Title: STATE v LEWIS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12534 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - F R A N K D. LE;IrJIS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Nat Allen,Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Knight, Dahood, Mackay and PlcLean, Anaconda, Montana Wade J. Dahood argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana James Walsh argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana James J. Masar appeared, County Attorney, Deer Lodge, Montana Submitted : February 3, 1976 -rn. C? . I:*r[, Decided: - r v . i. = J . a Filed: rrc- - , % , J < , M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Lewis, formerly superintendent of schools, School D i s t r i c t Number One a t Deer Lodge, was convicted i n a jury t r i a l of t h r e e counts of embezzlement by a public o f f i c e r . He was sentenced t o one year i n prison on each count, with t h e sentences suspended. L e w i s appeals, challenging t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence t o support t h e convictions, and charging t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t defen- d a n t a change of place of t r i a l . Defendant was superintendent of schools i n Deer Lodge from 1964 t o April 1970. Soon a f t e r commencing h i s d u t i e s t h e r e , he assumed v i r t u a l l y complete c o n t r o l of t h e school d i s t r i c t ' s a c t i v i t y fund, a function formerly handled by a school s e c r e t a r y . I n December 1970, defendant was charged by Information i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Powell County with thirty-two counts of embezzle- ment by a public o f f i c e r , under s e c t i o n 94-1501, R.C.M. 1947. The charges a r o s e from c e r t a i n checks w r i t t e n by defendant on t h i s a c t i v i t y fund. P r i o r t o t r i a l , defendant moved f o r a change of place of t r i a l pursuant t o s e c t i o n 95-1710, R.C.M. 1947, a l l e g i n g t h a t he could n o t be t r i e d by a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l jury i n Powell County. The a f f i d a v i t accompanying t h e motion s t a t e d t h a t Lewis had i m - providently pled g u i l t y t o criminal charges i n another school d i s t r i c t r e l a t e d case and t h e r e s u l t i n g p u b l i c i t y i n Powell County had c r e a t e d a fixed opinion of defendant's g u i l t s o t h a t a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l jury could n o t be secured t h e r e . I n a d d i t i o n , defen- d a n t and h i s counsel s t a t e d i n t h e i r a f f i d a v i t t h a t due t o t h e small population of Powell County, it would be almost impossible t o secure twelve j u r o r s who were not r e l a t e d t o o r acquainted with t h e l a r g e number of witnesses t o be c a l l e d by t h e prosecution. A t t h e hearing on t h i s motion, defendant produced a p e t i t i o n c i r c u l a t e d i n Powell County and signed by two hundred and one c i t i z e n s which s t a t e d t h a t i n t h e opinion of t h e s i g n a t o r i e s , defendant could not r e c e i v e a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l i n Powell County. The motion w a s taken under advisement while t h e v o i r d i r e examination of a number of prospective j u r o r s was conducted. Thereafter defendant renewed h i s motion f o r change of p l a c e of t r i a l and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied it. Following d i s m i s s a l of many of t h e counts i n t h e Infor- mation due t o t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s , defendant w a s t r i e d on seven counts of embezzlement by a public o f f i c e r . He w a s convicted on t h r e e , r e l a t i n g t o checks w r i t t e n on t h e school d i s t r i c t a c t i v i t y fund: (1) a check f o r $311.85 t o Northwest A i r l i n e s f o r personal business; (2) a check f o r $200 a s a loan t o a school employee; and (3) a check f o r $300 t o t h e same em- ployee a s another loan. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Hon. Nat Allen, d i s t r i c t judge presiding, denied defendant's motions f o r judg- ment notwithstanding t h e v e r d i c t and f o r a new t r i a l , and entered judgment on t h e v e r d i c t February 13, 1973. Defendant r a i s e s t h r e e s p e c i f i c i s s u e s on appeal: (1) Is t h e evidence s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n a convic- t i o n f o r embezzlement by a public o f f i c e r ? ( 2 ) Did defendant have t h e r e q u i s i t e i n t e n t t o commit t h e crime of embezzlement by a public o f f i c e r ? (3) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n when it refused t o g r a n t defendant a change of place of t r i a l ? With r e s p e c t t o t h e f i r s t two i s s u e s , w e note t h a t de- fendant was charged under former s e c t i o n 94-1501, R.C.M. 1947, which s t a t e d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "Embezzlement by pubic o f f i c e r . Every o f f i c e r of t h i s s t a t e , o r of any county, c i t y , town, o r d i s t r i c t of t h i s s t a t e , and every o t h e r person Charged with t h e r e c e i p t , safekeeping, t r a n s f e r o r disbursement of public moneys, who e i t h e r -- "1. Without a u t h o r i t y of law, a p p r o p r i a t e s t h e same, o r any p o r t i o n t h e r e o f , t o h i s own use, o r t o t h e use of another; o r " 2 . Loans t h e same, o r any p o r t i o n t h e r e o f , ex- c e p t by d e p o s i t s i n t h e manner authorized by law, o r having t h e possession o r c o n t r o l of any p u b l i c money, makes p r o f i t o u t of it, o r uses t h e same f o r any purpose not authorized by law; o r "3. F a i l s t o keep t h e same i n h i s possession o r under h i s c o n t r o l u n t i l disbursed o r paid o u t by a u t h o r i t y of law * * *." I t i s conceded t h a t defendant wrote t h e checks i n ques- t i o n on t h e a c t i v i t y fund. The evidence shows t h a t defendant, e n t r u s t e d with public moneys i n t h e a c t i v i t y fund, appropriated, loaned and disbursed p o r t i o n s of those moneys without a u t h o r i t y of law. Defendant's attempts t o show reimbursement t o t h e fund a r e t o no a v a i l , f o r t h e s t a t u t e p r o s c r i b e s t h e punishable con- duct without any reference t o an i n t e n t t o make r e s t i t u t i o n . The general r u l e i s s t a t e d i n 26 Am J u r 2d Embezzlement 520: " I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t when one wrongfully and i n t e n t i o n a l l y misappropriates t h e property of another lawfully i n h i s possession t o h i s own use, t h e o f f e n s e of embezzlement i s complete, so t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t he a t t h e same t i m e intends subsequently t o r e t u r n t h e property o r t o make r e s t i t u t i o n t o i t s r i g h t f u l owner does not r e l i e v e h i s wrongful a c t of i t s criminal nature, excuse him, o r make h i s o f f e n s e any t h e less embezzlement. * * *" Thus, t h e evidence was s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e convic- t i o n a s a matter of law. With l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t evidence before it, t h e jury w a s t h e s o l e t r i e r of f a c t . Thus it was w i t h i n t h e s i n g u l a r province of t h e jury t o determine t h e innocence o r g u i l t of t h e defendant under t h e counts i n t h e Information; S t a t e v. G l e i m , 17 Mont. 1 7 , 2 9 , 4 1 P. 998. The jury may decide which witnesses it chooses t o believe, a f t e r considering a l l of t h e evidence; S t a t e v. Pankow, 134 Mont. 519, 333 P.2d 1017; S t a t e v. Medicine Bull, Jr., 152 Mont. 34, 445 P.2d 916. I f s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s found t o support t h e v e r d i c t , it w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on appeal; S t a t e v. White, 146 Mont. 226, 239, 405 P.2d 761; S t a t e v. Stoddard, 147 Mont. 402, 408, 4 1 2 P.2d 827. Defendant's contention t h a t he lacked t h e r e q u i s i t e c r i m - i n a l i n t e n t t o commit embezzlement i s e q u a l l y unconvincing. The evidence supports t h e conclusion he d e l i b e r a t e l y used p u b l i c moneys from t h e a c t i v i t y fund f o r nonschool purposes without a u t h o r i t y of l a w . The q u e s t i o n of i n t e n t is a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e jury; S t a t e v. Madden, 128 Mont. 408, 416, 276 P.2d 974; S t a t e v. Cooper, 158 Mont. 102, 110, 489 P.2d 99. A v e r d i c t supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence which i s l e g a l l y admissible must s t a n d on appeal. For t h e s e reasons, d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n s on t h e f i r s t two i s s u e s a r e without m e r i t . Defendant urges t h i s Court t h a t he could n o t and d i d n o t r e c e i v e a f a i r t r i a l i n Powell County, because of community preju- d i c e a g a i n s t him engendered by h i s p u b l i c i z e d g u i l t y p l e a i n another school d i s t r i c t r e l a t e d c a s e i n t h e same community. The g i s t of d e f e n d a n t ' s argument was expressed by defense counsel when t h e motion f o r change of p l a c e of t r i a l was renewed during v o i r d i r e : "MR. DAHOOD: Your honor, I have no doubt t h a t I can select, with t h e a s s i s t a n c e of a b l e counsel f o r t h e S t a t e of Montana, twelve j u r o r s who w i l l s t a t e , under o a t h , t h a t they are going t o be f a i r , and they a r e n o t going t o be influenced, b u t no human mind i s p e r f e c t , and no human mind can depose i t s e l f from t h e community i n which it has been shaped. The i n f l u e n c e s of t h a t commun- i t y , consciously o r subconsciously, a r e going t o a f f e c t t h e t h i n k i n g of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r mind. * * *" The focus of h i s argument seems t o be t h a t although a seemingly f a i r and i m p a r t i a l jury might be secured a t t h e o u t s e t , community i n f l u e n c e s a r i s i n g from an a b i d i n g opinion of d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t would subconsciously a f f e c t t h e j u r o r s and contaminate t h e i r v e r d i c t . A t t h e o u t s e t , w e note t h a t a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t judge i n denying a change of venue i s required t o support a r e v e r s a l on t h i s ground. S t a t e v. Logan, 156 Mont. 48, 58, 473 P.2d 833, and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . Defendant r e l i e s on two cases which he a l l e g e s demon- strate t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t a change of place of t r i a l ; S t a t e v. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont. 33, 55 P. 1026; and S t a t e v. Dryman, 127 Mont. 579, 269 P.2d 796. A s defendant contends, t h e s e c a s e s represent t h e law i n Montana with r e s p e c t t o change of place of t r i a l . However, even a cursory reading d i s c l o s e s t h e v a s t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e facts and circumstances of those cases compared with t h e i n s t a n t case. Here, t h e r e has been absolutely no showing of t h e impassioned prejudice e x i s t i n g i n Spotted Hawk and Dryman. Further, no prej- u d i c i a l news media accounts of the crime o r t r i a l a r e involved i n t h i s case. The f a c t s showing prejudice r e l i e d on by defendant are: (1) h i s own a f f i d a v i t , joined i n by h i s attorney; ( 2 ) t h e c i r c u l a t e d p e t i t i o n ; and ( 3 ) t h e testimony of s e v e r a l j u r o r s on t h e panel during v o i r d i r e examination. Defendant's a f f i d a v i t i n support of h i s motion properly c a r r i e d l i t t l e weight i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , as it w a s a m e r e statement of conclusions. S t a t e v. Davis, 60 Mont. 426, 431, 199 P. 4 2 1 . The c i r c u l a t e d p e t i t i o n , which does not appear i n t h e record, w a s likewise not deemed c o n t r o l l i n g by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Not only was it not a sworn document, but it s t a t e s i n p a r t (as set o u t i n defendant's a p p e l l a t e b r i e f ) : " W e , t h e undersigned c i t i z e n s , of t h e County of Powell, S t a t e of Montana, do hereby state t h a t i n our opinion FRANK LEWIS cannot keceive a f a i r -- and impartial t r i a l i n t h e County of Powell * * *." (Emphasis added. ) N o f a c t s a r e shown by t h i s p e t i t i o n , which w e believe necessary t o move t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . T e r r i t o r y v. Manton, 8 Mont. 95, 103, 19 P. 387; S t a t e v. Davis, supra; S t a t e v. Bischert, 131 Mont. 152, 157, 308 P.2d 969; S t a t e v. Board, 135 Mont. 139, 337 P.2d 924; S t a t e v. Barick, 143 Mont. 273, 280, 389 P.2d 170; S t a t e ex r e l . Hanrahan v. D i s t r i c t Court, 145 Mont. 501, 401 P.2d 770; S t a t e v. Warrick, 152 Mont. 94, 446 P.2d 916; S t a t e v. Logan, supra. Some of t h e j u r o r s on v o i r d i r e examination i n d i c a t e d they had heard defendant's case discussed i n t h e community and t h a t l o c a l opinion on t h e c a s e was predominantly "one way". The speci- f i c i t y of t h i s testimony f a l l s f a r s h o r t of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l jury could not be empanelled i n Powell County t o t r y t h e i n s t a n t case. There was some c o n f l i c t i n t h e j u r o r s ' testimony a s t o which "way" t h a t opinion w a s pointed. I n any event, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t abuse its d i s c r e t i o n i n deciding t h a t an i m p a r t i a l jury could be formed f o r defendant's t r i a l i n Powell County. W e agree with t h i s statement by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n I r v i n v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 751, L ed 2d/756: " I t i s not required, however, t h a t t h e j u r o r s be t o t a l l y ignorant of t h e f a c t s and i s s u e s involved. I n t h e s e days of s w i f t , widespread and d i v e r s e methods of communication, an important c a s e can be expected t o arouse t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e p u b l i c i n t h e v i c i n i t y , and s c a r c e l y any of those b e s t q u a l i f i e d t o serve as j u r o r s w i l l n o t have formed some impression o r opinion as t o t h e m e r i t s of t h e case. his i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e i n criminal cases. To hold t h a t t h e mere existence of any precon- ceived notion a s t o t h e g u i l t o r innocence of an accused, without more, is s u f f i c i e n t t o r e b u t t h e presumption of a prospective j u r o r ' s i m p a r t i a l i t y would be t o e s t a b l i s h an impossible standard. It is s u f f i c i e n t i f t h e juror can l a y a s i d e h i s i m - pression o r opinion and render a v e r d i c t based on t h e evidence presented i n court." The d i s t r i c t c o u r t repeatedly reminded t h e j u r o r s they must l a y a s i d e t h e i r impressions and opinions, as d i d counsel f o r both sides. There i s simply no indication t h a t t h e jury d i d not render its v e r d i c t based s o l e l y upon t h e evidence presented i n court. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. J u s t i c e