Title: STATE v HOLMES

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

NO. 83-197 IN THE SUPRE143 COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- JAMES D. HOLMES, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Valley, The Honorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF TXCORD : For Appellant: Moses Law Firm; Stephen Moses argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Won. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Judy Browning argued, Asst. Atty, General, Helena David Nielsen, County Attorney, Glasgow, Montana Submitted: September 12, 1983 Decided: December 13, 19 83 -- -- - . . -. Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s is a n a p p e a l from c e r t a i n d e n i e d m o t i o n s , c o n v i c t i o n s and t h e s e n t e n c i n g of a p p e l l a n t James D. Holmes on two c o u n t s of f e l o n y t h e f t from t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S e v e n t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , V a l l e y County, Montana. The f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e a r e s e t f o r t h a s f o l l o w s . James D. Holmes s e r v e d a s p r e s i d e n t of V a l l e y I n d u s t r i a l Park I n c . ( V I P . ) , a n o n p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n set up t o o p e r a t e and m a i n t a i n t h e former Glasgow Air Force Base. On A p r i l 9, 1981, Holmes t r a v e l e d w i t h Brenda H i l l by c h a r t e r a i r p l a n e t o G r e a t F a l l s . I n G r e a t F a l l s , a t Eklund's Appliance and T.V., Holmes n e g o t i a t i e d w i t h Harvey Barvyo, a salesman, t o o b t a i n 3 7 , 19-inch t e l e v i s i o n sets f o r V.I.P. Included i n t h i s p u r c h a s e , b u t n o t r e f l e c t e d on t h e i n v o i c e , was a "Sony" l a r g e s c r e e n t e l e v i s i o n . The p u r c h a s e r e f l e c t e d a h i g h e r a v e r a g e p r i c e f o r each i n d i v i d u a l s e t s o a s t o d i s g u i s e t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e "Sony." On A p r i l 1 0 , 1981, Holmes went t o Big Sky T.V. i n Glasgow, Montana, and purchased more t e l e v i s i o n sets. H e i n c l u d e d i n t h i s p u r c h a s e a t r a s h c o m p a c t o r and a dishwasher. The l a r g e s c r e e n "Sony" t e l e v i s i o n was shipped w i t h l a b e l i n g i n d i c a t i n g it was t o be p i c k e d up by Holmes, and i n f a c t Mrs. Holmes r e c e i v e d t h e television. Holmes o r d e r e d t h e t r a s h compactor and dishwasher t o be d e l i v e r e d t o a v a c a n t house n e x t t o t h e Holmes' house. Holmes a s s e r t s t h a t t h e "Sony" t e l e v i s i o n and a p p l i a n c e s purchased i n A p r i l were f o r an e x e c u t i v e home ( t h e v a c a n t house) l o c a t e d n e x t t o t h e Holmes ' house. I n J u l y of 1981, V.I.P. t e r m i n a t e d Holmesl employment. I-Ie then went on v a c a t i o n and r e t u r n e d o n l y v e r y b r i e f l y t o h i s r e s i d e n c e i n Glasgow. He l e f t t h e d e t a i l s of packing and moving t o h i s wife. O n August 18, 1981, a moving company t r a n s p o r t e d t h e Holmes' p e r s o n a l p o s s e s s i o n s from t h e Glasgow r e s i d e n c e t o a s t o r a g e warehouse i n B i l l i n g s . T e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s Mrs. Holmes d i r e c t e d t h e mover t o i n c l u d e t h e items i n q u e s t i o n w i t h t h e i r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , t h e r e b y co-mingling. These i t e m s ended up i n s t o r a g e i n B i l l i n g s w i t h t h e r e s t of t h e Holmes' p r o p e r t y . The Holmes' t h e n t r a v e l e d t o Georgia t o l i v e . I n September, a u t h o r i t i e s i n i t i a t e d an i n v e s t i g a t i o n and d i s c o v e r e d t h i s V.I.P. p r o p e r t y w i t h Holmesl p r o p e r t y i n B i l l i n g s . A s p e c i a l i n v e s t i g a t o r , Tom Adams, t r a v e l e d t o Georgia and interviewed Holmes a t h i s l i v i n g q u a r t e r s . Following t h e i n t e r v i e w , Holmes claimed he f i r s t d i s c o v e r e d t h e V.I.P. p r o p e r t y co-mingled w i t h h i s by examining a b i l l of l a d i n g prepared by t h e movers and s i g n e d by h i s wife. The V a l l e y County A t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e then charged Holmes w i t h four c o u n t s of f e l o n y t h e f t . The c o u r t l a t e r d i s m i s s e d two of t h e c o u n t s . During t h e p e r i o d l e a d i n g up t o Holmes' d i s m i s s a l from V.I.P., much p u b l i c i t y c e n t e r e d a r o u n d Holmes and t h e a c t i v i t i e s a t V.I.P. Around t h a t t i m e , government o f f i c i a l s c o n s i d e r e d using V.I.P. f o r a Cuban r e f u g e e camp. T h i s c r e a t e d a g r e a t c o n t r o v e r s y i n Glasgow and made Holmes a v e r y c o n t r o v e r s i a l f i g u r e . Many newspapers c a r r i e d r e l a t e d s t o r i e s , and e v e r y j u r o r d u r i n g v o i r d i r e s t a t e d t h e y knew of V.1.P and Holmes. A t t h e t r i a l f o l l o w i n g v o i r d i r e , one of t h e s e l e c t e d j u r o r s heard a r a d i o news account of t h e c a s e and t h e n conversed w i t h t h e newscaster a t a l o c a l s t o r e . Following t e s t i m o n y by t h e j u r o r and t h e n e w s c a s t e r , t h e c o u r t d i s m i s s e d h e r from t h e j u r y . T h e r e a f t e r , t h e r e remained no a l t e r n a t e j u r o r . Then, a t t h e end of t h e t r i a l , b e f o r e t h e j u r y reached a v e r d i c t , a t h i r d p e r s o n t o l d t h e j u r y w h i l e t h e y were s e a t e d f o r l u n c h , "I d o n ' t c a r e what you t h i n k , h e ' s g u i l t y . " The p e r s o n was charged w i t h improper i n f l u e n c e on an o f f i c i a l and f o r f e i t e d bond. Due t o t h i s i n c i d e n t , t h e c o u r t p o l l e d t h e j u r y p r i o r t o announcing t h e v e r d i c t , t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e y made t h e i r d e c i s i o n w i t h o u t e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e s o r i n f l u e n c e s . They answered a f f i r m a t i v e l y . A p p e l l a n t p r e s e n t s many i s s u e s f o r review: (1) Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a change of venue? ( 2 ) Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n denying a new t r i a l on t h e grounds of j u r y tampering? ( 3 ) Can t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y s e n t e n c e on t h e two c o u n t s of f e l o n y t h e f t ? ( 4 ) Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n ? ( 5 ) Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n denying motions t o d i s m i s s , based on improper i n f o r m a t i o n ? ( 6 ) Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n g i v i n g and o m i t t i n g c e r t a i n j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s ? ( 7 ) Did t h e c o u r t e r r by r e f u s i n g t o d i s q u a l i f y i t s e l f f o r s e n t e n c i n g ? ( 8 ) Did t h e c o u r t v i o l a t e r u l e s of e v i d e n c e of t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g ? ( 9 ) Was t h e s e n t e n c e e x c e s s i v e ? ( 1 0 ) Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n n o t s u p p r e s s i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t t o an i n v e s t i g a t i n g s p e c i a l d e t e c t i v e due t o t h e l a c k of a Miranda warning? A p p e l l a n t f i r s t c o n t e n d s t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n denying a change of venue. T h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v. Link (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 640 P.2d 436, 38 St.Rep. 982, s t a t e s : " [ T l h e r u l e is t h a t a n a c c u s e d is e n t i t l e d t o a change of venue when it a p p e a r s t h e r e a r e r e a s o n a b l e grounds t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p r e j u d i c e a l l e g e d a c t u a l l y e x i s t s and t h a t by r e a s o n of t h e p r e j u d i c e t h e r e is a r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n t h a t t h e a c c u s e d c a n n o t 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 . People v. B e r r y ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 37 I11.2d 329, 226 N.E.2d 591, 592-593." I n S t a t e v. P a i s l e y (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 663 P.2d 322, 324, 40 St.Rep. 763, 765, w e s t a t e d : "Absent abuse of d i s c r e t i o n , t h e District C o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a motion f o r change of venue w i l l be a f f i r m e d . S t a t e ex r e l . Coburn v. B e n n e t t ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont. I , 655 P.2d 502, 506, 39 St.Rep. 2300, 2306. "When p r e j u d i c i a l p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y is a l l e g e d , t h e p u b l i c i t y m u s t b e i n f l a m m a t o r y a n d c r e a t e a r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n t h a t a f a i r t r i a l is n o t p o s s i b l e b e f o r e t h e m o t i o n w i l l b e a r a n t e d . S t a t e v. Richardson (1982) , 2 Mont . - 1 - , 647 P.2d 830, 832, 39 St.Rep. 1201, 1203-04." A p p e l l a n t s p o i n t t o some newspaper a r t i c l e s t h a t t h e y c o n s i d e r inflammatory and p r e j u d i c i a l . The a r t i c l e s focused on t h e a t t e m p t t o b r i n g Cuban r e f u g e e s t o t h e a r e a , and mention c r i t i c i s m of Holmes, b u t none r e g a r d i n g t h e a l l e g e d c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s . Because of h i s p o s i t i o n , he became a n o t o r i o u s and c o n t r o v e r s i a l f i g u r e . Though p r e j u d i c e and inflammation could a r i s e from i n c i d e n t s and t r a n s a c t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g an accused u n r e l a t e d t o t h e c h a r g e s a t hand, such is n o t t h e c a s e h e r e . During e x t e n s i v e v o i r d i r e , a l l t h e j u r o r s claimed t h e y had heard of Holmes, b u t o n l y two p e o p l e were removed because t h e y e x p r e s s e d p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t him. The c o u r t removed one more j u r o r a f t e r empanelment, b u t n o t due t o any p r e c o n c e i v e d p r e j u d i c e a c q u i r e d p r i o r t o t r i a l . W e f i n d no abuse of c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h i s c a s e . T r a n s c r i p t s i n d i c a t e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t used many p r e c a u t i o n s t o i n s u r e f a i r n e s s and t h e r e f o r e p r o p e r l y d e n i e d a p p e l l a n t ' s motion f o r a change of venue. A p p e l l a n t ' s second i s s u e i n v o l v e s t h e i n c i d e n t t h a t o c c u r r e d w h i l e t h e j u r y was a t lunch. A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e comment made by a t h i r d p a r t y t o t h e j u r y c o n s t i t u t e d j u r y tampering. W e d i s a g r e e . A p p e l l a n t cites Mattox v. U.S. ( 1 8 9 2 ) , 146 U.S. 140, 36 L.Ed 917, 13 S.Ct. 50. Even through j u r o r s s i g n e d a f f i d a v i t s s t a t i n g t h e y w e r e n o t i n f l u e n c e d , t h e U.S. Supreme C o u r t found j u r y tampering e x i s t e d when a b a i l i f f made s t a t e m e n t s t o t h e j u r o r s i n d i c a t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t was g u i l t y . The j u r y a l s o o b t a i n e d n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e s e x p r e s s i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t was g u i l t y . T h a t C o u r t h e l d , " P r i v a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s , p o s s i b l y p r e j u d i c i a l , b e t w e e n j u r o r s and t h i r d p e r s o n , o r w i t n e s s e s , o r t h e o f f i c e r i n c h a r g e , are a b s o l u t e l y f o r b i d d e n and i n v a l i d a t e t h e v e r d i c t , a t least u n l e s s t h e i r h a r m l e s s n e s s is made t o appear." I n P a r k e r v. Gladden ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 385 U.S. 363, 17 L.Ed.2d 420, 87 S.Ct. 468, and Sheppard v. Maxwell ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. 333, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 86 S.Ct. 1507, c i t e d by a p p e l l a n t , t h e U.S. Supreme Court a l s o found j u r y tampering. Common t o t h e s e c a s e s was t h e f a c t t h a t t h e b a i l i f f made improper comments t o t h e j u r y r e g a r d i n g t h e g u i l t of t h e d e f e n d a n t . T h i s Court addressed t h i s problem i n S t a t e v. Eagen ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 67, 582 P.2d 1195. I n t h a t c a s e a j u r o r approached a t h i r d p a r t y i n a bar and expressed h i s o p i n i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was g u i l t y and h a l f t h e j u r o r s were f r i e n d s of t h e v i c t i m . W e s t a t e d t h e r u l e , " t h a t i f j u r y i n i s c o n d u c t is shown t e n d i n g t o i n j u r e t h e d e f e n d a n t , p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t is p r e s u m e d ; h o w e v e r , t h e presumption is n o t a b s o l u t e and may be r e b u t t e d by t h e use of t h e j u r o r s t o show f a c t s which prove t h a t p r e j u d i c e d i d n o t o r could n o t e x i s t . . . ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) I n S t a t e v. Baugh ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 456, 571 P.2d 779, a j u r o r viewed a video-tape of t h e exhumation of t h e v i c t i m ' s body. The c o u r t dismissed her from t h e j u r y and p o l l e d t h e remaining j u r o r s regarding any comments s h e may have made t h a t might have p r e j u d i c e d them. T h i s Court found no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r p r e j u d i c i n g of t h e j u r y . These c a s e s s u g g e s t t h a t w h i l e a presumption of p r e j u d i c e e x i s t s when something improper o c c u r s w i t h a j u r y , t h e c o u r t can r e b u t . t h e presumption by t a k i n g c o r r e c t i v e s t e p s and p o l l i n g t h e j u r y a s t o whether they were i n f l u e n c e d by anything o t h e r t h a n t h e evidence i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l . That is n o t t o s a y t h a t t h i s is s u f f i c i e n t i n a l l c a s e s t o r e b u t ' t h e presumption. The improper a c t i v i t y must be harmless o r rendered h a r m l e s s i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e t h e d e f e n d a n t a f a i r t r i a l . I n i n s t a n t c a s e , a t l e a s t two j u r o r s o v e r h e a r d comments made by a t h i r d p a r t y w h i l e t h e y s a t a t a t a b l e d u r i n g a lunch break. The t h i r d p a r t y made a comment, " I d o n ' t c a r e what you t h i n k , h e ' s g u i l t y . " He was coming o u t of a bar and was joking when he made t h e comment. The c o u r t p o l l e d t h e j u r y p r i o r t o t h e i r announcing t h e v e r d i c t i f t h e y were i n f l u e n c e d by anything o t h e r than t h e evidence i n reaching t h e i r d e c i s i o n . Each j u r o r answered t h a t he o r s h e made h i s o r her d e c i s i o n s o l e l y on t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d i n c o u r t and was n o t i n f l u e n c e d by anything o u t s i d e of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . W e t h e r e f o r e f i n d no p r e j u d i c e o c c u r r e d s u f f i c i e n t t o be cause f o r a new t r i a l . A p p e l l a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g a motion t o d i s m i s s one c o u n t based upon d u p l i c i t y of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . A p p e l l a n t contends t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s t a t e d o n l y one o f f e n s e e x c e p t they mentioned d i f f e r e n t i t e m s i n t h e t h e f t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n should have been c o n s o l i d a t e d and o n l y one count of t h e f t charged, because t h e two c o u n t s involved o n l y one t r a n s a c t i o n . S e c t i o n 46-11-404(1), MCA, p e r m i t s t h e c o u r t t o j o i n c h a r g e s . S e c t i o n 46-11-502, MCA, p e r m i t s p r o s e c u t i o n when conduct c o n s t i t u t e s more t h a n one o f f e n s e , b u t r e q u i r e s c o n v i c t i o n of no more t h a n one o f f e n s e i f : " ( 1 ) one o f f e n s e is i n c l u d e d i n t h e o t h e r ; ( 2 ) one o f f e n s e c o n s i s t s o n l y of a c o n s p i r a c y o r o t h e r form of p r e p a r a t i o n t o commit t h e o t h e r ; ( 3 ) i n c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g s of f a c t a r e r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e commission of t h e o f f e n s e s ; ( 4 ) t h e o f f e n s e s d i f f e r o n l y i n t h a t one is d e f i n e d t o p r o h i b i t a d e s i g n a t e d kind of conduct g e n e r a l l y and t h e o t h e r t o p r o h i b i t a s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e o f s u c h conduct; o r ( 5 ) t h e o f f e n s e is d e f i n e d t o p r o h i b i t a c o n t i n u i n g c o u r s e of c o n d u c t and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t was i n t e r r u p t e d , u n l e s s t h e law p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c p e r i o d s o f s u c h c o n d u c t c o n s t i t u t e s e p a r a t e o f f e n s e s . " I n Parker v. C r i s t (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 621 P.2d 484, 37 St.Rep. 2048, t h i s Court, c i t i n g above s t a t u t e s , e x p r e s s l y p e r m i t t e d charging seven c o u n t s of robbery a r i s i n g o u t of t h e same i n c i d e n t . I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e s t a t e p r o s e c u t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t on two c o u n t s of t h e f t . The f i r s t count a r o s e over t h e t a k i n g of a big-screen T.V., t h e second count o c c u r r e d when t h e d e f e n d a n t t o o k c o n t r o l o v e r a few a p p l i a n c e s . While a l l of t h e s e items were loaded on a moving van, a t t h e same t i m e t o complete t h e e x e c u t i o n of unauthorized c o n t r o l over them, t h e y were a c q u i r e d through d i f f e r e n t schemes and t h e r e b y c o n s t i t u t e d d i f f e r e n t crimes. W e t h e r e f o r e f i n d t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y found a p p e l l a n t g u i l t y and sentenced him f o r two c o u n t s of t h e f t . A p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o prove i t s c a s e . S p e c i f i c a l l y t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o i n t r o d u c e any e v i d e n c e t h a t d e f e n d a n t o r h i s w i f e e x e r t e d unauthorized c o n t r o l over t h e p r o p e r t y . F u r t h e r , a f a t a l v a r i a n c e e x i s t e d between what t h e S t a t e charged and what t h e y proved, and t h e i n f o r m a t i o n lacked s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s r e g a r d i n g t h e time and p l a c e of t h e crime. I n S t a t e v. Godsey (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 656 P.2d 811, 39 St.Rep. 2354, we r e i t e r a t e t h e s t a n d a r d of review t o b e , " a f t e r viewing t h e evidence i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o p r o s e c u t i o n , any r a t i o n a l t r i e r of f a c t could have found t h e e s s e n t i a l elements of t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt." W e f i n d s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h i s v e r d i c t . Evidence demonstrated t h a t a p p e l l a n t , by v i r t u e of h i s p o s i t i o n , could d i s g u i s e t h e purchase of a big-screen T . V . and o t h e r a p p l i a n c e s . He c o n t r o l l e d t h e V . I . P . o p e r a t i o n which enabled him t o s h u f f l e t h e p r o p e r t y around, u n t i l it was f i n a l l y loaded i n t o a moving van with a l l of h i s o t h e r p r o p e r t y . He precluded V . I . P . from knowing of t h e e x i s t e n c e or whereabouts of t h e p r o p e r t y he o r d e r e d it t o purchase. W e t h e r e f o r e f i n d s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h e r e e x i s t s a f a t a l v a r i a n c e between what he was charged w i t h and what t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d . The i n f o r m a t i o n s t a t e d t h e t h e f t o c c u r r e d on o r about August 18, 1981, y e t t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e a l s o involved t r a n s a c t i o n s t h a t o c c u r r e d i n A p r i l of 1981. W e f i n d t h e a p p e l l a n t was c o n v i c t e d upon proper information. S e c t i o n 4 6 - 1 1 - 4 0 1 ( l ) ( c ) ( i v ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s t h e charge s h a l l s t a t e t h e time and p l a c e of t h e o f f e n s e a s can be done. I n S t a t e v. Dunn ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 155 Mont. 319, 327, 472 P.2d 288, 294, w e s t a t e d t h e test of t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e language t o be, " I s t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p r i s e d of t h e c h a r g e s brought a g a i n s t him s o a s t o p r e v e n t s u r p r i s e ? . . . W e see no reason why t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t s f i l e d i n t h e c a s e i n t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s counsel . . . cannot be used i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e meaning of t h e language c o n t a i n e d i n t h e information." The S t a t e contended t h a t on o r about August 1 8 , 1981, t h e d e f e n d a n t committed t h e f t . I n t h e a t t a c h e d a f f i d a v i t , t h e S t a t e a l l e g e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t set i n t o motion t h e p r o c e s s of e x e r t i n g unauthorized c o n t r o l over t h e p r o p e r t y i n A p r i l of 1981; however, t h e a c t was n o t completed u n t i l August of 1981. C l e a r l y t h e S t a t e a p p r i s e d t h e d e f e n d a n t of t h e c h a r g e s and f a c t s t h e y would prove a t t r i a l . W e f i n d no d e f e c t i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o r any v a r i a n c e between what was charged and what t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l . A p p e l l a n t n e x t o b j e c t s t o t h e g i v i n g and denying of c e r t a i n j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s . "On a p p e a l , w e review t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s a s a whole. S t a t e v. Farnes ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 171 Mont. 368, 558 P.2d 472. I t i s impossible t o d e l i v e r t h e whole of t h e law i n any one i n s t r u c t i o n , and f o r t h a t reason, a l l i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e c o n s i d e r e d a s a whole and i f t h e y f a i r l y t e n d e r t h e c a s e t o a j u r y , t h e f a c t t h a t o n e i n s t r u c t i o n s t a n d i n g a l o n e is n o t a s f u l l o r a c c u r a t e a s it m i g h t b e i s n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . S t a t e v. Caryl ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 414, 543 P.2d 389." S t a t e v. Coleman ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 185 Mont. 299, 397, 605 P.2d 1000, I n i n s t a n t c a s e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s d e l i v e r e d f a i r l y t e n d e r e d t h e c a s e t o t h e j u r y , we t h e r e f o r e f i n d no p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r o c c u r r e d i n t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s . The n e x t i s s u e w e w i l l c o n s i d e r is, d i d t h e c o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o d i s q u a l i f y i t s e l f i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g proceeding? A p p e l l a n t moved t o d i s q u a l i f y Judge S o r t e because he signed o r d e r s f o r i n v e s t i g a t i v e subpoenas and o r d e r s f o r s e i z u r e d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 9 e made t h o s e o r d e r s f o l l o w i n g a review of a£ f i d a v i t s submitted by t h e V a l l e y County a t t o r n e y . The county a t t o r n e y was i n v e s t i g a t i n g a n o t h e r c r i m i n a l c a s e i n v o l v i n g a p p e l l a n t and sought t h e n e c e s s a r y o r d e r s . I n i n s t a n t c a s e , nothing s u g g e s t s t h a t Judge S o r t e s o u g h t a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n o r t h e S t a t e s o u g h t t o i n f l u e n c e h i s s e n t e n c i n g d e t e r m i n a t i o n by p r e s e n t i n g a f f i d a v i t s i n s u p p o r t of o r d e r s i n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e an i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Nothing i n d i c a t e s t h e c o u r t r e l i e d on t h i s m a t e r i a l t o i n f l u e n c e its d e c i s i o n . I n f a c t t h e c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d it would n o t c o n s i d e r any i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r s e n t e n c i n g purposes. I n S t a t e v. Olson (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 514 P.2d 1 0 6 1 , 37 S t . R e p . 1 3 1 3 , t h i s C o u r t f o u n d p r o p e r s e n t e n c i n g when t h e c o u r t was exposed t o improper m a t t e r s b u t r e f used t o c o n s i d e r them. I n i n s t a n t c a s e , we f i n d no p r e j u d i c e d e r r o r i n s e n t e n c i n g when t h e c o u r t r e f u s e d t o c o n s i d e r m a t t e r s i n v o l v i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o o t h e r a l l e g e d crimes committed by a p p e l l a n t . A p p e l l a n t a s s e r t s t h e c o u r t improperly conducted t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g by p e r m i t t i n g r e l a x e d r u l e s of evidence. I n S t a t e v. Lamere (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 658 P.2d 376, 40 St.Rep. 110, w e s t a t e d t h a t t h e Montana Rules of Evidence do n o t a p p l y t o s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g s , R u l e 1 0 1 ( c ) ( 3 ) , Mont.R.Evid. W e f i n d i n i n s t a n t c a s e t h e c o u r t c o r r e c t l y used r e l a x e d r u l e s of evidence f o r s e n t e n c i n g purposes. A p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h e c o u r t imposed an e x c e s s i v e s e n t e n c e . Appellant l e g a l l y f a i l s t o show any c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . H e merely a r g u e s on e q u i t a b l e terms t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e is u n f a i r . T h i s m a t t e r should be brought b e f o r e t h e Sentence Review Board and n o t t h i s Court. S t a t e v. Hubbard (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 649 P.2d 1331, 39 St.Rep. 1608. A p p e l l a n t f i n a l l y a r g u e s t h a t t h e testimony of Tom Adams should have been suppressed. He c l a i m s Adams f a i l e d t o g i v e him Miranda warnings. T h i s p r e c l u d e s any s t a t e m e n t s made by him t o Adams t o be admitted into evidence. W e d i s a g r e e . P.ppellant r e l i e s on Niranda v. Arizona ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t s t a t e m e n t s made, w h i l e a person is i n c u s t o d y o r " o t h e r w i s e deprived of h i s freedom by a u t h o r i t i e s i n any significant way," are inadmissible unless warnings are given. Orozco v . Texas (1969), 394 U.S. 324, 22 L.Ed.2d 311, 89 S.Ct. 1095, the Supreme Court held that four officers who surrounded and questioned a defendant at his home constituted sufficient impairment of freedom and thereby suppressed statements made without Miranda warnings. The U.S. Supreme Court in Brewer v. Williams (1977), 430 U.S. 387, 51 L.Ed.2d 424, 97 S.Ct. 1232, stated that when a person is in custody and they request an attorney, further questioning must stop until an attorney is present. Appellant contends the language in State v. Blakney (1979), 185 Mont. 470, 605 P.2d 1095, "maybe I should have an attorney" requires questioning to cease. In State v. Ryan (1979), 182 Mont. 130, 135, 595 P.2d 1146, 1143, we stated: " [MI iranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him in custody. ' It was that sort of coercive environment to which Mir anda by its terms was made applicable, and to which it is limited. [Oregon v. Mathiason (1977)], 429 U.S. at 495, 97 S.Ct. at 714, 50 L.Ed.2d at 719." In instant case, the appellant invited Tom Adams and a Georgia officer into the residence where he was staying, and during a cup of coffee, discussed the whereabouts of the missing V.I.P. property. Appellant requested an attorney if their conversation was taped. Thereafter Adams did not use a tape recorder and sought to hear appellant's side of the story. Adams neither sought a confession nor even suggested he would be under arrest. Appellant was never in custody, nor was his freedom restricted in any way. He requested an attorney only if a t a p e r e c o r d e r was u s e d . H e made no i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s . W e t h e r e f o r e hold t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d Tom Adams' testimony. A p p e l l a n t made h i s s t a t e m e n t s t o Adams v o l u n t a r i l y and f u r t h e r , because he was n o t i n a c u s t o d i a l s e t t i n g o r had h i s freedom impaired i n any manner, Miranda warnings were unnecessary. W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court. W e concur: c a , & t 9 . & m d Chief J u s t i c e s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f Mr. ~ u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison J r .