Title: STATE v SCHATZ
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-459
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 19, 1981

No. 80-459 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. TERRY JOHN SCHATZ, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable Diane G . Barz, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: John L. Adams, Jr. argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Mark Murphy argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold Hanser, Gounty Attorney, Billings, Montana Submitted: September 18, 1981 Decided : flcr 1 9 198t M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d the Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant appeals from h i s conviction on t h r e e counts of robbery f o r which he was sentenced t o 30 years, 30 years and 40 years t o run consecutively. W e affirm. Defendant r a i s e s i s s u e s concerning s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence, challenges evidence seized from defendant's v e h i c l e , and questions witness i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e s u l t i n g from a photo- graphic lineup. Because of t h e challenges made by t h e defendant, w e set f o r t h a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e evi- dence received a t t r i a l . On June 13, 1980, Paul G j e f l e was working alone a t t h e Laurel Kwik-Way s t o r e a t approximately 1 0 : O O a . m . , when he w a s approached by an armed man who demanded money. When G j e f l e expressed d i s b e l i e f , t h e man s t r u c k him i n t h e f a c e with a p i s t o l . G j e f l e then placed money from t h e cash r e g i s t e r i n t o a paper sack. The armed robber f l e d on f o o t . Frances Campbell, a witness l i v i n g near t h e s t o r e , noticed a man a c t i n g p e c u l i a r l y and described him a s running t o a c a r i d e n t i f i e d as a r e d Mustang. She remembered a p a r t i a l l i c e n s e p l a t e number of 3-1125. On t h e evening of June 17, 1980, a t approximately 1 1 : O O p.m., a s i n g l e male person armed with a p i s t o l robbed t h e B i l l i n g s Kwik-Way s t o r e . The c l e r k , Eileen Yansness, gave t h e p o l i c e a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e suspect. A t h i r d robbery w a s committed a t t h e F i r s t Avenue B i l l i n g s IGA, a t about 2:00 a.m., on June 18, 1980. Minutes later a deputy s h e r i f f i n t h e v i c i n i t y , received a r a d i o r e p o r t of t h e robbery which indicated t h a t t h e robber had f l e d north on North 22nd S t r e e t . While attempting t o d e t e r - mine a probable get-away r o u t e , t h e deputy noticed a red Mustang headed north a t an unusually slow speed. The deputy began t o follow. The suspect c a r suddenly turned, parked and turned off i t s l i g h t s . The deputy parked and approached t h e suspect vehicle. The deputy noticed a person, l a t e r determined t o be t h e defendant, lying motionless across t h e f r o n t s e a t . The deputy ordered t h e defendant t o remove himself from t h e c a r , whereupon t h e deputy noticed, i n p l a i n view, a paper sack with an IGA logo, together with a p i s t o l and some a r t i c l e s of clothing which w e r e s i m i l a r t o those reportedly worn by t h e robber. The defendant was then placed under a r r e s t and t h e evidence i n p l a i n view w a s seized. The following i s s u e s are r a i s e d on appeal: 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly denied defen- d a n t ' s motion t o suppress t h e evidence seized from t h e vehicle? 2. Whether evidence of a photographic lineup w a s cor- r e c t l y admitted a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l ? 3 . Whether defendant should have been granted a m i s - t r i a l because defendant w a s seen by c e r t a i n jurors, leaving t h e courthouse, while i n handcuffs? 4. Whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t ? Defendant contends t h a t the a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r d i d n o t have probable cause t o believe t h a t t h e defendant, when a r r e s t e d , had committed a c r i m e . Defendant argues: "How- ever, suspicion of an o f f i c e r alone unsubstantiated by some evidence upon which t o base b e l i e f t h a t a crime i s o r has been committed by t h e suspect i s n o t enough t o e s t a b l i s h probable cause no m a t t e r what a subsequent search may re- veal." Defendant c i t e s and r e l i e s upon S t a t e v. Rader (1978), 177 Mont. 252, 581 P.2d 437. I n S t a t e v. Gopher (1981), Mont. , 631 P.2d 293, 38 St.Rep. 1078, w e discarded t h e dictum i n Rader, c a s t a s i d e t h e former requirement of "probable cause", and adopted t h e " p a r t i c u l a r i z e d suspicion" test found i n United S t a t e s v. Cortez (1981), U.S. , 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621. S t a t e v. Gopher, supra, published s i n c e t r i a l of t h e case a t b a r , disposes of t h e defendant's contention here. I n S t a t e v. Gopher, supra, J u s t i c e Harrison, speaking f o r a unanimous c o u r t , s a i d : " I t should be noted here t h a t O f f i c e r Johnston i s an experienced and knowledgeable member of t h e Great F a l l s p o l i c e department, having been with t h e f o r c e f o r over twelve years. This i s an important element of t h e Cortez a n a l y s i s , which emphasizes t h a t experienced law enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s a r e allowed t o draw c e r t a i n conclusions which laymen could n o t properly draw i n d e t e r - mining i f a s p e c i f i c vehicular s t o p is l e g a l l y v a l i d . " 631 P.2d a t 295, 38 St.Rep. a t 1080. I n Gopher defendant's v e h i c l e w a s stopped a f t e r t h e o f f i c e r noticed it proceeding i n an unusually slow manner, p a s t t h e scene of t h e crime, a t an e a r l y morning hour. I n t h e i n s t a n t case, Sergeant Brennan, a v e t e r a n of 9 years of experience with t h e Yellowstone County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e , received a r a d i o call t h a t an armed robbery had occurred a t t h e F i r s t Avenue IGA s t o r e . H e w a s informed t h a t t h e suspect had f l e d north and w e s t from t h e r e a r of t h e IGA. Approximately t h r e e minutes a f t e r receiving t h e r a d i o c a l l , Sergeant Brennan observed a s m a l l red car t r a v e l i n g west on 6 t h Avenue North a t a n extremely slow pace." Unlike t h e f a c t s of t h e a r r e s t i n Gopher, Sergeant Brennan d i d n o t have t o s t o p defendant's vehicle. Rather defendant took evasive a c t i o n by s h u t t i n g o f f h i s l i g h t s and p u l l i n g over a g a i n s t t h e curb where defendant proceeded t o r e c l i n e motionless i n t h e f r o n t s e a t of t h e c a r . Under t h e test adopted i n S t a t e v. Gopher, supra, t h i s experienced law enforcement o f f i c e r had a " p a r t i c u l a r i z e d suspicion" s u f f i - c i e n t t o e f f e c t u a t e a lawful arrest. The evidence seized was i n p l a i n view. The t r i a l c o u r t properly denied defen- d a n t ' s motion t o suppress. Defendant urges e r r o r i n t h e admission of two photo- graphic lineups. A photographic l i n e u p was shown t o Eileen Yansness, t h e c l e r k a t t h e B i l l i n g s Kwik-Way. She looked a t a n a r r a y of 7 photographs and i d e n t i f i e d t h e defendant's photograph a s being, " t h e b e s t one". The o t h e r photographic l i n e u p contained an a r r a y of 6 photographs and was shown t o Paul G j e f l e and Frances Campbell. M r s . Campbell picked t h e defendant's photograph from the a r r a y b u t w a s n o t p o s i t i v e i n her i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . M r . G j e f l e c o r r e c t l y s e l e c t e d t h e defendant's p i c t u r e from t h e array. M r s . Campbell made no in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . M r . G j e f l e and Eileen Yansness made p o s i t i v e in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . The law enforcement o f f i c e r s , who showed t h e photographic lineups t o t h e various witnesses, t e s t i f i e d t h a t photographs w e r e s e l e c t e d of o t h e r persons having s i m i l a r physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o t h e defendant. They a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e defendant's photo- graph was n o t i n d i c a t e d t o those making t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The question here r a i s e d was disposed of i n S t a t e v. Mont. Pendergrass (1980) , - - , 615 P.2d 201, 37 St-Rep. 1370. The determining f a c t o r i s whether t h e a r r a y i s unduly suggestive. The photographic lineups i n question a r e p a r t of t h i s record and have been reviewed by t h e Court. W e do n o t f i n d them t o be unduly suggestive. Defendant contends prejudice r e s u l t e d from j u r o r s seeing defendant i n handcuffs. Defendant was viewed momen- t a r i l y by c e r t a i n j u r o r s when being taken from t h e courtroom back t o confinement. The viewing took p l a c e o u t s i d e t h e courtroom. S t a t e v. Baugh (1977), 174 Mont. 456, 463, 571 P.2d 779, 783, d e a l t with t h e i s s u e of j u r o r s viewing t h e defendant, i n c o u r t , i n handcuffs. This Court t h e r e s a i d : " . . . Most c o u r t s now agree with Sawyer t h a t a defendant i s n o t denied a f a i r t r i a l and i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a m i s t r i a l s o l e l y because he was momentarily and i n a d v e r t e n t l y seen i n handcuffs by jury members." This language was quoted with approval and r e l i e d upon i n S t a t e v. Pendergrass, supra. H e r e t h e r e was no showing of p r e j u d i c e t o t h e defendant r e s u l t i n g from t h e momentary viewing. Defendant had contended t h a t i f physical evidence seized from defendant's c a r was suppressed, then t h e r e would be i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e conviction. This i s s u e has been rendered moot by our r u l i n g t h a t t h e evidence was admissible. There w a s s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o c r e a t e a jury i s s u e on each count. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. We concur: