Title: STATE v HENRICKS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-166
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 2, 1982

No. 82-166 I N T H E SUPREMI3 C O U R T O F THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1982 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . GARRY HEN RICKS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of S i l v e r Bow Honorable Mark S u l l i v a n , Judge p r e s i d i n g Counsel of Record: For Appellant: John G. Winston argued, Butte, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Ileiena, Montana Robert M. McCarthy, County Attorney, Butte, Montana P a t r i c k Fleming argued and R o s s Richardson argued, Deputy County Attorneys, Butte, Montana Submitted: Segtenber 1 7 , 1982 Decided : Povei7ber 3, 1982 'i i.5 t F i l e d : ; d . ! , '!gBz M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s a p p e a l is from t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n and f o r t h e County of S i l v e r Bow. The d e f e n d a n t , Garry Henricks, was c o n v i c t e d on t h e charge of n e g l i g e n t homicide. From t h a t convic- t i o n he a p p e a l s . On September 1 2 , 1981, a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 11:30 p.m., t h e Henricks v e h i c l e , occupied by Garry and L o r r a i n e Henricks, s t r u c k and k i l l e d a p e d e s t r i a n . The impact s h a t t e r e d t h e w i n d s h i e l d and sprayed g l a s s p a r t i c l e s through t h e i n t e r i o r . P r i o r to t h e a c c i d e n t , Garry and L o r r a i n e had been d r i n k i n g h e a v i l y . A t about 1 1 : O O p.m., t h e p a r t i e s l e f t t h e Scandia Bar w i t h a n o t h e r c o u p l e , P a u l and Raelene C o l l i n s . The t w o c o u p l e s t o o k t h e i r own c a r s and were to meet a t a r e s t a u r a n t . However, t h e Henricks never showed up. Raelene C o l l i n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s t h e y were walking i n t o t h e r e s t a u r a n t , t h e Henricks drove by. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t G a r r y was d r i v i n g a t t h a t t i m e . G a r r y Henricks admitted t h a t he was d r i v i n g when t h e y l e f t t h e b a r . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was d r i v i n g home b u t stopped t w o o r t h r e e b l o c k s s h o r t . L o r r a i n e had wanted to go back to J e r r y ' s Corner Bar t o f i n d h e r shoes and p u r s e . Garry t e s t i f i e d t h a t L o r r a i n e t h e n s t a r t e d d r i v i n g and he began to doze. H e does not remember v e r y many d e t a i l s of t h e a c c i d e n t b u t does remember h e a r i n g a thump o r thud a s t h e c a r h i t t h e p e d e s t r i a n . L o r r a i n e ' s v e r s i o n d i f f e r s . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she does not remember much of t h e evening because she h a s b l a c k o u t s p e l l s when s h e d r i n k s e x c e s s i v e l y . However, she does remember l e a v i n g t h e Scandia Bar and Garry was d r i v i n g . The n e x t t h i n g she remembers is t h e car s t r i k i n g something, and a t t h a t t i m e , Garry was d r i v i n g . There were s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s to t h e a c c i d e n t , y e t none could p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f y t h e d r i v e r . A f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t Garry and L o r r a i n e agreed to " g e t r i d o f t h e c a r " s i n c e t h e y both had been d r i n k i n g and t h e y d i d n ' t have i n s u r a n c e . They drove back to t h e Scandia Bar. The bar- t e n d e r a t t h e Scandia t e s t i f i e d t h a t L o r r a i n e came i n and appeared panicky and d e s p e r a t e . She was a s k i n g f o r P a u l C o l l i n s . When she could n o t f i n d P a u l she asked Kenny Moore t o go o u t s i d e and t a l k w i t h h e r . O u t s i d e , L o r r a i n e and Kenny Moore m e t P a u l and Raelene C o l l i n s as t h e y were d r i v i n g up. The C o l l i n s e s followed them i n t o an a l l e y where t h e hit-and-run car was parked. G a r r y t h e n drove t h e i r car i n s e a r c h of a p l a c e to abandon it. The C o l l i n s e s followed. The car was abandoned and t h e C o l l i n s e s gave them a r i d e to a n o t h e r c o u p l e t s house. The n e x t morning, L o r r a i n e r e p o r t e d t h e c a r as s t o l e n . L a t e r t h a t day t h e p o l i c e found t h e hit-and-run v e h i c l e . Blood s t a i n s were found on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e f l o o r mat and on t h e dashboard t o t h e l e f t of t h e s t e e r i n g wheel. The sample on t h e dashboard matched G a r r y t s blood type and t h e sample on t h e f l o o r matched L o r r a i n e ' s . L o r r a i n e w a s b a r e f o o t t h e evening of t h e a c c i d e n t , however, it was not u n t i l t h e n e x t morning s h e n o t i c e d t h a t she had c u t h e r f o o t ; a p p a r e n t l y from t h e s h a t t e r e d w i n d s h i e l d g l a s s of t h e hit-and-run v e h i c l e . On October 9, L o r r a i n e c o n t a c t e d p o l i c e and admitted being t h e d r i v e r of t h e v e h i c l e . The n e x t morning she made a formal s t a t e m e n t i n which s h e a g a i n admitted being t h e d r i v e r . She w a s t h e n charged and j a i l e d . However, on O c t o b e r 1 5 and 16 s h e made s t a t e m e n t s which r e p u d i a t e d earlier s t a t e m e n t s . She s a i d she was n o t t h e d r i v e r . L o r r a i n e was e v e n t u a l l y r e l e a s e d and on November 5, Garry Henricks w a s a r r e s t e d and charged w i t h n e g l i g e n t homi- c i d e . The a p p e l l a n t raises t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n : (1) whether or n o t t h e testimony and t h e physi- c a l e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t ; ( 2 ) whether w i t n e s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of "a p a s s e n g e r w i t h long h a i r " was t a i n t e d by p o l i c e i n t e r v i e w i n g p r o c e d u r e s ; and ( 3 ) w h e t h e r t h e District Court e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g to allow l a y w i t n e s s o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y ? Our s t a n d a r d i n reviewing t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e is clear. The test is "whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n , viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e S t a t e . " S t a t e v. Lamb (1982) , - . . - - . - Mont . , 646 P.2d 516, 518, 39 St.Rep. 1021, 1024; see also, S t a t e v. Cook ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - Mon t . , 645 P.2d 1367, 39 St.Rep. 1026; S t a t e v. Wilson ( 1 9 8 1 ) - - Mont . - , 631 P.2d 1273, 38 St.Rep. 1040. W e stress t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e test which mandates review " i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e S t a t e . " A t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n is o b l i g e d to prove e v e r y element of t h e crime. Such a r e q u i r e m e n t is obvious; i s s u i n g from t h e presumption of inno- c e n c e . However, "on a p p e a l a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n t h e r u l e changes. Then, i f t h e r e c o r d shows any s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e judgment, t h e presumption is i n f a v o r of such judgment." S t a t e v . Stoddard ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 147 Mont. 402, 408, 412 P.2d 827, 831. A s w e s a i d i n S t a t e v. C a r y l ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 414, 422-423, 543 P.2d 3 8 9 , 394, t h i s Court " w i l l assume t h e e x i s t e n c e of e v e r y f a c t which t h e j u r y could have deduced from a l l t h e evidence to reach i t s v e r d i c t . " I n t h i s case t h e r e is more t h a n s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o sup- p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n . L o r r a i n e Henricks s t a t e d u n e q u i v o c a l l y t h a t G a r r y was d r i v i n g when t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d . Raelene C o l l i n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e saw t h e d e f e n d a n t d r i v i n g s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t . Another w i t n e s s , one who was a t t h e acci- d e n t s c e n e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he g o t a glimpse of a p a s s e n g e r w i t h l o n g h a i r . On t h e n i g h t i n q u e s t i o n G a r r y had s h o r t h a i r and L o r r a i n e had long h a i r ; t h u s , a l l o w i n g t h e j u r y to i n f e r t h a t L o r r a i n e w a s t h e p a s s e n g e r . S t i l l a n o t h e r w i t n e s s , upon s e e i n g t h e car speed by s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had t h e impression t h a t t h e d r i v e r w a s a man. F i n a l l y , a medical d o c t o r who examined t h e g l a s s c u t i n j u r i e s of b o t h G a r r y and L o r r a i n e came t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t G a r r y ' s upper body along t h e l e f t s i d e w a s f u r t h e s t away from t h e p o i n t of impact; t h u s , sup- p o r t i n g an i n f e r e n c e t h a t G a r r y was t h e d r i v e r . Next, a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s a due p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n a r i s i n g through t h e t e s t i m o n y of M r . Stevens who t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t h e saw a p a s s e n g e r w i t h long h a i r . Immediately af t e r t h e acci- d e n t t h i s w i t n e s s made a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t . That s t a t e m e n t made no mention of a "passenger w i t h long h a i r ." E i g h t days l a t e r , t h e w i t n e s s made a six-page s t a t e m e n t a f t e r being shown t h e h i t - and-run v e h i c l e and, it seems, a£ t e r he had been shown a p i c t u r e of L o r r a i n e Henricks. According to a p p e l l a n t , t h e w i t n e s s d i d n o t : "even know t h e r e was a p a s s e n g e r u n t i l t h e p i c t u r e was shown t o him. T h e r e a f t e r , t h e s t a t e ' s t e c h n i q u e is clear. G e t somebody t o s a y t h e r e is a p a s s e n g e r w i t h long h a i r ; show t h a t G a r r y Henricks d i d n ' t have long h a i r on t h e n i g h t i n q u e s t i o n , and VIOLA! Garry Henricks was t h e d r i v e r ." The r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n t h e six-page s t a t e m e n t made by t h e w i t n e s s to t h e p o l i c e e i g h t days a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e record does not c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e whether or n o t t h e w i t n e s s made t h e s t a t e m e n t a f t e r or b e f o r e s e e i n g a photo- g r a p h of L o r r a i n e Henricks. N o n e t h e l e s s , i f w e assume a p p e l l a n t ' s p o s i t i o n , t h a t t h e w i t n e s s was shown a photograph of L o r r a i n e and t h e n made t h e w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t , presumably s a y i n g , " t h e p a s s e n g e r had long h a i r , " t h e r e was no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l due p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n . I n s u p p o r t of h i s argument t h e a p p e l l a n t cites t h e cases of Simmons v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, and United S t a t e s v . Fowler ( 9 t h C i r . 1971) , 439 F.2d 133. I n - - Simmons, s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s were i n d i v i d u a l l y shown s i x photo- g r a p h s . The photographs were group p i c t u r e s of Simmons and o t h e r s . A l l of t h e w i t n e s s e s picked Simmons o u t of t h e photos and i d e n t i f i e d him a s one of t h e bank r o b b e r s . The p r o s e c u t i o n d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e t h e p i c t u r e s i n t o e v i d e n c e , r a t h e r they r e l i e d o n i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by t h e s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s . On appeal t o t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , Simmons argued t h a t t h e p r e t r i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by means of photographs was u n n e c e s s a r i l y s u g g e s t i v e and conducive t o m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n so as to deny him d u e p r o c e s s of law. However, t h e Supreme Court found no such v i o l a t i o n b u t s t a t e d t h e test: a c o n v i c t i o n based on a photo i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i l l n o t he set a s i d e u n l e s s " t h e procedure w a s so i m p e r m i s s i b l y s u g g e s t i v e as t o g i v e rise t o a v e r y 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 ." 390 U .S. a t 384. I n Fowler, t h e accused was c o n v i c t e d of smuggling mari j uana from Mexico to t h e United S t a t e s . Fowler contended t h a t t h e car i n which t h e m a r i j u a n a was found was not h i s ; t h a t he was merely d r i v i n g t h e car t o L o s Angeles f o r a f r i e n d . D e t e c t i v e s l e a r n e d t h a t t h e c a r had been purchased two days earlier. The car salesman was found and shown two photographs of Fowler. The salesman i d e n t i f i e d Fowler as t h e p e r s o n who had purchased t h e car t w o days e a r l i e r . A t t r i a l t h e photographs were shown to t h e w i t n e s s who t e s t i f i e d concerning h i s p r e t r i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The salesman a l s o made an i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Fowler. The 9 t h C i r c u i t C o u r t , using t h e test of -- Simmons, found t h a t t h e pho- t o g r a p h i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e v i o l a t e d due p r o c e s s . The f a c t s i n t h e case b e f o r e u s are d i s s i m i l a r to t h o s e i n Simmons and Fowler, however, a similar f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n o c c u r r e d i n S t a t e v. P e n d e r g r a s s ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont . ----- r 615 P.2d 201, 37 St.Rep. 1370 ( P e n d e r g r a s s 11). In t h a t case t h e d e f e n d a n t also a l l e g e d a due p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n r e s u l t i n g from a p h o t o g r a p h i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e . P e n d e r g r a s s was c o n v i c t e d o f a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y and s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t . A p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s s a w a man g e t o u t of a p i c k u p t r u c k and walk toward t h e s c e n e of t h e crime. The w i t n e s s was shown s i x p i c t u r e s o f v a r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s . The w i t n e s s i d e n t i f i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p i c t u r e as t h e photograph which most c l o s e l y resembled t h e man he saw g e t o u t of t h e p i c k u p t r u c k and walk toward t h e crime s c e n e . There was never a p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t . L i k e w i s e , i n t h i s case, t h e r e was never any i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . W e found no due p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n i n - - - - P e n d e r g r a s s and we f i n d none h e r e . A s i n P e n d e r g r a s s , - " t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s remedy is i n e f f e c t i v e c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n with t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n q u e s t i o n t h e n becoming one of w e i g h t to be determined by t h e j u r y and n o t one of a d m i s s i b i l i t y . " S t a t e v. P e n d e r g r a s s (1978 ) , 179 Mont. 106, 113, 586 P.2d 691, 695, ( P e n d e r g r a s s I ) , ( c i t i n g S t a t e v. Miner ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 260, 546 P.2d 252). "We are c o n t e n t to r e l y upon t h e good s e n s e and judgment of American j u r i e s , f o r e v i d e n c e w i t h some element of u n t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s is customary g r i s t f o r t h e j u r y m i l l . J u r i e s are n o t s o s u s c e p t i b l e t h a t t h e y cannot measure i n t e l l i g e n t l y t h e weight of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t e s t i m o n y t h a t h a s some q u e s t i o n a b l e f e a t u r e ." P e n d e r g r a s s 11, - -- - - - - Mont. a t , 615 P.2d a t 204-205, 37 St.Rep. a t 1374, ( c i t i n g Manson v. B r a t h w a i t e ( 1 9 7 7 ) r 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 1 4 0 ) . F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t w o l a y w i t n e s s e s s h o u l d have been allowed to s t a t e t h e i r o p i n i o n as t o whom they t h o u g h t was d r i v i n g t h e car. The t w o w i t n e s s e s d i d n o t a c t u a l l y see t h e i n c i d e n t b u t were i n c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p a r t i e s s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e w i t n e s s e s should have been allowed to g i v e t h e i r o p i n i o n p u r s u a n t to Rule 701, Mont.R.Evid. The comments to Rule 701 s t a t e t h a t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e r u l e are n o t t o be c o n s i d e r e d as e x c e p t i o n s b u t as s a f e g u a r d s . Thus, i f t h e o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y is based upon p e r s o n a l knowledge i n accordance w i t h Rule 602, Mont .R. Evid., is r a t i o n a l l y based upon t h e p e r c e p t i o n of t h e w i t n e s s ( e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e o p i n i o n would o r d i n a r i l y be t h e r e s u l t of a p a r t i c u l a r p e r c e p t i o n ) ; a n d , t h e o p i n i o n is h e l p f u l to a clear u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e w i t n e s s e s f t e s t i m o n y o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a f a c t i n i s s u e , t h e n t h e o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e should be allowed. W e do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e is of t h e kind t h e r u l e i n t e n d s t o allow. According to t h e comments t h e r u l e " e x p r e s s e s t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e F e d e r a l d r a f t e r s of I . . . p u t t i n g t h e trier of f a c t i n p o s s e s s i o n of an a c c u r a t e reproduc- t i o n of t h e e v e n t . ' Advisory C o m m i t t e e s ' Note to F e d e r a l Rule 701, 56 F.R.D. 183, 281 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ." Thus, t h e r u l e p r i m a r i l y envi- s i o n s l a y w i t n e s s o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y from w i t n e s s e s who were i n a p o s i t i o n to p e r c e i v e an e v e n t . The two w i t n e s s e s h e r e d i d n o t see t h e a c c i d e n t . T h e i r o p i n i o n s were based upon t h e i r percep- t i o n s af t e r t h e a c c i d e n t . Furthermore, t h e record i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t least one of t h e s e w i t n e s s e s would have t e s t i f i e d c o n t r a r y to s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n a t a p r e t r i a l i n v e s t i g a t i v e subpoena proceeding . C e r t a i n l y , t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s weigh i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y r u l i n g s of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . W e f i n d no e r r o r . The c o n v i c t i o n is a£ f irmed . W e concur: n