Title: STATE v ROBERTS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-412
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: September 15, 1981

No. 80-412 I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- T H O M A S D A L E ROEERTS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: 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 and f o r t h e County of Missoula, The Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Hood & Sherwood, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : June 24, 1981 Decided: September 15, 1981 F i l e d : $23) 1 5 1981 M r . Chief ~ 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 . Defendant Thomas Dale R o b e r t s was c o n v i c t e d of b u r g l a r y f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e District Court of Missoula County. Judgment was e n t e r e d t h e r e o n s e n t e n c i n g him to f i v e y e a r s impri- sonment w i t h t w o y e a r s suspended. Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e j udgment and s e n t e n c e . On September 29, 1979, d e f e n d a n t and h i s ex-wife Carol were t r a v e l i n g i n d e f e n d a n t ' s g r e e n Buick s t a t i o n wagon from D i l l o n , Montana to Coeur DIAlene, Idaho, where t h e y intended to b e r e m a r r i e d . They stopped i n B u t t e where t h e y picked up Harold Nixon, Carol s s t e p f a t h e r , and two juveniles--Dale C h e l i n i , d e f e n d a n t 1 s nephew, and Dennis OIDonnell, C h e l i n i l s f r i e n d . They proceeded to Missoula where they stopped a t t h e r e s i d e n c e of E d r i e B o u l t e r who was a g i r l f r i e n d of C h e l i n i and t h e d a u g h t e r o f Robert B o u l t e r , p a r t owner of t h e Snake Eyes S t o r e i n Lolo. C h e l i n i and OIDonnell g o t o u t of t h e car and t a l k e d to E d r i e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f an hour. They t h e n r e j o i n e d t h e t h r e e a d u l t s i n t h e car and t h e f i v e of them drove to t h e Lolo Tavern which is l o c a t e d n e a r t h e Snake Eyes S t o r e i n Lolo. According to d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y , t h e o c c u p a n t s of t h e car had been d r i n k i n g s u b s t a n t i a l amounts of b e e r and Snap-E-Tom tomato c o c k t a i l d u r i n g t h e t r i p . The f i v e of them continued d r i n k i n g i n t h e Lolo Tavern f a r i n t o t h e n i g h t . According t o d e f e n d a n t , he and Carol g o t i n t o an argument i n t h e Tavern, he g o t mad and he went t o t h e car. C a r o l followed him t o t h e car where t h e argument c o n t i n u e d . Defendant t e s t i f i e d he "grabbed up a l l of t h e s t u f f " i n t h e car, l e f t t h e car and walked toward t h e highway i n t e n d i n g to h i t c h h i k e to B u t t e . H e s t a t e d he was u n s u c c e s s f u l i n h i t c h h i k i n g , g o t c o l d and began to walk back to t h e t a v e r n l o c a t e d n e a r t h e Snake Eyes S t o r e . About 2:00 a . m . Deputy S h e r i f f Newlon who w a s t h e n i n t h e a r e a r e c e i v e d a d i s p a t c h e r ' s c a l l about a p o s s i b l e b u r g l a r y of a small g r o c e r y store. The r e p o r t also d e s c r i b e d a s u s p e c t g r e e n s t a t i o n wagon. Deputy Newlon n o t i c e d a g r e e n s t a t i o n wagon out- s i d e t h e Lolo Tavern and upon i n v e s t i g a t i o n learned t h a t t h e r e g i s t e r e d owner was Thomas Dale Roberts. Deputy Newlon t e s t i f i e d he observed someone i n t h e garage p o r t i o n of t h e b u i l d i n g i n which t h e Snake Eyes store is l o c a t e d . The o f f i c e r went to i n v e s t i g a t e , heard someone behind t h e s t o r e , and appre- hended d e f e n d a n t who f i t t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e person t h e o f f i c e r had seen i n t h e garage. Roberts was found to be c a r r y i n g t w o three-packs of Snap-E-Tom tomato c o c k t a i l , 16 packs o f c i g a r e t t e s of f i v e d i f f e r e n t brands, t w o magazines, and a can of l i g h t e r f l u i d , a l l s t u f f e d i n s i d e h i s s h i r t . Roberts was a r r e s t e d and charged w i t h b u r g l a r y . I n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e f r o n t door of t h e store was unlocked and t h e r e were no s i g n s of forced e n t r y i n t o t h e store or garage. Numerous items from t h e s h e l v e s and cooler were s c a t t e r e d on t h e f l o o r i n c l u d i n g cases of b e e r and packs of Snap-E-Tom tomato c o c k t a i l . Robert B o u l t e r , part-owner of t h e store, t e s t i f i e d t h a t the g r e a s e p e n c i l p r i c e markings on t h e Snap-E-Tom tomato c o c k t a i l s i n t h e store appeared to be t h e same a s t h o s e found i n d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n , b u t t h a t t h e o t h e r items could n o t be i d e n t i f i e d a s coming from h i s s t o r e a s they were e i t h e r p r e p r i c e d when t h e y came to t h e store or had no p r i c e markings on them. B o u l t e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l items found i n d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n were s o l d i n h i s store. H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s d a u g h t e r , E d r i e , had a key to t h e store. Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w a s married to C a r o l a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l . Over d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n , Carol was c a l l e d a s a p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s a t h i s t r i a l and was permitted to t e s t i f y concerning h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s of d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s on t h e n i g h t i n q u e s t i o n . The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t a l l o w h e r to t e s t i f y con- c e r n i n g any communications made t o h e r by t h e defendant. On a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t contends (1) t h a t the District Court e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g h i s wife t o t e s t i f y o v e r h i s o b j e c t i o n , and ( 2 ) t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t h i s c o n v i c t i o n of b u r g l a r y . The a d m i s s i b i l i t y of a s p o u s e ' s testimony i n Montana is governed by two s e p a r a t e s t a t u t e s . S e c t i o n 46-16-212, MCA p r o v i d e s : "Except w i t h t h e c o n s e n t o f b o t h o r i n c a s e s of . . - -- c r i m i n a l v i o l e n c e by one upon t h e o t h e r , aban- donment or n e g l e c t of c h i l d r e n by e i t h e r p a r t y , or abandonment or n e g l e c t of one by t h e o t h e r , n e i t h e r spouse is a competent w i t n e s s -- f o r or a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n - - a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n -- or pro- c e e d i n g t o which one o r b o t h are p a r t i e s . " ---- ( ~ m p h a s i s a d d e d . ) S e c t i o n 26-1-802, MCA, h e r e a f t e r i d e n t i f i e d as t h e marital p r i v i - l e g e s t a t u t e , p r o v i d e s : "A husband c a n n o t be examined f o r or a g a i n s t h i s w i f e w i t h o u t h e r c o n s e n t or a w i f e f o r or a g a i n s t h e r husband w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t ; n o r can e i t h e r , d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e o r a f t e r w a r d , b e , w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t of t h e o t h e r , examined a s t o a n y communication made by one to t h e o t h e r d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e ; b u t t h i s e x c e p t i o n does n o t a p p l y t o a c i v i l a c t i o n o r proceeding by one a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r o r t o a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n or proceeding f o r a crime committed by one a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r . " I n a c r i m i n a l case t h a t does not i n v o l v e v i o l e n c e or aban- donment o r n e g l e c t of spouse o r c h i l d r e n and where t h e parties are m a r r i e d a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l , t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e is s e c t i o n 46-16-212. S t a t e v. Taylor ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 106, 515 P.2d 695. Both p a r t i e s a g r e e . However, t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e d o e s n o t impose a b l a n k e t e x c l u s i o n of t h e spouse as a w i t n e s s , b u t r a t h e r e x c l u d e s o n l y t h e s p o u s e ' s t e s t i m o n y as t o com- m u n i c a t i o n s made by t h e d e f e n d a n t to h i s spouse d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . The t r i a l c o u r t agreed w i t h t h e S t a t e ' s t h e o r y and p e r m i t t e d Carol to t e s t i f y b u t excluded any testimony c o n c e r n i n g communications between d e f e n d a n t and Carol. T h i s w a s error. Both t h e language of t h e s t a t u t e and Montana case l a w e s t a b l i s h t h e c o n t r a r y . The e x p r e s s language of s e c t i o n 46-16-212, MCA, i n d i c a t e s t h a t a w i f e is n o t - a competent w i t n e s s a g a i n s t h e r husband w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t i n a c r i m i n a l proceeding a g a i n s t him ( s u b j e c t to e x c e p t i o n s n o t r e l e v a n t to t h i s case). "Except w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of both . . . n e i t h e r spouse is a com- - - - p e t e n t w i t n e s s f o r or a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g to which one or both are p a r t i e s . " S e c t i o n 46-16-212, MCA. (Emphasis added.) Where t h e language of a s t a t u t e is p l a i n , unambiguous, d i r e c t and c e r t a i n , t h e s t a t u t e speaks f o r i t s e l f and t h e r e is n o t h i n g l e f t f o r t h e c o u r t to c o n s t r u e . Dunphy v. Anaconda Company ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 76, 438 P.2d 660 and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . The f u n c t i o n of t h e c o u r t i n such cases is s i m p l y t o a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e what i n terms or i n s u b s t a n c e is con- t a i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e and n o t t o i n s e r t what h a s been omitted or t o omit what h a s been i n s e r t e d . S e c t i o n 1-2-101, MCA. A p e r s o n who is n o t a competent w i t n e s s cannot t e s t i f y a t a l l . Montana case l a w compels t h e same r e s u l t . S t a t e v. Storm ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 124 Mont. 102, 220 P.2d 674. There we a p p l i e d t h e prede- cessor to s e c t i o n 46-16-212, M C A , to r e v e r s e d e f e n d a n t ' s convic- t i o n of a s s a u l t where d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e w a s p e r m i t t e d to t e s t i f y o v e r h e r husband's o b j e c t i o n t h a t i n p o i n t i n g a loaded gun a t t h e s h e r i f f , he was r e s i s t i n g arrest. There, as h e r e , t h e prede- cessor s t a t u t e e x p r e s s l y d e a l t w i t h t h e competency of a husband and w i f e as a w i t n e s s a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n a c r i m i n a l proceeding. The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t Storm is i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h S t a t e v. Dixson ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 80 Mont. 181, 260 P. 138, and S t a t e v. Houchin ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 149 Mont. 503, 428 P.2d 971. W e f i n d no i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n t h e s e d e c i s i o n s . Dixson involved a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n where t h e m a r r i a g e of d e f e n d a n t and t h e w i t n e s s had been a n n u l l e d p r i o r to t r i a l and a c c o r d i n g l y t h e p r e d e c e s s o r of s e c t i o n 26-1-802, MCA, t h e m a r i t a l p r i v i l e g e s t a t u t e , was a p p l i e d r a t h e r t h a n t h e p r e d e c e s s o r of t h e s t a t u t e involved i n t h i s case. The s t a t u t e i n ~ i x s o n d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e s t a t u t e a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case. Accordingly, t h a t d e c i s i o n is n o t germane to t h e s i t u a t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s case. Houchin is i n a p p o s i t e . It also involved t h e p r e d e c e s s o r of s e c t i o n 26-1-802, MCA, t h e marital p r i v i l e g e s t a t u t e , which s e r v e s t o p r o t e c t c o n f i d e n t i a l communications be tween s p o u s e s d u r i n g marriage. I n Houchin s i n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s wife was not c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s , t h e marital p r i v i l e g e s t a t u t e d i d n o t prohi- b i t a d e p u t y s h e r i f f ' s testimony t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e pointed o u t t h e l o c a t i o n of s t o l e n copper wire. Thus t h e r e are two d i s t i n c t s p o u s a l p r i v i l e g e s which may a p p l y i n a c r i m i n a l proceeding. I f t h e d e f e n d a n t is married a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l , t h e spouse is incompetent to t e s t i f y e i t h e r f o r or a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t s u b j e c t to t h e s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n s . S e c t i o n 46-16-212, MCA. If d e f e n d a n t is n o t married a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l , h i s former spouse is competent t o t e s t i f y b u t cannot be examined w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t as to any communication made be tween t h e spouses d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . S e c t i o n 26-1-802, MCA. The S t a t e c r i t i c i z e s t h e sweeping marital p r i v i l e g e of s e c t i o n 46-16-212, MCA, which p e r m i t s t h e d e f e n d a n t to p r e v e n t h i s spouse from t a k i n g t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d . W e n o t e t h e c u r r e n t t r e n d i n o t h e r states and i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s toward e r o s i o n of t h e marital p r i v i l e g e . Trammel v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 445 U.S. 40, 100 S e c t . 906, L.Ed. 2d . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n Trammel modified t h e common law marital p r i v i - l e g e so t h a t t h e s p o u s a l w i t n e s s a l o n e may e x e r c i s e t h e p r i v i l e g e t o r e f u s e to t e s t i f y a d v e r s e l y and may n e i t h e r be compelled n o r f o r e c l o s e d from t e s t i f y i n g i n f e d e r a l c o u r t . The Court reasoned : "The contemporary j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a f f o r d i n g an accused [ t h e p r i v i l e g e to exclude a l l a d v e r s e s p o u s a l testimony] is also u n p e r s u a s i v e . When one spouse is w i l l i n g to t e s t i f y a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n a c r i m i n a l proceed ing--whatever t h e m o t i v a t i o n - - t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p is a l m o s t cer- t a i n l y i n d i s r e p a i r ; t h e r e is p r o b a b l y l i t t l e i n t h e way of marital harmony f o r t h e p r i v i l e g e t o p r e s e r v e . I n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a r u l e of e v i d e n c e t h a t permits an accused t o p r e v e n t a d v e r s e s p o u s a l t e s t i m o n y seems f a r more l i k e l y t o f r u s t r a t e j u s t i c e t h a n to f o s t e r f a m i l y peace ." (Bracketed material p a r a p h r a s e d . ) Trammel, s u p r a , 445 U.S. a t 52, 100 S.Ct. a t 913. Whatever merit t h i s view may p o s s e s s , it a p p l i e s o n l y i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s and is c o n t r a r y to t h e s t a t u t o r y l a w of Montana. Our d u t y is t o c o n s t r u e t h e l a w as we f i n d it. Dunphy v . Anaconda Company, s u p r a , and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . Absent c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or s t a t u t o r y in£ irmities, t h i s Court is n o t empowered to change t h e s t a t u t o r y law of t h i s state. However, we hold t h a t t h e error i n p e r m i t t i n g Carol to t e s t i f y is harmless error under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e case. Montana l a w p r o v i d e s t h a t no cause s h a l l be r e v e r s e d by r e a s o n of a n y error committed by t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e error was p r e j u d i c i a l ( s e c t i o n 46-20-701, MCA) and t h a t any e r r o r which does n o t a f f e c t s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s s h a l l be d i s r e g a r d e d . ( s e c t i o n 46-20-702, MCA. ) The f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t e s t of h a r m l e s s error is whether t h e r e is a r e a s o n a b l e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e complained of might have c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e c o n v i c t i o n . Fahy v. C o n n e c t i c u t ( 1 9 6 3 ) r 375 U.S. 85, 84 S.Ct. 229, 1 1 L.Ed.2d 171. O r s t a t e d a n o t h e r way, c a n we as a reviewing c o u r t d e c l a r e a b e l i e f t h a t t h e e r r o r was h a r m l e s s beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt? Chapman v. C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 6 7 ) t 386 U.S. 1 8 , 8 7 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705. Under e i t h e r t h e Montana test or t h e f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l test, t h e error i n p e r m i t t i n g Carol to t e s t i f y is h a r m l e s s . Here Carol s t e s t i m o n y was e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l to t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s . Her t e s t i m o n y d i d n o t c o n t r a d i c t or v a r y d e f e n d a n t ' s own t e s t i m o n y i n any material respect. The d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f agreed w i t h h e r testimony: "Q. Is t h e r e a n y t h i n g s u b s t a n t i v e l y o r m a t e r i a l l y d i f f e r e n t as you remember it from what Carol remembers and t e s t i f i e d t o ? A. No." Under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e error was c l e a r l y n o t p r e j u d i c i a l t o d e f e n d a n t , d i d n o t a f f e c t any s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of d e f e n d a n t , and t h e r e is no r e a s o n a b l e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t Carol I s t e s t i m o n y c o u l d have c o n t r i b u t e d to d e f e n d a n t t s c o n v i c t i o n . Defendant also contends t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t h i s c o n v i c t i o n of b u r g l a r y . A person commits b u r g l a r y i f he knowingly e n t e r s or remains i n an occupied s t r u c t u r e w i t h t h e purpose of committing an o f f e n s e t h e r e i n . S e c t i o n 45-6-204, MCA. Here t h e evidence concerning e n t r y i n t o t h e s t o r e by d e f e n d a n t is c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , b u t it is s u f f i c i e n t to e n a b l e t h e j u r y to reason- a b l y i n f e r t h e e l e m e n t s of t h e crime. The f r o n t d o o r of t h e store was unlocked; d e f e n d a n t was apprehended behind t h e store s h o r t l y a f t e r 2:00 a.m. ; he had i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n v a r i o u s articles of merchandise s o l d i n t h e store; and a p e r s o n was observed i n t h e g a r a g e p o r t i o n of t h e s t o r e b u i l d i n g s h o r t l y b e f o r e d e f e n d a n t ' s apprehension and arrest whose g e n e r a l d e s c r i p - t i o n matched d e f e n d a n t ' s. Evidence t h a t t h e merchandise found i n d e f e n d a n t f s p o s s e s s i o n came from t h e store r a t h e r t h a n from d e f e n d a n t ' s car is found i n t h e t e s t i m o n y of Robert B o u l t e r t h a t t h e g r e a s e p e n c i l p r i c e marking on t h e Snap-E-Tom tomato cock- t a i l s appeared to be t h e same as t h o s e i n t h e s t o r e ; t h e f a c t t h a t f i v e packs of Camel f i l t e r c i g a r e t t e s were found among t h e merchandise s t u f f e d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s s h i r t and none of t h e f i v e p e r s o n s t r a v e l i n g i n h i s car smoked t h a t brand; and t h e i m p l a u s i b i l i t y of d e f e n d a n t ' s e x p l a n a t i o n of h i s p o s s e s s i o n of t h e a r t i c l e s . T h i s is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e crime o f b u r g l a r y . The i s s u e of s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e b o i l e d down t o t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s vis-a-vis t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s testimony. The j u r y by its v e r d i c t r e s o l v e d t h i s c o n f l i c t i n f a v o r of t h e S t a t e . Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e q u a l i t y of t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e is i n s u f f i c i e n t to meet t h e s t a n d a r d of s u f f i c i e n c y i n Jackson v. V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 443 U.S. 307r 99 S.Ct. 2781r 6 1 L.Ed.2d 560. W e d i s a g r e e . Jackson states t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d i n t h i s language: " . . . t h e r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n is whether, a f t e r viewing t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , any r a t i o n a l trier of f a c t - c o u l d have found t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt ." J a c k s o n , s u p r a , 443 U.S. a t 319, 99 S.Ct. a t 2789, 6 1 L.Ed.2d a t 573. W e f i n d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e meets t h i s s t a n d a r d . Although t h e d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e testimony of t h e o f f i c e r s con- c e r n i n g h i s o b s e r v a t i o n of a person i n t h e g a r a g e p o r t i o n of t h e s t o r e b u i l d i n g s h o r t l y b e f o r e d e f e n d a n t ' s apprehension is unworthy of b e l i e f and t h a t missing t o o l s from t h e g a r a g e were n e v e r r e c o v e r e d , t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s i n no way p r e v e n t any r a t i o n a l j u r o r from concluding t h a t d e f e n d a n t u n l a w f u l l y e n t e r e d t h e Snake Eyes S t o r e w i t h t h e i n t e n t of committing the£ t t h e r e i n . Af f irmed . ----------- 3 -kg -- p a , ----- --------- 4-- Chief ust tic-e 1 W e concur: