Title: STATE v VAN NATTA
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-189
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: September 23, 1982

No. 81-189 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1982 STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS. VERNON L. VAN NATTA a/k/a JOHN SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. F&(ifi Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e 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 Cascade Honorable H. William Coder, Judqe presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Karl Nagel, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : April 1, 1982 Decided: September 2 3 , 1982 Filed: SEP 2 3 1982 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Def e n d a n t - a p p e l l a n t was a r r e s t e d and charged w i t h t w o c o u n t s of f e l o n y b u r g l a r y and two c o u n t s of f e l o n y t h e f t . Following a r a s h of i n c i d e n t s i n Cascade County and L e w i s and C l a r k County on November 16, 1980, and November 17, 1980. On February 24, 1981, a j u r y v e r d i c t found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y on a l l f o u r c o u n t s . Defendant a p p e a l s from t h i s c o n v i c t i o n . I n t h e e a r l y morning h o u r s of November 17, 1980, t h r e e b a r s i n t h e Cascade-Wolf Creek area were b u r g l a r i z e d . P r i o r to t h e b u r g l a r i e s , on November 16 1980 , J a c k Pachek r e p o r t e d someone s t o l e h i s l a t e model p i c k u p t r u c k . The t r u c k , a 1977 two-tone b l u e and w h i t e Ford c l u b cab was s t o l e n w h i l e parked i n f r o n t of Pachek' s b u s i n e s s l o c a t e d i n G r e a t F a l l s . The f i r s t break-in took p l a c e a t t h e U l m B a r i n U l m , Montana. The i n t r u d e r f i r s t attempted t o e n t e r t h e b a r by removing p i e c e s o f t h e window frame on t h e f r o n t d o o r . When t h i s a t t e m p t proved u n s u c c e s s f u l , e n t r a n c e was gained by breaking i n t o a r e s i d e n c e owned by Frank B a l l which l i e s a d j a c e n t to t h e b a r . E a r l y i n t h e morning o f November 1 7 , 1982, Ron B a l l was awakened by a n i n t r u d e r . When Ron looked down t h e hallway of t h e house he observed an i n d i v i d u a l , who he l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as t h e d e f e n d a n t , removing guns from t h e gun room. Ron watched a s t h e d e f e n d a n t removed t h e guns, proceeded down a hallway and l e f t through a g a r a g e d o o r . Frank B a l l l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d t h e s t o l e n guns as an o l d Winchester Model 70 r i f l e , a 12-gauge s h o t g u n , a 10-gauge s h o t g u n , a 300 Savage and a Remington 22-250. Frank B a l l , who was n o t p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e robbery, also noted t h a t s e v e r a l i t e m s had been s t o l e n from t h e b a r a d j a c e n t t o t h e r e s i d e n c e i n c l u d i n g a stamp machine, a s a d d l e , a c a s e of R a i n i e r b e e r and approxi- m a t e l y $40 from t h e jukebox. A second break-in o c c u r r e d i n t h e e a r l y morning h o u r s of November 1 7 , 1980, a t t h e Mountain P a l a c e B a r , t h i r t e e n miles s o u t h of Cascade, Montana. A t t h e Mountain P a l a c e Bar t h e i n t r u d e r gained e n t r y by p r y i n g loose t h e wooden s t r i p s of a win- dow frame, removing t h e window and t h e n reaching through and unlocking t h e d o o r . A f t e r unplugging t h e b u r g l a r alarm, t h e i n t r u d e r removed a case of Olympia b e e r from t h e c o o l e r and a p p r o x i m a t e l y $300 to $500 from t h e jukebox. A t h i r d break-in o c c u r r e d i n t h e e a r l y morning of November 1 7 , 1980, a t t h e C r a i g B a r i n C r a i g , Montana. A t t h e C r a i g B a r t h e i n t r u d e r gained e n t r a n c e by removing t h e p i n s of t h e h i n g e s o f t h e f r o n t d o o r . S e v e r a l items were s t o l e n from t h e b a r i n c l u d i n g t h e money i n t h e jukebox, some Lucky Lager b e e r , and a b o t t l e of Seagram's Seven whisky. A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1:30 a.m. t o 2:00 a.m. on November 17, 1980, E l m e r L i n d q u i s t observed someone matching t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t p a r k a b l u e p i c k u p t r u c k o u t s i d e h i s house l o c a t e d n e a r Cascade, Montana. When L i n d q u i s t made a n o i s e i n t h e house, t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e t u r n e d t o t h e t r u c k and drove to t h e highway. L i n d q u i s t went o u t s i d e and noted a s i z e L-78 b y 1 5 Goodrich t i r e mounted on a cream c o l o r e d wheel had been s t o l e n from t h e bed of h i s pickup. On t h e a f t e r n o o n of November 1 7 , 1980, John S t r a n d e l , a d e p u t y s h e r i f f i n Cascade County, w a s d r i v i n g to G r e a t F a l l s on I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 t o do follow-up r e p o r t s on t h e U l m and Mountain P a l a c e b r e a k - i n s . On t h e way, S t r a n d e l observed a highway p a t r o l m a n parked behind a Ford c l u b cab pickup. The p r e v i o u s n i g h t S t r a n d e l had observed a similar p i c k u p parked w e s t of Cascade on S t . P e t e r ' s Mission Road a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4:00 a . m . S t r a n d e l stopped t o i n v e s t i g a t e and l e a r n e d from Highway P a t r o l m a n , L a r r y S t r i c k l a n d , t h a t t h e t r u c k had been s t o l e n from Great F a l l s . On t h e s o u t h s i d e of t h e pickup, i n t h e d i t c h , S t r a n d e l found s i x cans of Olympia b e e r , one can of R a i n i e r b e e r , t h r e e c a n s of Lucky Lager b e e r and one Seagram's Seven whisky b o t t l e . Lying on t h e pavement n e x t to t h e p a s s e n g e r door of t h e p i c k u p S t r a n d e l found on 12-gauge Remington shotgun s h e l l , and one 10-gauge Remington shotgun s h e l l . S t r a n d e l t h e n searched a n a r e a a few y a r d s from t h e d i t c h where he f i r s t found t h e b e e r and found a stamp machine a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i f t y y a r d s away from t h e p i c k u p . Approximately t e n y a r d s e a s t of t h e stamp machine, S t r a n d e l found s i x r i f l e s l a i d side-by-side i n t h e g r a s s . Five of t h e r i f l e s were later i d e n t i f i e d as t h o s e taken from t h e B a l l r e s i d e n c e i n U l m and t h e stamp machine was i d e n t i f i e d as t h a t t a k e n from t h e U l m Bar. I n t h e back of t h e t r u c k S t r a n d e l found a B.F. Goodrich tire and wheel l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as belonging to E l m e r L i n d q u i s t , The s i x t h r i f l e was later i d e n t i f i e d as a .22 c a l i b e r r i f l e which had been s t o l e n from a house i n Craig on November 1 7 , 1980. On t h e morning of November 17, 1980, a man l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s t h e d e f e n d a n t r e g i s t e r e d f o r a room a t t h e Belmont Hotel i n G r e a t F a l l s under t h e name of J i m Todd. The i n d i v i d u a l paid f o r h i s room w i t h £ i f t y - c e n t p i e c e s . On November 17 and 18 , 1980 , a man l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as t h e d e f e n d a n t , e n t e r e d t h e Town Tavern a p p r o x i m a t e l y one and one-half b l o c k s from t h e Belmont Hotel. On November 1 7 , t h e man s p e n t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $40 i n t h e b a r and paid f o r a l l h i s d r i n k s w i t h f i f ty-cent p i e c e s . On November 18 , 1980, t h e man r e t u r n e d and a g a i n p a i d f o r a l l of h i s d r i n k s w i t h f i f t y - c e n t p i e c e s . On November 20, 1980, d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d and charged w i t h b u r g l a r y and the£ t . Defendant r e f used to i d e n t i f y himself e x c e p t a s "John Smith." An FBI check later r e v e a l e d h i s t r u e name of Vernon Leroy Van Natta. I n i t i a l l y , d e f e n d a n t was charged by i n f o r m a t i o n of Count I: Felony T h e f t , a r i s i n g o u t of t h e the£ t of P a c h e k ' s pickup; Count 11: B u r g l a r y , a r i s i n g o u t of d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g e d break-in a t t h e U l m B a r ; Count 111: Felony T h e f t , a r i s i n g o u t of d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g e d break-in a t t h e Craig B a r ; and Count I V : B u r g l a r y , a r i s i n g o u t of t h e break-in a t t h e Mountain P a l a c e Bar. On February 11, 1981, r e s p o n d e n t s e n t n o t i c e to d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h a t t h e county a t t o r n e y intended to amend t h e in£ o r m a t i o n . Respondent moved t o amend t h e in£ o r m a t i o n by s u b s t i t u t i n g t h e the£ t of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a t t h e U l m B a r i n t h e p l a c e of t h e break-in a t t h e C r a i g B a r . The motion was g r a n t e d by t h e District Court on February 1 7 , 1981. On February 1 9 , 1981, d e f e n d a n t was r e a r r a i g n e d and pled n o t g u i l t y to a l l f o u r c o u n t s . Up u n t i l February 1 9 , 1981, d e f e n d a n t r e f u s e d to c o o p e r a t e w i t h d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . On t h a t day, d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t e d t h e District Court to a p p o i n t o t h e r d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . H i s r e q u e s t was d e n i e d . On February 20, 1981, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion to c o n t i n u e t h e t r i a l d a t e set f o r February 23, 1981, on t h e grounds t h a t d e f e n d a n t was now r e a d y to c o o p e r a t e w i t h d e f e n s e c o u n s e l and more t i m e was n e c e s s a r y to p r e p a r e f o r t r i a l . Immediately p r i o r to t r i a l , on February 23, 1981, t h e District Court denied d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o c o n t i n u e . The D i s t r i c t Court a l s o denied d e f e n d a n t ' s motion i n l i m i n e to e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e of similar crimes committed on t h e same d a t e as t h e crimes w i t h which defen- d a n t was a l r e a d y charged. On February 24, 1981, a j u r y v e r d i c t found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y on a l l f o u r c o u n t s . Defendant a p p e a l s from t h i s c o n v i c t i o n . The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r review are: 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by a d m i t t i n g e v i d e n c e of crimes similar to t h o s e w i t h which d e f e n d a n t was charged? 2. Whether t h e District Court e r r e d by denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o c o n t i n u e t h e t r i a l ? Rule 4 0 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid. d e f i n e s t h e r u l e on t h e a d m i s s i o n of o t h e r crimes evidence as f o l l o w s : "Evidence of o t h e r crimes, wrongs, or a c t s is n o t a d m i s s i b l e to prove t h e c h a r a c t e r of a p e r s o n i n o r d e r t o show t h a t he a c t e d i n con- f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h . It may, however, be a d m i s s i b l e f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s , such as proof o f motive, o p p o r t u n i t y , i n t e n t , p r e p a r a t i o n , p l a n , knowledge, i d e n t i t y , or absence of m i s t a k e o r a c c i d e n t . " Rule 4 0 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) Mont.R.Evid., i n c o r p o r a t e s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t e v i d e n c e of o t h e r crimes is n o t a d m i s s i b l e to show d e f e n d a n t com- m i t t e d a p a r t i c u l a r crime as charged. S t a t e v. Casagranda (1981) - Mont . , 637 P.2d 826, 38 St.Rep. 2122; S t a t e v. Hanson ( 1980 ) , ---- Mont . , 608 P.2d 1083, 37 St.Rep. 657. Rule 4 0 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) a l s o states t h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e . These e x c e p t i o n s are governed by t h e g u i d e l i n e s set o u t i n S t a t e v. J u s t ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - -- - . - . Mont . I 602 P.2d 957, 36 St.Rep. 1649 : "There emerges a four-element t e s t to d e t e r - mine t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of e v i d e n c e of o t h e r crimes or acts c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s such a s t h e one h e r e . The f i r s t t h r e e of t h e s e ele- ments were i d e n t i f i e d i n S t a t e v. J e n s e n , 1 5 3 Mont. a t 239, 455 P.2d a t 634; t h e f o u r t h is based on Rule 403, Mont.R.Evid. The f o u r h&e a r e : -Pc,Ct"P: 1 - " 1 . S i m i l a r i t y of crimes o r acts; " 2 . Nearness i n t i m e ; and " 3 . Tendency t o e s t a b l i s h a common scheme p l a n o r system; - and "4. The p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e evidence is n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed by t h e p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . " 602 P.2d a t 961. T h i s four-element test h a s been followed and a p p l i e d i n S t a t e v . Wurtz ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mon t . -- - , 636 P.2d 246, 38 St.Rep. 1808; S t a t e v. Brubaker (1981) , - - -- .- Mont . ---- 1 625 P.2d 78, 38 St.Rep. 432; and S t a t e v. Case ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - - Mon t . , 6 2 1 P.2d 1066, 37 St.Rep. 2057. When w e a p p l y t h e f o u r - p a r t t e s t to t h e f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t case w e f i n d t h e e v i d e n c e of t h e C r a i g break-in was a d m i s s i b l e . F i r s t , t h e break-ins a t a l l t h r e e b a r s were similar. A t each o f t h e t h r e e break-ins t h e i n t r u d e r gained e n t r a n c e by prying open a door or window. A l s o , a t each of t h e t h r e e b a r s t h e i n t r u d e r broke i n t o and s t o l e t h e change from t h e jukebox and stole some b e e r or o t h e r a l c o h o l . Second, a l l t h r e e break-ins o c c u r r e d some t i m e d u r i n g t h e e a r l y morning hours of November 1 7 , 1980. The d i s t a n c e between U l m and C r a i g , Montana, is a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h i r t y m i l e s . The Mountain P a l a c e b a r is between U l m and C r a i g . C e r t a i n l y , t h e fac- tors of t i m i n g and l o c a t i o n i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t h r e e break-ins were t h e work of t h e same p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s . T h i r d , t h e p a t t e r n of t h e t h r e e break-ins do e s t a b l i s h a com- mon scheme, p l a n or system. A s s t a t e d above , t h e methods of break-in were similar, similar items were taken and a l l t h r e e b r e a k - i n s o c c u r r e d i n t h e same t i m e frame w i t h i n t h i r t y miles of each o t h e r . A s a l l t h r e e b a r s a r e connected by I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 , t h e f a c t s i n d i c a t e t h e t h r e e break-ins were e f f e c t u a t e d p u r s u a n t t o a common scheme, p l a n o r system. F o u r t h , t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e evidence is not substan- t i a l l y outweighed by p r e j u d i c e to t h e d e f e n d a n t . The a d m i s s i o n p r o v i d e d c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e which e x p l a i n e d t h e f i n d i n g of t h e Lucky Lager b e e r and t h e Seagram's Seven whisky b o t t l e w i t h t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e found a t o r n e a r P a c h e k ' s s t o l e n pickup t r u c k . Here t h e evidence was n o t admitted m e r e l y to impugn d e f e n d a n t ' s c h a r a c t e r . The evidence w a s admitted f o r t h e purpose of showing a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c method, p l a n o r scheme used i n t h e commission of t h e o f f e n s e or f o r t h e purpose of i d e n t i f y i n g t h e p e r s o n who committed t h e o f f e n s e and t h e j u r y w a s so informed. I n - - J u s t , s u p r a , t h i s Court h e l d a l t h o u g h o t h e r crime e v i d e n c e may be a d m i s s i b l e p e r t h e above c r i t e r i a , it w i l l n o t be admitted u n l e s s t h e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e is followed. T h a t p r o c e d u r e is: " ( a ) Evidence of o t h e r crimes may n o t be r e c e i v e d u n l e s s t h e r e has been n o t i c e to t h e d e f e n d a n t t h a t such e v i d e n c e is to be i n t r o - duced. The p r o c e d u r e s set f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 46-18-503, MCA, should s e r v e as g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e form and c o n t e n t of such n o t i c e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e n o t i c e to t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a l l i n c l u d e a s t a t e m e n t as to t h e purposes f o r which such e v i d e n c e is to be a d m i t t e d . "(b) A t t h e time of t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of such e v i d e n c e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l e x p l a i n to t h e j u r y t h e purpose of such e v i d e n c e and s h a l l admonish it to weigh t h e e v i d e n c e o n l y f o r s u c h purposes. " ( c ) I n its f i n a l c h a r g e , t h e c o u r t should i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y i n unequivocal terms t h a t s u c h e v i d e n c e was r e c e i v e d o n l y f o r t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e s earlier s t a t e d and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t is n o t being t r i e d and may not be c o n v i c t e d f o r any o f f e n s e e x c e p t t h a t c h a r g e d , warning them t h a t t o c o n v i c t f o r o t h e r of- f e n s e s may r e s u l t i n u n j u s t double punishment." 602 P.2d a t 963. Again, w e f i n d t h e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e was followed i n t h e p r e s e n t case. The f i r s t requirement is t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t have n o t i c e of t h e i n t e n t t o i n t r o d u c e o t h e r crime e v i d e n c e . Respondent d i d g i v e d e f e n d a n t n o t i c e of its i n t e n t a s is r e f l e c t e d by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e motion i n l i m i n e , " [ y l o u r h o n o r , t h e S t a t e h a s g i v e n n o t i c e t h a t they i n t e n d to i n t r o d u c e evidence of o t h e r crimes committed approxi- m a t e l y t h e same d a t e as t h e crimes w i t h which M r . Van Natta is charged. " The second and t h i r d r e q u i r e m e n t s are t h a t t h e j u r y must be p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e is o n l y r e c e i v e d f o r a l i m i t e d p u r p o s e , what t h a t purpose is, and t h a t the d e f e n d a n t is n o t being t r i e d f o r t h e o t h e r o f f e n s e s . Here t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y as f o l l o w s : " L a d i e s and gentlemen of t h e j u r y , e v i d e n c e is about t o be i n t r o d u c e d f o r t h e purpose of showing t h e d e f e n d a n t committed crimes o t h e r t h a n t h e ones f o r which he is on t r i a l . You may n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s evidence to prove t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t is a p e r s o n of bad c h a r a c t e r , o r t h a t he h a s a d i s p o s i t i o n to c o m m i t crimes. You may o n l y c o n s i d e r t h i s e v i d e n c e f o r t h e l i m i t e d purposes of p r o v i d i n g a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c method, p l a n o r scheme used i n t h e commission o f t h e o f f e n s e i n t h i s case, o r t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e p e r s o n who committed t h e o f f e n s e . You may a l s o c o n s i d e r t h i s e v i d e n c e to prove e x i s t a n c e of i n t e n t , which is an element of t h e crime charged. You may n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s e v i d e n c e f o r any o t h e r purpose t h a t would expose t h e d e f e n d a n t to u n j u s t double punishment." T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s a t i s f i e s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s t h i s Court p u t f o r t h i n J u s t , s u p r a . -- Defendant a r g u e s t h e District Court e r r e d by denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o c o n t i n u e t h e t r i a l d a t e . D e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e states, " [clomes now t h e d e f e n d a n t . . . and moves t h e Court f o r an o r d e r c o n t i n u i n g t h e t r i a l i n t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d matter f o r t h e reason t h a t up to t h e d a t e of t h i s motion, t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s r e f u s e d to d i s c u s s t h e case or c o o p e r a t e w i t h h i s c o u n s e l . The d e f e n d a n t h a s i n d i c a t e d on t h e d a t e of t h i s motion t h a t he w i l l c o o p e r a t e w i t h h i s c o u n s e l . T h e r e f o r e , c o u n s e l w i l l r e q u i r e t i m e to p r e p a r e f o r t r i a l and t h e two days between t h e d a t e of t h i s motion, and t h e d a t e set f o r t r i a l is i n s u f f i c i e n t t i m e f o r such p r e p a r a t i o n . " The motion is d a t e d F e b r u a r y 2 0 , 1981. Defendant was a r r e s t e d and charged on November 20, 1980. Up u n t i l t h e d a t e of t h e motion f o r con- t i n u a n c e d e f e n d a n t r e f u s e d t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . Before a motion f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e is g r a n t e d , t h e movant must show t h a t he has employed due d i l i g e n c e to p r o c u r e t h a t which he now r e q u e s t s a d d i t i o n a l t i m e to p r o c u r e . S t a t e v. Klemann (1981) 1 Mont . , 634 P.2d 632, 38 St.Rep. 1627. Here t h e r e c o r d shows d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t employ due d i l i g e n c e to c o o p e r a t e w i t h d e f e n s e counsel b e f o r e t h e motion and t h u s t h e t r i a l c o u r t was correct i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion. Motions f o r con- t i n u a n c e are addressed to t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e g r a n t i n g of a c o n t i n u a n c e has never been a matter of r i g h t . The District Court cannot be o v e r t u r n e d on a p p e a l i n absense of a showing of p r e j u d i c e t o t h e movant. S t a t e v. Kirkland (1979) , - -- . . - . - Mont . - - -- - - , 602 P.2d 586, 36 St.Rep. 1963. On a p p e a l d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h e c o n t i n u a n c e should have been g r a n t e d because t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was amended on February 1 7 , 1981, and t h e t r i a l d a t e was February 23, 1981. W e n o t e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t make t h i s o b j e c t i o n i n h i s motion f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e . A s i m i - l a r s i t u a t i o n arose i n S t a t e v. Olson (1980 ), Mont . I 614 P.2d 1061, 37 St.Rep. 1313, where t h i s Court r u l e d s i n c e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s were based on t h e same set of f a c t s and because t h e c h a r g e s involved were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , t h e r e was no p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t when t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was amended. Here t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n w a s based on t h e same set of f a c t s and t h e r e was no p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , Judgment is a f f i r m e d . W e concur: '" J u s t i c e Shea d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s d e c i s i o n .