Case Name: STATE, Appellant, v. McDANIELS, Respondent
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1925-12-09
Citations: 75 Mont. 61
Docket Number: No. 5,798
Parties: STATE, Appellant, v. McDANIELS, Respondent.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Callaway and Associate Justices Holloway, Galen and Matthews concur.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 61–65

Head Matter:
STATE, Appellant, v. McDANIELS, Respondent.
(No. 5,798.)
(Submitted November 8, 1925.
Decided December 9, 1925.)
[243 Pac. 810.]
Mr. L. A. Foot, Attorney General, Mr. John B. Tansü, County Attorney of Yellowstone County, and Mr. George 8. Smith, Deputy County Attorney, for Appellant, submitted a brief; Mr. Tansil argued the cause orally.
Mr. H. G. Grippen, for Respondent, submitted a brief and argued the cause orally.

Opinion:
MR. JUSTICE STARK
delivered the opinion of the court.
The undisputed evidence in this case shows that on May 11, 1925, at the Gem rooming-house in Billings, officers, without having- a warrant therefor, placed the defendant under arrest. As they did so, a bindle, or package, of opium containing about ten grains, fell on the floor at defendant's feet. This bindle either accidentally fell from the defendant's pocket or he voluntarily threw it away. How it got to the floor from defendant's person is immaterial on this appeal. It was immediately picked up by the officers, who declared in defendant's presence: "Here it is; here's the stuff." The defendant, having been asked where he obtained the package, said he got it "from a Chinaman," and that "he was going to smoke it."
Two days later, on May 13, the county attorney filed an information in the district court charging that the defendant, on or about May 11, 1925, unlawfully, etc., had "in his possession and under his control certain narcotic drugs, to-wit, approximately ten grains of opium. "
Defendant was placed on trial' on May 25, 1925. After making necessary preliminary proof, the state offered in evidence as its Exhibit "A" the bindle of opium which had been picked up at defendant's feet as above recited. To this offer counsel for defendant objected on the ground that Exhibit "A" had been unlawfully and illegally obtained, "for the reason that the defendant was not lawfully under arrest before this package was found on the floor or before he dropped it, if he did drop it." This objection was sustained by the court, whereupon the state, having no further evidence of the possession of narcotics by defendant, rested its case. Upon motion of counsel for defendant, the court directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, which was accordingly done. The state has appealed from this order .and assigns as error' the ruling of the court in sustaining the objection to Exhibit "A" and the order directing the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
The assignments of error are well taken. It is not necessary to decide whether in fact the bindle of opium was unlawfully or illegally obtained. The defendant claimed that it was, and for a period of nearly two weeks must have known that it would be offered in evidence against him at his trial on a felony charge. Knowing this fact, as well as the circumstances under which it had been obtained by the officers, he made no move to secure its suppression as evidence. It is idle for counsel to argue that his first opportunity to object to its use was when it was offered as evidence at the trial. The whole record contradicts such contention. If the defendant did not wish to have this bindle of opium used as evidence against him, it was his duty to have taken proper and timely steps to have its use as such suppressed in the manner allowed by law. Having failed to do this his objection at the trial came too late to avail him. This rule has been announced by this court many times during the past few years. (See State ex rel. Samlin v. District Court, 59 Mont. 600, 198 Pac. 362; State v. Gotta, 71 Mont. 288, 229 Pac. 405; State v. Rice, 73 Mont. 272, 235 Pac. 716.)
The order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court of Yellowstone county for a new trial.
Beversed and remanded.
Mr. Chief Justice Callaway and Associate Justices Holloway, Galen and Matthews concur.