Title: CARRIGER v BALLENGER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-355
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 2, 1981

No. 80-355 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 1 JOHN CARRIGER, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vs- GLEN BALLENGER AND B I L L CLARK, D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s . A p p e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Second Judicial D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of Silver Bow, T h e H o n o r a b l e A r n o l d O l s e n , Judge presiding. C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : D a n i e l R. S w e e n e y , B u t t e , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : B u r g e s s , Joyce & Whelan, B u t t e , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : M a r c h 11, 1 9 8 1 ~ e c i d e d J l J N 2 1981 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . On J a n u a r y 24, 1979, John C a r r i g e r f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t Court a l l e g i n g breach of c o n t r a c t and damages due to t h e a l l e g e d f a i l u r e of a p p e l l a n t s B a l l e n g e r and C l a r k t o complete t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n work a c c o r d i n g to t h e c o n t r a c t terms. The a p p e l l a n t s c o u n t e r c l a i m e d f o r breach of c o n t r a c t and damages as a r e s u l t of a l l e g e d conduct of r e s p o n d e n t p r e v e n t i n g t h e i r performance. T r i a l was h e l d on A p r i l 3, 1980, b e f o r e t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t a jury. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s were e n t e r e d on A p r i l 30, 1980. Judgment was e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of r e s p o n d e n t C a r r i g e r i n t h e amount of $1,200, p l u s i n t e r e s t . From t h e d e n i a l of t h e i r motion t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s or i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e f o r a r e h e a r i n g , B a l l e n g e r and C l a r k a p p e a l . John C a r r i g e r owns a home i n B u t t e , Montana. P r i o r to August, 1978, t h e r e was no basement i n t h e home and t h e h e a t i n g c o n s i s t e d o f w a l l h e a t e r s . C a r r i g e r t h o u g h t t h e h e a t i n g system was dangerous and should be r e p l a c e d , b u t i n o r d e r t o d o so it was n e c e s s a r y t o have a basement c o n s t r u c t e d . The a p p e l l a n t s , under t h e name of B & B Landscaping, were engaged i n t h e b u s i n e s s of i n s t a l l i n g lawns and doing e x c a v a t i o n and c o n s t r u c t i o n work. C r e i g h t o n Walsh, Jr., who is now m a r r i e d t o C a r r i g e r ' s d a u g h t e r , was employed as a p a r t t i m e l a b o r e r by t h e a p p e l l a n t s . C a r r i g e r , through Walsh, o b t a i n e d a w r i t t e n bid from t h e a p p e l l a n t s on t h e c o s t of e x c a v a t i n g and i n s t a l l i n g a f i n i s h e d basement under h i s house w i t h a cement f l o o r and pumice b l o c k w a l l s . The w r i t t e n b i d w a s broken down i n t o t h r e e components as follows : E x c a v a t i o n $1,200 Pumice b l o c k walls $3,800 F l o o r $2,000 The total c o s t was $7,000. On J u l y 20, C a r r i g e r took t h e esti- mate to a bank and o b t a i n e d a $8,527 l o a n f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h e h e a t i n g system. There w a s c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y w i t h regard to t h e f i n a l agreement of t h e p a r t i e s and t h e sequence of e v e n t s . C a r r i g e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t o l d Walsh to t e l l a p p e l l a n t s to s t a r t work. C a r r i g e r and Walsh both t e s t i f i e d t h a t work began on August 1. C a r r i g e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t on August 4 t h e a p p e l l a n t s came to him and r e q u e s t e d a downpayment of e i t h e r one-third of t h e e x c a v a t i o n work or o n e - t h i r d of t h e e n t i r e c o n t r a c t . C a r r i g e r s t a t e d he asked them i f t h e y could g e t t h e work done by August 3 1 and when t h e y both agreed to do so he gave them a check f o r $2,400. Walsh t e s t i f i e d he was p r e s e n t on August 4 and witnessed t h e agreement o n t h e completion d a t e . B a l l e n g e r and C l a r k denied t h a t they a g r e e d t o complete t h e work by August 3 1 b u t s a i d they agreed to d o it b e f o r e w i n t e r . C l a r k t e s t i f i e d t h a t work had n o t s t a r t e d b e f o r e t h e y r e c e i v e d t h e check, b u t t h a t t h e y began one o r two d a y s a f t e r August 4. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t accepted t h e bid on August 4, 1978 on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t t h e work was to be completed by August 31, 1978. Due to d e l a y s t h e e x c a v a t i o n work was n o t completed u n t i l August 31, and t h e work on t h e f l o o r and walls had n o t y e t begun. Upon C a r r i g e r l s i n q u i r y , t h e a p p e l l a n t s advised him t h a t they c o u l d n o t do t h e remaining work themselves. They s e n t York, a masonry and c o n c r e t e c o n t r a c t o r , to t h e premises. C a r r i g e r w a s most a n x i o u s to have t h e job completed because of t h e r i s k of f r e e z i n g water p i p e s . A p p a r e n t l y York would n o t g i v e C a r r i g e r p r i o r i t y u n l e s s he was h i r e d d i r e c t l y i n s t e a d of on a s u b c o n t r a c t b a s i s . According to C a r r i g e r , B a l l e n g e r agreed to t h i s a r r a n g e - ment and agreed t o refund $1,200 o f t h e downpayment. B a l l e n g e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t York was t o be a s u b c o n t r a c t o r , t h a t he n e v e r gave p e r m i s s i o n to C a r r i g e r t o h i r e York d i r e c t l y , and t h a t he had not agreed to r e t u r n $1,200. York completed t h e work on September 22, 1978, w i t h C a r r i g e r and Walsh doing t h e hod c a r r y i n g and b a c k f i l l i n g work. A t t h a t t i m e Walsh was no l o n g e r employed by B & B. C a r r i g e r demanded t h e r e t u r n of $1,200 from t h e appel- l a n t s , b u t a p p e l l a n t s r e f u s e d t o r e t u r n it. The matter was heard on A p r i l 3, 1980, and t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d its f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s on A p r i l 30, 1980. The c o u r t found t h a t C a r r i g e r a c c e p t e d a p p e l l a n t s ' b i d on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t they f i n i s h t h e e n t i r e job on August 31, 1978, and t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s breached t h e c o n t r a c t by f a i l i n g to complete t h e work by t h a t d a t e or a t a l l . The t r i a l c o u r t awarded damages t o r e s p o n d e n t i n t h e amount o f $1,200, p l u s i n t e r e s t a t t h e l e g a l rate from August 31, 1978, and costs. A p p e l l a n t s raise t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s : (1) Did t h e w r i t t e n bid c o n s t i t u t e a w r i t t e n c d n t r a c t ? ( 2 ) Did t h e p a r o l e v i d e n c e r u l e b a r admission of t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g an o r a l agreement as to t h e completion d a t e ? ( 3 ) Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n f a i l i n g to f i n d t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t p a r t i a l l y r e s c i n d e d t h e c o n t r a c t and t h a t a p p e l l a n t s were e n t i t l e d to t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e of t h e i r work i n t h e amount o f $2,400? ( 4 ) Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n f i n d i n g r e s p o n d e n t s u f f e r e d damages i n t h e amount of $1,200? ( 5 ) Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n awarding i n t e r e s t from t h e d a t e of breach r a t h e r t h a n from t h e d a t e of judgment? A p p e l l a n t s f i r s t argument is based upon t h e premise t h a t t h e i r w r i t t e n bid c o n s t i t u t e d a c o n t r a c t . From t h a t premise, a p p e l l a n t s argue t h a t t h e p a r o l e v i d e n c e r u l e b a r s t e s t i m o n y con- c e r n i n g a completion d a t e n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e w r i t i n g , and t h a t t i m e is n o t of t h e e s s e n c e u n l e s s e x p r e s s l y provided i n t h e w r i t i n g . A p p e l l a n t s ' b a s i c premise is n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h c o n t r a c t law. T h e i r r e l i a n c e on Higby v. Hooper ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 124 Mont. 331, 221 P.2d 1043, is misplaced. In t h a t case t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r was s e e k i n g t o r e c o v e r h i s costs i n e x c e s s of t h e c o n t r a c t p r i c e of $8,300. The c o n t r a c t o r had w r i t t e n a letter c e r t i f y i n g to t h e U . S. Government t h a t t h e cost would n o t exceed $8,300, f o r t h e purpose of f a c i l i t a t i n g t h e b u y e r ' s V.A. l o a n . The l e t t e r was h e l d to be t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e had c o n t r a c t e d w i t h t h e buyer and he was estopped to deny it. A w r i t t e n bid h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y been c o n s t r u e d as nothing more t h a n an o f f e r to perform l a b o r or s u p p l y materials, and t h e o f f e r does n o t r i p e n i n t o a c o n t r a c t u n t i l accepted by t h e o f f e r e e . Gulf O i l Corp. v . Clark County ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 94 Nev. 116, 575 P.2d 1332; Clover Park School District N o . 400 v . C o n s o l i d a t e d D a i r y P r o d u c t s Co. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 5 Wash.App. 429, 550 P. 2d 47; Savoca Masonry Co . , Inc . v. Homes & Son Cons tr . Co . , I n c . ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 112 A r i z . 392, 542 P.2d 817; 0. C. Kinney, I n c . v . P a u l Hardeman, Inc. ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 5 1 Colo. 571, 379 P.2d 628. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t C a r r i g e r accepted t h e bid on August 4, 1978, upon t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t t h e work be completed by August 31, 1978. According to Montana l a w , a p u r p o r t e d a c c e p t a n c e which v a r i e s or a d d s to t h e terms of t h e o f f e r is n o t an a c c e p t a n c e but a c o u n t e r o f f e r . S e c t i o n 28-2-504, MCA. Upon a c c e p t a n c e by t h e a p p e l l a n t s of C a r r i g e r ' s c o u n t e r o f f e r , t h e c o n t r a c t would have r i p e n e d . The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had o r a l l y agreed t o t h e completion d a t e of August 31, 1978, which amounts to a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c o u n t e r o f f e r was o r a l l y accepted by a p p e l l a n t s . A p p e l l a n t s d i s p u t e t h i s f i n d i n g , a s s e r t i n g t h a t C a r r i g e r d i d n o t even mention a completion d a t e o t h e r t h a n " b e f o r e w i n t e r , " but t h e t r i a l c o u r t found o t h e r w i s e . T h i s Court w i l l n o t set a s i d e f i n d i n g s of f a c t u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s and w i l l g i v e due r e g a r d t o t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of t h e t r i a l judge to d e t e r m i n e t h e c r e d i b i - l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s . Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. The c o n t r a c t which r e s u l t e d from t h e w r i t t e n bid ( t h e o f f e r ) , t h e c o u n t e r o f f e r and t h e a c c e p t a n c e was p a r t l y w r i t t e n and p a r t l y o r a l . S i n c e t h e r e was not a f i n a l , complete w r i t t e n document intended by t h e p a r t i e s to c o n t a i n a l l of t h e terms of t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e par01 evidence r u l e does not apply. S e c t i o n 28-2-904, MCA. S e c t i o n 28-3-602, MCA, p r o v i d i n g t h a t time is not of t h e e s s e n c e i n a c o n t r a c t u n l e s s e x p r e s s l y made so by its terms, d o e s n o t p e r t a i n s o l e l y to w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t s . P a r t i e s t o an o r a l c o n t r a c t may a l s o provide t h a t t i m e is of t h e e s s e n c e . By a g r e e i n g to t h e completion d a t e w i t h t h e knowledge t h a t C a r r i g e r deemed t h e d a t e e s s e n t i a l due t o t h e approaching c o l d weather, t h e a p p e l l a n t s agreed t h a t t i m e was of t h e e s s e n c e . Time being o f t h e e s s e n c e , a p p e l l a n t s were t h u s i n s u b s t a n t i a l breach a s of August 31, 1978, when t h e e n t i r e c o n t r a c t had not been performed. A p p e l l a n t s ' second argument is t h a t C a r r i g e r r e s c i n d e d t h e c o n t r a c t when he h i r e d York on a d i r e c t b a s i s t o complete t h e job, t h u s p r e v e n t i n g performance by a p p e l l a n t s who had intended t o use York a s a s u b c o n t r a c t o r . A p p e l l a n t s argue t h a t by v i r t u e o f t h i s r e s c i s s i o n t h e y are e n t i t l e d to t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e of t h e e x c a v a t i o n work i n t h e amount of $2,400. But where, a s h e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t based its judgment on a p r i o r breach of c o n t r a c t by a p p e l l a n t s , t h i s argument l a c k s merit. The f i n a l t w o i s s u e s concern t h e measure of damages and amount of i n t e r e s t due t h e respondent a s a r e s u l t of t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' breach. For breach of c o n t r a c t , t h e measure of dama- g e s is s t a t e d g e n e r a l l y a s t h e amount which w i l l compensate t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y f o r a l l t h e d e t r i m e n t p r o x i m a t e l y caused thereby. S e c t i o n 27-1-311, MCA. I n a c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t where t h e c o n t r a c t o r abandons t h e p r o j e c t or o t h e r w i s e f a i l s t o complete it, t h e normal measure of damages is t h e r e a s o n a b l e cost of completion by a n o t h e r p l u s any damages s u f f e r e d by t h e d e l a y . Kirby v. Kenyon-Noble Lumber Co. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 329, 558 P.2d 452. I n t h i s case, York completed t h e c o n t r a c t a t e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same p r i c e quoted by t h e a p p e l l a n t s , e x c e p t t h a t C a r r i g e r and h i s son-in-law c o n t r i b u t e d t h e i r own l a b o r i n o r d e r t o g e t t h e j o b done f a s t e r . The t r i a l c o u r t found C a r r i g e r s u f f e r e d dama- g e s i n t h e amount of $1,200, which we f i n d is a d e q u a t e compen- s a t i o n f o r t h e d e t r i m e n t caused by t h e b r e a c h . The t r i a l c o u r t awarded i n t e r e s t from t h e d a t e of t h e b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t , August 31, 1978. A p p e l l a n t s argue t h a t i n t e r e s t commences on t h e d a t e of judgment p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 25-9-204, MCA. The c o u r t e r r e d i n a p p l y i n g s e c t i o n 27-1-211, MCA, to t h i s case. That s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s : "Every p e r s o n who is e n t i t l e d to r e c o v e r damages cer- t a i n or c a p a b l e of being made c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n and t h e r i g h t to r e c o v e r which is v e s t e d i n him upon a p a r t i c u l a r day is e n t i t l e d also to r e c o v e r i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n from t h a t day e x c e p t d u r i n g such time as t h e d e b t o r is prevented by law o r by t h e act of t h e cred- i t o r from paying t h e d e b t ." Two of t h e criteria i n t h e above-quoted s t a t u t e a r e m e t , i.e. C a r r i g e r was e n t i t l e d to r e c o v e r damages and t h e r i g h t t o r e c o v e r damages v e s t e d on t h e d a t e of breach. However, t h e amount of t h e damages due upon breach was n o t c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e u n t i l determined by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . T h i s Court h a s i n t e r p r e t e d t h e s t a t u t e to mean t h a t no i n t e r e s t can run u n t i l a f i x e d amount of damages h a s been a r r i v e d a t , e i t h e r by agreement, a p p r a i s a l , or judgment. School D i s t . No. 1 v. Globe & Republic I n s . Co. ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 208, 404 P.2d 889. S i n c e t h i s is n o t an a c t i o n o n a n e g o t i a b l e i n s t r u m e n t o r f o r t h e d e f i n i t e unpaid b a l a n c e of a c o n t r a c t or a c c o u n t , see A g r i l e a s e , I n c . v . Gray ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 151, 566 P.2d 1114; Sun R i v e r Cattle C o . v . Miner's Bank of Montana ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 479, 525 P.2d 1 9 ; where t h e damages are a sum c e r t a i n , s e c t i o n 27-1-211, MCA, is n o t a p p l i c a b l e . I n t e r e s t from t h e d a t e of judgment a t t h e l e g a l rate of 10% p e r annum is a l l o w a b l e under s e c t i o n s 25-9-204 and 25-9-205, MCA. The case is remanded f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e judgment to p r o v i d e i n t e r e s t a t 10% from t h e d a t e of judgment and as s o mod i f i e d , t h e judgment is a f f irmed . Chief J u s t i c e No. 80-335 ---------- D I S S E N T OF MR. J U S T I C E DANIEL J. SHEA STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , VS. DONALD ANDERSON WARREN, D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . DATED: June 5, 1 9 8 1 Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea dissenting: I would reverse the District Court ruling granting a new trial and affirm the conviction. The majority is clearly in error on two fundamental conclusions. First, Norman Hopkins was not, as the majority has concluded, an accomplice as a matter of law. Therefore, his testimony was not subject to the rigid rules governing corroboration of accomplice testimony. Second, assuming that Norman Hopkins was an accomplice, his testimony was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence, and therefore, his conviction must be affirmed. The majority makes two particularly glaring misstatements which seem to be the basis for its conclusion that Norman Hopkins was an accomplice as a matter of law. First, the majority reasons that if the jury believed that Norman Hopkins got rid of the pistol because he was told by defendant Donald Warren that it was unregistered, that the jury must also have believed that defendant Donald Warren gave the gun to ~opkins to get rid of because it was unregistered. That is a totally unfounded conclusion, and certainly not one the jury was required to make based on the evidence presented in this case. There is not a shred of evidence in the record to show that Norman Hopkins knew he was getting rid of a murder weapon when defendant Donald Warren asked him to dispose of the pistol. There is, on the other hand, circumstantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably believe that defendant Donald Warren knew it was a murder weapon, or at least knew that it might be a murder weapon, when he gave it to Norman Hopkins to dispose of. The evidence to support the jury's conclusion as to defendant Donald Warren's intent does not come from the testimony of Norman Hopkins. Rather, it comes from t h e testimony of Captain Charles Hensley of t h e B i l l i n g s City P o l i c e Department, and A 1 K e t t e r l i n g of t h e Yellowstone County S h e r i f f ' s Eepartment. I t a l s o comes from t h e reason- a b l e inference a jury could make i n concluding t h a t Ray Warren drove h i s c a r almost d i r e c t l y from t h e murder scene t o t h e home of Donald Warren, and t h a t Ray Warren l e f t t h e p i s t o l a t t h e Donald Warren home. Second, t h e majority i s c l e a r l y wrong i n concluding t h a t t h e jury was required t o i n f e r t h a t Norman Hopkins intended t o dispose of a murder weapon i f t h e jury i n f e r r e d t h a t defendant Donald Warren intended t o dispose of a murder weapon. The opinion s t a t e s : ". . . I f twelve reasonable minds i n f e r r e d from t h e evidence t h a t defendant, Donald Warren, intended t o suppress t h e weapon because it was twelve p o t e n t i a l evidence i n a homicide case, those s a m e / reasonable minds would have t o i n f e r t h a t t h e same i n t e n t e x i s t e d f o r Norman Hopkins. This inference would n e c e s s a r i l y make Hopkins an accomplice a s a matter of law." This conclusion r e s t s on an assumption t h a t Norman Hopkins knew e x a c t l y what defendant Donald Warren knew concerning t h e s t a t u s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and t h a t t h e p o l i c e w e r e looking f o r a - 2 2 c a l i b e r p i s t o l o r a . 2 2 c a l i b e r weapon a s t h e probable murder weapon. The evidence is t o t h e contrary. The uncontradicted testimony of Norman Hopkins i s t h a t he d i d n o t know he was disposing of a murder weapon. There i s n o t a shred of evidence i n t h e t r i a l record t h a t Hopkins d i d know t h a t defendant Donald Warren had handed him a murder weapon t o dispose o f . This being so, why would t h e jury have t o i n f e r t h a t Norman Hopkins must have had t h e i n t e n t t o dispose of t h e murder weapon i f t h e jury i n f e r r e d on t h e b a s i s of t h e e n t i r e evidence i n t h e record, t h a t defendant Donald Warren had such i n t e n t ? There is d i r e c t testimony i n t h e record t h a t defendant Donald Warren was t o l d by Captain Hensley t h a t t h e p o l i c e w e r e looking f o r a .22 c a l i b e r automatic p i s t o l o r a t l e a s t a . 2 2 c a l i b e r weapon. Further, defendant Donald Warren had a d d i t i o n a l knowledge concerning t h e s t a t u s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and t h e focusing of t h e p o l i c e on h i s son Ray Warren, as t h e suspect. The record does not show t h a t Norman Hopkins had t h i s know- ledge. The jury was e n t i t l e d t o convict defendant Donald Warren on t h e b a s i s of t h a t knowledge and of the e n t i r e circumstances surrounding t h e disposal of t h e p i s t o l . I f a i l t o understand t h e reasoning of t h e majority i n concluding (without support i n t h e record) t h a t Norman Hopkins was an accomplice as a matter of law. I f he was an accomplice as a matter of l a w , t h e t r i a l court w a s required t o so i n s t r u c t t h e jury. But Hopkins could not be an accomplice a s a matter of law unless t h e jury chose t o disbelieve h i s testimony and t h e r e f o r e t o i n f e r t h a t contrary t o h i s testimony, Hopkins d i d know he was receiving a murder weapon from defendant Donald Warren and t h a t Hopkins had t h e i n t e n t t o dispose of a murder weapon. There is c e r t a i n l y evidence i n t h e record through t h e d i r e c t testimony of Norman Hopkins by which t h e jury could believe t h a t Norman Hopkins d i d not know he was receiving and disposing of a murder weapon. The jury could reach a contrary conclusion only i f they chose not t o believe Norman Hopkins. The jury chose t o believe him. Once t h e jury chose t o believe Hopkins, he w a s not an accomplice, and t h e r e f o r e h i s testimony d i d not have t o be judged by t h e standards applicable t o accomplice testimony. Furthermore, even assuming t h a t Norman Hopkins was an accomplice because he knew he was receiving and disposing of a murder weapon handed t o him by defendant Donald Warren, h i s testimony was s u f f i c i e n t l y corroborated, and therefore t h e conviction should still be affirmed. In concluding that Hopkins' testimony was uncorroborated, the majority erroneously focuses on the necessity of demonstrating that defendant Donald Warren received the murder weapon from his son,Ray Warren. Although the evidence certainly cir- cumstantially points to that conclusion, it is not necessary that defendant Donald Warren received that gun from Ray Warren. All that is necessary is that when defendant Donald Warren gave it to Norman Hopkins, he knew or was suspicious that it was the murder weapon and therefore that it was part of the continuing investigation of the murder of Carl Ray Malcom. The circumstantial evidence points clearly to that conclusion. This evidence is sufficient to lead a jury to conclude that Norman Hopkins received the murder weapon from defendant Donald Warren. The majority opinion is long on the law (although mis- applied) and short on the facts. For this reason, I set out a detailed factual statement based on the trial record before the jury. Before doing so, it would first be helpful to set out the basic criminal charge that the State was required to prove in this case. The statute under which defendant is charged (referred to but not analyzed by the majority), section 45-7-207, MCA, requires, in the context of this case, that the State prove three essential facts. First, the State must prove that the defendant,Donald Warren,had knowledge of an impending investigation or proceeding. Second, the State must prove that defendant Donald Warren took action to conceal physical evidence (the pistol) pertinent to the investigation or proceeding. Third, the State must prove that defendant Donald Warren had the intent to purposely impair the avail- ability of physical evidence (the .22 caliber pistol). The S t a t e proved each of t h e s e f a c t s , The testimony of Norman Hopkins was required only t o show t h a t it was t h e defendant, Donald Warren, who handed t h e p i s t o l t o Hopkins and asked him t o dispose of it. Defendant's i n t e n t i n doing so w a s n o t proved through Hopkins, f o r Hopkins d i d not know then t h a t he had such i n t e n t . Rather, it was proved through o t h e r testimony by which t h e jury had every r i g h t t o i n f e r t h a t defendant Donald Warren intended t o dispose of an important item of evidence. NORMAN HOPKINS--HIS RELATIONSHIP TO THE DONALD WARREN FAMILY. HIS FAMILIARITY W I T H THE .22 CALIBER PISTOL AND ITS AMMUNITION CLIPS Norman Hopkins and K i m Warren went together f o r almost a year, and during a good p a r t of t h a t t i m e , they l i v e d together. During t h i s t i m e , Hopkins a l s o got t o know t h e defendant, Don Warren, Ray Warren, defendant's son, and Joy Warren, defendant's wife. Other than K i m , he knew Don Warren b e t t e r than any of t h e o t h e r family members. During t h i s period of t i m e , he saw Ray Warren perhaps on an average of once a month. During t h i s t i m e , however, Norman Hopkins became f a m i l i a r with t h e .22 c a l i b e r p i s t o l which later turned o u t t o be t h e murder weapon. O n a t l e a s t two occasions i n February 1979, Norman Hopkins and Ray Warren went coyote hunting, and Ray Warren used t h e p i s t o l involved. O n one occasion, Norman Hopkins s h o t a coyote with it. O n another occasion, they s h o t a fox and a coyote. O n each of t h e s e occasions, t h e r e w e r e two c l i p s f o r t h e p i s t o l . Norman Hopkins had one o t h e r occasion t o see t h e p i s t o l before it was turned over t o him by Don Warren on August 15, 1979, t o dispose o f . During June 1979, a truck d r i v e r ' s s t r i k e broke o u t i n t h i s s t a t e ( a s it d i d throughout t h e n a t i o n ) . Norman Hopkins, a truck driver, who then had a route from Laurel, Montana, to St. Regis, Montana (a route which took about 26 hours round trip), was concerned about the violence and called up defendant Don Warren and asked him if he could borrow a gun to protect himself. He went over to Don Warren's house and Don Warren gave him the pistol involved here--a .22 caliber Stoeger-Luger semi-automatic. He gave him two clips for the pistol. Norman Hopkins had the pistol for about a week and then returned it to defendant Don Warren. This was the last time Norman Hopkins saw the pistol until Don Warren asked him to dispose of it on August 15, 1979. THE ARREST OF RAY WARREN ON MURDER CHARGES Earl Ray Malcom was murdered close to midnight on August 14, 1979. Less than four hours later, Ray Warren and another person were arrested for the murder. A neighbor living next door to the victim, heard shots, ran out and obtained a good description of an individual running into a get-away car, and obtained a good description of the get- away car. Steve Gillis, a neighbor sharing a common driveway with the murder victim (Earl Ray Malcom) was home watching tele- vision in the late evening of August 14 and early morning hours of August 15. He heard a rapid series of shots (later thought them to be .22 shots because of his own familiarity with using a .22 in target practice), and saw a man running toward a white Plymouth station wagon which had both left doors smashed in. He ran out to see what the shooting was about and heard glass falling out of the window of the get- away car. He was then only about ten to fifteen feet away from the get-away car. He called the police, gave a description of the get-away. car to them, and also a description of the person he saw running from the scene to get into the car. (Although the record is not entirely clear on this, it appears that it was based on this information that Ray Warren was arrested a little later in the morning on charges of homicide.) It so happened that at the approximate time of the murder, deputy-sheriff A1 Ketterling was visiting the home of defendant Don Warren. He had known the Don Warren family for about five years, and although on duty, was paying the family a social call. It was shortly before midnight on August 14. He was familiar with the Ray Warren vehicle. He noticed then that the Ray Warren vehicle was not parked at the home. After leaving the Warren home, he learned of the murder and obtained the description of the get-away car, a description fitting Ray Warren's Plymouth station wagon with all the body damage. Just a short time later (about 1:30 or 2:00 a.m.), he passed the Don Warren home and noticed that Ray Warren's car was parked in front. He called another deputy to get his opinion as to whether this was the get-away car, and then called the city police department to tell them the get-away car had possibly been found. A short while later, Deputy Ketterling went to the Don Warren home with Captain Hensley of the Billings Police Department. Ketterling was not a part of the official investigation team and he went primarily as a friend of the Don Warren family to tell them about Ray Warren's possible involvement in the murder. Captain Charles Hensley was in charge of the murder investigation. THE TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN CHARLES HENSLEY After the homicide had been reported, Captain Charles Hensley, a veteran then of almost 19 years on the Billings police department, 13 years as a detective, took charge of the investigation and first went to the murder scene. Among other things, he saw empty .22 cal-iber shell casings scattered around the murder scene, he saw tire tracks, and broken glass scattered around the scene. Uniformed officers and two detectives were also investigating at the scene. By this time, the police had the description of the get-away car and of Ray Warren (given to them by Steven Gillis). Captain Hensley returned to the police station to see if the suspects had been located. On his arrival, he found that the suspects were in custody and the police were questioning them. He stayed at the police station for about 45 minutes and then drove to the Donald Warren home He wanted to check out the Ray Warren car, which had by then reported back at the Donald Warren home. He also wanted to tell Donald Warren that they were looking for a .22 caliber weapon. Deputy Ketterling went to the door, summoned Donald Warren, and then Captain Hensley explained to him that there had been a murder and that Ray Warren was a suspect and was in custody. He also explained that the police were looking for physical evidence relating to the homicide. Captain Hensley specifically told Donald Warren that the victim had been killed with a .22 caliber gun, and that he was looking for a .22 caliber automatic pistol or any .22 caliber weapon. He also told Donald Warren that he wanted to check the Plymouth station wagon to see if it had been recently driven. Donald Warren replied that the only .22 weapon they ---- had in the house was a rifle, but that Captain Hensley was --- - - -- welcome to take this gun and eliminate it by ballistic tests. ----- -- Donald Warren also told Captain Hensley that he (Warren) had -- -- - once been a police officer and he knew that Captain Hensley --- ----- was just doing his job. ----- Captain Hensley a l s o inspected t h e Plymouth s t a t i o n wagon parked by the Donald Warren home. H e found t h e engine s t i l l warm, indicating t h a t it had r e c e n t l y been driven. H e a l s o found t h a t t h e l e f t r e a r wheel o r f r o n t wheel had driven through a mud muddle and t h e r e w a s a damp mark on the ground i n d i c a t i n g t h e c a r had gone through and l e f t a t r a c k on dry ground leading up t o t h e vehicle. Although he d i d not go i n s i d e t h e c a r , he noticed, among o t h e r things, t h a t t h e r e was broken g l a s s i n t h e car. CONNECTION O F RAY WARREN TO A PISTOL ON A U G U S T 1 4 , 1979 Two young men, who knew Ray Warren q u i t e w e l l , saw Warren i n h i s car on two occasions on August 1 4 . The f i r s t t i m e was about 7:30 p.m. and t h e second t i m e w a s about 11:30 o r 11:45 p.m., probably within 15 o r 20 minutes of t h e murder. Both Robert Corey Nevins (age 19) and Leo Harshfield (age 17) saw Ray Warren parked a t t h e Big Scoop i c e cream p a r l o r , j u s t blocks away from t h e murder scene, and no more than 15 o r 20 minutes before t h e murder. Ray warren drove h i s white Plymouth s t a t i o n wagon i n t o t h e parking l o t and parked it r i g h t next t o t h e vehicle i n which Nevins and Harshfield w e r e parked. Both young men knew Ray Warren, and Nevins t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had known Warren f o r about two years. Ray Warren and h i s passenger w e r e s i t t i n g i n t h e s t a t i o n wagon and Nevins and Harshfield went over t o t a l k t o them. Harshfield was on t h e passenger s i d e of t h e s t a t i o n wagon j u s t a few f e e t away from t h e c a r , and Nevins, was on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e of t h e s t a t i o n wagon, j u s t a few f e e t away from t h e c a r . Ray Warren w a s s i t t i n g i n the d r i v e r ' s s e a t , t h e d r i v e r ' s door was open, and he had h i s l e g s s t i c k i n g out. Both Nevins and Harshfield noticed t h a t next t o Ray Warren was a p i s t o l , what appeared t o them t o be an automatic p i s t o l . These people talked for a while and then Nevins and Harshfield left, Nevins taking Harshfield home. Ray Warren and his passenger were then still in the parking lot. Fifteen or twenty minutes later, within blocks from the Big Scoop ice cream parlor, Earl Ray Malcom was murdered. INVOLVEMENT OF NORMAN HOPKINS IN DISPOSING OF THE PISTOL ON AUGUST 15, 1979 Norman Hopkins arrived home at about 6:30 a.m. The record does not disclose whether or not he had just completed his round-trip truck route from Billings to St. Regis, Montana, and back to Billings. His girlfriend, Kim Warren was there. She told him that her brother Ray Warren, had been arrested for homicide. The record is silent as to whether she told him any more than this or whether she even knew more about the arrest that this. We must, therefore, assume that she told him nothing else. At approximately 3:30 p.m., Norman Hopkins and Kim Warren drove to the Donald Warren home. On their arrival, Donald Warren mentioned that he was trying to raise bail so he could get his son Ray Warren out of jail. Shortly after this bail discussion, Donald Warren told Norman Hopkins that he had a .22 pistol he wanted Hopkins to dispose of. He told Hopkins that he had purchased the gun at Colstrip some time ago, that it was unregistered, that he didn't know where the gun had come from originally, and that he didn't want the police to find the pistol in the house. Donald Warren and Norman Hopkins went downstairs to the basement, and Warren pulled the gun from inside a poof pillow (a big fluffy pillow used as a chair) and handed it to Hopkins. (This was the same pistol that Norman Hopkins and Ray Warren had used previously when they went coyote hunting and the same one that Donald Warren had given to Hopkins to use during the truck driver's strike.) The pistol was in a holster and there was only one ammunition clip for the pistol. Joy Warren, the wife of Donald Warren, then came in with a pair of levis in her hands to wrap the pistol in. Defendant Don Warren took the levis from his wife and went downstairs. Hopkins then laid the pistol in the levis, and wrapped it. Donald Warren suggested to Hopkins that IIopkins should throw the pistol in the river when Hopkins drove his truck route to St. Regis, Montana, so that the pistol should disappear and never show up. Hopkins left almost immediately. Neither the defendant, Donald Warren, nor his wife, Joy Warren, nor his daughter, Kim Warren, testified to this transaction. Therefore, the only testimony as to this entire transaction is the testimony of Norman Hopkins. His testimony is uncontradicted and unimpeached. The jury clearly had a right to believe Norman Hopkins. CONTACT OF NORMAN HOPKINS WITH THE DONALD WARREN FAMILY AFTER AUGUST 15 AND BEFORE HOPKINS TURNED THE PISTOL OVER TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY Hopkins kept possession of the pistol from the time he received it on August 15 until he turned it over to the county attorney's office on December 3, 1979. During this time, he talked to Donald Warren only once. About two weeks after he received the pistol from Donald Warren (which would be the end of August or the first part of September), Hopkins telephoned Donald Warren at his home. Hopkins told Warren that he had disposed of the pistol but he did not tell Warren what he did with it and Warren did not ask. However, Hopkins got the clear message from Donald Warren that something drastic would happen to him if the pistol should ever turn up. About the middle of October 1979, Hopkins broke off his relationship with Kim Warren. The implication of the majority opinion is that Kim Warren broke off her relationship with Hopkins and that in retaliation Hopkins may have had the desire to frame Donald Warren for disposing of the pistol. There is not a scrap of evidence in the record to support this conclusion. Further, the uncontradicted testimony of Norman Hopkins is that he did not want to see Kim Warren any longer because he had met another woman and planned to marry her. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF NORMAN HOPKINS' TURNING THE PISTOL OVER TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE The circumstances leading to Hopkins' turning the pistol over to the Yellowstone County Attorney's Office are revealing. As could be expected, Ray Warren was charged with the murder of Earl Ray Malcom, and his trial was set for mid-December 1979. The State was, however, proceeding to trial without the murder weapon. The record does not clearly reveal whether Hopkins knew by news reports that the murder weapon had not been recovered, but the implication is that he learned by the news reports that the murder weapon had not been recovered. So, in early December 1979, he telephoned the county attorney's office and asked what caliber gun was used in the murder. On learning the caliber, Hopkins made arrangements with the county attorney's office to turn the .22 caliber semi-automatic pistol over to the State. Hopkins arranged to meet with members of the county attorney's staff at Mr. D's restaurant in Billings. Hopkins arrived there with his attorney, and Howard Corbin (the prosecutor in this case) and Jeanne Wilson, from the county attorney's staff were present. They talked at the restaurant for about an hour and then Hopkins went to his car, retrieved the pistol, and turned it over to the county attorney's office. He also durned over a holster for the pistol and an ammunition clip for the pistol. On learning that the murder weapon had been found, the defendant in the murder charge, Ray Warren, fled and still has not been apprehended. Tests on the pistol showed that it was the weapon used in the murder of Earl Ray Malcom. Based on Norman Hopkins' disclosures, Donald Warren was charged with tampering with evidence. At his trial on this charge, an F.B.I. agent, after Hopkins and a member of the county attorney's staff had identified the pistol, testified that the .22 caliber pistol was the murder weapon. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE The pistol which Norman Hopkins turned over to the county attorney's office turned out to be the murder weapon. The evidence does not disclose how the pistol got from the murder scene back to Donald Warren's home, but somehow it got there. The chances are that Ray Warren brought it there. Ray Warren's car was identified as being at the murder scene, in fact, it was identified as the get-away car. Further, at the time of the murder, A1 Ketterling was visiting the Donald Warren home and noticed that the Ray Warren car was not there. But an hour and a half later, after Ketterling had obtained a description of the get-away car, he noticed that Ray Warren's car was parked at the Donald Warren home. From this evidence, it is most reasonable for the jury to assume t h a t Ray Warren returned h i s c a r t o t h e Donald Warren home, and it i s most reasonable t o a l s o assume t h a t he brought t h e murder weapon with him. But it is n o t necessary t h a t Ray Warren personally brought t h e gun home. It is only necessary t o determine t h a t someone brought t h e gun t o t h e Donald Warren home a f t e r t h e murder. The evidence would g i v e t h e jury no problem i n i n f e r r i n g t h i s f a c t . Further, Donald Warren knew t h a t Ray Warren's c a r had been connected t o t h e murder scene. For, by t h e t i m e Captain Hensley and deputy ~ e t t e r l i n g came t o t h e Donald Warren home, Ray Warren had already been a r r e s t e d f o r t h e homicide. Both K e t t e r l i n g and Captain Hensley t o l d Donald Warren t h i s . Captain Hensley a l s o t o l d Donald Warren t h a t he wanted t o i n s p e c t Ray Warren's car, then parked a t t h e house, and he a l s o t o l d Donald Warren t h a t t h e p o l i c e were looking f o r , a s t h e murder weapon, a .22 c a l i b e r automatic p i s t o l o r any .22 c a l i b e r gun. Donald Warren r e p l i e d t h a t t h e only .22 was gun t h e r e was,/%.22 c a l i b e r r i f l e and t h a t t h e p o l i c e w e r e welcome t o t a k e it and conduct b a l l i s t i c tests. This i s t h e evidence of which Donald Warren had d i r e c t knowledge. O n t h e o t h e r hand, not a s c r a p of evidence i n t h e t r i a l record shows t h a t Norman Hopkins knew t h a t Ray Warren's c a r had been connected t o t h e murder scene o r t h a t t h e murder weapon was o r a t l e a s t was suspected t o be a .22 c a l i b e r gun. Assuming t h e j u r i e s believed Captain Hensley, and they had a r i g h t t o do so, they could i n f e r t h a t Donald Warren l i e d when he t o l d Captain Hensley t h a t t h e only .22 c a l i b e r gun i n t h e house was a r i f l e . Norman Hopkins t e s t i f i e d t o h i s own knowledge of t h e .22 c a l i b e r p i s t o l involved: he used it when he and Ray Warren went coyote hunting on two occasions, and on both occasions, t h e r e were two ammunition c l i p s f o r t h e p i s t o l . Further, on another occasion Hopkins talked directly to Donald Warren and asked to borrow a gun to take with him on his truck route to St. Regis. Donald Warren loaned him the .22 caliber pistol involved, and also gave him two ammunition clips. Based on this testimony, and his testimony that he received the pistol from Donald Warren on August 15 to dispose of because it was an unregistered pistol, the jury was entitled to believe that Donald Warren lied to Captain Hensley when he told him that only a .22 caliber rifle was in the house. Obviously, then, the jury could believe, and was entitled to believe, that Donald Warren did have knowledge that the .22 caliber pistol was in his home and that it was connected to the murder. Two days after the murder, the Donald Warren home and automobiles were searched under the authority of a search warrant. No murder weapon was found. The police did find a .22 caliber rifle and they also found a .22 caliber ammunition clip with 11 live rounds in it, in Joy Warren's car. This ammunition clip did not fit the rifle, but it did fit the .22 caliber pistol later identified as the murder weapon. This ammunition clip corroborated Norman Hopkins' testimony that on all three occasions he had used the pistol there were two ammunition clips, but that when he received it from Donald Warren on August 15, there was only one ammunition clip. Further, the jury could also conclude by this testimony and evidence that Donald Warren had lied when he told Captain Hensley that the only .22 caliber gun around his home was a rifle. The majority makes much of the fact that a murder weapon was not found when the house was searched (on August 17). That is not strange at all, however, since the State's theory of the case was, and the proof was, that Donald Warren had disposed of the pistol on August 15 by asking Norman Hopkins to get rid of it. That was the very idea. Donald Warren, a former policeman, knew that the police would search for the murder weapon and he did not want it there. Although he did not tell Norman Hopkins that the pistol was connected to the murder, he did tell Hopkins that he wanted him to get rid of it because he did not want the police to find it. What is strange, then, about the police not finding the murder weapon during the search of the house? We have, then; the uncontradicted testimony of Norman Hopkins telling the jury how he received the .22 caliber pistol and holster and ammunition clip from Donald Warren on August 15. He testified unequivocally that he did not know it was connected to a murder when he received it from Donald Warren. He testified unequivocally that he still did not know that the pistol was connected when he called the county attorney's office on December 3 to ask the caliber of the murder weapon. Norman Hopkins was not an accomplice because he did not have the same knowledge that Donald Warren had concerning the pistol or concerning the details of the police investigation connecting Ray Warren to the murder. The jury was entitled to believe his testimony. Because of the Fifth Amendment privilege surrounding Donald Warren, the jury could not infer anything by Donald Warren's failure to testify. But the same is not true of the other members of his family present when Hopkins received the pistol from Donald Warren. Joy Warren, Donald Warren's wife, may have invoked the husband-wife privilege if the State called her to testify. But certainly the defendant Donald Warren could have called her if he felt she could help his cause. No privilege was involved with Kim Warren. The prosecution sought to add her as a witness, but the defense resisted, and ultimately, the State dropped its request. But if the defense felt she could contradict Hopkins' version of what happened, nothing prevented the defense from calling Kim Warren as a witness. Once Hopkins testified to the details of the conver- sations, the prosecution was entitled to proceed on the assumption that any additional testimony from either Joy Warren or Kim Warren would be cumulative. The State needed no corroboration because the very nature of Hopkins' testimony showed that he was not an accomplice. Therefore, if there were any discrepancies in his testimony, or if his testimony was a complete fabrication in the estimation of the defense, the defense had available as witnesses, Joy Warren, defendant's wife, and Kim Warren, defendant's daughter. The defense called neither. These witnesses were more available to the defense than they were to the prosecution, and the jury could infer that their testimony would not be helpful to the defendant, Donald Warren. Further, the jury could believe Norman Hopkins--after all, his testimony was uncontradicted and unimpeached. The testimony of Norman Hopkins, in addition to the other evidence produced, was sufficient for the jury to convict Donald Warren of tampering with evidence. I see no trial errors that would dictate a new trial. heref fore,