Title: STATE v HILL
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13068
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: May 24, 1976

No 13068 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1976 THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- JOHN AKTHUK YILL, Defendant and Appellant . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable E Gardner Brownlee, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Smith, Connor & Van Valkenburg, Missoula, Montana Fred R Van Valkenburg argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Edward McLean, Deputy County A t t o r n e y argued, Missoula, Montana J o c k 0. Anderson, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y General a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Submitted: A p r i l 20, 1976 Decided: MA! 2 4 1976 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from t h e f i n a l judgment of conviction of one count a£ s e l l i n g and one count of possession of marijuana and denial of a new t r i a l by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Missoula County. There i s l i t t l e o r no f a c t dispute i n t h i s matter. The relevant f a c t s a r e t h a t on February 5, 1975, one Edward Smith, an informant, contacted t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e i n Missoula and advised t h a t a drug transaction would be taking place a t h i s home. The s h e r i f f established surveillance a t Smith's home. Alvin Kennedy, who was a p r i n c i p a l i n the crime with defendant H i l l , d e a l t with t h e informant who expressed a willingness t o purchase $2,000 work of drugs. Kennedy drove t o ill's home, obtained a one pound sample of marijuana and produced t h e same a t smith's home. O n d i r e c t i o n of a surveillance o f f i c e r , Smith agreed t o purchase fourteen a d d i t i o n a l pounds of marijuana. Thereafter, Kennedy made arrangements with defendant H i l l and reported back t o the Smith residence t h a t t h e balance of t h e drugs would be de- livered i n one-half hour and described the vehicle and a person named John. A t t h i s time Kennedy was placed under a r r e s t . A t t h e appointed time the described vehicle appeared and defendant got out i n f r o n t of t h e residence next door t o smith's. Smith c a l l e d out "bring t h e s t u f f over here" and defendant grabbed a knapsack and set of s c a l e s wrapped i n a brown bag from h i s vehicle, and entered smith's house. He went t o a t a b l e and deposited the knapsack. N o words were exchanged and defendant was placed under a r r e s t . Subsequent t o h i s a r r e s t defendant was given the " ~ i r a n d a " warning and signed a statement t o t h a t e f f e c t . After defendant's i n i t i a l appearance before t h e court and p r i o r t o conference with the public defender, he was interrogated by members of the s h e r i f f ' s department. Defendant made a statement t h a t was used against him a t t r i a l . A motion t o suppress was denied. T r i a l was had before a jury and a verdict of g u i l t y on both counts was returned on May 5 , 1975. Defendant appeals from the f i n a l judg- ment and denial of h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l . Defendant presents f i v e issues t o t h i s Court f o r review: 1. Whether the statement of defendant made subsequent t o a r r e s t was improperly admitted i n t o evidence over defendant's objections and motion t o suppress. 2. Whether defendant was improperly convicted of felony possession of marijuana i n l i g h t of the s t a t e ' s evidence t h a t l e s s than s i x t y grams were tested. 3 . Whether the s t a t e had probable cause t o a r r e s t and search t h e defendant. 4 . Whether there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented a t the t r i a l on which t o base a conviction of criminal s a l e of dangerous drugs. 5. Whether the t r i a l court erred i n refusing t o give defendant's proposed instructions on the definition of "offer". Issue 1. W e a r e well aware of the federal and s t a t e cases c i t e d by both p a r t i e s which had t o do with the voluntary nature of admissions o r confessions of t h i s kind. The problem here becomes one of f a c t . Was t h e admission prompted by hope t h a t cooperation might achieve consideration by the prosecution o r by a promise t h a t cooperation would achieve t h e same consideration? The d i s t r i c t court made the f a c t determination and denied t h e motion t o suppress. This Court finds s u f f i c i e n t , credible evidence i n t h e record t o support t h a t determination. Issue 2. W e find no merit i n the argument made i n support of Issue 2. There i s no expert testimony i n the record t o support the theory t h a t a random sample from each of the f i f t e e n one pound packages was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support the conclusion t h a t there was i n f a c t f i f t e e n pounds of marijuana and therefore the r e - quired amount, i n excess of 60 grams, t o support a felony charge. Issues 3 , 4, and 5 , can be determined by an examination of Issue 5. Defendant maintains the t r i a l court abused i t s discretion i n refusing defendant's proposed Instructions 3,4,5, and 6 on the court's own motion. These instructions were definitions of t h e word "offer" and did not cover the elements required i n the crime of offering t o s e l l , already given by the court i n i t s Instructions 9 and 10. In any event, there were no objections t o the giving of Instructions 9 o r 10 by the defendant o r t o the r e f u s a l of defendant's proposed Instructions 3,4,5 and 6 placed i n the record. Reading the instructions a s a whole we find the jury was properly instructed and the case f a i r l y tendered t o the jury. State v. Watson, 144 Mont. 576, 398 P.2d 949. Defendant argues no o f f e r was made t o s e l l the drugs and therefore no probable cause existed t o a r r e s t t h e defendant. Probable cause t o a r r e s t without a warrant e x i s t s where the f a c t s and circum- stances within the o f f i c e r ' s knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information a r e s u f f i c i e n t i n themselves t o warrant a man of reasonable caution i n the b e l i e f t h a t an offense has been or i s . being committed. State v. Armstrong, 149 Mont. 470, 428 P.2d 611. These f a c t s were within the o f f i c e r ' s knowledge a t the time of the a r r e s t : a ) Alvin Kennedy had arranged with informant Edward Smith t o supply an i l l e g a l drug. b) That Kennedy said he was dealing with another person i n g e t t i n g t h e drugs. c ) That Kennedy had i n f a c t already supplied Smith with one pound of marijuana and was arranging f o r the delivery of the other fourteen pounds. d) That Kennedy had driven t o a residence a t 2229 River Road while i n the process of arranging delivery of the drugs. e ) While a t 2229 River Road, Kennedy made contact with a second person and together they drove t o a phone booth where t h i s second person was seen wearing a dark bulky coat and dark pants and appeared t o have a beard. f ) That Kennedy s t a t e d t h e drugs would be delivered i n one-half hour and would be transported by an older model dark pickup with a homemade camper on the back. g) That the above described vehicle did i n f a c t a r r i v e a t the appointed time. h) That the man departing t h a t vehicle appeared t o be the same person who was contacted by Kennedy previously and who made the phone c a l l . i ) That when the informant c a l l e d t o t h i s man t o come over and t o "bring t h e stuff1' the man took a knapsack and a brown sack from the truck and entered the house. j) That when t h i s man entered the house the a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r saw what appeared t o be a scale protruding&bm the sack. There i s no doubt these f a c t s and circumstances c l e a r l y meet the requirements s e t out i n Armstrong. I n regard t o t h e lack of an o f f e r t o s e l l raised by de- fendant, the law i n regard t o the necessary elements needed t o sustain I I a conviction f o r offering t o s e l l 1 ' was correctly s t a t e d i n c o u r t ' s Instruction 9. That instruction describes the law a s s t a t e d i n People v. Mann, 27 I11.2d 135, 188 N.E.2d 665, where the court held t h a t the two elements necessary f o r conviction of t h i s crime were (1) the specific i n t e n t t o make an o f f e r t o s e l l a narcotic, and (2) a d i r e c t a c t done toward the making o r expression of the o f f e r t o another. In further explanation, t h a t court held there must be shown a specific i n t e n t t o s e l l . I n addition t o the circumstancesalredy s e t f o r t h i n r e l a t i o n t o probable cause, d i r e c t testimony by Kennedy establishes t h a t defend an^ provided the one pound sample which Kennedy gave t o Smith. H i s testimony a l s o e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t defendant agreed t o provide another fourteen pounds and they made arrangements a s t o how and when defendant would be paid. I n addition, defendant himself admitted it was h i s i n t e n t i o n t o s e l l the drugs pursuant t o h i s arrangement with Kennedy. This admission was admitted i n t o evidence. The record reveals s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evidence t o support the v e r d i c t of the jury. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. , + & f l f ~ : . . / - - J u s t i c e . W e Concur: i ./M. James Sorte, D i s t r i c t s i t t i n g for-Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison.