No. 13001 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1975 

THE STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vs - 

MARTHA ELLEN LONGACRE, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

Honorable Jack Lo Green, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant : 

Gille V.Wooten argued, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Hon. Robert Lo Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, 

Montana 

Thomas A. Budewitz, Assistant Attorney General, 

argued, Helena, Montana 

Robert L. Deschamps, County Attorney, Missoula, 

Montana 

Submitted: November 12, 1975 

Decided : NOV 1 9 1975 

Filed : h?n~ I , .y.,.- -412 
Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an appeal by defendant from a conviction of two 

misdemeanors (1) driving while under the influence of intoxicating 

liquor, and (2) driving without a valid driver's license. 

Defendant Martha Cooper Longacre was charged and convicted 

of those offenses in the justice court of Hellgate Township before 

J. G. Lamoreaux, justice of the peace. She appealed and a trial 

de novo was had in the district court of Missoula County before the 

Hon. Jack L. Green, sitting without a jury. Defendant was again 

convicted. She appeals from the district court conviction. 

The issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support the conviction. This issue focuses on whether defendant 

or her 14 year old daughter was driving. 

During the evening of September 12, 1973, defendant and her 

daughter were involved in a one car collision with an abutment 

on the bridge across the Blackfoot River on Interstate 90 about two 

miles east of Plissoula, Montana. When Highway Patrolman Dallas 

Atkins arrived at the accident scene, defendant was seated behind 

the wheel in the driver's seat with her daughter in the passenger 

seat alongside. Both were injured. Terry Peterson, an ambulance 

attendant testified that it was hard to get defendant out of the 

vehicle as she was wedged in. He testified defendant made some 

reference that this would do something to her driver's license. 

Defendant and her daughter were transported by ambulance 

to the emergency room in St. Patrick's hospital in Missoula. According 

to Highway Patrolman Atkins, defendant told him at the hospital that 

she was the driver. He also testified, and the daughter admits, 

that the daughter also tollhim defendant was the driver. Later 

defendant and her daughter changed their statements and claimed the 

daughter was driving; that defendant was in no condition to drive; 
that they switched seats following the accident to protect the 

daughter from the expected wrath of her stepfather; and, to 

enable the daughter to get a driver's license on completion of 

her driver's training. 

Blood alcohol tests were taken of defendant which showed 

.37 alcohol by weight volume in her blood. Defendant admitted she 

was highly intoxicated by reason of drinking liquor and taking a 

prescription drug classified as a depressant and tranquilizer. 

Defendant also admitted she had no driver's license. 

The testimony of defendant and her daughter at the trial 

that the daughter was driving simply created a conflict in the evidence that the trial court resolved against the defendant. It is 

the function of the trier of the facts, in this case the trial judge, 

to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be 

given their testimony and he may pick and choose which of the 

witnesses are to be believed from a consideration of all the evidence. 

State v. Medicine Bull, Jr., 152 Mont. 34, 445 P.2d 916. On appeal 

we simply determine if there is substantial evidence to support the 

defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Stoddard, 

147 Mont. 402, 412, P.2d 827; State v. White, 146 Mont. 226, 405 

P.2d 761. 

Here the physical facts at the accident scene, the testimony 

of the highway patrolman and the ambulance attendant, the admissions 

of defendant and her daughter, and the blood alcohol test constitute 

substantial and sufficient evidence to support the conviction of 

defendant on both charges. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 
............................ Justices.