State v. Black

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: December 13, 1973
• Docket: 12459
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 12459

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F

THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

-VS - WENDELEN P. BLACK,

Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. J . Nelson, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For A p p e l l a n t :

John C . H a l l argued, Great F a l l s , Montana

For Respondent :

Hon. Robert L , Woodahl, A t t o r n e y General, Helena, Montana J. C. Weingartner, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y General, argued, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , Great F a l l s , Montana Thomas H . C l a r y , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , argued, Great F a l l s , Montana

Submitted: September 10, 1973

Decided : 'QTC 1 3 1973 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

This i s an appeal from a c o n v i c t i o n of t h e crime of b u r g l a r y 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 of Cascade County. De- fendant Wendelen P. Black was sentenced t o twenty y e a r s imprison- ment, w i t h t h e l a s t f i v e y e a r s suspended. The s t a t e sought i n - creased punishment due t o previous c o n v i c t i o n s . On t h e evening of August 5 , 1972, D , J . ' s Mazda, an a u t o - mobile d e a l e r s h i p i n Great F a l l s , Montana, was b u r g l a r i z e d . At about 10:OO p.m. t h a t evening persons i n a r e s i d e n c e behind t h e automobile agency b u i l d i n g observed s u s p i c i o u s a c t i v i t y , a p p a r e n t l y w h i l e t h e b u r g l a r y was i n p r o g r e s s . The p o l i c e were n o t i f i e d and a d e s c r i p t i o n of a c a r involved was given them. Within an hour t h e c a r was l o c a t e d and t h e t h r e e occupants arrested. One was defendant Black who had a f r e s h c u t on h i s arm. Glass fragments found i n h i s shoes matched t h e broken g l a s s a t t h e r e a r e n t r a n c e of D . J . ' s Mazda, through which e n t r a n c e had been gained. A f o o t p r i n t found i n s i d e D . J , ' s Mazda matched lack's shoe. The h e e l of a shoe found o u t s i d e t h e Mazda b u i l d i n g came from a shoe worn by a n o t h e r man a r r e s t e d w i t h Black i n t h e c a r . The a r t i c l e s taken i n t h e b u r g l a r y , along w i t h a r t i c l e s belonging t o t h e owner of t h e c a r , were l a t e r found on R i v e r f r o n t road n e a r t h e c i t y . O appeal defendant p r e s e n t s f o u r i s s u e s : n

(1) Whether t h e p r o s e c u t o r committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n c e r t a i n remarks made d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of h i s c l o s i n g argument7 (2) Whether a c e r t a i n l a r g e t o o l box, E x h i b i t / I l l , was e r r o n e o u s l y admitted i n t o evidence? (3) Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n g i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s numbered 17, 35 and 36 and i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e d e f e n d a n t ' s o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n number 7? (4) Whether t h e evidence a g a i n s t defendant was s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e v e r d i c t of g u i l t y ? I s s u e ( I ) , concerning t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s remarks d u r i n g c l o s i n g argument i s n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s Court. Although i t appears from t h e r e c o r d t h a t some p e r s o n a l opinion comment was made, and defense counsel d i d o b j e c t a t t h e time, no complete r e c o r d was p e r f e c t e d t h a t would i n d i c a t e t o t h i s Court what was a c t u a l l y s a i d so t h a t t h e e f f e c t , i f any, on t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of defendant could b e determined. S t a t e v. Watkins, 156 Mont. 456, 481 P.2d 689. I s s u e (2) concerns t h e l a c k of foundation f o r a d m i t t i n g i n t o evidence a l a r g e t o o l box, E x h i b i t #11, over o b j e c t i o n . I t appears from t h e r e c o r d t h a t E x h i b i t //I1 was t h e b a s e p a r t of a s m a l l e r t o o l box i n t r o d u c e d e a r l i e r i n t h e t r i a l a s E x h i b i t {/3. Patrolman Dan Loomis t e s t i f i e d about b o t h t o o l boxes and t h e i r r e l a t i o n one t o t h e o t h e r . He explained t h e l a r g e r box, E x h i b i t 1/11, was n o t produced by him because i t was t o o heavy t o c a r r y . Charles James, a mechanic f o r D . J . ' s Mazda, a l s o t e s t i f i e d con- c e r n i n g b o t h t o o l boxes; t h a t they were s t o l e n from D . J . ' s Mazda and he had i d e n t i f i e d them a t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n . Later i n the t r i a l D e t e c t i v e Macek produced t h e l a r g e r and h e a v i e r t o o l box and t e s t i f i e d as t o it. Considering a l l t h e t r i a l testimony, b o t h t h e l a r g e and small t o o l boxes were s u f f i c i e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d and con- nected w i t h t h e crime charged. I s s u e (3) concerns i n s t r u c t i o n s given and r e f u s e d . In- s t r u c t i o n number 35, gi.ven by t h e c o u r t r e a d s : 11 Duly q u a l i f i e d e x p e r t s may g i v e t h e i r opinions on q u e s t i o n s i n c o n t r o v e r s y a t t h i s t r i a l . To a s s i s t you i n d e c i d i n g such q u e s t i o n s , you may c o n s i d e r t h e opinion w i t h t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d t h e r e - f o r , i f any, by t h e e x p e r t who g i v e s t h e opinion. You a r e n o t bound t o a c c e E t h e opinion of an e x p e r t a s c o n c l u s i v e , b u t y o u s h o u l d g i v e t o i t t h e weight t o which you s h a l l f i n d i t t o b e e n t i t l e d . You may d i s r e g a r d any such o p i n i o n , i f you f i n d i t t o be un- reasonable." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . I n s t r u c t i o n number 35 i s a proper i n s t r u c t i o n on e x p e r t testimony, a s t h e defense admits, and we a r e n o t i n c l i n e d t o con- s i d e r t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o g i v e d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n number 14 a s e r r o r . I t may be t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed number 1 4 s t a t e s t h e r u l e i n language t h a t a p p l i e s t o h i s f a c t s i t u a t i o n more d i r e c t l y b u t t h i s could be t r u e w i t h any of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s . C o u r t ' s given i n s t r u c t i o n number 17 explained c r i m i n a l g u i l t d e r i v e d from a i d i n g and a b e t t i n g commission o f a crime. C o u r t ' s given i n s t r u c t i o n number 36 explained t h e r e q u i s i t e s of a l i b i a s a complete defense. Defendant contends t h a t t h e s e i n - s t r u c t i o n s were i n c o n s i . s t e n t and c o n f l i c t i n g a s t o whether de- f e n d a n t ' s p h y s i c a l presence was r e q u i r e d a t t h e scene of t h e crime f o r conviction. W f i n d no i n c o n s i s t e n c y because t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s e r e l a t e d t o separate i s s u e s before t h e jury. One was given on t h e s t a t e ' s t h e o r y of t h e c a s e and t h e o t h e r t o accomodate t h e de- f e n d a n t ' s defense of a l i b i . S t a t e v. Quinlan, 84 Mont. 364, 275 P. 750; S t a t e v. Donges, 126 Mont. 341, 251 P.2d 254. I n any c a s e , i t appears t h a t b o t h i n s t r u c t i o n s were framed s o a s t o b e f a v o r a b l e t o defendant. Defendant's o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n number 7 r e l a t e d t o pre- sumption o f innocence. The j u r y was amply i n s t r u c t e d concerning presumption of innocence i n f o u r o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n by t h e c o u r t and r e f u s a l of o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n number 7 was n o t e r r o r . S t a t e v. Logan, 156 Mont. 48, 473 P.2d 833; S t a t e v. Meidinger, Mon t . , 502 P.2d 58, 29 St.Rep. 861. F i n a l l y , concerning i s s u e ( 4 ) - - - s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i - dence---we f i n d t h e r e was ample s u b s t a n t i a l and c r e d i b l e evidence b e f o r e t h e j u r y upon which i t could f i n d defendant g u i l t y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. Viewing t h i s evidence, a s we must, i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , we f i n d no r e a s o n t o d i s t u r b t h e v e r d i c t and judgment of c o n v i c t i o n . S t a t e v. Peschon, 131 Mont.

The judgment of c o n v i c t i Chief J u s t i c e

................................... Justices.