No. 13056 INTHE SUPREME COIJRT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 19 

### 75

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent,

-vs

# - SOLOMON BITTON S IMTOB

# , Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Richard E. Gillespie argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,

Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, Assistant Attorney General,

argued, Helena, Montana Thomas Dowling, County Attorney, Helena, Montana Charles 

### A. Graveley

## ,Deputy County Attorney, argued,

Helena, Montana

Submitted: November 13, 1975Mr. JusticeWesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of criminal sale of dangerous drugs entered on a jury verdict inLewis and Clark County. The crime was committed in the cityof Helena by defendant after he had journeyed to Helena from Billings. The state's witnesses testified generally as tobeing with the defendant ata party inBillings, hearing the conversation as to going to Helena via Bozeman, for, among other things, the purpose of obtaining drugs. The details of the tripwere observed and monitered by undercover agentswith allof the specifics as to the crime; In the defendant's case, one Mike Ringquist was called
as a witness for defendant. His testimony apparentlywas to establish that he was a close friend of defendant and had planned
a tripwith defendant about August 

### 25 togo to Glacier Park on August 

### 30, the date of the activity testified toby statewitnesses. The witness was asked ifhe had heard allthe testimony presented about the trip from Billings toHelena. So, his testimony was an obvious attempt todispute or contradict the state's testimony
asto the purpose of the tripand its details. Then thewitness Ringquist was asked several questionsby defendant's counsel concerning theuse of drugs: "Q. Did the Defendant give any indication toyou that he was going topurchase drugs and selldrugs? A. No sir. 

### "Q. To your knowledge, did he have any drugs inhis possession? A. No Sir. "Q. Were you going touse any drugswhile you were in Glacier Park? A. No 

### sir. 

### "Q. Did you go on that tripwith him? A. No 

### sir, I had towork. 

### "Q. The tripthatwe are talking about 

### is the same one that he eventuallywent on with Mr. Desmul, is that right? A. Well, I don't know, I know him as

### YE. Ferguson. Q. Ferguson? A. Yes."Q. Why was it you couldn't go? A. I had towork that Saturday and they were leaving Saturday so I said, tI just can't go. r "Q. In the time that you were with and around Mr. Simtob in Billings, toyour knowledge, did he use any drugs, traffic in drugs? A. Other than alcohol, no. "Q. How much alcohol areyou talking about? A. Well, I went out with him practically everynight that he was inBillings and I say on two occasions that we had dinner

parties and he had three, maybe four glasses of wine and every time whenever we went to a bar it was likeone or two beers and then he started drinking seven-up. "Q. Did he talk about using drugs? A. No sir, we didn't talk about drugs. "Q. Did he have any opinion about drugs?
"Q. Did he make any statements about drugs? A. Not during that time. II By thiswitness and the line of questioning and his answers, itwas obvious that thewitness was attempting to establish
a close relationship with the defendant; knew his habits; knew his plans; knew his general reputation; and, denied knowledge of his drug use. This tended torefute andcatmdict the testimony of the state'switnesses. Then, on cross-examination, the state further developed these matters as tothewitness' relationships and his exchange of letters. When pinned down thewitness changed letters to a single letter, When pinned down further astodates and places, thewitness was finally forced to acknowledge that the defendant had been in the stateprison during several months prior toAugust 19, 1974. Over objection, the Statewas allowed toelicit these
answers from thewitness who previously had painted what was obviously meant tobe 

### a picture of the defendant as a wholesome friend planning a trip to Glacier Park--which would refute and contradict the state's testimony. Further, on rebuttal, the statewas allowed topresent evidence tothe effect that defendant had a general reputation as
one of the major drug pushers inMontana.qere, che single issue, aside from a later issue mentioned hereinafter, iswhether the trialcourt erred in ruling that defense counsel had brought the defendant's character and general reputation into issue and then allowed the state toquestion witnesses' knowledge of the defendant and his character and general reputation. Defendant asserts that Mike Ringquist was not a character witzless and that the questions and answers, partly quoted heretofore,
were only for the purpose of soliciting firsthand knowledge of defendant's activities. Perhaps thatwas defendant's purpose in asking the questions but the answers revealed a lack of candor and truthfulness aswellas an attempt to present defendant as a person of good character, particularly as to lack of any connection with drugs or any purpose for the trip to Helena testified toby the scate'switnesses. The cross-examination and rebuttal was confined


### co the particular trait of character impugned in the crime with which the defendant was charged and towhich the state's witnesses had cestified and defendant's witness attempted tocontradict and discredit. Such questioning is proper. Statev. Cor, 144Mont. 323, 396 P.?d 86; State 

### v. Moorrnan, 133Mont. 148, 321 P.2d 236; Section 33-1901-7, R.C.M. 1947. In State v. Turley, 164 Mont. 231, 234, 

### ,21 P.2d 690, this Court said:

'If< 

# *

# * such evidence was brought out on direct examination of appellant by appellant's own counsel. Xaving done so, he cannot now complain.II We find no error. the final issuewas raised asa supplemental issue ~ildiLeligi1lg the statuteunder which defendant was charged as to rhe definition of "dangerous drugs". We willnot repeat the details 32 the challenge here because the issuewas settled by this Court's opinion 

### in State ex rel. Lance, Petitioner v. District Court,Mont

# . 3 P.2d 

## , 32 St.Rep. 1119, this court's Cause No. 13167, decided November 12, 1975. Finding no error thejudgment 

### is affirmed.

'\



### - Justices.