Title: STATE v SHAW
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-006
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 15, 1982

No. 82-06 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. DENNY DEAN SHAW, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, In and for the County of McCone Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Francis J. McCarvel, Glasgow, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Arnie A. Hove, County Attorney, Circle, Montana Submitted on briefs: April 29, 1982 Decided: July 15, 1982 Mr. Chief J 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 Court. The defendant was found g u i l t y of felorly t h e f t f o l - lowing a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e McCone County D i s t r i c t Court. The d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l . A t t h e t r i a l , Jacque K u t z l e r and James Norwood, who a l l e g e d l y had been with t h e defendant a t t h e time t h e crime was committed, t e s t i f i e d f o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . They s t a t e d t h a t they had accompanied t h e defendant i n h i s Suburban from Glendive, Montana, t o C i r c l e , Montana, on t h e evening of March 2 , 1981, and t h a t t h e t h r e e of them were a t t h e T r a v e l l e r ' s Inn i n C i r c l e from about 10:00 p.m. u n t i l t h e bar c l o s e d a t about 2:00 a.m. They t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e t h r e e of them t h e n v i s i t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e s t a y i n g u n t i l about 4:00 a.m. and t h a t they then proceeded t o t h e Vets Club where t h e d e f e n d a n t and Norwood broke i n t o t h e b u i l d i n g and s t o l e cash and merchandise. K u t z l e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d , over t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s objec- t i o n s , regarding t h r e a t s a l l e g e d l y made a g a i n s t h e r by t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e t r i a l . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e t e s t i f i e d , a l s o o v e r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n s , r e g a r d i n g a v i s i t s h e r e c e i v e d from t h e d e f e n d a n t , Kutzler and Norwood on t h e n i g h t of t h e t h e f t . The S t a t e a l s o introduced evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e t i r e t r a c k s found o u t s i d e t h e door t o t h e Vets Club matched t h e t r a c k s made by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s Suburban. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e was evidence t h a t t h e defendant was f a m i l i a r with t h e l a y o u t of t h e Vets Club a s he had done e l e c t r i c a l work a t t h e bar four o r f i v e y e a r s p r i o r t o t h e t h e f t . The d e f e n d a n t ' s testimony d i f f e r e d from t h a t g i v e n by K u t z l e r and Norwood. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he drove from Glendive t o C i r c l e a l o n e i n h i s E l Camino and t h a t Norwood and K u t z l e r had borrowed h i s Suburban t h a t n i g h t . He admitted meeting Norwood and Kutzler a t t h e T r a v e l l e r ' s Inn and proceeding with them t o h i s w i f e ' s house a f t e r l e a v i n g t h e b a r , b u t he c l a i m s t h a t t h e t h r e e p a r t e d company a f t e r t h e y l e f t h i s w i f e ' s house. He s t a t e d t h a t he knew nothing about t h e t h e f t . Ron Hedstrom t e s t i f i e d f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s t a t i n y t h a t t h e defendant d i d have h i s E l Camino i n C i r c l e t h a t n i g h t . However, t h e r e was a l s o evidence t o t h e c o n t r a r y . The p o l i c e o f f i c e r who had been on d u t y t h e n i g h t of t h e t h e f t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he saw t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s Suburban i n C i r c l e t h a t n i g h t b u t he d i d n o t s e e t h e E l Camino. Three issues a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r review: 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n allowing t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s wife t o t e s t i f y ? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n allowing w i t n e s s K u t z l e r t o t e s t i f y a s t o t h r e a t s a l l e g e d l y made by t h e d e f e n d a n t ? 3. Was s u f f i c i e n t independent evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h e accomplice testimony? The d e f e n d a n t contends t h a t i t was p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r t o a l l o w h i s wife t o t e s t i f y . T h i s i s s u e was r e c e n t l y addressed i n S t a t e v. Roberts ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , 633 P.2d 1214, 38 St.Rep. 1551. I n t h a t c a s e we s t a t e d t h a t under Montana law i f t h e d e f e n d a n t is married a t t h e time of t r i a l , t h e spouse is incompetent t o t e s t i f y e i t h e r f o r o r 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 t o c e r t a i n e x c e p t i o n s which a r e not a p p l i c a b l e here. S e c t i o n 46-16-212, MCA; S t a t e v. Roberts, s u p r a . T h i s Court went on t o hold t h a t t h e e r r o r i n allowing t h e spouse t o t e s t i f y was harmless i n t h a t c a s e because t h e s p o u s e ' s testimony was e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s , W e have a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n h e r e , and we f i n d t h a t t h e e r r o r i n t h i s c a s e was a l s o harmless, The e n t i r e testimony g i v e n by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s wife is s e t f o r t h below: "Q. What is your name and a d d r e s s f o r t h e r e c o r d , p l e a s e ? A. Anne Shaw, C i r c l e , Montana, "Q. What is your occupation? A. N u r s e ' s a i d e . "Q. What is your a f f i l i a t i o n -- what is your r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e d e f e n d a n t , Denny Dean Shaw? A. I ' m h i s wife. "Q. Where were you i n t h e e a r l y morning of March 3 , 1981? A. A t m y home i n bed. "Q. Were you awakened i n t h e e a r l y morning hours? A. Yes. "Q. Can you remember about what time you were awakened? A. A t 2:35. "Q. Who awoke you? A. Denny. . Who were t h o s e -- were t h e r e any people w i t h Denny? A. Yes, t h e r e were, "Q. Can you r e c a l l who t h e s e people were? A, There was a g i r l named J a c k i e and a boy named Jamie. "Q. Did you t a l k with t h e s e people? A. A l i t t l e b i t . " Q . About what time d i d t h e s e people l e a v e ? A. Ten t o f o u r , "Q. D o you remember t h e o r d e r i n which t h e s e people l e f t ? A. Yes. "Q. Could you g i v e me t h a t o r d e r ? A. J a c k i e and then Denny and then Jamie. "Q, How many minutes a p a r t would t h a t be? A. Two o r t h r e e minutes." The defendant himself t e s t i f i e d t h a t he went t o h i s w i f e ' s house with Norwood and K u t z l e r about 2:30 and s t a y e d u n t i l j u s t about 4:00. He went on t o s t a t e t h a t J a c k i e l e f t f i r s t , then he l e f t and went o u t t o t h e porch, and t h e n Jamie l e f t , and t h e n he went back i n t h e house j u s t long enough t o pick up some p a n t s . Since t h e testimony g i v e n by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e was e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s , t h e e r r o r was c l e a r l y n o t p r e j u d i c i a l . The n e x t i s s u e is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g w i t n e s s K u t z l e r t o t e s t i f y r e g a r d i n g t h r e a t s a l l e g e d l y made by t h e defendant. The defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h i s testimony was evidence of o t h e r c r i m e s , wrongs o r a c t s and a s such was i n a d m i s s i b l e under Rule 4 0 4 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid. The defendant f u r t h e r contends t h a t even i f t h i s Court were t o f i n d t h a t t h e evidence is a d m i s s i b l e under Rule 4 8 4 ( b ) , Mont .R.Evid., t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n e v e r t h e l e s s e r r e d i n allowing t h e evidence t o be introduced when t h e p r o c e d u r a l s a f e g u a r d s e s t a b l i s h e d i n S t a t e v. J u s t ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. , 602 P.2d 957, 36 St.Rep. 1649, were n o t followed. The s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n p r o v i d e s a s follows: "Evidence of o t h e r crimes, wrongs, o r a c t s is n o t a d m i s s i b l e t o prove t h e c h a r a c t e r of a person i n o r d e r t o show t h a t he a c t e d i n conformity t h e r e w i t h . I t may, however, be a d m i s s i b l e f o r o t h e r purposes, such a s proof of 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 , o r absence of m i s - t a k e o r a c c i d e n t . " Rule 404 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid. The s t a t u t o r y list of purposes f o r which o t h e r crime evidence may be admitted is n o t i n c l u s i v e . S t a t e v. Gone ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 271, 587 P.2d 1291. Such evidence may be admitted t o prove consciousness of g u i l t . S t a t e v. Gone, s u p r a . I n t h i s c a s e t h e testimony regarding t h e t h r e a t s a l l e g e d l y made by t h e defendant t o one of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s key w i t n e s s e s was p r o p e r l y admitted f o r t h a t purpose. " I n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n any attempted i n t i m i d a t i o n of a w i t n e s s is p r o p e r l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o a c o n s c i o u s n e s s of g u i l t and testimony r e l a t i n g t h e r e t o is r e l e v a n t and a d m i s s i b l e i n evidence." People v. Smith ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 3 Ill.App.3d 958, 279 The defendant contends t h a t t h i s evidence should n o t have been admitted because t h e f o u r element t e s t of admissi- b i l i t y e s t a b l i s h e d i n J u s t , s u p r a , was n o t met and t h e mandatory procedural requirements s e t f o r t h i n J u s t were n o t followed. W e d i s a g r e e . Both t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y t e s t and t h e procedural requirements found i n J u s t p e r t a i n t o evidence of o t h e r p r i o r crimes but do n o t apply t o evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g consciousness of g u i l t regarding t h e crime with which t h e d e f e n d a n t is charged. " ' G e n e r a l l y , evidence of o t h e r o f f e n s e s o r of o t h e r s i m i l a r a c t s a t o t h e r t i m e s is inadmis- s i b l e f o r t h e purpose of showing t h e commis- s i o n of t h e p a r t i c u l a r c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e charged. S t a t e v , T a y l o r , 163 Mont. 106, 120, 515 P,2d 695 (1973). The reason is t h a t t h e defendant is e n t i t l e d t o be informed of t h e o f f e n s e charge [ s i c ] s o t h a t he need p r e p a r e h i s d e f e n s e o n l y t o t h a t p a r t i c u l a r o f f e n s e . Proof of o t h e r o f f e n s e s s u b j e c t s him t o s u r p r i s e and t o a d e f e n s e of m u l t i p l e c o l l a t e r a l o r u n r e l a t e d i s s u e s . S t a t e v. J e n s e n , 163 Mont. 233, 455 P.2d 631 (1969) . . . I 11 J u s t , s u p r a , 602 P.2d a t 960, q u o t i n g S t a t e v. Lave ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 401, 571 P.2d 97, 100. P r e s e n t i n g e v i d e n c e of an a t t e m p t e d i n t i m i d a t i o n of a w i t n e s s does n o t i n t e r f e r e with t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o be informed of t h e o f f e n s e charged; such evidence p e r t a i n s t o t h e crime charged by i n d i c a t i n g c o n s c i o u s n e s s of g u i l t . The defendant n e x t a r g u e s t h a t even i f such evidence was r e l e v a n t its p r o b a t i v e v a l u e is s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed by t h e danger of u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e , c o n f u s i o n of t h e i s s u e s o r misleading t h e j u r y and t h e r e f o r e t h e evidence should n o t have been admitted according t o Rule 4P13, Mont.R.Evid. W e d i s a g r e e . The evidence was important a s proof of conscious- n e s s of g u i l t , and its p r o b a t i v e v a l u e outweighs any p r e j u - d i c e t o t h e defendant. T h i s evidence d i d n o t cause confusion of t h e i s s u e s nor d i d i t mislead t h e j u r y . The D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t e r r i n allowing K u t z l e r t o t e s t i f y regarding t h e a l l e g e d t h r e a t s . The l a s t i s s u e is whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t inde- pendent evidence t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h e accomplice testimony. Under Montana law a d e f e n d a n t cannot be c o n v i c t e d of a crime s o l e l y upon t h e testimony of an accomplice. S e c t i o n 46-16- 213, MCA, provides: "A c o n v i c t i o n cannot be had on t h e testimony of one r e s p o n s i b l e o r l e g a l l y a c c o u n t a b l e f o r t h e same o f f e n s e , a s d e f i n e d i n 45-2-301, u n l e s s t h e testimony is c o r r o b o r a t e d by o t h e r evidence which i n i t s e l f and without t h e a i d of t h e testimony of t h e one r e s p o n s i b l e o r l e g a l l y a c c o u n t a b l e f o r t h e same o f f e n s e t e n d s t o connect t h e defendant with t h e com- mission of t h e o f f e n s e . The c o r r o b o r a t i o n is n o t s u f f i c i e n t i f it merely shows t h e commis- s i o n of t h e o f f e n s e o r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e r e o f . " K u t z l e r and Norwood were accomplices of t h e defendant and t h e defendant contends t h a t t h e i r testimony was i n s u f f i - c i e n t l y c o r r o b o r a t e d . hit11 regard t o c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence t h e Court h a s s t a t e d : " I . . . t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence may be s u p p l i e d by t h e defendant o r h i s w i t n e s s e s ; i t may be c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence; i t need n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n o r e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i a c a s e of g u i l t ; and it need n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o connect t h e defen- d a n t with t h e crime b u t must tend t o connect him with t h e crime. . .'" S t a t e v. Casagranda (1981) t - Mont. , 637 P.2d 826, 830, 38 St.Rep. 2122, 2128-2129, quoting S t a t e v . S t a n d l e y ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 153, 586 P.2d 1075, 11377. W e f i n d t h a t t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence t o tend t o connect t h e d e f e n d a n t with t h e t h e f t a t t h e Vets Club. The defendant admitted t h a t he was w i t h Norwood and K u t z l e r t h e evening of t h e crime, t h e t i r e t r a c k s found near t h e Vets Club matched t h e t i r e t r a c k s made by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s Suburban, t h e r e was evidence t h a t t h e Suburban was t h e o n l y v e h i c l e owned by t h e defendant t h a t was i n C i r c l e t h a t n i g h t , and t h e d e f e n d a n t was f a m i l i a r with t h e l a y o u t of t h e Vets Club. T h i s evidence was s u f f i c i e n t t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h e testimony g i v e n by Norwood and Kutzler . Affirmed. % 4 d # % 4 Chief Justice We concur: