Title: In Re Petition of Peterson

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

467 P.2d 281 (1970) In re Petition of Jack Martin PETERSON. No. 11849. Supreme Court of Montana. April 1, 1970. Jack Martin Peterson, pro se. PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks post-conviction hearing following the affirmance of his conviction by this Court. See State v. Evans and Peterson, Mont., 460 P.2d 262. As petitioner notes in his petition he and one Wray Mearl Evans were jointly charged with burglary, were tried together as codefendants and were found guilty, and the court appointed counsel for their joint defense. His claim now is that he was deprived of his right to effective counsel in that a prosecution witness was permitted to give testimony of a hearsay statement purported to have come from the mouth of petitioner's codefendant which seriously implicated petitioner; that at such time the interests of petitioner and his codefendant became adverse and there was a conflict of interest in joint representation by the same counsel, and for this reason he was denied his option to testify on his own behalf. The trial record discloses that neither defendant testified at their trial. Counsel appointed for the defendants is an experienced trial lawyer, and a former county attorney. As we related in our opinion covering petitioner's appeal, supra, a witness saw a car parked by the side of a road near ranch buildings with which he was familiar. He stopped to investigate and as he did so he noticed a figure dash between the garage and cow shed; he walked towards these buildings and saw Evans hiding. He asked him what he was doing there and Evans told him the car was out of gas and he was looking for gas. Since two men's tracks were visible in the snow the witness said to Evans: "Well, I told him to get his partner and we would go out to the car there. And he says, what partner? He says, I don't know anything. I said, I know there is another fellow along because I can see his tracks leading to the cow shed. He says, well, I don't know anything, I am just riding along. He said this fellow that he was with broke some horses up the creek here and the fellow wouldn't pay him and he was after the saddles." The situation then was that the witness who testified was familiar with the premises; he saw a man run between *282 the garage and cow shed; he saw defendant Evans hiding behind the shop; he saw four saddles and some blankets had been stacked outside the barn in the fresh snow; he asked Evans what he was doing there; then he asked where his partner was and received the answers as heretofore stated. Immediately after taking Evans out to the road the witness and another went back to the buildings and found petitioner hiding in the cow shed. Both petitioner and his codefendant were engaged in the commission of a felony, burglary, when the statements of Evans were made. They were "caught in the act." In Territory v. Campbell, 9 Mont. 16, 22 P. 121, this Court stated: Later, while not in a criminal case, this Court defined res gestae in these words: We affirmed this ruling in State v. Medicine Bull, 152 Mont. 34, 445 P.2d 916. Upon these authorities we hold that the statements made by Evans were part of the res gestae and as such admissible in evidence upon the joint trial, and had there been separate trials the statements would still have been admissible in each trial for the same reason. Thus no adverse or conflicting interests existed as between petitioner and his codefendant and he was not deprived of effective counsel. For these reasons no merit appears in the petition and no necessity exists for a hearing thereon. The relief sought is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.