NO. 13039
I N THE SUPREME C U T (IF THE STATE OF M N A A OR OTN
THE STATE O M N A A F OTN,
P l a i n t i f f and Appellant,
-vs - BRYON PAUL BEAUDETTE,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Perry 3 . Moore argued and Robert J o Rice appeared, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John F. North, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted: October 14, 1976
Decided: NO\/261976 Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T . 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 i s a n a p p e a l from a j u r y v e r d i c t e n t e r e d i n t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County.
On December 31, 1974, two men robbed t h e Oakes Bar
i n Bozeman, Montana. The men wore s t o c k i n g c a p s and s k i masks
throughout t h e robbery. The t a l l e r of t h e two men w i t h a gun
i n h i s l e f t hand c o n t r o l l e d t h e r o b b e r y , w h i l e t h e o t h e r man
remained n e a r t h e back of t h e b a r i n t h e shadows, a l s o armed
w i t h a gun. The s h o r t e r man was r e f e r r e d t o a s "Michael" by t h e
t a l l e r man. The owner d e s c r i b e d t h e t a l l e r man a s 5 ' 1 0 " t o 6 '
t a l l , 185-220 l b s , brown, s h o u l d e r l e n g t h h a i r , wearing g l a s s e s ,
a b l u e o r g r e e n down j a c k e t , and a s t o c k i n g c a p . The two men
l e f t through t h e r e a r door a f t e r t h e robbery.
A t a b o u t t h i s t i m e a man o u t s i d e t h e Oakes Bar o b s e r v e d
two men, one c a r r y i n g a gun, r u n o u t t h e r e a r d o o r of t h e Oakes
Bar and e n t e r a brown GM t y p e c a r w i t h a w h i t e t o p , having no
rear license plate. T h i s w i t n e s s was j o i n e d s h o r t l y by t h e owner
of t h e Oakes, whereupon t h e y watched t h i s car proceed i n a n
easterly direction. The p o l i c e were n o t i f i e d and a n a l l p o i n t s
b u l l e t i n was i s s u e d g i v i n g a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c a r and t h e two
robbers.
S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , a brown GM t y p e a u t o m o b i l e w i t h a
w h i t e t o p , b e a r i n g no l i c e n s e p l a t e s w a s s t o p p e d e a s t o f Bozeman.
Three men were i n t h e c a r , Gary Radi, John Michael Miner, and
d e f e n d a n t , Byron P a u l B e a u d e t t e . Defendant was 6 ' 1 " t a l l , weighed 220 l b s . , had l o n g brown h a i r , and wore g l a s s e s . I n t h e back
s e a t of t h e c a r w a s a b l u e down j a c k e t , l a t e r worn by B e a u d e t t e
when q u e s t i o n e d i n L i v i n g s t o n .
O J a n u a r y 2 , 1975, t h e owner of t h e Oakes B a r , t h r e e n
p a t r o n s p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y , and t h e w i t n e s s who o b s e r v e d t h e get-away car w e r e a s k e d t o make a p h o t o g r a p h i c i d e n t i f i -
cation. One a t a t i m e t h e s e w i t n e s s e s were asked t o l o o k a t
t h r e e p i c t u r e s , and were t o l d t h a t a l l t h r e e men w e r e s u s p e c t s .
The owner and one p a t r o n s e l e c t e d B e a u d e t t e a s t h e t a l l e r
robber. The o t h e r w i t n e s s e s were u n a b l e t o make any i d e n t i f i -
c a t i o n whatsoever.
A t t r i a l , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e of t h e
p r e t r i a l photographic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of defendant, a s w e l l a s
a p o s i t i v e 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 owner, and a t e n t a t i v e
i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by o n e p a t r o n . A t t h e t i m e of t h e i n -
c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , d e f e n d a n t was n o t s e a t e d a t t h e d e f e n s e
c o u n s e l t a b l e , b u t i n t h e f o u r t h row of t h e s p e c t a t o r p o r t i o n
o f t h e courtroom. Defendant w a s c o n v i c t e d by t h e j u r y and sen-
t e n c e d t o 40 y e a r s i n p r i s o n .
Defendant now a p p e a l s t h a t judgment r a i s i n g a s i n g l e
issue: Whether t h e c o n v i c t i o n r e s u l t e d from 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 procedure t h a t w a s s o impermissibly suggestive a s t o give
r i s e 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 -
cation?
Leading United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t c a s e s d e a l i n g w i t h
p r e t r i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s and s u b s e q u e n t i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i -
c a t i o n s a r e S t o v a l l v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S e c t . 1967, 18
L ed 2d 1199; Simmons v . United S t a t e s , 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88
S.Ct. 967, 1 9 L ed 2d 1247, 1253; F o s t e r v . C a l i f o r n i a , 394 U.S.
4 4 0 , 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L ed 2d 402; and N e i l v. B i g g e r s , 409
U.S. 188, 1 9 6 , 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L ed 2d 401, 410.
I n N e i l t h e r e i s d i c t u m t h a t t h e r e a r e two d i s t i n c t t e s t s ,
a more s t r i n g e n t one r e q u i r i n g i n a d m i s s i b i l i t y of e v i d e n c e of
p r e t r i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and a more l e n i e n t one a p p l i e d t o cases
such a s Simmons, where o n l y a n i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s r e l i e d
upon. A t h o r o u g h a n a l y s i s from S t o v a l l t h r o u g h N e i l i s p r o v i d e d by Justice Friendly in Brathwaite v. Manson, 527 F.2d 363 (2nd Cir. 1975). As Justice Friendly points out, there is sound policy to require inadmissibility of evidence of an im- permissibly suggestive pretrial identification, since more probative value is often times given to such than an in-court identification. The reason is that the pretrial identification is usually made immediately after the crime, when it is still fresh in the minds of the witnesses, and such identification is not subject to cross-examination as is the in-court identifi- cation. However, in this case we are confined to the admissi-
bility of the in-court identification, since defendant did not object to the pretrial photographic evidence, and his proposed instruction questioned only the reliability of the in-court identification.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NO. 13039
I N THE SUPREME C U T (IF THE STATE OF M N A A OR OTN
THE STATE O M N A A F OTN,
P l a i n t i f f and Appellant,
-vs - BRYON PAUL BEAUDETTE,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Perry 3 . Moore argued and Robert J o Rice appeared, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John F. North, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted: October 14, 1976
Decided: NO\/261976 Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T . 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 i s a n a p p e a l from a j u r y v e r d i c t e n t e r e d i n t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County.
On December 31, 1974, two men robbed t h e Oakes Bar
i n Bozeman, Montana. The men wore s t o c k i n g c a p s and s k i masks
throughout t h e robbery. The t a l l e r of t h e two men w i t h a gun
i n h i s l e f t hand c o n t r o l l e d t h e r o b b e r y , w h i l e t h e o t h e r man
remained n e a r t h e back of t h e b a r i n t h e shadows, a l s o armed
w i t h a gun. The s h o r t e r man was r e f e r r e d t o a s "Michael" by t h e
t a l l e r man. The owner d e s c r i b e d t h e t a l l e r man a s 5 ' 1 0 " t o 6 '
t a l l , 185-220 l b s , brown, s h o u l d e r l e n g t h h a i r , wearing g l a s s e s ,
a b l u e o r g r e e n down j a c k e t , and a s t o c k i n g c a p . The two men
l e f t through t h e r e a r door a f t e r t h e robbery.
A t a b o u t t h i s t i m e a man o u t s i d e t h e Oakes Bar o b s e r v e d
two men, one c a r r y i n g a gun, r u n o u t t h e r e a r d o o r of t h e Oakes
Bar and e n t e r a brown GM t y p e c a r w i t h a w h i t e t o p , having no
rear license plate. T h i s w i t n e s s was j o i n e d s h o r t l y by t h e owner
of t h e Oakes, whereupon t h e y watched t h i s car proceed i n a n
easterly direction. The p o l i c e were n o t i f i e d and a n a l l p o i n t s
b u l l e t i n was i s s u e d g i v i n g a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c a r and t h e two
robbers.
S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , a brown GM t y p e a u t o m o b i l e w i t h a
w h i t e t o p , b e a r i n g no l i c e n s e p l a t e s w a s s t o p p e d e a s t o f Bozeman.
Three men were i n t h e c a r , Gary Radi, John Michael Miner, and
d e f e n d a n t , Byron P a u l B e a u d e t t e . Defendant was 6 ' 1 " t a l l , weighed 220 l b s . , had l o n g brown h a i r , and wore g l a s s e s . I n t h e back
s e a t of t h e c a r w a s a b l u e down j a c k e t , l a t e r worn by B e a u d e t t e
when q u e s t i o n e d i n L i v i n g s t o n .
O J a n u a r y 2 , 1975, t h e owner of t h e Oakes B a r , t h r e e n
p a t r o n s p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y , and t h e w i t n e s s who o b s e r v e d t h e get-away car w e r e a s k e d t o make a p h o t o g r a p h i c i d e n t i f i -
cation. One a t a t i m e t h e s e w i t n e s s e s were asked t o l o o k a t
t h r e e p i c t u r e s , and were t o l d t h a t a l l t h r e e men w e r e s u s p e c t s .
The owner and one p a t r o n s e l e c t e d B e a u d e t t e a s t h e t a l l e r
robber. The o t h e r w i t n e s s e s were u n a b l e t o make any i d e n t i f i -
c a t i o n whatsoever.
A t t r i a l , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e of t h e
p r e t r i a l photographic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of defendant, a s w e l l a s
a p o s i t i v e 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 owner, and a t e n t a t i v e
i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by o n e p a t r o n . A t t h e t i m e of t h e i n -
c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , d e f e n d a n t was n o t s e a t e d a t t h e d e f e n s e
c o u n s e l t a b l e , b u t i n t h e f o u r t h row of t h e s p e c t a t o r p o r t i o n
o f t h e courtroom. Defendant w a s c o n v i c t e d by t h e j u r y and sen-
t e n c e d t o 40 y e a r s i n p r i s o n .
Defendant now a p p e a l s t h a t judgment r a i s i n g a s i n g l e
issue: Whether t h e c o n v i c t i o n r e s u l t e d from 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 procedure t h a t w a s s o impermissibly suggestive a s t o give
r i s e 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 -
cation?
Leading United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t c a s e s d e a l i n g w i t h
p r e t r i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s and s u b s e q u e n t i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i -
c a t i o n s a r e S t o v a l l v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S e c t . 1967, 18
L ed 2d 1199; Simmons v . United S t a t e s , 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88
S.Ct. 967, 1 9 L ed 2d 1247, 1253; F o s t e r v . C a l i f o r n i a , 394 U.S.
4 4 0 , 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L ed 2d 402; and N e i l v. B i g g e r s , 409
U.S. 188, 1 9 6 , 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L ed 2d 401, 410.
I n N e i l t h e r e i s d i c t u m t h a t t h e r e a r e two d i s t i n c t t e s t s ,
a more s t r i n g e n t one r e q u i r i n g i n a d m i s s i b i l i t y of e v i d e n c e of
p r e t r i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and a more l e n i e n t one a p p l i e d t o cases
such a s Simmons, where o n l y a n i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s r e l i e d
upon. A t h o r o u g h a n a l y s i s from S t o v a l l t h r o u g h N e i l i s p r o v i d e d by Justice Friendly in Brathwaite v. Manson, 527 F.2d 363 (2nd Cir. 1975). As Justice Friendly points out, there is sound policy to require inadmissibility of evidence of an im- permissibly suggestive pretrial identification, since more probative value is often times given to such than an in-court identification. The reason is that the pretrial identification is usually made immediately after the crime, when it is still fresh in the minds of the witnesses, and such identification is not subject to cross-examination as is the in-court identifi- cation. However, in this case we are confined to the admissi-
bility of the in-court identification, since defendant did not object to the pretrial photographic evidence, and his proposed instruction questioned only the reliability of the in-court identification. Therefore, we must apply the appropriate test for those cases where the prosecution relies solely upon an in- court identification, as mandated by Neil, citing Simmons: " ' * * * we hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identifications at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.'" (Emphasis supplied.) The photographic identification procedure used here (only 3 pictures presented, and each witness informed that such pictures were of the robbery suspects) cannot be praised by this Court, since it was somewhat suggestive. However, considering the entire record, such procedure was not so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable mis- identification in court (at which time defendant was not seated at the defense counsel table, but in the fourth row of the spec- tator portion of the courtroom). What does appear from the record i s t h a t t h e r e a r e , s i m i l a r t o S t a t e v . B o r c h e r t , 156 Mont. 315,
319, 479 P.2d 454, s u f f i c i e n t m a t e r i a l f a c t s , o t h e r t h a n t h e i n -
court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , t o support t h i s conviction.
Two men robbed t h e Oakes B a r , t h e t a l l e r of t h e two h e l d
a gun i n h i s l e f t hand, wore a b l u e o r g r e e n down j a c k e t , and
was d e s c r i b e d a s 6 ' t a l l , 185-220 pounds, wore g l a s s e s , and
had brown s h o u l d e r l e n g t h h a i r . The two men g o t i n t o a brown GM
t y p e c a r w i t h a w h i t e t o p , w i t h o u t r e a r l i c e n s e p l a t e s and headed
east. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , a brown GM t y p e c a r , w i t h a w h i t e t o p
and no l i c e n s e p l a t e s i n which d e f e n d a n t w a s r i d i n g w a s s t o p p e d
e a s t of Bozeman. A t t h i s t i m e d e f e n d a n t was 6 ' 1 " t a l l , weighed
220 l b s . , had l o n g brown h a i r , wore g l a s s e s , and w a s l e f t - h a n d e d .
Also t h e r e was a b l u e down c o a t on t h e back s e a t o f t h e c a r which
was worn by d e f e n d a n t l a t e r i n L i v i n g s t o n . During t h e r o b b e r y ,
t h e t a l l e r man r e f e r r e d t o t h e s h o r t e r one a s "Michael". Also
i n t h e c a r was John Michael Miner, sometimes r e f e r r e d t o a s "Mike"
by f r i e n d s . The w i t n e s s who o b s e r v e d t h e get-away c a r , t e s t i f i e d
t h i s c a r w a s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e one he saw l e a v e from t h e back o f
t h e Oakes. When t h e c a r was s t o p p e d , a highway p a t r o l m a n o b s e r v e d
a box p a r t i a l l y under t h e f r o n t s e a t . When t h e c a r was s e a r c h e d
i n L i v i n g s t o n , t h e box was m i s s i n g . F u r t h e r m o r e , a second eye-
w i t n e s s made a t e n t a t i v e i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .
Where t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s
v e r d i c t , t h i s Court w i l l n o t r e v e r s e . S t a t e v . Miner, Mont .
The judgmen
Chief J u s t i c e
W e concur:
--- Hon. R o b e r t ~ / ' % ~ k e sD, i s t r i c t J u d g e , s i t t i f i /' i n p l a c e o f M r . g J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s .