Court Opinion

ID: 9632464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:15:47.104859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:16.862828
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE FREEBOURN:
(dissenting).
I dissent because the conviction of defendant rests upon exceedingly slight evidence. A nickname called in the dark; a policeman’s statement that defendant was known by such nickname; and the same policeman’s statement that defendant made oral admissions to him. This is all the evidence that connects defendant with the crime charged.
The law requires more and stronger evidence than this before defendant’s conviction should be affirmed. The guarantees of our constitutions of a fair trial require more and stronger evidence than this to sustain a conviction.
The evidence connecting defendant with the crime is not satisfactory evidence, and only satisfactory evidence will justify this conviction.
"The evidence is deemed satisfactory which ordinarily produces moral certainty or conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Such evidence alone will justify a verdict. Evidence less than this is denominated slight evidence.” R. C. M. 1947, sec. 93-301-13.
There is no direct evidence that defendant was seen at the place of the crime or participated in it.
State’s witness, Margaret Moore, on redirect examination, was asked the leading question:
"Q. Did you identify any one by name? A. Walley.
"Q. Did you know the person or just hear the name? A. Just heard the name.
*227“Q. You just heard the name ‘Walley’? A. Yes.”
State’s witness, Massey, a police detective, testified as follows: “Q. What did the defendant Calvin Simon say to you at that time ? A. In the course of the questioning I asked Calvin if he had been to Laurel. At first he denied it. Then there was some confusion. * * *
“Q. What statement did the defendant Calvin Simon make to you at that time in front of the other person? A. He admitted firing the gun.
“Q. Did he make further statements to you at that time? A. Not at that time.
“Q. Did he make any further statements to you at any further time? A. When the probation officer, Mr. Thomas, came into the room, he admitted in front of him and his parents that he had fired the gun.”
Probation officer Albert Thomas did not corroborate Massey. Nor was he asked, while on the stand, if he was present when such statement was made to Massey. Thomas’ testimony shows he talked to defendant in the presence of defendant’s father and mother and that at no time did he admit to Thomas directly or indirectly, that defendant had fired a gun or participated in or been at the scene of the crime.
Then the leading question was put to Massey: “Q. Did he, at the time he made this statement you have alluded to, state to you he had been to the Moore farm out at Laurel?”
An objection being sustained, he was asked: “Q. Did the defendant Calvin Simon make a further statement to you at that time? A. Calvin or Walley Simon admitted- — ”
The voluntary connecting, by the witness, of the defendant to the name “Walley,” without being asked or any foundation laid leading up to it, shows the interest of Massey in tying the defendant into the case.
It led the prosecutor to the next question:
“Q. Did you at any time hear the defendant Calvin Simon called by any other name than Calvin Simon? A. I did.
“Q. What would that name be? A. Walley.
*228“Q. You thought that to be a nickname so far as you were concerned? A. Yes, so far as I am concerned.”
Although the record definitely shows that up until this point Massey had only “asked Calvin if he had been to Laurel. At first he denied it, then there was some confusion * * *,” this leading question was asked: “Q. I am not quite sure, detective Massey. Did you state that the defendant Calvin Simon stated to you that he had been out at the Moore farm southeast of Laurel at the time this incident occurred? A. He did.”
Massey’s cross-examination shows: “A. Through the course of questioning I asked Calvin Simon if he had fired a gun at the Moore home. He said ‘No.’ My next question was, ‘Did you fire a gun in the direction of the Moore home?’ and he said ‘Yes.’ Q. And that was the question and answer? A. Yes.”
He admitted he had not asked defendant where he stood when he allegedly fired the gun or that Re asked whether a rifle or shotgun was fired, although this was an investigation into the crime.
Strangely enough, although a written record was made of the oral examination of another suspect no written record was made of defendant’s examination.
“Q. Now, you say there was no written statement made— was there any record made — A. No, sir not to my knowledge.
‘ ‘ Q. — -of that conversation, sir ? A. Not to my knowledge. * * *
“Q. Did you at the time you interviewed the defendant Wiesner make a record ? A. I did. ’ ’
Massey testified further: “Q. Now, did you state that the defendant Simon told you that he fired a shot in the direction of the Moore home? A. That is what he told me. He denied firing at the Moore home. He said he fired at the direction—
“Q. I want you to tell me if at that time and place with those persons present, the defendant Simon denied firing at the Moore home and told you he had shot in the air. A. He did not talk of shooting in the air.
“Q. What did you reply to the defendant Simon when he *229told .you that he had not fired at the Moore home ? A. I probably told him I did not believe it.
“Q. Yes, you may have told him that. But what did you tell him? — You can answer. A. I cannot remember if — .”
If probation officer Thomas had been present, as Massey said, and heard defendant admit firing a gun, the prosecution would have brought such fact out in Thomas’s testimony. Since this fact was not touched upon or some explanation given as to why Thomas did not corroborate and bear out Massey’s statement, we can only assume, giving defendant the benefit of every doubt as the law directs, that had Thomas been asked if, in the presence of Massey, he had heard defendant admit firing a gun, Thomas’s answer would have been a denial, thus directly contradicting and impeaching Massey.
Defendant’s conviction is based almost entirely on oral admissions Massey alleges defendant made.
Oral admissions are slight evidence and should be viewed with distrust. If probation officer Thomas’s failure to corroborate Massey’s statement that defendant admitted firing a gun means that such statement of Massey is false, then he is to be distrusted in other facts of his testimony.
The evidence indicates Massey was an interested witness. This being true, and the prosecution failing to produce testimony by Thomas, showing the alleged admission by defendant and which would have been stronger and more satisfactory evidence than that of Massey alone, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust.
This is the law and well applies in the present case where no written record was made of defendant’s oral examination, although it was apparently the practice to make such records and such record in fact was made of the examination of another suspect.
R. C. M. 1947, sec.■ 93-2001-1, in part provides: “3. That a witness false in one part of his testimony is to be distrusted in others;
“4. That the testimony of an accomplice ought to be viewed *230with distrust, and the evidence of the oral admissions of a party with caution * * *.
“6. That evidence is to be estimated not only by its own intrinsic weight, but also according to the evidence which it is in the power of one side to produce, and of 'the other to contradict; and therefore,
“7. That if weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered, when it appears that stronger and more satisfactory was within the power of the party, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust.”
Chief Justice Brantly, in Escallier v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 46 Mont. 238, 127 Pac. 458, 461, speaking for this court, said:
“Speaking generally, this character of evidence is the weakest and least satisfactory of any in persuasive value. ‘With respect to all verbal admissions, it may be observed that they ought to be received with great caution. The evidence, consisting as it does in the mere repetition of oral statements, is subject to much imperfection and mistake; the party himself either being misinformed, or not having clearly expressed his own meaning, or the witness having misunderstood him. It frequently happens, also, that the witness by unintentionally altering a few of the expressions really used gives an effect to the statement completely at variance with what the party actually did say.’ 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, (16th Ed.,) sec. 200. The weakness of this character of evidence is recognized by the statute, and it is thereby made the duty of a trial court on all proper occasions to instruct the jury that it is to be viewed with caution. Rev. Codes [1907], sec. 8028; McCrimmon v. Murray, 43 Mont. 457, 117 Pac. 73. It is a quality which attaches to all oral testimony as to declarations or admissions which are relevant to the issues on trial, and are competent because they are against the interest of the party making them or fall within some other rule of admissibility. Though the witness who testifies to the oral statement may be honest, his memory may be at fault, or he may have failed to comprehend and interpret the statement as it was intended to be under*231stood by tbe speaker. In ease it was involuntary, as here, he may not recall the words used, and in endeavoring to relate what he heard give the statement a meaning which the words actually used did not import. Moreover, so easy is it to fabricate such evidence that there is strong temptation to a dishonest, interested witness to do so. 17 Cyc. 806, and notes. * * * the author of the article in Cyc. on this subject * * * then proceeds to enumerate the circumstances which have been noticed by the courts as tending to impair the credibility of such testimony. Among these are the following: ‘ * # * that better and available evidence to prove the fact admitted in the alleged statement is not produced; * * * that other persons present when the alleged statement was made are not produced nor their absence accounted for; that witnesses testifying to the statement are interested parties or otherwise biased; * * * that the memory of the witness is in a confused condition; * * * that discrepancies in the examination of the witness in chief and his cross-examination, although immaterial, betray inaccuracy or confusion of memory; that the witness’ testimony, is loose, uncertain, and contradictory; * * *.’
“These observations are pertinent here.”
In passing it may be well to point out that witness Massey when asked, at the beginning of his direct testimony: “ Q. Who were present at the time you talked with defendant Calvin Simon?” answered: “Deputy Sheriff Hartley and Mr. and Mrs. Simon.” He also named another boy as being present.
We can understand why the defendant’s mother and father were not called as state’s witnesses, and why the boy, also a suspect was not called, to testify to the alleged admissions of defendant.
However, Deputy Sheriff Hartley was called. But search his testimony as you will, and although he says he was present “when the defendant Calvin Simon was interrogated by Albert Thomas, the probation officer, and Detective Massey of the police department,” you will not find Deputy Sheriff Hartley making any statement to the effect that defendant admitted *232being at the Moore farm or having fired a gun. In fact he said: “I did not hear Massey ask Simon any question.” Then, too, stronger evidence that defendant was known as Walley could have been produced by calling defendant’s school mates and the like.
Defendant’s conviction resting as it does on Massey’s testimony, so easy of corroboration if true, but not corroborated, should not be upheld.