Title: STATE v AUSTAD
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12832
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: April 9, 1975

No. 12832 I N THE S U P K E M E COURT OF THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1975 STATE OF M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, GENE A N D R L W AUSTAD, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. D. McPhillips, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: E. F. G i a n o t t i argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Charles M. Joslyn, County Attorney, argued, Choteau, Montana Submitted: March 3 , 1975 Decided : N R 9 1975 EPR - 9 j 3 7 3 Filed: - M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal by defendant Gene Austad from a judgment of conviction of t h e crime of burglary i n t h e f i r s t degree entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t court, Teton County. The s t a t e ' s evidence presented disclosed t h a t on t h e evening of December 21, 1973, Glen S h e t l e r , a part-time p o l i c e o f f i c e r , was p a t r o l l i n g t h e s t r e e t s of F a i r f i e l d , Montana. A t approximately 6:40 p.m. S h e t l e r a r r i v e d i n t h e southwest p a r t of F a i r f i e l d where t h e GTA g r a i n e l e v a t o r w a s located. A t t h e t i m e a new addition was being b u i l t onto t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r and a storage van, owned by Hogenson Construction Company, w a s parked adjacent t o t h e g r a i n elevator. This van was used t o s t o r e t o o l s used on t h e construction s i t e . Shetler observed t h a t a dark colored, l a t e model c a r had been backed up t o t h e s i d e door of t h e van and defendant and an unidentified individual wearing a "sloppy black hat" w e r e departing from t h e s i d e door. The unidentified individual i m - mediately f l e d when S h e t l e r stopped t o i n v e s t i g a t e . Defendant, however, walked over t o S h e t l e r , introduced himself, and began t o c a r r y on a conversation. Defendant informed S h e t l e r t h a t "he was s e n t up from Great F a l l s t o pick up a t r a n s i t 1 ' . A t t r i a l S h e t l e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he noticed nothing sus- picious a t t h i s time, because it was a common p r a c t i c e t h a t t h e construction van be used i n t h e evening when t h e construction c r e w worked l a t e . Consequently, he d i d not attempt t o r e s t r a i n defendant when he locked h i s c a r and l e f t t h e area on f o o t , leav- ing h i s c a r behind. After defendant departed, S h e t l e r began searching f o r a padlock t h a t he had noticed missing from t h e door of t h e van. Upon shining h i s f l a s h l i g h t i n t h e window of defendant's c a r he discovered, located on t h e f l o o r between t h e f r o n t and rear s e a t s , a pair of bolt cutters with a silver padlock in its jaws. An immediate search of the van revealed some tools had been stacked up against the wall immediately inside the door, and a partially filled glass of liquor had been placed on a workbench inside the van. Defendant's car was immediately impounded and taken by a wrecker to a local garage. Later that evening, the garage was broken into and the car removed. The state presented evi- dence that the car was leased by National Car Rental to defend- ant on December 15, 1973 and was returned on January 5, 1974. The assistant foreman for Hogenson Construction, Nels Cornelious, testified that on the night of the alleged burglary, he locked the van prior to departing from work and no tools, except for a welder in a plywood box, had been stacked against the wall immediately inside the door. In addition, he stated that when he arrived at the storage van subsequent to the break in he noticed that a portable hand grinder, two four foot levels, two rubberheaded mallets, and a couple of smaller hammers were stacked near the door. These articles had been placed in dif- ferent locations within the van when he had left work on that day. A few days subsequent to the break indefendant was apprehended, charged with the crime of first degree burglary, tried before a jury, and convicted. Defendant appeals from that conviction and raises two issues: 1. Is the state's evidence sufficient to establish that defendant's unlawful entry into the storage van was accom- panied with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny? 2. Did defendant's allegedly intoxicated condition prevent him from forming the requisite specific intent to commit the crime? Pursuant t o s e c t i o n 94-1-103, R.C.M. 1947, t h e provisions of t h e 1973 Montana Criminal Code do not apply t o offenses com- mitted p r i o r t o t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h e a c t . Here, t h e a c t was committed on December 2 1 , 1973 and t h e 1973 Mohtana Criminal Code took e f f e c t on January 1, 1974. Consequently, we look t o t h e o l d burglary s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 94-901, R.C.M. 1947, i n consideration of t h e f i r s t issue. This s t a t u t e reads: "Burglary defined. Every person who e n t e r s any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, ware- house, s t o r e , m i l l , barn, s t a b l e , outhouse, o r other building, t e n t , motor vehicle and a i r c r a f t , v e s s e l , o r r a i l r o a d c a r , with i n t e n t t o commit grand o r p e t i t larceny o r any felony, i s g u i l t y of burglary. " The basic t h r u s t of defendant's argument appears t o be t h a t t h e s t a t e has f a i l e d t o show defendant possessed t h e requis- i t e i n t e n t t o commit grand o r p e t i t larceny a t t h e time of t h e unlawful e n t r y , absent proof t h a t anything was s t o l e n from t h e storage van. W e cannot agree. I n Perkins on Criminal Law, p. 166 (1957), t h e author s t a t e s : "Larceny i s usually t h e purpose f o r which burg- l a r y i s committed but it i s not e s s e n t i a l t o g u i l t t h a t t h e i n t r u d e r succeed i n carrying o u t t h e i n t e n t with which t h e house was broken i n t o , nor t h a t it should be f o r t h e purpose of s t e a l i n g . There is no common-law burglary, however, unless t h e i n t r u s i o n i s perpetrated with an i n t e n t t o commit some felony. Thus i f a rogue breaks i n t o t h e dwelling of another a t n i g h t with i n t e n t t o commit murder he i s g u i l t y of burglary even i f he leaves without finding h i s intended victim and without having committed any felony i n t h e house. O n t h e other hand he would not be g u i l t y of burg- l a r y i f he broke i n f o r t h e purpose of t r e s p a s s only even i f he subsequently d i d commit some felony during h i s wrongful v i s i t . " See a l s o : S t a t e v. S o l i s , 163 Mont.293 , 516 P.2d 1157, 30 St.Rep. 1 0 9 9 ; Morigeau v . S t a t e , 149 Mont. 85, 423 P.2d 60. Here, t h e s t a t e c a r r i e d t h e burden of showing t h e exis- tence of t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n t through t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e following evidence: 1. It established t h e f a c t t h a t a p a i r of b o l t c u t t e r s with a padlock i n s i d e i t s jaws w a s found i n a l a t e model c a r t h a t had been backed up t o t h e s i d e door of t h e van. 2. The possession of t h e c a r w a s traced t o defendant. 3. It established t h a t a group of t o o l s had been stacked near t h e door of t h e van i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of removal. 4 . A n eyewitness had seen defendant and another individual depart from t h e van. 5. Defendant had no j u s t i f i c a t i o n nor explanation f o r h i s presence a t t h e van. W e believe t h e preceding evidence, taken a s a whole, is s u f f i c i e n t and we w i l l not d i s t u r b t h e findings of t h e jury. Accordingly, we f i n d no merit i n defendant's contention t h e s t a t e f a i l e d t o show a s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t o commit grand o r p e t i t larceny o r any o t h e r felony. A s t o h i s second i s s u e , defendant argues t h a t he could not form t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t o commit t h e crime because of h i s a l l e g e d l y intoxicated condition a t t h e time of the a c t . During t r i a l , defendant presented t h e testimony of two witnesses. Helen Torgerson t e s t i f i e d : " Q . Did you have occasion t o see Gene on t h a t evening? A. Yes, I did. " Q . Did you see him i n F a i r f i e l d ? A. Yes, I did. "Q. D o you r e c a l l what t i m e t h i s was? A. No, I d o n ' t . It was between 6:30 and seven, I guess. I t * * * "Q. A t t h a t t i m e , Helen, d i d Gene appear t o have been drinking? A. Y e s , he was. "Q. Would you say that he was under t h e influence a t t h a t time? A. Y e s . "MR. GIANOTTI: That's a l l . " CROSS-EXAMINATIOIJ By M r . Joslyn; " Q . Under t h e influence--what is your understand- ing of t h a t ? A. Drinking. Drinking alcohol." Richard A.ustad, uncle of defendant, t e s t i f i e d : "Q. A t t h a t t i m e d i d Gene appear t o be drinking? A . Oh, he had a few drinks. "Q. Did he appear t o be under t h e influence of these drinks? A. Oh, he was f e e l i n g h i s own. "Q. Did you see him any other times on t h a t day? A. Later on i n t h e evening. "Q. And d i d he s t i l l appear t o be under t h e influence? A. Yes." Upon t h e preceding evidence, defendant attempts t o show t h a t he was too intoxicated t o form t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t o commit t h e crime of burglary. The answer t o defendant's contention can be found i n s e c t i o n 94-119(1), R.C.M. 1947, which s t a t e s : "No a c t committed by a person while i n a s t a t e of voluntary i n t o x i c a t i o n is less criminal by h i s being i n s a i d condition. But, whenever t h e a c t u a l existence of any p a r t i c u l a r purpose, motive, o r i n t e n t , i s a necessary element t o c o n s t i t u t e any p a r t i c u l a r species o r degree of crime, t h e jury may take i n t o consideration t h e f a c t t h a t t h e accused was intoxicated a t t h e time, i n determining t h e purpose, motive o r i n t e n t with which he committed t h e a c t . " (Emphasis supplied. ) The question of defendant's s o b r i e t y a t t h e t i m e of t h e criminal a c t was f u l l y presented and i n s t r u c t i o n s upon t h e sub- j e c t were given by t h e t r i a l court. The j u r y ' s v e r d i c t declared t h a t defendant w a s a b l e t o and d i d e n t e r t a i n t h e necessary criminal i n t e n t . W e w i l l not d i s t u r b t h a t v e r d i c t upon t h e d e a r t h of testimony presented by defendant's two witnesses. / The judgment is her W e concur: ,-'" - r J