No. 92-236 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1992 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, SE@ 1.. j$j@ 

-vsJOHN MICHAEL SHAW, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Lincoln, 

The Honorable Robert S. Keller, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

S. Charles Sprinkle, Douglas & Sprinkle, Libby, 

Montana 

For Respondent: 

Hon. Marc Racicot, Attorney General, Jennifer 

Anders, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Scott Spencer, Lincoln County Attorney, Libby, 

Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: October 8, 1992 

Decided: December 1, 1992 
Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an appeal from the District Court of the Nineteenth 

Judicial District, Lincoln County, the Honorable Robert S. Keller 

presiding. Appellant John Michael Shaw (Shaw) appeals from a 

judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of conspiracy 

to sell dangerous drugs, a felony, in violation of § 45-4-102, MCA. 

We reverse and remand. 

The issues are: 

1. Did the District Court err in allowing rebuttal testimony 

over defense counsel's objections that the testimony violated the 

notice requirements of State v. Just (1979), 184 Mont. 262, 602 

P.2d 957, as modified in State v. Matt (1991), 249 Mont. 136, 814 

P.2d 52 (the Modified Just Rule), and that the testimony exceeded 

the scope of cross-examination? 

2. Did the District Court err in refusing Shawls Proposed Jury 

Instruction No. 21? 

The Lincoln County Sheriff's Office conducted an undercover 

drug investigation from September 1990 to May 1991. Klint Gassett 

served as the primary detective in the investigation and Hal Turner 

served as the undercover agent. During the course of that 

investigation, the sheriff's office obtained sufficient evidence to 

charge Rodney Reynolds (Reynolds). In order to further the 

investigation, Gassett offered Reynolds a deal in which Reynolds 

would work as an agent for the sheriff's office in return for a 

recommended suspended sentence and a fine. Reynolds agreed. 

2 
The officers provided Reynolds with the names of people, 

including Shaw and Brian Kair, from whom they wanted Reynolds to 

try to purchase drugs. Reynolds and Shaw had known each other for 

a number of years. Reynolds did not know Kair well enough to 

approach him directly, so he decided to go through Shaw as a means 

of introduction because Shaw and Kair knew each other well. 

Reynolds approached Shaw at the Libby softball fields after 

practice on May 2, 1991, and asked Shaw if he could get him a pound 

of marijuana or some cocaine. Reynolds testified at trial, "He 

[Shawl said he'd check it out." Shaw testified as follows: 

I told him that the whole team was going to go down to 

the Mint and I was sure that there was somebody down 

there that would sell drugs, and that I could probably 

line him up with somebody that I knew on the team, or 

whatever. 

After practice, Shaw went to the Mint with other team members 

because the Mint sponsored his softball team. Reynolds also went 

to the Mint later that day. When he entered the bar, he approached 

Shaw and the two of them went into the restroom for privacy. Shaw 

then left the restroom to get Kair. Up to that point Shaw had made 

no effort to contact anyone about the drugs. When Shaw and Kair 

returned to the restroom, Shaw told Kair that Reynolds wanted to 

buy some drugs. Reynolds and Kair then discussed drugs for ten to 

fifteen minutes. Although Shaw listened to the conversation, he 

did not take part in it. Reynolds and Kair agreed to meet at the 

Legion Bar two days later. Shaw did not make further contacts or 

participate in the deal after making the introduction. 

Reynolds and Kair met at the Legion Bar on Saturday as they 

had planned. Kair did not have the drugs at that time, but set 

3 
Sunday or Monday as a follow-up date. Reynolds then called Kair on 

Sunday to see if he could get a sample of the marijuana. Later 

that day he went to Xair's residence where he gave Kair's wife, 

Jenny, $400 as payment for a four ounce sample of marijuana. The 

marijuana was supposed to be delivered on Monday. This is the last 

time Reynolds had contact with any of the people involved. 

On May 7, 1991, the Lincoln County Attorney filed a complaint 

charging Shaw with conspiracy to sell dangerous drugs, a felony, in 

violation of § 45-4-102, MCA. A jury found Shaw guilty of the 

crime charged. 

Did the District Court err in allowing rebuttal testimony over 

defense counsel's objections that the testimony violated the 

notice requirements of State v. Just (1979), 184 Mont. 262, 602 

P.2d 957, as modified in State v. Matt (1991), 249 Mont. 136, 814 

P.2d 52 (the Modified Just Rule), and that the testimony exceeded 

the scope of cross-examination? 

During the trial, the State recalled Detective Gassett. 

During that portion of his testimony, Detective Gassett stated that 

a search warrant had been issued for the Kair residence. On crossexamination, defense counsel, Mr. Sprinkle, brought out the fact 

that a search warrant was not issued on Shaw's residence. 

Q. [By Mr. Sprinkle] And you never executed a search 

warrant on John's house and recovered any drugs or 

paraphernalia, did you? 

A. We didn't have any reason to do the search warrants 

on John's house. 

On redirect examination, the county attorney, Mr. Spencer, then 

4 
elicited the following testimony from Detective Gassett. 

Q. You were asked on cross some question about searching 

Shawls house. Did you hear that? 

A. Yes. 

Q. What was that question again? 

A. Did we do a search warrant on Shaw's residence, or 

why didn't we do a search warrant. 

Q. Looking for paraphernalia or something? 

A. Yeah. 

Q. And you did not, did you? 

A. No, we did not. 

Q. Does that mean you did not have reason to believe 

that, other than what Rodney Reynolds said, that Brian 

Shaw was involved in drugs? 

A. John Shaw? 

Q. John Shaw. I'm having a terrible time with these 

names. Dyslexia, I guess. 

A. Just because we didn't do a search warrant doesn't 

mean anything. 

Q. Did you in fact have other evidence that tends to 

show that John Shaw was involved in drugs? 

At this point, Mr. Sprinkle objected to the question as, among 

other things, beyond the scope of cross-examination and 

prejudicial. In conference, Mr. Sprinkle argued that his line of 

questions to Detective Gassett went to show the jury that no 

evidence existed, other than the events of May 2, 1991, on which to 

charge Shaw with conspiracy. The State argued, and the court 

agreed, that Mr. Sprinkle had opened the door with his question 

about the search warrant. 

When the questioning continued, the following exchange 

5 
occurred: 

Q. [By Mr. Spencer] NOW, Klint, when we broke we were 

talking about -- I'm not sure what we were talking about, 

but talking about the search warrant, and is that the 

only basis you had, or whatever. You recall that 

question? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now -- and that is yes or no. Do you have other 

basis for your determinations that we're talking about 

here with John Shaw? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Are those based on -- is that based on information 

provided to you as part of this undercover operation by 

Hal Turner? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is Hal Turner the undercover agent that was hired? 

A. Yes, from September to May of '91. 

Q. Right. I'm not sure if I ever asked that. 

At this point Mr. Sprinkle objected to the testimony on the 

basis of lack of notice as required by Just. (We point out that 

the proper authority would have been u.) The District Court 

overruled this objection and Mr. Spencer continued. 

Q. One additional question. Is this also based on 

documented information you have of several years ago? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Point of fact, eight years ago? 

A. Yes. 

We disagree with the District Court's rulings on this matter. 

We find that this testimony exceeded the scope of cross-examination 

and was allowed in violation of the notice requirements of the 

Modified Just Rule. 

6 
Rule 611(d), M.R.Evid., governs the scope of redirect 

examination. It provides: 

Re-examination and recall. A witness may be re-examined 

as to the same matters to which the witness testified 

only in the discretion of the court, but without 

exception the witness may be re-examined as to any new 

matter brought out during cross-examination. . . . 

The trial court "has wide discretion in determining the scope and 

extent of re-examination as to the new matters brought out on 

cross-examination." Cline v. Durden (1990), 246 Mont. 154, 161, 

803 P.2d 1077, 1081; State v. Heaston (1939), 109 Mont. 303, 316, 

97 P.2d 330, 336. We therefore look to whether the District Court 

abused its discretion by allowing the above testimony from 

Detective Gassett. 

On cross-examination, Mr. Sprinkle asked a series of questions 

intended to show that no evidence existed, other than the 

introduction and conversation of May 2, 1991, to establish that 

Shaw was involved in this conspiracy to sell drugs. In doing so 

he merely asked Detective Gassett whether a search warrant had been 

issued for Shawls residence. Throughout the trial, he had not 

denied that Shaw was ever involved in drugs. However, the court 

determined that this line of questioning was intended to imply that 

Shawls involvement in this matter was purely coincidental. The 

court then ruled that Mr. Sprinkle opened the door to testimony 

about Shawls prior acts or wrongs of eight years ago. 

The State relies on State v. Simtob (1975), 168 Mont. 495, 544 

P.2d 1210, and State v. Mix (1989), 239 Mont. 351, 781 P.2d 751, in 

arguing that Mr. Sprinkle opened the door to this testimony. In 

Simtob, the defendant's witness testified that the defendant did 

7 
not use or traffic in drugs. On cross-examination the State was 

allowed to bring out the fact that the defendant had been in 

prison, and on rebuttal the State was allowed to present evidence 

that the defendant had a reputation as a major drug dealer in 

Montana. This Court upheld the District Court's ruling that 

defense counsel had brought the defendant's character and 

reputation in issue and that cross-examination and rebuttal 

testimony were proper. 

In Mix, the defendant testified as to his general character as 

a peace loving man. This Court upheld the District Court's ruling 

which allowed the State to present rebuttal testimony concerning 

the defendant's priorattacks on the victim because the defendant 

had opened the door to evidence regarding his peaceful character. 

We do not find Simtob or Mix to be controlling. 

We do not find that this single question regarding a search 

warrant can be construed as a suggestion that Shaw was innocent of 

all drug related activity or that it brought his character into 

issue. Therefore, the evidence was inadmissible under Rule 

404(a)(l), M.R.Evid., which allows the State to rebut a defendant's 

character evidence with its own evidence. As we hold that the 

State could not introduce character evidence on these facts, the 

rule noted in Mix, whereby evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or 

acts may be introduced under Rule 404(a)(l) without meeting the 

Just notice requirements, does not apply. 

The State further argues that the requirements of Just (more 

accurately Matt) do not apply because Detective Gassett's testimony 

did not constitute "other crimes" evidence under Rule 404(b), 

8 
M.R .Evid. That rule provides: 

Other crimes, wrongs, acts. Evidence of other crimes, 

wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character 

of a person in order to show action in conformity 

therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other 

purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, 

preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of 

mistake or accident. 

The State relies on State v. Sorensen (1990), 243 Mont. 321, 

792 P.2d 363, where this Court rejected the defendant's argument 

that a photograph of a person standing in a marijuana patch 

constituted other crimes evidence. The officer in that case 

testified that he thought the man in the picture was the defendant. 

In that case we noted that it is not a crime to stand in what 

appears to be a marijuana patch, the defendant took full advantage 

of his opportunity to argue to the jury that the man in the picture 

was not him, and the photo's prejudicial effect was questionable in 

relation to all the other evidence presented at trial. In 

contrast, in the present case Detective Gassett was allowed to 

testify directly that he had documented evidence tending to show 

that Shaw was involved in drugs. This is more than a "mere 

suggestion of illegal or improper conduct" as argued by the State. 

It is an affirmative statement that the authorities had documented 

evidence of Shawls prior drug related activity. As such, Shaw was 

entitled to notice that the information would be brought out at 

trial. 

We hold that the District Court abused its discretion by 

allowing the State to introduce this evidence. 

II 

Did the District Court err in refusing Shawls Proposed Jury 

9 
Instruction No. 21? 

Shaw was charged with violating the conspiracy statute. That 

statute provides: 

45-4-102. Conspiracy. (1) A person commits the offense 

of conspiracy when, with the purpose that an offense be 

committed, he agrees with another to the commission of 

that offense. No person may be convicted of conspiracy 

to commit an offense unless an act in furtherance of such 

agreement has been committed by him or by a 

coconspirator. 

. . . 

Shaw sought to have the following instruction given to the 

jury: 

There can be no conspiracy between a defendant and one 

who only feigns acquiescence in a crime: however, if an 

undercover agent acts in conjunction with more than one 

person to violate a law, his participation will not 

preclude a conviction of the others for a conspiracy 

among themselves. 

During the settling of instructions, the State argued, and the 

court agreed, that "[y]ou can have a conspiracy between two people, 

one of which is an undercover agent who has no intention of 

breaking the law. That's settled case law." However, the State 

admits to the contrary in its brief, and cites extensive case law 

on the matter. It is well established that: 

"There is neither a true agreement nor a meeting of the 

minds when an individual 'conspires' to violate the law 

with only one other person and that person is a 

government agent." . . . An individual must conspire with 

at least one bona fide co-conspirator to meet the formal 

requirements of a conspiracy. 

United States v. Schmidt (9th Cir. 1991), 947 F.2d 362, 367 

(citation omitted); United States v. Kelly (11th Cir. 1989) 888 

F.2d 732 (it is legally impossible to conspire with a government 

10 
agent); United States v. Giry (1st Cir. 1987), 818 F.Zd 120 (it 

takes two to conspire and a government informer is not a true 

conspirator), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 855 (1987). 

The State argues that the proposed instruction is only 

relevant in cases involving one defendant, and that it was not 

relevant in this case where there were two individuals other than 

the government agent involved--Shaw and Kair. We disagree given 

that the State argued on numerous occasions during its closing 

argument that a conspiracy could have arisen between Shaw and 

Reynolds. That is not the law. Shaw was entitled to an 

instruction that limited the jury to finding a conspiracy between 

Shaw and Kair; in fact, the instruction was necessary given the 

State's argument to the jury. The first part of this instruction 

serves that purpose. Furthermore, contrary to the State's 

argument, the proposed instruction does encompass the situation 

where more than one individual and a government agent are involved. 

The second part of the instruction covers that situation. 

We hold that the District Court erred in refusing to give 

Shawls Proposed 

We reverse 

foregoing. 

Jury Instruction No. 21. 

and remand for a new trial in conformity with the 

We concur: , 

/ ' 

11 
I.2