NO. 90-363 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1991 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vSHAWN ALLEN STEELE, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula, 

The Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

J. Dirk ~eccari' and Dave Ohler; Missoula Public 

Defender Office; Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Marc Racicot, Attorney General; Joe Thaggard, Asst. 

Atty. General; Helena, Montana 

Robert L. Deschamps, 111, County Attorney; Betty 

Wing, Deputy Co. Atty; Missoula, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: February 7, 1991 

Filed: 

Decided: March 19, 1991 
Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

A jury trial was held in the District Court for the Fourth 

Judicial District, Missoula County. Defendant, Shawn Allen Steele, 

was convicted of misdemeanor criminal mischief, felony criminal 

mischief, misdemeanor theft and felony theft. Defendant appeals. 

We affirm. 

The issues on appeal are: 

1. Did the District Court err in denying defendant's 

motion for directed verdict? 

2. Did the aggregation of the value of the stolen 

property subject the defendant to multiple convictions 

for the same transaction? 

On Saturday, October 28, 1989, Renae Rostad (Ms. Rostad) 

attended a late movie at the Cinema 3 movie theater in Missoula, 

Montana. Ms. Rostad parked her car in the theater's rear-parking 

lot. At about 11: 45 p.m., after the movie, she returned to her car 

only to find that someone had broken one of its windows and stolen 

her purse. The purse, valued at $55, contained $10, several credit 

cards, and a "bank cardw from First Interstate Bank. 

Ms. Rostad reported the theft to the Missoula Police 

Department that night. She reported the theft of her bank card on 

the following Monday. The customer representative for First 

Interstate Bank checked the "cardholder activity report" for Ms. 

Rostad's bank card and discovered that the night Ms. Rostadts purse 

was stolen someone made three $100 withdrawals from her account 

with her bank card. A fourth attempt to withdraw $100 was made but 

since the maximum allowable withdrawal from Ms. Rostad's account 
was $300 per day, the attempted withdrawal was refused. A video 

tape taken of all individuals who withdraw money from the Automatic 

Teller Machine (ATM) revealed that an unidentified male made the 

three withdrawals. No suspect was apprehended at that time. 

Early in 1990, a number of break-ins into vehicles occurred 

in the parking lots of Cinema 3 and the Duelin' Daltons Saloon in 

Missoula. Most of the break-ins resulted in the theft of purses 

and credit cards from the vehicles. 

The owner of Duelin' Daltons, Bruce Fowler, began to conduct 

a surveillance of the Duelin' Dalton's parking lot. On February 

2, 1990, Mr. Fowler saw a man emerge from a vehicle and steal 

something from a car parked across the street from Duelin' Daltons. 

The man returned to his car and drove away. Mr. Fowler and his 

friend, Wayne Frank, followed the suspect's car to the parking lot 

of the Cinema 3. Mr. Fowler used his car to block in the suspect's 

car in the parking lot. They could see that the suspect was still 

sitting in his car going through a purse. 

Mr. Fowler and Mr. Frank then approached the suspect's 

vehicle. Mr. Frank recognized the suspect as the defendant and 

someone he had known for years. Defendant resisted an attempted 

citizen's arrest by the two men. Mr. Fowler then went to a nearby 

phone to call the police. In the meantime, defendant admitted to 

Mr. Frank that he had been involved in thefts from cars for several 

months. Defendant then escaped on foot. 

When the police arrived, they impounded defendant's vehicle 

and searched it. The detective conducting the search found a 
purse, two wallets, two sets of keys and identification cards. 

When the detective reviewed the investigative file from the Rostad 

case, he recognized the man in the ATM photographs withdrawing 

money from Ms. Rostadts account as the defendant. The detective 

later interviewed defendant. The detective testified that 

defendant admitted to being the man in the photographs but denied 

any wrongdoing. 

In support of its motion for leave to file an Information, the 

State submitted to the court an affidavit setting forth the 

circumstances of the alleged crimes. The affidavit revealed that 

defendant admitted to Mr. Frank that he had been stealing items 

from cars for several months in order to support his child. 

A jury trial was held. At the close of the State's case-inchief, defendant moved the court to either dismiss Count V of the 

Information or direct a verdict in defendantts favor. Count V 

read: 

On or about October 28, 1989, through November 5, 1989, 

the above-named Defendant purposely or knowingly obtained 

or exerted unauthorized control over property of another, 

a purse and cash with value in excess of $300, property 

of Renae Rostae (sic), with the purpose to deprive the 

owner of the property. 

Defendant argued that the value of the purse stolen from Ms. Rostad 

was not over $300. Counsel for the defense argued: 

My first motion regarding this is that the court 

should dismiss the felony charge because the State has 

failed to prove value of the purse being over $300.00. 

It's my position that the transaction which occurred 

at the bank is a deceptive practices or some other theft. 

It Is a separate offense. You cannot use the money taken 

off of that card to include it in the value of the purse. 

The bank card itself is worth less. ... 
[Tlhe State can't use that value to enhance the 

value of the purse. . . . Renae Rostad was out the value of her purse, she was 

out the $10.00 in her purse, and she was out $50.00 

according to the last person we had testify to the bank. 

The bank was out the other $250.00. And as long as 

she notified them within two business days, her account 

was never affected by that. 

Therefore, her charge should only be a misdemeanor 

charge because they haven't proven, even if you aggregate 

the total amount in it -- with the bank machine, the 

value still does not exceed $300.00. 

The State argued that the purse and the cash together were all 

part of the same transaction because not only was the bank card 

taken from the purse, it was used within a half-hour from the time 

the purse was stolen. 

On appeal, defendant challenges only his conviction for Count 

V, the felony theft relating to Ms. Rostadts purse. 

Did the District Court err in denying defendant's motion 

for directed verdict? 

Defendant maintains that the State's failure to charge the 

theft of Ms. Rostadls purse and the money from her bank account as 

the same transaction or a common scheme was fatal to the State's 

case. Defendant argues that in this case no evidence permitted the 

jury to conclude that the value of the property stolen from Ms. 

Rostad exceeded $300. He maintains that two misdemeanor thefts 

were involved here: one involved breaking into a car and stealing 

a purse; the other the use of a bank card. 

The State contends that the Information properly charged 

defendant with felony theft as 5 45-6-301(1)(a), MCA, defines the 

offense. Section 45-6-301, MCA, provides (in part): 
(1) A person commits the offense of theft when he 

purposely of knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized 

control over property of the owner and: 

(a) has the purpose of depriving the owner of the 

property ; 

... (6) A person convicted of the offense of theft of 

property not exceeding $300 in value shall be fined not 

to exceed $500 or be imprisoned in the county jail for 

any term not to exceed 6 months, or both. A person 

convicted of the offense of theft of property exceeding 

$3 00 in value . . . shall be fined not to exceed $50,000 

or be imprisoned in the state prison for any term not to 

exceed 10 years, or both. 

(7) Amounts involved in thefts committed pursuant to a 

common scheme or the same transaction, whether from the 

same person or several persons, may be assresated in 

determinins the value of the property. (Emphasis added). 

Thus, the State must prove that the value of the property stolen 

exceeds $300. The State maintains that the evidence presented at 

trial indicated that the theft of the purse and the money from Ms. 

Rostadls bank account constituted the same transaction. We agree. 

When reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict, 

only substantial evidence in the record supporting the jury's 

finding is required. State v. Laverdue (1990), 241 Mont. 135, 785 

P.2d 718. The standard of review on issues of substantial evidence 

is that the conviction cannot be overturned if evidence, when 

viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would allow 

any rational trier of fact to find essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Krum (1989), 238 Mont. 359, 

The evidence presented at trial proved that the bank card 

taken from Ms. Rostadts purse was used to withdraw the cash within 

about a half-hour after the theft of the purse. The evidence 
presented at trial would allow a rational trier of fact to find the 

essential elements of felony theft beyond a reasonable doubt. We 

hold that the ~istrict Court did not err in denying defendant's 

motion for a directed verdict. 

Did the aggregation of the value of the stolen 

property subject the defendant to multiple convictions 

for the same transaction? 

Defendant maintains that the aggregation of the value of Ms. 

Rostad's purse and the money stolen from her bank account subjected 

him to multiple convictions for the same transaction, a violation 

of 5 46-11-502, MCA. That section prohibits the State from 

convicting a defendant of more than one offense arising from the 

same conduct. As the State points out, such was not the case here. 

Defendant was charged and convicted of one crime only (felony 

theft) for his theft of Ms. Rostadls purse and use of her bank 

card. We conclude defendant's argument is without merit. We hold 

that the aggregation of the value of the stolen property did not 

subject defendant to multiple convictions for the same transaction. 

Affirmed. 

We Concur: