Opinion ID: 883212
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: Did the District Court err in refusing to dismiss or reverse Counts I, III, IV, and V of the information on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence? When the issue on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict, the standard of review is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. McLain (1991), 249 Mont. 242, 246, 815 P.2d 147, 150. Defendant was convicted of Count I, theft of golf course driving range money, pursuant to § 45-6-301(1)(b), MCA, which provides: (1) A person commits the offense of theft when the person purposely or knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property of the owner and: ... . (b) purposely or knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the property in a manner that deprives the owner of the property... . Defendant argues that his conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence that failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence alone. State v. Bromgard (1993), 261 Mont 291, 295, 862 P.2d 1140, 1142; State v. Atlas (1986), 224 Mont. 92, 95, 728 P.2d 421, 423. When circumstantial evidence is susceptible to two interpretations, one which supports guilt and the other which supports innocence, the trier of fact determines which is the most reasonable. State v. Tome (1987), 228 Mont. 398, 401, 742 P.2d 479, 481. Golf pro Bill Dunn testified that defendant instructed him to withhold from the daily deposit one-third of the money collected from the sale of driving range balls. Mr. Dunn was directed to turn that money over to defendant. Defendant informed Mr. Dunn that the money would be used for the Ice Breaker Run, the pet and doll parade, and T-shirts. There is no record of this money being deposited into City or Department accounts for these purposes, nor is there any evidence to show that defendant used any of the driving range money he collected for these purposes. Based on the facts and circumstances, the jury, as trier of fact, found that the most reasonable explanation for the missing golf club membership money and the missing driving range money was theft by defendant. Defendant was found guilty of Count III, felony theft of golf lesson money belonging to Bill Dunn and Connie Crammer, pursuant to § 45-6-301, MCA. Dunn and Crammer taught winter golf lessons. Teaching winter golf lessons was not part of their employment contracts with the City. Students paid either instructor directly. Defendant contends that he solicited financial contributions from Dunn and Crammer to support the Ice Breaker Run and the pet and doll parade. According to defendant, Dunn and Crammer voluntarily contributed $3000 to $4000 per year to defendant. Dunn and Crammer testified that defendant instructed them to turn over one-third of their golf lesson money to him. There is no record of any portion of this money being deposited into City or Department accounts. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence supports the jury's verdict as to Count III. Defendant was found guilty of Count IV, theft of City golf course membership money, pursuant to § 45-6-301, MCA. Defendant again argues that his conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence that failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As with Count I, we find that the jury, as trier of fact, determined that the most reasonable interpretation of the circumstantial evidence presented at trial was defendant's guilt as to Count IV. Defendant was found guilty of Count V, tampering with public records, pursuant to § 45-7-208, MCA, which provides in part: (1) A person commits the offense of tampering with public records or information if he: (a) knowingly makes a false entry in or false alteration of any record, document, legislative bill or enactment, or thing belonging to or received, issued, or kept by the government for information or record or required by law to be kept by others for information of government... . Golfers paid for City golf course memberships with cash, check, or both. Dunn, or someone on his staff, would tabulate the receipts from memberships sold and the amount of membership money collected to be sure the two balanced out. Dunn testified that they always balanced out. Defendant, rather than a park security guard, picked up membership money with the daily deposit and report and delivered them to the Department for Mrs. Floerchinger to deposit. She testified that the amount of money she received from defendant was usually less than the number of memberships sold. Mrs. Duarte prepared an annual golf report which detailed the number of City golf course memberships sold and the money deposited into the Department account from those sales. Mrs. Duarte informed defendant of discrepancies between the number of memberships sold and the amount of money deposited. From 1983 to 1989, defendant instructed Mrs. Duarte to change the number of memberships sold to match the amount of money deposited. The record supports a finding by the jury that defendant tampered with public records by directing his assistant to knowingly make false entries or alterations to the annual golf membership report. We hold that the District Court did not err when it refused to dismiss or reverse Counts I, III, IV, and V of the information for insufficiency of evidence.