Title: STATE v MANTHIE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-296 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1 9 8 2 STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- RICHARD W A Y N E MANTHIE , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourth 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 Missoula, The Honorable John S. Henson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Ferguson & M i t c h e l l , Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : January 1 4 , 1 9 8 2 Decided : ) n 2 3 m2 F i l e d : FEB 2 3 198Z Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison del ivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a conviction in the Fourth Judicial District, in and for the County of Missoula, of the charge of the crime of burglary, a felony. The defendant was convicted after trial by jury, and he appeals. Two issues are presented on appeal: 1. Whether the evidence presented at the trial was sufficient to support the guilty verdict on the burglary charge. 2. Whether the testimony of the defendant's accom- plice was sufficiently corroborated as a matter of law. On the night of November 9, 1.979, the defendant, Richard Manthie, and John Bryan, ex-Marines who had served together in the Pacific, decided to have a night on the town. At some point during the evening they went to the Amvets Club in Missoula, Montana, where they met a woman named Karen Wilson. She was in the bar with a roommate, Mary borgeson, along with Mary's boyfriend, Burt Lande. About closing time that night, Mary and her boyfriend Burt left the Amvets Club and went to the Blue Iblountain Trailer Lodge, where Mary and Karen shared a trailer. Karen did not accompany them but instead went with the defendant and John Bryan to purchase some marijuana for which the women had pooled their monetary resources. However, at the time of purchase Karen was five dollars short and borrowed five dollars from John. Following the purchase of the marijuana, they drove to the women's trailer, and all three went into the trailer and woke Mary up. From the testimony, Karen gave Mary her share of the marijuana, the four people had a beer or two, and Karen left with a boyfriend who had come to get her. While the testimony is in conflict as to when the defendant and John Bryan left, it would appear that it was shortly after Karen's departure. The defendant and John left the trailer court and ran off the road, wrecking John's car. After considerable difficulty, they drove the car to John's house and had a few beers. Then, to get the defendant home, John took his employer's truck, parked nearby, without permission and headed to the defendant's place in Florence. On the way, they passed the Blue Mountain Trailer Court and stopped to collect the five dollars Karen borrowed earlier in the evening. From this point on the testimony is contradictory. John Bryan testified that he stopped at the trailer to get the money that Karen owed him, left the motor of the truck running, went inside without knocking or being invited, went to Mary's bedroom where she and her boyfriend were sleeping, woke Mary up and asked her to come into the living room. After being there a short time the defendant and John went into the second bedroom in the trailer with Mary and had sexual intercourse. They were interrupted by the return of Karen and her boyfriend and left the trailer by the back door. When they got to the truck they found that the motor had been turned off and the keys were gone, so the two of them left by foot. John also testified that when they left the trailer the defendant had a wallet with him from which he took some money and thereafter put the wallet on a utility pole near the trailer court. Mary Borgeson's testimony was similar to that of John Bryan. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t when John and t h e defendant were o r i g i n a l l y i n t h e t r a i l e r , s h e t o l d them t o l e a v e and d i d n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t she wanted them t o r e t u r n . L a t e r , s h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was awakened by John poking her and t h a t s h e woke up and saw Jonn and t h e d e f e n d a n t s t a n d i n g over her bed. The two men t o l d her t o come i n t o t h e l i v i n g room and t a l k about t h i n g s and s h e complied. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e a f t e r s h e was raped by t h e two men and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t t o o k from h e r boy£ r i e n d ' s p a n t s a w a l l e t c o n t a i n i n g approximately twenty-five d o l l a r s . The d e f e n d a n t ' s testimony i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t produced by t h e S t a t e . H e t e s t i f i e d he d i d n o t know e x a c t l y why he and h i s f r i e n d John r e t u r n e d t o t h e t r a i l e r on t h e t r i p down t o F l o r e n c e , b u t t h a t it was e i t h e r because John wanted t o g e t h i s money back o r t h a t Mary had e a r l i e r i n v i t e d them t o r e t u r n . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y went t o t h e t r a i l e r , knocked and t h a t Mary i n v i t e d them i n f o r a beer. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t Mary w i l l i n g l y engaged i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h him. He denied any knowledge of t h e t h e f t of Burt Lande's w a l l e t . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he and h i s f r i e n d John d i d n o t f l e e from t h e t r a i l e r but. l e f t a t Mary's r e q u e s t when s h e heard her roommate r e t u r n i n g . The j u r y found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y on t h e c h a r g e of b u r g l a r y , b u t were unable t o reach a v e r d i c t on t h e charge of s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t . The f i r s t i s s u e p r e s e n t e d i s w h e t h e r t h e r e was 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 of g u i l t y on t h e b u r g l a r y charge. The d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h e r e is i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t h i s c o n v i c t i o n on t h e b u r g l a r y charge i n t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o prove t h a t he e n t e r e d t h e t r a i l e r u n l a w f u l l y on t h e n i g h t of t h e o f f e n s e charged. S e c t i o n 45-6-204(1), MCA, p r o v i d e s : "A person commits t h e o f f e n s e of b u r g l a r y i f he knowingly e n t e r s o r remains u n l a w f u l l y i n an occupied s t r u c t u r e w i t h t h e purpose t o commit an o f f e n s e t h e r e i n . " The code f u r t h e r d e f i n e s e n t e r i n g o r remaining unlaw- f u l l y a s doing s o without l i c e n s e , i n v i t a t i o n , o r p r i v i l e g e . S e c t i o n 45-6-201(1), MCA. Defendant contends he l a w f u l l y e n t e r e d t h e t r a i l e r , t h a t s t a t e law r e q u i r e s unlawful e n t r y , and t h a t t h e S t a t e t h e r e f o r e f a i l e d t o prove its c a s e . S t a t e v. Starkweather ( 1 9 3 1 ) , 89 Mont. 381, 297 P. 497; s e e a l s o , Criminal Law Commission Comment t o s e c t i o n 45-6-204, MCA. However, t h e S t a t e proved t o t h e j u r y ' s s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a t t h e e n t r y was unlawful . A s p o i n t e d o u t by t h i s Court i n S t a t e v. Sorenson ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont . - , 619 P.2d 1185, 1194, 37 St.Rep. 1834, 1845: "The j u r y i s n o t bound t o b l i n d l y a c c e p t d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s . I t is f r e e t o p i c k and choose t h e evidence i t wishes t o b e l i e v e . " Here, t.he S t a t e p r e s e n t e d f o r t h e j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o show t h a t t n e d e f e n d a n t and h i s accomplice e n t e r e d t h e t r a i l e r i l l e g a l l y . John Bryan t e s t i f i e d t h a t he and t h e d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d t h e t r a i l e r w i t h o u t knocking and proceeded i n s i d e on t h e i r own. While t h e r e was no break-in o r f o r c e d e n t r y , none was r e q u i r e d under t h e law. S t a t e v. Watkins ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 163 Mont. 491, 518 P.2d 259. Mary Borgeson's testimony i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e men were s t r a n g e r s t o her p r i o r t o t h a t n i g h t and they were n o t i n v i t e d t o r e t u r n t o t h e t r a i l e r a f t e r t h e y came t h e f i r s t time. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f i r s t time s h e saw t h e men a f t e r t h e y r e t u r n e d t o her t r a i l e r was when t,hey awakened her i n her bedroom i n t h e middle of t h e n i g h t , would n o t a l l o w her t o t u r n on t h e l i g h t s , and r e q u e s t e d t h a t s h e g e t o u t of bed and come i n t o t h e l i v i n g room of t h e t r a i l e r . The f a c t t h a t s h e had l e f t t h e f r o n t door unlocked s o t h a t her roommate could g e t i n when s h e r e t u r n e d cannot be viewed a s an i n v i t a t i o n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s accomplice o r a s permission f o r them t o e n t e r a darkened t r a i l e r . T h i s s t a t e ' s b u r g l a r y s t a t u t e p r o h i b i t s n o t o n l y e n t e r i n g b u t a l s o r e m a i n i n g u n l a w f u l l y i n an o c c u p i e d s t r u c t u r e w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o commit an o f f e n s e . S e c t i o n 45- 6-204(1), MCA. A s p r e v i o u s l y noted i n S t a t e v. Watkins, s u p r a , w e have h e l d t h a t when a person exceeds t h e l i m i t s of h i s p r i v i l e g e by remaining on t h e premises longer t h a n is p e r m i t t e d , he t h e r e b y t r a n s f o r m s h i s o r i g i n a l l y i n v i t e d presence i n t o a t r e s p a s s t h a t can form t h e b a s i s of a b u r g l a r y charge. I n answer t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t Mary d i d n o t e x p l i c i t l y and v e r b a l l y demand t h a t t h e two men l e a v e a f t e r t h e y came t h e second t i m e , and t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s accomplice were p r i v i l e g e d t o s t a y , Mary Borgeson t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was extremely f r i g h t e n e d by t h e unex- pected p r e s e n c e of t h e two men, t h a t t h e y made t h r e a t e n i n g remarks t o h e r , and t h a t t h e y s u b s e q u e n t l y used p h y s i c a l f o r c e a g a i n s t h e r . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e evidence shows t h a t any a l l e g e d c o n s e n t t o t h e c o n t i n u i n g 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 accomplice was c l e a r l y i n v o l u n t a r y , c o e r c e d , and d i d n o t g i v e t h e i n t r u d e r s l e g a l l y c o g n i z a b l e permission to remain on the premises. We can reasonably infer from the evidence that tne defendant and John Bryan intended to commit a theft in the trailer. They entered the trailer, went to the bedroom, woke Mary, and took her to the living room. There they discussed taking money or property. Finally, John and Mary both testified that t.he defendant went into Mary's bedroom where her boyfriend was sleeping, got his pants, and took his wallet. John Bryan also testified that the defendant ].eft the wal-let on a utility pole stub outside the trailer, which the utility man discovered the next day. Under the circum- stances, there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict on the burglary charge. The second issue presented is whether the testimony by the alleged accomplice that the defendant had the wallet in his possession was sufficiently corroborated by indepen- dent evidence. The defendant argues that the State's evidence, independent of the accomplice's testimony, did nothing more than raise a suspicion that the defendant com- mitted the crime or had the opportunity to do so. In this state, to sustain a criminal conviction where testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated, section 46-16-213, MCA, requires: "A conviction cannot be had on the testimony of one responsible or legally accountable for the same offense . . . unless the testimony is corroborated by other evidence which in itself and without the aid of the testimony of the one responsible or legally accountable for the same offense tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. The corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof." Over the years this Court has developed a substantial body of case law defining the type of proof required to corroborate an accomplice's testimony. Defendant correctly argues that, to be sufficient, the corroboration must do more than show that the offense was committed or that the accused had an opportunity to commit the crime charged. State v. Kose (1980), - Mont. - , 608 P.2d 1074, 37 St.Rep. 642; State v. Owens (1979), - Mont. - , 597 P.2d 72, 36 St.Rep. 1182. It is a longstanding rule that cor- roborative evidence need not in itself be sufficient to support the conviction or even make out a prima facie case against the defendant. State v. Ritz (1922), 65 Mont. 180, 211 P. 298; State v. Kemp (1979), - Mont. - , 597 P.2d 96, 36 St.Rep. 1215. In addition, the independent evidence need not extend to every fact to which the accomplice testi- fies. State v. Holliday (1979), - Mont. - , 598 P.2d 1132, 36 St.Rep. 1535. As this Court noted in State v. Williams (1979), - Mont. - , 604 P.2d 1224, 1230, 36 St.Rep. 2328, 2336, " ' . . . there should be some fact deposed to, independently of the evidence of the accomplice, which taken by itself leads to the inference, not only that a crime has been committed, but that the prisoner is implicated in it. ' [Citation omitted.] " The defendant contends that because the accomplice was the only witness to testify that he had possession of the stolen wallet, the corroborative testimony elicited by the State is deficient. Here, the crime charged was that of burglary, not theft. To prove the crime of burglary, the State had to prove that the defendant knowingly entered or remained unlawfully in the trailer with the intent to commit a theft therein. Here, the independent evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to "tend to connect" the defendant with the commission of the burglary charge. We have the testimony of the accomplice's wife who testified that in the early morning of November 10, 1979, she saw her husband and the defendant leave her home in a truck owned by the accomplice's employer. The roommate, Karen Wilson, and her boyfriend testified that the truck was parked in front of No. 10 Blue Mountain Trailer Court when they returned to the trailer, where they had earlier left Mary and her boyfriend. In addition, Mary Borgeson testi- fied that the defendant and his accomplice entered her trailer without permission or invitation while she was sleeping, came to her bedroom and took her into the living room where the accomplice made threatening remarks to her and mentioned taking money from her boyfriend. Of particular significance is Mary Borgeson's testimony that the defendant got Burt Lande's pants from the bedroom, and it was later discovered that his wallet was missing from his pants. As previously noted, that wallet was recovered and identified by Burt Lande as being his. Reviewing the evidence in its totality, and all of this independent of the testimony of the accomplice, there was sufficient evidence presented, independent of the testimony of the accomplice, to meet the State's burden of proof. The conviction of burglary is affirmed. W e concur: 1