No. 13056 

IN THE SUPREME COIJRT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

19 7 5 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vs - 

SOLOMON B ITTON 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, 1975 
Mr. Justice Wesley 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 in Lewis 

and Clark County. The crime was committed in the city of Helena 

by defendant after he had journeyed to Helena from Billings. The 

state's witnesses testified generally as to being with the defendant 

at a party in Billings, hearing the conversation as to going to 

Helena via Bozeman, for, among other things, the purpose of obtaining 

drugs. The details of the trip were observed and monitered by 

undercover agents with all of the specifics as to the crime; 

In the defendant's case, one Mike Ringquist was called 

as a witness for defendant. His testimony apparently was to 

establish that he was a close friend of defendant and had planned 

a trip with defendant about August 25 to go to Glacier Park on 

August 30, the date of the activity testified to by state witnesses. 

The witness was asked if he had heard all the testimony presented 

about the trip from Billings to Helena. So, his testimony was an 

obvious attempt to dispute or contradict the state's testimony 

as to the purpose of the trip and its details. Then the witness 

Ringquist was asked several questions by defendant's counsel 

concerning the use of drugs: 

"Q. Did the Defendant give any indication to you 

that he was going to purchase drugs and sell drugs? 

A. No sir. 

"Q. To your knowledge, did he have any drugs in his 

possession? A. No Sir. 

"Q. Were you going to use any drugs while you were 

in Glacier Park? A. No sir. 

"Q. Did you go on that trip with him? A. No sir, 

I had to work. 

"Q. The trip that we are talking about is the same 

one that he eventually went 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 to work 

that Saturday and they were leaving Saturday so I said, 

t I just can't go. r 

"Q. In the time that you were with and around Mr. 

Simtob in Billings, to your knowledge, did he use any 

drugs, traffic in drugs? A. Other than alcohol, no. 

"Q. How much alcohol are you talking about? A. Well, 

I went out with him practically every night that he was 

in Billings 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 like one 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. I I 

By this witness and the line of questioning and his 

answers, it was obvious that the witness 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 to refute andcatmdict the testimony of the 

state's witnesses. 

Then, on cross-examination, the state further developed 

these matters as to the witness' relationships and his exchange 

of letters. When pinned down the witness changed letters to a 

single letter, When pinned down further as to dates and places, 

the witness was finally forced to acknowledge that the defendant 

had been in the state prison during several months prior to August 

19, 1974. Over objection, the State was allowed to elicit these 

answers from the witness who previously had painted what was 

obviously meant to be 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 state was allowed to present 

evidence to the effect that defendant had a general reputation as 

one of the major drug pushers in Montana. 
qere, che single issue, aside from a later issue mentioned 

hereinafter, is whether the trial court erred in ruling that 

defense counsel had brought the defendant's character and general 

reputation into issue and then allowed the state to question 

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 that was defendant's purpose in 

asking the questions but the answers revealed a lack of candor 

and truthfulness as well as 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 to by the 

scate's witnesses. The cross-examination and rebuttal was confined 

co the particular trait of character impugned in the crime with which 

the defendant was charged and to which the state's witnesses had 

cestified and defendant's witness attempted to contradict and discredit. 

Such questioning is proper. State v. Cor, 144 Mont. 323, 

396 P.?d 86; State v. Moorrnan, 133 Mont. 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 issue was raised as a supplemental issue 

~ildiLeligi1lg the statute under which defendant was charged as to 

rhe definition of "dangerous drugs". We will not repeat the details 

32 the challenge here because the issue was settled by this Court's 

opinion in State ex rel. Lance, Petitioner v. District Court, 
Mon t . 3 P.2d , 32 St.Rep. 1119, this 

court's Cause No. 13167, decided November 12, 1975. 

Finding no error the judgment is affirmed. 

'\ 

- Justices.