Title: STATE v WHITE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 14804
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 18, 1980

No. 14804 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . LARRY D . WHITE, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Sherwood and Hood, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs: November 14, 1979 1 * 1 1 ° C - Decided: Ji'! 1 , - - y Filed: Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. his i s an appeal by defendant, Larry D. White, from a j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment e n t e r e d thereon c o n v i c t i n g him of felony t h e f t , i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n t h e County of Missoula. Defendant w a s sen- tenced t o t e n y e a r s imprisonment i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n without parole. On A p r i l 17, 1978, defendant began d r i n k i n g e a r l y i n t h e day and had consumed a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of l i q u o r and b e e r when he m e t an acquaintance, Dennis S a l l e e . They continued d r i n k i n g i n v a r i o u s b a r s i n downtown Missoula. Sometime before 9:00 p.m. on t h e same day, Stephen M. Langer parked h i s r e d 1974 Honda 1 2 5 cc motorcycle i n t h e a l l e y behind h i s apartment l o c a t e d a t 147 West Main, M i s - s o u l a , Montana. A t approximately 10:30 p.m., Douglas Keith Downey, who had been d r i n k i n g a t t h e Top Hat B a r , walked o u t of t h e back door of t h a t establishment and n o t i c e d two men p l a c e a motorcycle i n t h e back of a pickup i n t h e a l l e y behind M r . Langer's apartment. H e w a s unable t o i d e n t i f y t h e two men beyond t h e f a c t t h a t one was t a l l e r , one had a d a r k e r complexion, and both had dark h a i r . A f t e r t h e two men drove away, M r . Downey drove t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n and r e p o r t e d what he had seen. O f f i c e r Doug H a r t s e l l took t h e information, f i l l e d o u t a desk r e p o r t , and d i s p a t c h e d t h e information over t h e a i r t o p a t r o l v e h i c l e s . Approximately f i v e minutes a f t e r t h e d i s p a t c h , O f f i c e r Lex Herndon observed a v e h i c l e which matched t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e t r u c k and made a s t o p . The pickup was d r i v e n by Dennis S a l l e e and defendant was a passenger. I n t h e back of t h e t r u c k was a r e d ~ o n d a 125 cc motorcycle which was l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s belonging t o Langer. S a l l e e and t h e defendant w e r e placed under a r r e s t . A t t h e t r i a l , n e i t h e r S a l l e e nor defendant could r e c a l l t h e e v e n t s of t h a t n i g h t , p r i o r t o t h e a r r e s t . There w a s e x p e r t testimony i n d i c a t i n g defendant s u f f e r s from an ad- vanced s t a g e of alcoholism and i s s u b j e c t t o a l c o h o l i c blackout. The prosecution introduced testimony t h a t when Langer parked t h e motorcycle, he locked t h e s t e e r i n g column, caus- i n g t h e f r o n t wheel t o be locked i n a p o s i t i o n such t h a t t h e motorcycle could o n l y be r o l l e d i n c i r c l e s . One person without a key could move it only by dragging it and two people could b a r e l y c a r r y it because of i t s weight. Langer t e s t i f i e d he could n o t have l i f t e d it a l o n e and could have moved it only w i t h d i f f i c u l t y . The s t e e r i n g column was s t i l l locked when t h e b i k e was taken t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n . The v a l u e of t h e b i k e was over $150. O n May 4 , 1978, a n information was f i l e d i n District Court charging defendant w i t h t h e o f f e n s e of felony t h e f t . Defendant e n t e r e d a p l e a of n o t g u i l t y t o t h e charge. Upon d e f e n d a n t ' s motion, a p s y c h i a t r i c examination of t h e defendant was conducted by t h e r e g i o n a l mental h e a l t h c e n t e r . The c a s e was set f o r t r i a l . Defendant moved f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge and f i l e d a n o t i c e of i n t e n t t o use i n s a n i t y a s a defense. Noel Hoell, M.D., performed t h e e v a l u a t i o n upon o r d e r of Judge Dussault, who had assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n . D r . H o e l l ' s e v a l u a t i o n s t a t e d t h e defendant was n o t s e r i o u s l y mentally ill, b u t was a chronic a l c o h o l i c . A f t e r t h e r e t i r e m e n t of Judge Dussault, Judge Gordon R. Bennett assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n . A f t e r a jury t r i a l on ~ c t o b e r 2 , 1978, a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y t o t h e charge of t h e f t , a felony, w a s r e t u r n e d on October 3, 1978. The following i s s u e s f o r review have been presented t o t h i s Court: 1) id t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n allowing t h e arrest- i n g o f f i c e r t o t e s t i f y regarding t h e d i s p a t c h he received s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e a r r e s t ? 2) Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n allowing an eye- w i t n e s s t o t h e t h e f t t o t e s t i f y f o r t h e S t a t e i n r e b u t t a l i n s t e a d of i n i t s case-in-chief? 3) A s t o s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence: A ) Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o dismiss a t t h e c l o s e of t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e ; and B ) Is t h e c o n v i c t i o n supported by s u f f i c i e n t evidence? Defendant contends t h a t P o l i c e O f f i c e r Herndon's tes- timony regarding t h e r a d i o d i s p a t c h he received from O f f i c e r Hartsell was hearsay and t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n p e r m i t t i n g it t o be introduced. This Court had a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n i n S t a t e v. Paulson (1975), 167 Mont. 310, 538 P.2d 339. I n Paulson, t h e defen- d a n t maintained t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s testimony regarding h i s telephone conversations w i t h t h e Tucson a u t h o r i t i e s was hearsay. W e d i s a g r e e d and s t a t e d : "This conclusion i s n o t supported by law. The testimony w a s introduced only f o r t h e purpose of demonstrating t h e e x i s t e n c e of probable cause t o make t h e a r r e s t without a warrant and subsequent search." S t a t e v. Paulson, supra, 538 P.2d 343. W e continued and quoted from K e r v. C a l i f o r n i a (1963), 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726, wherein t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court s t a t e d "I * * * That t h i s information w a s hearsay does n o t d e s t r o y i t s r o l e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g probable cause. . . I 11 538 P.2d 343. When O f f i c e r Herndon's testimony i s viewed i n t h e c o n t e x t i n which it was introduced a t t h e t r i a l , it becomes apparent t h a t it w&s being used t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e was probable cause t o s t o p t h e v e h i c l e i n which t h e defendant was r i d i n g and, subsequently t o a r r e s t him. The testimony of O f f i c e r Herndon was p r o p e r l y admitted by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Defendant complains it was e r r o r f o r t h e District Court t o permit t h e S t a t e t o reopen i t s case-in-chief and t o permit t h e testimony of Doug Downey, t h e eyewitness t o t h e t h e f t , t o be introduced a t t h e c l o s e of d e f e n d a n t ' s case. S e c t i o n 46-16-401, MCA provides t h a t t h e prosecution should p u t on its case-in-chief p r i o r t o t h a t of t h e de- fense. S e c t i o n 46-16-402, MCA g r a n t s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o d e p a r t from t h a t o r d e r of t r i a l " f o r good reasons." Defendant contends no good reasons e x i s t e d . This c o n t e n t i o n i s n o t supported by t h e f a c t s . A review of t h e record i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e S t a t e had substan- t i a l d i f f i c u l t y i n l o c a t i n g M r . Downey. While p a r t of t h i s problem w a s caused by t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o subpoena t h e w i t n e s s p r i o r t o t h e t r i a l , it i s apparent t h a t t h e S t a t e k e p t t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e defendant informed of i t s d i f f i c u l t y i n l o c a t i n g t h e witness and of i t s i n t e n t i o n t o c a l l t h e w i t n e s s a s soon as he was l o c a t e d . The w i t n e s s was a l s o l i s t e d on t h e information, t h e r e f o r e defendant cannot c l a i m s u r p r i s e . F u r t h e r , t h e t r i a l judge i n p e r m i t t i n g t h e S t a t e t o reopen i t s case-in-chief a l s o gave t h e defendant f u l l o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e b u t M r . Downey's testimony. I t has long been t h e r u l e i n Montana t h a t t h e o r d e r i n which proof i s admitted a t t h e t r i a l i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , S t a t e v. A l l i s o n (1948), 122 Mont. 120, 143, 199 P.2d 279, 292, and t h a t t h e usual o r d e r of t r i a l may be departed from i n t h e proper case, S t a t e v. McKenzie (1976), 171 Mont. 278, 309-310, 557 P.2d 1023, 1041, vacated on o t h e r grounds 433 U.S. 905 (1977). H e r e t h e r e w e r e "good reasons" f o r t h e d e p a r t u r e from t h e o r d e r o f t r i a l and t h e D i s t r i c t Court a c t e d p r o p e r l y i n p e r m i t t i n g t h e d e p a r t u r e . The t h i r d i s s u e concerns t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i - dence introduced and i s twofold. I t d e a l s w i t h whether t h e S t a t e e s t a b l i s h e d a prima f a c i e c a s e and whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence introduced during t h e t r i a l t o support t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t . The defendant maintains t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t h i s motion t o dismiss f o r f a i l u r e t o estab- l i s h a prima f a c i e case. Defendant f u r t h e r maintains t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y t o t h e charge of f e l o n y t h e f t . The crux of defen- d a n t ' s argument appears t o be t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o show t h e defendant was i n possession of t h e s t o l e n goods a t t h e t i m e of t h e a r r e s t . The defendant contends t h e evidence shows o n l y t h a t t h e motorcycle was taken by two people i n a r e d pickup and t h a t a p p e l l a n t was i n a r e d t r u c k d r i v e n by Dennis S a l l e e when t h e p o l i c e stopped them. The defendant relies on two Montana cases i n support of t h i s argument: S t a t e v. Campbell (1978), Mont. , 582 P.2d 783, 35 St.Rep. 733; and S t a t e ex rel. Wilson v. District Court (1972) 159 Mont. 43-4, 498 P.2d 1217. An examination of these cases indicates they are dis- tinquishable. In Wilson and Campbell there was an absence of any conclusive evidence linking the defendant with the stolen merchandise. Here, White was an occupant in the truck, transporting the stolen motorcycle, when the truck was stopped a very short time after the theft occurred - a theft which was accomplished by two men in a vehicle match- ing the description of the van in which defendant was a passenger. There was also testimony that the defendant and Sallee had been together all evening. In People v. Barber (1974), 120 1111977, 313N.E.2d 491, an argument similar to defendant's was presented by a driver, who argued that he was simply moving the stolen property in his car for his passenger. He con- tended that the fact he had a passenger in the car at the time of his arrest raised a reasonable doubt as to whether he or his passenger was in possession of the stolen property. The Illinois Court rejected this argument and stated: "If possession by a single defendant is in issue, the possession must be shown to be in him and not in someone else . . . But if the circumstances show that defen- dant possessed the recently stolen property either singly or jointly with others, the inference of guilt is warranted and 'ex- clusiveness' of possession is not rebutted by merely showing another's presence." 313 N.E.2d at 494. See also People v. Umphers (1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 853, 272 N.E.2d 278, 280; Bury v. State (1968), 2 Md.App. 674, 236 A. 2d 751, 753; Martinez v. People (1967), 162 Colo. 195, 425 P.2d 299, 301; Commonwealth v. Gusciora (1951), 169 Pa.Super. 27, 82 A.2d 540, 542; 51 A.L.R.3d 727, S 39(b) at 799-801 (1973). The Court in Barber pointed out that: "Possession is a q u e s t i o n of f a c t t o be decided by t h e j u r y whose province it i s t o decide t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f witnesses, t h e weight t o be given t h e i r testimony and t h e i n f e r e n c e s t o be drawn." 313 N.E.2d a t 495. T h i s record c o n t a i n s s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e j u r y v e r d i c t on t h i s i s s u e . I n Montana t h e d e c i s i o n whether t o g r a n t o r deny a motion t o d i s m i s s a t t h e c l o s e of t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e lies w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . S e c t i o n 46- 16-403, MCA. F u r t h e r , a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t should only be given where t h e r e i s no evidence on which t h e jury could base a conviction. Paulson, supra; S t a t e v. Thompson (1978), Mont. , 576 P.2d 1105, 1108, 35 St.Rep. 343. There - - was s u f f i c i e n t evidence i n t h e record t o send t h i s c a s e t o t h e j u r y and t h e D i s t r i c t Court a c t e d p r o p e r l y i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o dismiss. There was a l s o s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e record t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g by t h e jury t h a t defendant committed t h e o f f e n s e of t h e f t . The v e r d i c t must t h e r e f o r e stand. S t a t e v. F i t z p a t r i c k (1973), 163 Mont. 220, 516 P.2d 605. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. W e concur: z44w*& Chief J u s t i c e , J u s t i c e -