Title: STATE v MURPHY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13647 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- KEVIN MURPHY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District, Honorable Arnold Olsen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Stimatz and Engel, Butte, Montana Joseph Engel argued, Butte, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Dennis Moreen argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana John G . Winston, County Attorney, Butte, Montana Submitted: September 27, 1977 Decided: 8CT 2 5 1977 Filed: 9CT 2 5 r s r Clerk M r . Chief Justice Paul G. Hatf ield delivered the Opinion of the Court: Defendant Kevin Murphy was charged and convicted of burglary i n the d i s t r i c t court, Silver B o w County. From the jury verdict and subsequent sentence, defendant appeals. O n May 3, 1976, a t approximately 2:15 a.m., two witnesses heard a noise which aroused their attention. They looked out from their second floor apartment, located across the s t r e e t from Len's Food Store in Butte, Montana, and saw an individual kicking the door window a t Len's. The door window was sub- sequently kicked out and various items, including Olympia and Lucky Lager beer, were taken from the store. During the break i n one individual on the s t r e e t answered back t o the witnesses' shouts from the second floor apartment. Defendant was recognized by one of the witnesses as being near Len's a t the time the store was broken into. Also, an individual was seen running from the store and dropped a can or bottle out of h i s hand. By the time one witness was able t o dress and move t o the s t r e e t , the police had arrived. They pursued two individuals running down the s t r e e t and while i n pursuit the police observed the two throw items into a yard. One suspect was identified a s defendant. m e n arrested defendant had five cans of Olympia beer i n h i s possession. Officer Albert Johnson, who apprehended defendant t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l that he believed others were involved in the break i n but were not apprehended. Defendant did not take the stand. Mike McMeekin, arrested who with defendant andplead guilty t o the burglary, t e s t i f i e d an Indian named Randy kicked i n the door glass, ran into the store, grabbed some beer and ran out. McMeekin further t e s t i f i e d t h a t while Randy was kicking the door, "these guys came out from across the s t r e e t and started yelling a t usff and he, McMeekin, swore a t them. A t t r i a l the prosecution was not able t o establish that defendant actually entered the building. O n appeal defendant presents but one issue for t h i s Court's review: Did the t r i a l court e r r i n giving i t s Instructions Nos. 17 and 18 regarding defendant's l i a b i l i t y a s an aider and abettDr without charging him as an aider and abettor i n the Information? The instructions i n question read: "Instruction No. 1 7 "A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another, when, e i t h e r before or during the commission of an offense, and with the purpose t o promote or f a c i l i t a t e such commission, he s o l i c i t s , aids, abets, agrees or attempts t o aid, such other person i n the planning or commission of the offense .I1 "Instruction No. 18 "You a r e instructed that a l l persons concerned i n the commission of a crime, whether it be a felony or a misdemeanor, or whether they directly commit the a c t constituting the offense or aid and abet in i t s commission, are principals i n any crime a s committed. And in t h i s case, i f you believe from the evidence that the Defendant did not directly commit the crime charged i n the Information, yet i f you do believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was present, knowing, aiding and abetting i n i t s commission, you should find him guilty." Defendant contends it is clear the crime charged i n the Information is only burglary i n violation of section 94-6-204(1), R.C.M. 1947. It i s not clear that defendant was charged with accountability for burglary of others under the provisions of section 94-2-106 or section 94-2-107, R.C.M. 1947. That the failure of the s t a t e t o list the additional charges upon which the jury was instructed in Instructions Nos. 17 and 18 constitutes a failure t o fully apprise defendant of the charges against him and resulted in surprise t o him when the prosecution sought these instructions. Further, t h i s failure precluded defendant from being apprised of the specific charge against him and the chance t o be heard on the issues caused by the charge. Defendant's contentions f a i l . F i r s t , the t r i a l court did not e r r in giving Instructions Nos. 17 and 18, which instructed the jury as t o "aiding and abetting". The instructions are not challenged as an incorrect statement of the law, but rather the challege is based upon the failure of the s t a t e t o specifically charge the defendant with accountability in the Information. Prior t o Montana's new criminal code, section 94-6423, R.C.M. 1947, and interpreting case State v. Zadick, 148 Mont. 296, 419 P.2d 749 (1966), correctly stated the law. On January 1, 1974, sections 94-2-106 through 94-2-108, R.C.M. 1947, replaced section 94-6423. The Criminal Law Study Commission stated i n its comments that section 94-2-107 accepts the approach of section 94-6423 and endeavors t o develop it i n f u l l . Section 94-2-107 is substantially the same a s the source, section 5-2, Chapter 38 of the I l l i n o i s Criminal Code. Under I l l i n o i s case law interpreting section 5-2, an indictment need not distinguish an a c t performed by the accused himself and the a c t of another for which he is legally accountable. People _ .J- v. Nicholls, 43 I11.2d 91, 245 M.E.2d 771,777 (1969), cert.den. 396 U.S. 1016, 90 S.Ct. 578, 24 L ed 2d 507 (1970). Montana follows. the rule of statutory construction where i n adopting a statute from a s i s t e r s t a t e , the court adopts the construction placed upon it by the highest court of the s t a t e from which it is adopted. State ex r e l . Phil Mankin v. Wilson Mont . 9 - - 9 P.2d , 34 St.Rep. 1075 (1977). Defendant further argues he was surprised and precluded from knowing specifically the charges against him by the s t a t e ' s failure t o list the additional charges i n Instruction Nos. 17 and 18. The court record contains defendant's proposed instruction Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20. The t r i a l transcript reveals the t r i a l judge refused these proposed instructions. This Court wonders how counsel for defendant can so boldly claim surprise. The t r i a l transcript and court record r e f l e c t the fact defendant was not surprised. A l l four of defendant's proposed instructions pertain to "aiding and abetting". Addi- tionally, the s t a t e claims from the outset of the t r i a l , on voir dire and i n the opening statement, section 94-2-107(3) was argued. Under section 94-2-107(3) a person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when: "(3) either before or during the commission of an offense and with the purpose t o promote or f a c i l i t a t e such commission, he s o l i c i t s , aids, abets, agrees t o attempt t o aid, such other person i n the planning or commission of the offense. * * *" While the record is clear that no surprise existed, t h i s Court does not condone the method used by the s t a t e i n charging the defendant. I f the s t a t e planned t o charge the defendant with aiding and abetting, in proper practice it should have-done so from the onset. Second, the giving of Instructions Nos. 1 7 and 18 are not reviewable by t h i s Court. Section 95-1910(d), R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s the respective parties s h a l l specify and s t a t e the particular ground on which an instruction is objected to. A general objection is not sufficient. Defense counsel failed t o object t o the giving of Instruction No. 17. Failure t o object precludes the defendant from assigning error t o such instruction on appeal. State v. Holt, 121 Mont. 459, 463, 194 P.2d 651.(1948); State v. B e s t , 161 Mont. 20, 24, 503 P.2d 997 (1972). Defense counsel did object t o Instruction No. 18, but only on the basis that it was repetitive of No. 17. I n de- fendant's brief on appeal he alleges a different reason for the instruction being improper. Only valid objections made a t the t i m e of the settlement of instructions may be considered by t h i s Court on appeal. State v. Best, supra. The judgment is af firmed. W e Concur: I