloses t h a t a subpoena duces tecum ( p l a i n t i f f ' s exhibit S-1) was issued by the Blaine County d i s t r i c t court and served by the s h e r i f f upon Joseph DeSaye on April 28, 1972, ac- cording t o the return which was duly f i l e d . O n cross-examination, DeSaye admitted he was present a t a p r e t r i a l conference and was instructed by the court t o produce a l l records r e l a t i n g t o coin transactions, He a l s o admitted t h a t he had c e r t a i n records of coin transactions involving a M r . Buyers i n Canada, f o r whom Pound had acted a s an intermediary. These records were never produced i n t o court by DeSaye and the court denied a subsequent motion t o produce these records, apparently on the basis of irrelevance. ~ e ~ a y e ' s evasive and forgetful testimony a s concerned these various transactions was such a s t o c a s t an aura of t a i n t and suspicion over the past relationship between himself and Pound; the past coin importing practices of DeSaye; the circumstances surrounding the manner i n which DeSaye's property was taken by Pound; and, i n f a c t , the remainder of DeSaye's e n t i r e testimony. It was s t a t e ' s witness DeSaye who introduced the subject of past coin transactions between himself and Pound. The matter w a s c l e a r l y relevant a s i t pertained t o reasons f o r animosity between the two men a r i s i n g from such past transactions. It went d i r e c t l y t o the i s s u e of DeSaye's c r e d i b i l i t y a s a witness. In State v, McKnight, 129 Mont, 8, 19, 281 ~ . 2 d 816, This Court quoted from 58 A m Jur Witnesses $632, the general rule that cross-examination should be allowed to examine any phase of a general subject introduced on direct examination, and then went on to say: "This court has said: 'The right of cross-examina- tion, as has been often said, is a valuable and substantial right, and the courts should incline to extend, rather than restrict it. Cross-examina- tion is the most potent weapon known to the law for separating falsehood from truth, hearsay from actual knowledge, things imaginary from things real, opinion from fact, and inference from recollection, and for testing the intelligence, fairness, memory, truth- fulness, accuracy, honesty and power of observation of the witness. It has become a truism in the legal profession that --- "The testimony of a witness is not stronger that [sic] it is made by his cross- examination."'State v. Ritz, 65 Mont. 180, 187 s 211 Pac, 298, 300." (Emphasis added). The trial court's departure from its prior ruling on the subject of the production of these records unduly curtailed de- fendant's right of cross-examination, The judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district - - - - - - " - - I - - - - -------------- Associate & ustices Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison dissenting: 1 I dissent.