Title: STATE v DOLAN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 14820 I N T H E SUPREME COURT OF T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1980 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, CHARLES W. DOLAN, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Eighth 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 Cascade. Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert Ernrnons argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Sarah Power, Legal I n t e r n , Attorney General's Office, argued, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana Mark Barer argued, Deputy County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana F i l e d : Submitted: September 9, 1980 /q Decided: J i - 4uJ Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant C h a r l e s W. Dolan a p p e a l s from t h e judgment of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Cascade County. The defendant was accused by i n f o r m a t i o n of robbery and t h e f t . Following a j u r y t r i a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t was found g u i l t y of t h e f t b u t n o t g u i l t y of robbery. The District Court e n t e r e d its s e n t e n c e and judgment and denied d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s t - t r i a l motions. I n t h i s a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h a t a number of e r r o r s were committed d u r i n g h i s t r i a l : 1. The evidence p r e s e n t e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n a t t r i a l was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o prove a charge of t h e f t . 2. The District Court e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e testimony of John Grissom, an accomplice i n t h e t h e £ t. 3 . The D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n its i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o t h e j u r y . 4 . The p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c l o s i n g remarks t o t h e j u r y c o n t a i n e d impermissible comments on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d e c i s i o n t o p r e s e n t no evidence t o r e b u t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e . W e f i n d no m e r i t i n d e f e n d a n t ' s argument t h a t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r was committed a t t r i a l . W e a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. A t approximately 1:00 a.m. on September 22, 1978, a "holdup" occurred a t t h e Crossroads Truck S t o p i n G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. A man b r a n d i s h i n g a handgun, e n t e r e d t h e t r u c k s t o p and demanded t h a t t h e c a s h i e r g i v e him t h e t r u c k - s t o p ' s money. The c a s h i e r d e s c r i b e d t h e gunman a s wearing black t e n n i s s h o e s , b l u e denim j e a n s , a green j a c k e t , g l o v e s , a r e d helmet and a w h i t e c l o t h over h i s f a c e . The t r u c k s t o p c a s h i e r gave t h e gunman approximately $5,000 i n United S t a t e s and Canadian c u r r e n c y from t h e cash r e g i s t e r and t h e t r u c k s t o p o p e r a t o r ' s o f f i c e . The gunman took t h e money and f l e d . The c a s h i e r r e p o r t e d t h e holdup t o t h e G r e a t F a l l s p o l i c e . D e t e c t i v e David War r i n g t o n , a s s i g n e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e holdup, apprehended John Grissom, a s u s p e c t i n t h e holdup. Grissom admitted h i s involvement i n t h e holdup t o D e t e c t i v e Warrington, s t a t i n g t h a t he had d r i v e n t h e "getaway c a r " f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t . Following h i s c o n f e s s i o n t o Warrington, Grissom agreed t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t i n exchange f o r immunity. The p r o s e c u t i o n p r e s e n t e d s i x w i t n e s s e s t o prove its c h a r g e s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t i n c l u d i n g t h e t r u c k s t o p c a s h i e r , t h e t r u c k s t o p o p e r a t o r , two G r e a t F a l l s d e t e c t i v e s i n c l u d i n g Warrington, William S t e e l e , a f r i e n d of t h e d e f e n d a n t , and John Grissom. G r i s s o m l s testimony, however, provided t h e key evidence l i n k i n g d e f e n d a n t t o t h e t r u c k s t o p holdup. Grissom t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t "held-up" t h e t r u c k s t o p wearing t h e same g a r b a s d e s c r i b e d by t h e c a s h i e r , t h a t d e f e n d a n t showed him t h e money taken from t h e t r u c k s t o p , and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d e s c r i b e d t o him i n d e t a i l t h e holdup sequence of e v e n t s . Key c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence of G r i s s o m l s t h e f t account was g i v e n by t h e testimony of William S t e e l e . A t t h e t i m e of t h e holdup, S t e e l e was a b a r t e n d e r a t a l o c a l b a r . S t e e l e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he v i s i t e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t a few d a y s a f t e r t h e holdup w h i l e a t work i n t h e b a r , and t h a t d e f e n d a n t o r d e r e d s e v e r a l rounds of d r i n k s a t t h e bar and p a i d f o r each round w i t h Canadian money. When S t e e l e asked d e f e n d a n t where he g o t t h e Canadian money, S t e e l e t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t f i r s t r e p l i e d t h a t t h e money was l e f t over from a t r i p t o Canada. L a t e r t h a t evening, however, d e f e n d a n t admitted t o S t e e l e t h a t t h e Canadian money was p a r t of t h e t r u c k s t o p holdup money. During t h e t r i a l , S t e e l e could n o t remember whether d e f e n d a n t s a i d , "I got t h e money from t h e Crossroads" o r "I robbed t h e Crossroads". D e t e c t i v e Warrington t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s p o l i c e r e p o r t of an i n t e r v i e w w i t h S t e e l e made f o l l o w i n g t h e holdup i n d i c a t e d S t e e l e t o l d t h e d e t e c t i v e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s a i d , "I held-up t h e Crossroads." Defendant p r e s e n t e d no evidence f o l l o w i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e . Counsel f o r d e f e n d a n t made a motion t o t h e c o u r t f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , c l a i m i n g i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence was p r e s e n t e d t o prove t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e . Defense counsel argued t h a t l e g a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence was o f f e r e d t o s u b s t a n t i a t e Grissom's testimony. The D i s t r i c t Court acknowledged t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d was n o t s t r o n g , b u t t h e c o u r t held t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence was l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t Grissom's testimony. The D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e motion and allowed t h e c a s e t o be submitted t o t h e j u r y f o l l o w i n g its i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e law of t h e c a s e . The j u r y found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of t h e f t and n o t g u i l t y of robbery. I s s u e No. 1: S u f f i c i e n c y of t h e Evidence Count I1 of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g e s ". . . d e f e n d a n t d i d p u r p o s e l y or knowingly o b t a i n o r e x e r t unauthorized c o n t r o l over p r o p e r t y , cash i n U.S. and Canadian c u r r e n c y , of a v a l u e of more t h a n $150.00, owned by Crossroads Truck S t o p , w i t h t h e purpose of d e p r i v i n g t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y . " Count I , t h e robbery c o u n t , charged defendant committed t h i s t h e f t w h i l e p l a c i n g t h e t r u c k s t o p c a s h i e r i n f e a r of immediate b o d i l y i n j u r y . I n o r d e r t o prove t h e robbery c h a r g e , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f f e r e d t h e c a s h i e r ' s testimony of f e a r of i n j u r y . While t e s t i f y i n g , t h e c a s h i e r f u r t h e r provided i m p o r t a n t t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e amount of money taken by t h e gunman d u r i n g t h e holdup. Defense counsel a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u r y must have d i s t r u s t e d t h e c a s h i e r ' s testimony because t h e j u r y found d e f e n d a n t n o t g u i l t y of robbery. Defense counsel a s s e r t s t h a t t h e c a s h i e r ' s testimony is c r i t i c a l t o prove t h a t a t h e f t was committed. I f t h e j u r y d i s b e l i e v e d t h e c a s h i e r , t h e d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h e evidence t h e n is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o prove t h e t h e f t a s charged. W e r e j e c t t h i s argument. The d e f e n d a n t e r r o n e o u s l y a r g u e s t h a t a l l of t h e c a s h i e r ' s testimony must be d i s r e g a r d e d . The c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y s p e c i f i c a l l y about its r i g h t t o b e l i e v e o r d i s b e l i e v e any p o r t i o n of a w i t n e s s ' testimony. I n S t a t e v. DeGeorge ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 35, 566 P.2d 59, w e h e l d t h a t " [ t l h i s Court has f r e q u e n t l y observed t h a t d i s p u t e d q u e s t i o n s of f a c t and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d on appeal b u t t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n of such m a t t e r s is w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e of t h e j u r y . A s long a s t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o s u p p o r t 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. ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) " A review of t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s s u f f i c i e n t evidence s u p p o r t s t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i n t h i s c a s e . The d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s f u r t h e r t h a t t h e evidence d o e s n o t show t h e Crossroads Truck S t o p l e g a l l y owned t h e s t o l e n money. T h i s argument f a i l s . The p r o s e c u t i o n proved through t h e c a s h i e r ' s and o p e r a t o r ' s testimony t h a t t h e t r u c k s t o p possessed t h e money s t o l e n . Proof of p o s s e s s i o n s u f f i c e s h e r e t o prove ownership. S e e , s e c t i o n 45-2-101(40), MCA. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t proposed and t h e c o u r t accepted a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n p r o v i d i n g t h a t "owner" should be d e f i n e d by t h e j u r y i n terms of p o s s e s s i o n of p r o p e r t y . I s s u e No. 2: Testimony of John Grissom Defendant a s s e r t s t h r e e e r r o r s were made by t h e D i s t r i c t Court w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s use of John Grissom as a w i t n e s s a g a i n s t defendant. The f i r s t a l l e g e d e r r o r concerns t h e c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r d i s c o v e r y of Grissom's " r a p s h e e t " . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s , could v a l i d l y be used t o damage Grissom's c r e d i b i l i t y . I n s u p p o r t of t h i s motion, c o u n s e l f o r d e f e n d a n t c i t e d t h e o p i n i o n of t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n Davis v. Alaska ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347. The c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d Davis, b u t r e j e c t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion. On a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t c i t e s Davis and contends t h e c o u r t denied defendant due p r o c e s s . W e d i s a g r e e . I n Davis, t h e Supreme Court a s s u r e d a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t of h i s r i g h t under t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n Clause of t h e S i x t h Amendment t o e x p l o r e through cross-examination t h e p a r t i a l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n of a p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s . The Court h e l d t h a t cross-examination should be p e r m i t t e d ". . . t o expose t o t h e j u r y t h e f a c t s from which j u r o r s , a s t h e s o l e t r i e r s of f a c t and c r e d i b i l i t y , could a p p r o p r i a t e l y draw i n f e r e n c e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s . " A comparison of t h e f a c t s of t h e Davis c a s e w i t h t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e , i n d i c a t e s d e f e n d a n t ' s r e l i a n c e on Davis i n t h i s c a s e is misplaced. The Davis c o u r t p r o h i b i t e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l from exposing t o t h e j u r y t h e w i t n e s s ' c r i m i n a l r e c o r d . The Davis d e f e n d a n t t h e r e f o r e was unable t o make a r e c o r d from which t o argue a t t r i a l t h e w i t n e s s ' b i a s o r l a c k of i m p a r t i a l i t y expected of a w i t n e s s . Defense c o u n s e l i n t h i s c a s e was p e r m i t t e d t o f u l l y p r e s e n t evidence of Grissom's c r i m i n a l c h a r a c t e r and b i a s . The j u r y h e r e was aware of t h e immunity b a r g a i n made between t h e p r o s e c u t i o n and Grissom, and of Grissom's c o m p l i c i t y i n t h e t r u c k s t o p t h e f t . The c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s motion was w e l l w i t h i n its d i s c r e t i o n t o c o n t r o l cross-examination. The second and t h i r d a l l e g e d e r r o r s p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n d a n t a r e d i r e c t a t t a c k s on t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of Grissom's testimony. Defendant contends i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence was p r e s e n t e d t o s u b s t a n t i a t e Grissom's testimony. Defendant f u r t h e r contends t h e evidence used t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h i s testimony is -6- inadmissible hearsay evidence. Section 46-16-213, MCA, provides the test for sufficient corroborating evidence of accomplice testimony: "A conviction cannot be had on the testimony of one responsible or legally accountable for the same offense, as defined in 45-2-301, 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." In State v. Kemp (1979), Mont . , 597 P.2d 96, 36 St.Rep. 1215, we summarized Montana case law of corroboration of accomplice testimony as follows: "The sufficiency of evidence necessary to corroborate accomplice testimony is a question of law. (Citations omitted.) In defining the quantum and character of proof required to corroborate accomplice testimony, a substantial body of case law has evolved. "To be sufficient, corroborating evidence must show more than that a crime was in fact committed or the circumstances of its commission. (Citation omitted.) It must raise more than a suspicion of the defendant's involvement in, or opportunity to commit, the crime charged. (Citation omitted.) But corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, by itself, to support a defendant's conviction or even to make out a prima facie case against him. (Citations omitted.). . . ". . . each case must be examined on its particular facts to determine if the evidence tends, in and of itself, to prove defendant's connection with the crime charged. " The key evidence corroborating Grissom's testimony was included in the testimonies of Steele and Warrington. The evidence indicates defendant admitted to Steele that the defendant "robbed" or "held-up" the truck stop, and that Steele reported to Warrington defendant's admitted involvement in the holdup. This evidence is sufficient corroborating evidence for the admissions of Grissom's testimony. We disagree with defendant's contention that this evidence is inadmissible hearsay. This evidence is not hearsay. Rule 8 0 1 ( d ) ( l ) ( A ) , Mont.R.Evid., p r o v i d e s : " ( d ) S t a t e m e n t s which a r e n o t hearsay. A s t a t e m e n t is n o t hearsay if1'-- (1) P r i o r s t a t e m e n t by w i t n e s s . The d e c l a r a n t t e s t i f i e s a t t h e t r i a l o r h e a r i n g and is s u b j e c t t o cross-examination concerning t h e s t a t e m e n t , and t h e s t a t e m e n t is ( A ) i n c o n s i s t e n t with h i s testimony . . ." Rule 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) Mont.R.Evid. provides: " ( d ) S t a t e m e n t s which a r e n o t hearsay. A s t a t e m e n t is n o t h e a r s a y i f : . . . ( 2 ) Admission by a party-opponent. The s t a t e m e n t is o f f e r e d a g a i n s t a p a r t y and is ( A ) h i s own s t a t e m e n t . . ." The s t a t e m e n t made by d e f e n d a n t t o S t e e l e is an admission by a p a r t y opponent t o t h e a c t i o n . The s t a t e m e n t made by S t e e l e t o Warrington is a p r i o r s t a t e m e n t of t h e w i t n e s s S t e e l e . I s s u e No. 3: J u r y I n s t r u c t i o n s Defendant contends t h e c o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by r e j e c t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g accomplice testimony and o r a l admissions, and f u r t h e r e r r e d by g i v i n g t h e "Sandstrom" j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n . Grissom's testimony was accomplice testimony. S t e e l e ' s testimony included t h e admission by t h e d e f e n d a n t of h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e holdup. Defendant proposed a number of j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e weight t h e j u r y should a s s i g n t o testimony. Each of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s was r e j e c t e d by t h e c o u r t . W e a g r e e w i t h d e f e n d a n t t h a t c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g accomplice testimony and o r a l admissions should have been included i n t h e c o u r t ' s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s . W e d i s a g r e e w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o g i v e t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s amounts t o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . S e c t i o n 26-1-303(4), MCA, p r o v i d e s t h e following: "The j u r y is t o be i n s t r u c t e d by t h e c o u r t on a l l proper o c c a s i o n s : " ( 4 ) t h a t t h e testimony of an accomplice ought t o be viewed w i t h d i s t r u s t , and t h e evidence of t h e o r a l admissions of a p a r t y w i t h c a u t i o n . " The c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n s p r o f f e r e d by d e f e n d a n t were e l a b o r a t e and m i s l e a d i n g . These i n s t r u c t i o n s d i d n o t employ t h e s i m p l e s t a t u t o r y language of s e c t i o n 26-1-303(4), MCA. The proposed accomplice t e s t i m o n y i n s t r u c t i o n s p l a c e d unneeded emphasis on t h e u n r e l i a b i l i t y and i n v o l u n t a r y n a t u r e of G r i s s o m ' s testimony. The proposed o r a l admissions i n s t r u c t i o n e r r o n e o u s l y i n c l u d e d " c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n " language. The e r r o r c r e a t e d by t h e c o u r t ' s omission i n its i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h i s e v i d e n c e was minimized by o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s . These i n s t r u c t i o n s were d i r e c t e d t o t h e testimony of p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s because t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t p r e s e n t any w i t n e s s e s . These i n s t r u c t i o n s provided: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t you may a l s o c o n s i d e r any demonstrated b i a s , p r e j u d i c e o r h o s t i l i t y o f a w i t - n e s s toward t h e d e f e n d a n t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e weight t o be accorded t o h i s testimony. " I n weighing t h e t e s t i m o n y of any w i t n e s s , you should t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t h i s i n t e r e s t o r want of i n t e r e s t i n t h e r e s u l t of t h i s c a s e . . . "Every w i t n e s s is presumed t o speak t h e t r u t h . T h i s presumption, however, may be r e p e l l e d by t h e manner i n which he t e s t i f i e d , by t h e c h a r a c t e r of h i s testimony, o r by evidence a f f e c t i n g h i s r e p u t a t i o n f o r t r u t h , h o n e s t y , i n t e g r i t y o r h i s motives . . ." Defendant c l a i m s t h e c o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by g i v i n g t h e "Sandstrom" i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r y . I n s t r u c t i o n No. 17 provided: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e law presumes t h a t a person i n t e n d s t h e o r d i n a r y consequences o f h i s v o l u n t a r y a c t s . " T h i s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n is i d e n t i c a l t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n held t o be u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n Sandstrom v. Montana ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39. I n a number of r e c e n t c a s e s w e have c o n s i d e r e d t h e e f f e c t of t h e Sandstrom d e c i s i o n . See, S t a t e v. Hamilton ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 605 P.2d 1121, 37 St.Rep. 70; S t a t e v. McKenzie ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 608 P.2d 428, 37 St.Rep. 325; S t a t e v. Wogamon ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 610 P.2d 1161, 37 St.Rep. 840: and S t a t e v. Martinez ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , P. 2d , 37 St.Rep. 982. I n Hamilton, w e h e l d t h e Sandstrom-type i n s t r u c t i o n s t o be harmless e r r o r s i n c e t h e evidence of i n t e n t i n t h a t c a s e was overwhelming given t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e c a s e . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e Sandstrom i n s t r u c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s harmless e r r o r . The evidence of i n t e n t is overwhelming. The e s s e n t i a l i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e is t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e masked gunman, n o t t h e gunman's i n t e n t . Indeed, t h e d e f e n d a n t proposed, and t h e c o u r t accepted a s p e c i f i c j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n r e g a r d i n g i d e n t i t y : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n of whether t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n f a c t t h e c r i m i n a l a c t o r , and n e c e s s i t a t e s your re- s o l v i n g any c o n f l i c t or u n c e r t a i n t y i n testimony on t h a t i s s u e . "The burden of proof is on t h e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o e v e r y element of t h e c r i m e s charged, and t h i s burden i n c l u d e s t h e burden of proving beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e de- f e n d a n t a s t h e p e r p e t r a t o r of t h e c r i m e s charged." I s s u e No. 4 Impermissible Remarks i n t h e P r o s e c u t i o n ' s C l o s i n g Argument The d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s a p o r t i o n of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c l o s i n g argument t o t h e j u r y denied d e f e n d a n t a f a i r t r i a l . Defendant a t t a c k s t h e remarks i n c l o s i n g argument a s an impermissible comment on t h e f a c t t h a t d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d no evidence f o l l o w i n g t h e c l o s e of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n case-in-chief. The a l l e g e d p r e j u d i c i a l remarks a r e a s follows: "(By Mr. V e r m i l l i o n : ) NOW, where d o e s Mr. Dolan s a y he g o t t h e Canadian money--well, f i r s t , he t e l l s young B i l l S t e e l e t h a t he went on a t r i p t o Canada, now, t h e r e h a s been no evidence brought b e f o r e you t o show t h a t C h a r l e s Dolan was e v e r i n Canada, o r t h a t he had made a t r i p up t h e r e , and i f he had a c t u a l l y been up i n Canada, where was t h e proof? Canada is n o t a t o t a l l y b a r r e n l a n d , w i t h nobody up t h e r e , and i f he had made a t r i p up t o Canada t o b r i n g back sums of Canadian money, why s u r e l y t h e r e would have been somebody, and c e r t a i n l y he would have been up t h e r e somewhere, you know, where somebody would have s e e n him . . . " ( a f t e r a review of p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s testimony, V e r m i l l i o n c o n t i n u e s ) NOW, l a d i e s and gentlemen, w e had i n t h i s c a s e no w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d by t h e d e f e n s e , t o c o n t r a d i c t t h a t evidence. S u r e l y t h e r e must be someone, some a c q u a i n t a n c e of Mr. D o l a n ' s who could t e s t i f y a s t o h i s v o i c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and i f he d i d n o t have such a speech impediment, t h a t person could have t e s t i f i e d , b u t none was c a l l e d . " ( f o l l o w i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s c l o s i n g argument sug- g e s t i n g a reason f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t t o be d r i v i n g near t h e t r u c k s t o p ) The same remark might be made of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n s e c a l l e d no w i t n e s s e s , t o say t h a t Chuck Dolan w a s n ' t t h e r e t h a t night--" Counsel f o r d e f e n d a n t o b j e c t e d contending t h e remarks of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n p r e j u d i c e d d e f e n d a n t . Following t h i s o b j e c t i o n , t h e c o u r t reminded t h e j u r y t o f o l l o w o n l y i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e law. These remarks do n o t c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r under t h e test of p r o s e c u t o r i a l comment w e employed i n S t a t e v. Anderson ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 156 Mont. 122, 476 P.2d 780: "The test is whether t h e language used was m a n i f e s t l y intended o r was of such c h a r a c t e r t h a t t h e j u r y would n a t u r a l l y and n e c e s s a r i l y t a k e it t o be a comment on t h e f a i l u r e of t h e accused t o t e s t i f y . " The remarks made h e r e a r e s i m i l a r t o t h e remarks used i n S t a t e v. Armstrong ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 256, 552 P.2d 616. I n Armstronq, t h i s Court acknowledged t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s r i g h t t o s t r e s s t h e s t r e n g t h of its own evidence: "While it is t r u e t h a t t h e county a t t o r n e y o f t e n asked r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s which amounted t o comments t h a t t h e r e was 'no e v i d e n c e ' o r 'no t e s t i m o n y ' t o r e b u t t h e i n f e r e n c e s r a i s e d by t h e s t a t e ' s evidence, nowhere d o e s it appear t h a t t h e s e comments would n e c e s s a r i l y imply t h a t de- f e n d a n t was t h e o n l y s o u r c e which could n e g a t e s t a t e ' s evidence. The most t h a t can be s a i d of t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s comments is t h a t t h e y r e f e r r e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d no c a s e a t a l l . C e r t a i n l y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , a s an a d v e r s a r y f o r t h e s t a t e , cannot be p r o h i b i t e d from a r g u i n g t h e s t r e n g t h of i t s c a s e t o t h e j u r y . The m a n i f e s t f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d no testimony of i t s own may be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , b u t such f a c t cannot deny t h e p r o s e c u t i o n its r i g h t t o s t r e s s t h e s t r e n g t h of its own evidence. ( C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . ) " For t h e r e a s o n s i n c l u d e d above, w e a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Affirmed. We Concur: Chief Justice C w Justice Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea dissents and will file a written dissent later.