Title: STATE v HENDRICKS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13269
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 19, 1976

No. 13269 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and R.espondent , -VS - JOHN EUGENE HENDRICKS, 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 , Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant: Stimatz and Engel, Butte, Montana Joseph C. Engel, 1 1 1 argued, Butte, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert Td. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John North argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Edward L. Deschamps, 1 1 1 County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Edward McLean, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: September 1, 1976 Decided : EjCT i. 3 ; _ , ., Filed : I . - , M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court . Defendant appeals from h i s conviction of t h e f t , aggravated a s s a u l t , and two counts of s a l e of dangerous drugs i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Missoula County. O n June 5, 1975, O f f i c e r B i l l Olsen, of t h e Region One Anti-Drug Team, Missoula s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e , and Keith Sorenson of t h e Glasgow p o l i c e department, m e t defendant i n Missoula. According t o Olsen's testimony, Hendricks s a i d he would s e l l him 1 , 0 0 0 h i t s of speed. Olsen d i d n ' t have enough money, so then Hendricks s a i d he could g e t some cocaine. The o f f i c e r s d i d not have enough money f o r t h i s e i t h e r , s o Hendricks s a i d he would g e t them some c r y s t a l methamphetamine. Officer Olsen and defendant went t o a Missoula bar where Hendricks entered and re- turned. Hendricks then gave Olsen a paper packet containing powder i n exchange f o r t h i r t y d o l l a r s , representing it t o be c r y s t a l methamphetamine. I t w a s from t h i s t r a n s a c t i o n t h a t one count of s a l e of dangerous drugs r e s u l t e d . The powder l a t e r proved t o be c a f f e i n e , an uncontrolled substance. The second count of criminal s a l e of dangerous drugs a r o s e from an i n c i d e n t occurring i n t h e e a r l y morning hours of June 8 , 1975. A couple of days a f t e r buying t h e packet of powder, O f f i c e r Olsen and Hendricks encountered each o t h e r on t h e street i n Missoula. Hendricks asked t h e undercover o f f i c e r i f he had h i s money t h i s t i m e . The o f f i c e r answered t h a t he d i d , but when he refused t o show it Hendricks poked him with a k n i f e , l a t e r re- s u l t i n g i n t h e aggravated a s s a u l t charge. Olsen then pulled h i s gun. Olsen t e s t i f i e d t h a t Hendricks, upon seeing t h e gun, r a n from Olsen shouting "Don't shoot! * * * L e t ' s make a d e a l , * * * I ' v e g o t t h e dope. * * *" After Hendricks produced two paper packets from t h e trunk of h i s c a r and handed them t o Olsen, Olsen attempted t o p l a c e Hendricks under a r r e s t . A s c u f f l e and f o o t chase ensued. A f t e r Hendricks had been apprehended, Olsen returned t o t h e Hendricks' c a r . A young woman passenger i n t h e c a r was gone and t h e paper packets and k n i f e could not be found. The t h e f t charge r e s u l t e d a f t e r Hendricks' brother-in- l a w reported t o p o l i c e he had found i t e m s i n t h e trunk of h i s c a r t h a t proved t o be s t o l e n . Defendant p r e s e n t s two i s s u e s f o r review: (1) Did t h e evidence introduced a t t r i a l support t h e convictions of two counts, s a l e s of dangerous drugs, under sec- t i o n 54-132(a), R.C.M. 1947? ( 2 ) Is it manifest e r r o r e n t i t l i n g defendant t o a new t r i a l on a l l i s s u e s , when a brother-in-law of t h e t r i a l judge becomes a member of t h e jury? With r e s p e c t t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e defendant argues t h e prosecution f a i l e d t o prove Hendricks intended t o sell dangerous drugs when t h e one packet contained c a f f e i n e and t h e contents of t h e o t h e r two packets were not recovered. Section 54-132(a), R.C.M. 1947, provides: "A person commits t h e offense of a criminal s a l e of dangerous drugs i f he sells, b a r t e r s , exchanges, gives sell, b a r t e r , exchange o r g i v e away, manufactures,repares, c u l t i v a t e s , compounds o r processes any dangerous drug as defined i n t h i s a c t . " ( ~ m p h a s i s added.) The two counts of t h e information by which defendant was charged i n t h e p r e s e n t case alleged defendant "offered t o s e l l " danger- ous drugs on June 5 and again on June 8 , 1975. The jury was i n s t r u c t e d a s follows on t h i s point: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i f you f i n d i n your d e l i b e r a t i o n s t h a t t h e defendant o f f e r e d f o r s a l e what he believed t o be a dangerous drug, you must f i n d him g u i l t y i r r e g a r d l e s s of whether o r n o t t h e substance was i n f a c t a dangerous drug." This i n s t r u c t i o n s t a t e s e s s e n t i a l l y what defendant argues t h e law t o be. Its meaning is e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same a s defen- d a n t ' s o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n , b u t it i s more c l e a r l y worded. Defendant's argument is on a f a c t u a l b a s i s . Counsel argues t h a t defendant knew t h e powder was not an i l l e g a l drug i n s p i t e of what he may have represented t h e contents of t h e paper packets t o be when he sold them t o t h e undercover o f f i c e r . Coun- sel argues defendant's only i n t e n t was t o o b t a i n money. Such a f a c t u a l determination was f o r t h e jury and w i l l not be s e t a s i d e by t h i s Court i f 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 v e r d i c t . W e f i n d t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o j u s t i f y t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t t h a t defendant thought he was s e l l i n g dangerous drugs on June 5 and June 8, 1975. O n June 5, defendant obtained t h e substance from h i s source only seconds before he d e l i v e r e d it t o Officer Olsen. H e t h e r e f o r e d i d not have t h e opportunity t o test it. The sub- stance i n f a c t looked l i k e c r y s t a l methamphetamine. Within a block of t h e p o i n t t h a t defendant and O f f i c e r Olsen g o t i n t h e c a r a f t e r obtaining t h e substance, defendant i n s i s t e d t h a t Offi- c e r Olsen t r y some of it. Had defendant known t h a t t h e substance was n o t c r y s t a l methamphetamine, it is reasonable t o b e l i e v e , he would not have made such a request. The encounter on June 8 occurred by accident. Defendant was headed south on Ryman S t r e e t and O f f i c e r Olsen was d r i v i n g north. Defendant made a U-turn and drove up behind t h e o f f i c e r . Had defendant thought t h a t he had sold O f f i c e r Olsen c a f f e i n e and sugar on June 5, defendant would probably have attempted t o avoid him by continuing south on Ryman S t r e e t . Defendant displayed t h e caution which is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of one who d e a l s i n drugs. H e wanted t o s e e Officer Olsen's money before allowing t h e o f f i c e r t o see where he kept t h e drugs. One could certainly infer from this conduct that defendant was afraid that Olsen would seize the drugs and leave without pay- ing. Defendant knifed the officer when he demanded to see the drugs first. If defendant thought that he had only worthless powder in the trunk, he would not have needed to be so cautious. Concerning the second issue, defendant's contention is that he was deprived of a fair trial by an impartial jury be- cause the trial judge's brother-in-law served on the jury. Defendant alleges the prosecuting attorney, Ed McLean, asked the entire jury panel on voir dire whether any of them were related to any of the court officials and none responded. McLean however, on oral argument, denied he asked the question. The juror in question stated under oath he would have made his relationship known if he had been asked, as he did in the form questionnaire sent to prospective jurors. Defendant's unsupported allegation to the contrary will not support his claim of erroneous answers on voir dire examin- ation of this juror. State v. Mont . , 545 P.2d 1070, 33 St.Rep. 95, 100, (1976). (Habeas corpus granted on other grounds, 33 St.Rep. 681.) There is no record of the voir dire examination before us. It is the practice in Missoula County to send a form questionnaire to prospective jurors as to their qualification for jury service. On this questionnaire, the juror in question indi- cated that the Hon. E. Gardner Brownlee, the trial judge in this case, was his brother-in-law. Defendant did not make timely ob- jection on voir dire nor exercise his option to a preemptory challenge of this juror. Defendant has not shown authority for disqualification of this juror. Section 95-1909(d) (2), R.C.M. 1947, sets forth the grounds for challenge for cause. Relation to the trial judge i s n o t one of t h e grounds a s was s t a t e d i n S t a t e v . ' - -;CIm-un a t " * * * u n l e s s t h e j u r o r f a l l s within one of t h e c a t e g o r i e s of s e c t i o n 95-1909, he w i l l n o t be removed f o r cause without a showing of par- t i a l i t y . * * *" There i s no showing of p a r t i a l i t y here. Defendant a l s o contends t h a t t h e t r i a l judge spoke with h i s brother-in-law on t h e jury during t h e course of t h e t r i a l r e s u l t i n g i n p r e j u d i c e . The most t h a t can be made of t h i s a l l e - g a t i o n is t h a t t h e j u r o r may have commented t o t h e judge t h a t jury s e r v i c e w a s a demanding and t i r i n g experience. I f defendant s e r i o u s l y contends t h e r e was a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e m e r i t s of t h e c a s e , w e f i n d no i n d i c a t i o n it occurred. Rather, t h e record i n d i c a t e s t h e j u r o r and t h e judge conducted themselves with honor and p r o p r i e t y with a h i g h e s t regard f o r f a i r n e s s t o t h e accused. Defendant has shown n e i t h e r e r r o r nor p r e j u d i c e , t h e r e - f o r e w e a f f i r m t h e convictions. J u s t i c e