Title: STATE v BEAUDETTE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13039
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 26, 1976

NO. 13039 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T (IF THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 THE STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - BRYON P A U L BEAUDETTE, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Perry 3. Moore argued and Robert J o Rice appeared, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John F. North, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: October 14, 1976 Decided: NO\/261976 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an appeal from a jury v e r d i c t entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County. O n December 31, 1974, two men robbed t h e Oakes Bar i n Bozeman, Montana. The men wore stocking caps and s k i masks throughout t h e robbery. The t a l l e r of t h e two men with a gun i n h i s l e f t hand controlled t h e robbery, while t h e o t h e r man remained near t h e back of t h e bar i n t h e shadows, a l s o armed with a gun. The s h o r t e r man was r e f e r r e d t o as "Michael" by t h e t a l l e r man. The owner described t h e taller man a s 5'10" t o 6' t a l l , 185-220 l b s , brown, shoulder length h a i r , wearing g l a s s e s , a blue o r green down jacket, and a stocking cap. The two men l e f t through t h e r e a r door a f t e r t h e robbery. A t about t h i s t i m e a man o u t s i d e t h e Oakes Bar observed two men, one carrying a gun, run o u t t h e r e a r door of t h e Oakes Bar and e n t e r a brown GM type c a r with a white top, having no r e a r l i c e n s e p l a t e . This witness was joined s h o r t l y by t h e owner of t h e Oakes, whereupon they watched t h i s car proceed i n an e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n . The p o l i c e were n o t i f i e d and an a l l p o i n t s b u l l e t i n was issued giving a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e c a r and t h e two robbers. Shortly t h e r e a f t e r , a brown GM type automobile with a white top, bearing no l i c e n s e p l a t e s w a s stopped east of Bozeman. Three men were i n t h e c a r , Gary Radi, John Michael Miner, and defendant, Byron Paul Beaudette. Defendant was 6'1" t a l l , weighed 220 l b s . , had long brown h a i r , and wore g l a s s e s . I n t h e back seat of t h e c a r w a s a blue down jacket, l a t e r worn by Beaudette when questioned i n Livingston. O n January 2 , 1975, t h e owner of t h e Oakes B a r , t h r e e patrons present during t h e robbery, and t h e witness who observed t h e get-away car w e r e asked t o make a photographic i d e n t i f i - c a t i o n . One a t a t i m e t h e s e witnesses were asked t o look a t t h r e e p i c t u r e s , and were t o l d t h a t a l l t h r e e men w e r e suspects. The owner and one patron s e l e c t e d Beaudette as t h e t a l l e r robber. The o t h e r witnesses were unable t o make any i d e n t i f i - c a t i o n whatsoever. A t t r i a l , t h e prosecution presented evidence of t h e p r e t r i a l photographic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of defendant, a s w e l l a s a p o s i t i v e in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by t h e owner, and a t e n t a t i v e in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by one patron. A t t h e t i m e of t h e in- c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , defendant was n o t seated a t t h e defense counsel t a b l e , b u t i n t h e f o u r t h row of t h e s p e c t a t o r p o r t i o n of t h e courtroom. Defendant w a s convicted by t h e jury and sen- tenced t o 40 years i n prison. Defendant now appeals t h a t judgment r a i s i n g a s i n g l e issue: Whether t h e conviction r e s u l t e d from photographic i d e n t i f - i c a t i o n procedure t h a t w a s s o impermissibly suggestive a s t o give rise t o a very s u b s t a n t i a l l i k e l i h o o d of i r r e p a r a b l e m i s i d e n t i f i - c a t i o n ? Leading United S t a t e s Supreme Court c a s e s d e a l i n g with p r e t r i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n procedures and subsequent in-court i d e n t i f i - c a t i o n s a r e S t o v a l l v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S e c t . 1967, 18 L ed 2d 1199; Simmons v. United S t a t e s , 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L ed 2d 1247, 1253; Foster v. C a l i f o r n i a , 394 U.S. 4 4 0 , 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L ed 2d 402; and N e i l v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 196, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L ed 2d 401, 410. I n N e i l t h e r e is dictum t h a t t h e r e are two d i s t i n c t tests, a more s t r i n g e n t one r e q u i r i n g i n a d m i s s i b i l i t y of evidence of p r e t r i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and a more l e n i e n t one applied t o cases such a s Simmons, where only an in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s r e l i e d upon. A thorough a n a l y s i s from S t o v a l l through N e i l is provided by Justice Friendly in Brathwaite v. Manson, 527 F.2d 363 (2nd Cir. 1975). As Justice Friendly points out, there is sound policy to require inadmissibility of evidence of an im- permissibly suggestive pretrial identification, since more probative value is often times given to such than an in-court identification. The reason is that the pretrial identification is usually made immediately after the crime, when it is still fresh in the minds of the witnesses, and such identification is not subject to cross-examination as is the in-court identifi- cation. However, in this case we are confined to the admissi- bility of the in-court identification, since defendant did not object to the pretrial photographic evidence, and his proposed instruction questioned only the reliability of the in-court identification. Therefore, we must apply the appropriate test for those cases where the prosecution relies solely upon an in- court identification, as mandated by Neil, citing Simmons: " ' * * * we hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identifications at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.'" (Emphasis supplied.) The photographic identification procedure used here (only 3 pictures presented, and each witness informed that such pictures were of the robbery suspects) cannot be praised by this Court, since it was somewhat suggestive. However, considering the entire record, such procedure was not so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable mis- identification in court (at which time defendant was not seated at the defense counsel table, but in the fourth row of the spec- tator portion of the courtroom). What does appear from the record is t h a t t h e r e a r e , s i m i l a r t o S t a t e v. Borchert, 156 Mont. 315, 319, 479 P.2d 454, s u f f i c i e n t m a t e r i a l f a c t s , o t h e r than t h e in- c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , t o support t h i s conviction. Two men robbed t h e Oakes Bar, t h e taller of t h e two held a gun i n h i s l e f t hand, wore a blue o r green down jacket, and was described a s 6 ' t a l l , 185-220 pounds, wore g l a s s e s , and had brown shoulder l e n g t h h a i r . The two men g o t i n t o a brown GM type c a r with a white top, without r e a r l i c e n s e p l a t e s and headed e a s t . Shortly t h e r e a f t e r , a brown GM type c a r , with a white t o p and no l i c e n s e p l a t e s i n which defendant w a s r i d i n g w a s stopped e a s t of Bozeman. A t t h i s t i m e defendant was 6'1" t a l l , weighed 220 l b s . , had long brown h a i r , wore g l a s s e s , and w a s left-handed. Also t h e r e was a blue down c o a t on t h e back s e a t of t h e c a r which was worn by defendant l a t e r i n Livingston. During t h e robbery, t h e taller man r e f e r r e d t o t h e s h o r t e r one a s "Michael". Also i n t h e c a r was John Michael Miner, sometimes r e f e r r e d t o a s "Mike" by f r i e n d s . The witness who observed t h e get-away c a r , t e s t i f i e d t h i s c a r w a s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e one he saw leave from t h e back of t h e Oakes. When t h e c a r was stopped, a highway patrolman observed a box p a r t i a l l y under t h e f r o n t seat. When t h e c a r was searched i n Livingston, t h e box was missing. Furthermore, a second eye- witness made a t e n t a t i v e in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Where t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , t h i s Court w i l l n o t reverse. S t a t e v. Miner, Mont . The judgmen Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: --- Hon. Robert ~ / ' % ~ k e s , D i s t r i c t /' Judge, s i t t i f i g i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s .