Title: STATE v SIMTOB
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13056
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 30, 1975

No. 13056 I N T H E SUPREME COIJRT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 19 7 5 STATE OF M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - S O L O M O N B ITTON S IMTOB , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Richard E. G i l l e s p i e argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Thomas Dowling, County Attorney, Helena, Montana Charles A. Graveley , Deputy County Attorney, argued, Helena, Montana Submitted : November 13, 1975 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment of conviction of criminal s a l e of dangerous drugs entered on a jury verdict i n Lewis and Clark County. The crime was committed i n the c i t y of Helena by defendant a f t e r he had journeyed t o Helena from Billings. The s t a t e ' s witnesses t e s t i f i e d generally a s t o being with the defendant a t a party i n Billings, hearing the conversation a s t o going t o Helena via Bozeman, f o r , among other things, the purpose of obtaining drugs. The d e t a i l s of the t r i p were observed and monitered by undercover agents with a l l of the specifics a s t o the crime; In t h e defendant's case, one Mike Ringquist was c a l l e d a s a witness f o r defendant. H i s testimony apparently was t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t he was a close friend of defendant and had planned a t r i p with defendant about August 25 t o go t o Glacier Park on August 30, t h e date of the a c t i v i t y t e s t i f i e d t o by s t a t e witnesses. The witness was asked i f he had heard a l l the testimony presented about t h e t r i p from Billings t o Helena. So, h i s testimony was an obvious attempt t o dispute o r contradict t h e s t a t e ' s testimony a s t o the purpose of the t r i p and i t s d e t a i l s . Then the witness Ringquist was asked several questions by defendant's counsel concerning t h e use of drugs: "Q. Did the Defendant give any indication t o you t h a t he was going t o purchase drugs and s e l l drugs? A. N o sir. "Q. To your knowledge, did he have any drugs i n h i s possession? A . N o Sir. "Q. Were you going t o use any drugs while you were i n Glacier Park? A. N o sir. "Q. Did you go on t h a t t r i p with him? A . N o sir, I had t o work. "Q. The t r i p t h a t we a r e talking about i s the same one t h a t he eventually went on with M r . Desmul, i s t h a t r i g h t ? A. Well, I don't know, I know him a s Y E . Ferguson. Q . Ferguson? A. Yes. "Q. W h y was it you couldn't go? A. I had t o work t h a t Saturday and they were leaving Saturday so I said, t I j u s t c a n ' t go. r "Q. In the time t h a t you were with and around M r . Simtob i n Billings, t o your knowledge, did he use any drugs, t r a f f i c i n drugs? A. Other than alcohol, no. "Q. H o w much alcohol a r e you talking about? A . Well, I went out with him p r a c t i c a l l y every night t h a t he was i n Billings and I say on two occasions t h a t we had dinner p a r t i e s and he had three, maybe four glasses of wine and every time whenever we went t o a bar it was l i k e one o r two beers and then he s t a r t e d drinking seven-up. "Q. Did he t a l k about using drugs? A. N o s i r , we d i d n ' t t a l k about drugs. "Q. Did he have any opinion about drugs? "Q. Did he make any statements about drugs? A. Not during t h a t time. I I By t h i s witness and the l i n e of questioning and h i s answers, it was obvious t h a t the witness was attempting t o e s t a b l i s h a close relationship with the defendant; knew h i s h a b i t s ; knew h i s plans; knew h i s general reputation; and, denied knowledge of h i s drug use. This tended t o r e f u t e andcatmdict the testimony of t h e s t a t e ' s witnesses. Then, on cross-examination, t h e s t a t e further developed these matters a s t o the witness' relationships and h i s exchange of l e t t e r s . When pinned down the witness changed l e t t e r s t o a single l e t t e r , When pinned down f u r t h e r a s t o dates and places, the witness was f i n a l l y forced t o acknowledge t h a t the defendant had been i n the s t a t e prison during several months p r i o r t o August 19, 1974. Over objection, the S t a t e was allowed t o e l i c i t these answers from the witness who previously had painted what was obviously meant t o be a picture of t h e defendant a s a wholesome friend planning a t r i p t o Glacier Park--which would r e f u t e and contradict the s t a t e ' s testimony. Further, on r e b u t t a l , the s t a t e was allowed t o present evidence t o the e f f e c t t h a t defendant had a general reputation a s one of the major drug pushers i n Montana. qere, che s i n g l e i s s u e , a s i d e from a later issue mentioned h e r e i n a f t e r , i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r u l i n g t h a t defense counsel had brought t h e defendant's character and general reputation i n t o i s s u e and then allowed t h e s t a t e t o question witnesses' knowledge of t h e defendant and h i s character and general reputation. Defendant a s s e r t s t h a t Mike Ringquist was n o t a character w i t z l e s s and t h a t t h e questions and answers, p a r t l y quoted heretofore, were only f o r the purpose of s o l i c i t i n g f i r s t h a n d knowledge of defendant's a c t i v i t i e s . Perhaps t h a t w a s defendant's purpose i n asking t h e questions b u t t h e answers revealed a lack of candor and t r u t h f u l n e s s a s w e l l a s an attempt t o present defendant a s a person of good character, p a r t i c u l a r l y a s t o lack of any connection with drugs o r any purpose f o r the t r i p t o Helena t e s t i f i e d t o by t h e s c a t e ' s witnesses. The cross-examination and r e b u t t a l was confined co the p a r t i c u l a r t r a i t of character impugned i n t h e crime with which the defendant was charged and t o which t h e s t a t e ' s witnesses had c e s t i f i e d and defendant's witness attempted t o c o n t r a d i c t and d i s - c r e d i t . Such questioning is proper. S t a t e v. Cor, 144 Mont. 323, 396 P.?d 86; S t a t e v. Moorrnan, 133 Mont. 148, 321 P.2d 236; Section 33-1901-7, R.C.M. 1947. I n S t a t e v. Turley, 164 Mont. 231, 234, ,21 P.2d 690, t h i s Court s a i d : 'If< * * such evidence was brought out on d i r e c t examination of appellant by a p p e l l a n t ' s own counsel. Xaving done so, he cannot now complain. I I W e find no e r r o r . t h e f i n a l i s s u e was r a i s e d a s a supplemental i s s u e ~ildiLeligi1lg the s t a t u t e under which defendant was charged a s t o rhe d e f i n i t i o n of "dangerous drugs". W e w i l l not repeat t h e d e t a i l s 32 the challenge here because the i s s u e w a s s e t t l e d by t h i s Court's opinion i n S t a t e ex r e l . Lance, P e t i t i o n e r v. D i s t r i c t Court, M o n t . 3 P.2d , 32 St.Rep. 1119, t h i s c o u r t ' s Cause No. 13167, decided November 12, 1975. Finding no e r r o r t h e judgment i s affirmed. ' \ - J u s t i c e s .