Title: STATE v NELSON

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13133 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, DANNY NELSON and ELMER CRATON NELSON, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Bradley Parrish argued, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Michael Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Allen B. Chronister, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana William Spoja, County Attorney, Lewistown, Montana Robert L. Knopp, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Lewistown, Montana Submitted: January 21, 1977 Decided: R B 2 4 1 9 n lerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendants were convicted by jury verdict i n the d i s t r i c t court, Fergus County, of two counts of offering t o s e l l dangerous drugs i n v i o l a t i o n of section 54-132, R.C.M. 1947. Both defendants appeal. The material f a c t s a r e disputed. The s t a t e ' s version i s t h a t defendants Danny Nelson and Elmer Nelson, brothers, offered t o s e l l marijuana on two separate occasions t o James Bridgeford, an undercover narcotics agent f o r t h e Fergus County s h e r i f f ' s de- partment. The f i r s t transaction was on the night of October 27, 1974, a t t h e Husky truck stop on the Lewistown by-pass. Defendants drove up t o the truck stop i n t h e i r c a r , bought a couple of d o l l a r s worth of gas from Bridgeford who was working there, and asked him i f he wanted t o buy a "lid". Defendants l e f t , returned l a t e r , I I arrangements" were made, and defendants waited i n Bridgeford's c a r while he was servicing t h e i r car. Thereafter Bridgeford went over t o h i s c a r where defendants were waiting and they handed him "a l i d of grass" i n a p l a s t i c baggy and he paid them $20. About f i v e minutes a f t e r defendants l e f t , Bridgeford called Randall Cordle, a narcotics agent and deputy s h e r i f f of Fergus County, who came t o the truck stop where Bridgeford turned t h e p l a s t i c baggy over t o him. The second transaction, according t o the s t a t e , occurred on the night of October 30, 1974. Bridgeford went t o a private residence on Pine S t r e e t i n Lewistown where defendants were living. After talking about marijuana, an arrangement was made f o r Bridgeford t o buy another "lid" from them. Defendant Elmer Nelson went over t o a p l a s t i c pumpkin on a shelf i n another room, extracted a "lid", and gave it t o defendant Danny Nelson a s they were going t o t h e car f o r a drive up Spring Creek. While driving around defendants and Bridgeford passed around a "joint" t h a t defendant Elmer Nelson had, which Bridgeford simulated smoking. During the drive, defendant Danny Nelson put t h e "baggy" on the seat toward Bridgeford and Bridgeford handed him $20. Thereafter Bridgeford contacted Deputy Randall Cordle and turned the baggy over t o him. Defendants' version d i f f e r s i n a l l material p a r t i c u l a r s . According t o defendants, the alleged events forming the b a s i s of both charges a r e complete fabrications. They admit going t o the truck stop on t h e night of October 27, 1974 accompanied by f i v e other persons and g e t t i n g some gas, but deny returning there l a t e r . They categorically deny having any marijuana, s e l l i n g o r offering t o s e l l any marijuana t o Bridgeford, o r receiving any money from him. Concerning events of October 30, 1974, defendants admit going f o r a drive up Spring Creek with Bridgeford i n h i s c a r accompanied by two others and smoking a "joint" of marijuana which they claim Bridgeford himself had. Defendants deny they themselves had any marijuana o r sold o r offered t o s e l l any t o Bridgeford. They deny the incident involving the p l a s t i c pumpkin i n the house on Pine S t r e e t . The only witness i n the s t a t e ' s case-in-chief was Bridgeford. The only exhibit offered by the s t a t e was a p l a s t i c bag of a green substance marked "Evidence description, one baggy of green substance Srl-ieved t o be marijuana bought from Danny and Elmer Nelson, 10-27- 74." After denying i t s admission i n evidence f o r lack of foundation, the d i s t r i c t court admitted it for demonstrative purposes a s shown by the following colloquy: "Q. M r . Bridgeford, did you - you obtained the substance from Danny Nelson, correct? A. Yes. "Q. And did you subsequently t r a n s f e r t h a t t o M r . Cordle? A. Yes, I did. "Q. And t h i s appears t o be basically t h e same item, i s t h a t correct? A. Yes, it does. "MR. KNOPP: Your Honor, the S t a t e would request t h a t the exhibit be entered f o r purposes of demon- s t r a t i o n , I n the p a r t i c u l a r charge, it i s not necessary t o prove t h a t anything of t h a t nature was conveyed, only t h a t t h e r e was an o f f e r t o convey t h i s p a r t i c u l a r item. "THE COURT: Inasmuch a s it i s similar and so on, it could be admitted f o r t h a t purpose. "MR. PARRISH: I w i l l object, your Honor, because the witness i s not sure t h a t i s the same one. He s a i d it could be. "THE COURT: He's not entering it a s the same one. He's entering it a s demonstrative. It was something l i k e t h i s , and t h a t ' s the b a s i s on which I admit this." The two defendants were the only witnesses i n t h e i r case-in- chief. I n r e b u t t a l , the s t a t e called two witnesses, Jack Songer, the s h e r i f f of Fergus County, and William A. Spoja, Jr., the Fergus County attorney. Sheriff Songer read a written report t o the s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e made by deputy Randall Cordle. This report reads: "A. This i s dated October 27th, 1974, and the offense i s s a l e of dangerous drugs. O n t h e above date, I, Randy Cordle, received a phone c a l l from a confidential in- formant s t a t i n g t h a t approximately a t 2:15 A.M., confi- d e n t i a l informant had purchased a quantity of marijuana from Danny and Elmer Nelson. I went t o t a l k with con- f i d e n t i a l informant and he t o l d m e the following: Confi- d e n t i a l informant s t a t e d t h a t Nelsons and Steven Gavin came t o h i s place of employment t o g e t some gasoline. While confidential informant was f i l l i n g t h e Nelson vehicle, Elmer said t o confidential informant, do you want a l i d . Con- f i d e n t i a l informant said yeah, possibly, how much i s it going t o cost me. Danny said $20.00 because we had t o go out of town t o get it, and we could only get s i x l i d s . Confidential informant said when can I get it. Danny said we don't have it now, but we can get it tonight. Confidential informant then s t a t e d t o m e t h a t t h e suspects l e f t f o r approximately f i f t e e n t o twenty minutes and then returned. After returning, Danny t o l d confidential informant we a r e going t o look i n your c a r , come over when you a r e done f i l l i n g t h a t car. After confidential informant finished, he did i n f a c t walk over t o h i s vehicle a t which time Danny, now seated i n t h e c a r , gave confidential informant a l i d , and confidential informant i n turn gave Danny $20.00 which Danny had e a r l i e r s t a t e d t h a t was the amount he wanted f o r t h e l i d . After con- cluding with confidential informant, I brought t h e said marijuana t o the Fergus County S h e r i f f ' s Office, and locked it i n the vault. Signed R. Cordle, Deputy S h e r i f f , Fergus County . I 1 The s h e r i f f t e s t i f i e d it was a report given t o him a s a routine matter i n the normal course of s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e procedures. Sheriff Songer i d e n t i f i e d the "confidential informant" referred t o therein a s J i m Bridgeford. The s h e r i f f a l s o summarized the contents of a second w r i t t e n report submitted t o him by deputy Randall Cordle i n the routine procedures of h i s o f f i c e i n the normal course of business covering the events of October 30, 1974. This report was unsigned. The s h e r i f f ' s testimonial summary indicated t h a t a t 1:40 a.m. the confidential informant bought marijuana from Danny Nelson i n t h e i r car i n the v i c i n i t y of the truck route i n Lewisto~m. The report a l s o indicated t h a t while i n defendant Elmer Nelson's house he took out a p l a s t i c pumpkin from a shelf and reached i n and removed a handful of packaged l i d s containing marijuana and handed them t o defendant Danny Nelson. Sheriff Songer a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t J i m Bridgeford's workmanship with the s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e had been "reliable, confidential, t o where he was t r u s t e d by t h i s o f f i c e t o use a s a confidential informant" and Bridgeford had been deputized and issued a gun permit. The s h e r i f f ' s testimony concerning t h e contents of t h e two written reports was objected t o by defendants' counsel on t h e grounds it was hearsay, incorrect r e b u t t a l , and lacked proper foundation. The objections were overruled. County attorney Spoja t e s t i f i e d without objection t h a t "the feeling and information t h a t I had indicated t o m e M r . Bridge- ford was completely r e l i a b l e . I have no reason whatsoever t o doubt him." The county attorney a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was aware " t h a t M r . Bridgeford was d i r e c t l y involved with the Nelsons and i n f a c t t h a t there were funds provided f o r t h a t specific purpose." O n January 17, 1975, defendants Danny and Elmer Nelson were charged by Information i n the d i s t r i c t court, Fergus County, with two counts of s e l l i n g dangerous drugs t o Bridgeford on October 27 and 30, 1974, respectively. O n May 23, 1975, the deputy county attorney moved f o r leave t o f i l e an amended Information charging t h e defendants with "offering t o sell" dangerous drugs on the same dates. Leave was granted and the amended Information was f i l e d on t h e same date. Following pleas of not g u i l t y t o each charge by each defendant, a jury t r i a l was held on May 29, 1975. The jury verdict found both defendants g u i l t y a s charged. Judgment was entered. Defendants appeal from the judgment of conviction. Defendants r a i s e three issues on appeal which we summarize i n t h i s manner: 1) Did the d i s t r i c t court commit reversible e r r o r i n admitting the s h e r i f f ' s testimony concerning t h e contents of t h e written reports of deputy Cordle? 2) Did t h e d i s t r i c t court commit reversible e r r o r i n permitting improper r e b u t t a l testimony by the s h e r i f f ? 3) Must the s t a t e prove beyond a reasonable doubt t h a t the substance offered f o r s a l e was i n f a c t a dangerous drug? W e need go no further than the f i r s t issue t o determine t h a t the judgment must be vacated and a new t r i a l granted. However, before we discuss the f i r s t issue, we wish t o make it c l e a r there were other errors, e.g., admission of the "baggier' in evidence, and failure to have the contents of the baggie analyzed by the state criminal identification laboratory so that identification could be established at the trial. These errors must not be repeated on retrial. The first issue is whether the sheriff's testimony concerning the contents of the written reports of Deputy Cordle is reversible error. The state contends the testimony was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under section 93-901-1, R.C.M. 1947. Alternatively, the state argues the authenticity of the reports was established and they are admissible under the reasoning of State v. Cooper, 161 Mont. 85, 504 P.2d 978. In any event, the state contends, the error is harmless because no prejudice was shown. Defendants argue the testimony was inadmissible hearsay and prejudice clearly resulted. The contents of the report are clearly hearsay. They are unsworn statements made out of court with no opportunity afforded to confront the writer and question him as to their veracity. In fact, certain statements therein are hearsay twice removed. Thus unless the contents of the statement fall.. within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, they are inadmissible in evidence. The state contends the contents of the report are admissible under a statutory exception to the hearsay rule, section 93-901-1, R.C.M. 1947. That statute provides: "written reports or findings of fact made by officers of this state, on a matter within the scope of their duty as defined by statute, shall, in so far as relevant, be admitted as evidence of the matter stated therein." Yeretofore this Courl~ held Chdc tlze I.~rltrerl reporc >I the 3tdte chelilist i n the s t a t e criminal investigation laboratory con- cerning the physical and chemical t e s t i n g and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a substance a s marijuana was admissible under t h i s s t a t u t e . S t a t e Y. Snider, Ivlont . , 541 P.2d 1204, 32 St.Rep. 1050 (1975). W e have a l s o previously denied admission i n evidence of A n d i t e d , undated and signed accident report of a United S t a t e s ?orest Service engineer i n a personal injury action by a s k i e r dgdinst a s k i r e s o r t . I n t h a t case the i n j u r i e s occurred when a s k i l i f t cable derailed and threw the skier t o the ground. The witness through whom the report was sought t o be admitted was not the author of the report but was present a t the time the in- spection was made, (the subject of the report). W e held the report was inadmissible hearsay under section 93-901-1, R.C.M. 1947. "essl v. Bridger Bowl, 164 Mont. 389, 524 P.2d 1101. Also see: Xichardson v. Farmers Union O i l Co., 131 Mont. 535, 312 P.2d 134, $&here we held an A i r Force o f f i c e r ' s report inadmissible. The federal r u l e seems t o d i f f e r and allows police reports l~utltairling hearsay under 28 U.S .C.A. 5 1732. The r a t i o n a l e seems t o be t h a t the federal s t a t u t e i s designed t o abrogate t h e common law hearsay rule. See: Bridger v. Union Railway Company, 355 ?.3d 382, a s i l l u s t r a t i v e of the federal approach. I n our view under Montana's s t a t u t e , the contents of the zwo reports by deputy Cordle a r e inadmissible hearsay, notwith- s ~ a n d i n g the f a c t the reports were o f f i c i a l reports given the s h e r i f f as a routine matter i n accordance with o f f i c e procedures. It i s a l s o inadmissible under the rationale of Cooper. The reason f o r our holding i s t h a t deputy Cordle himself, had he been called a s a witness a t the t r i a l , could not have t e s t i f i e d t o the contents of the report. .The report is largely statements of defendants to a confidential informer who relayed the statements on to a deputy sheriff. This is patently hearsay and inadmissible through the lips of either the sheriff or deputy Cordle. The confidential informant to whom the statements were made testified to their contents, but the official character of the report does not permit the sheriff or deputy Cordle to report the statements on the witness stand to bolster the credibility of the confidential in- formant . The purpose of Montana's statute is not to render otherwise in- admissible hearsay admissible simply because it is contained in a police report. For the foregoing reasons, we hold the contents of deputy Cordle's report was improperly admitted in evidence, was prejudicial to defendants, and the convictions cannot stand. The judgment of the district court is vacated and the cause remanded to the district court, Fergus County, for a new trial. Justice