State v. Hendricks

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: October 19, 1976
• Docket: 13269
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 13269

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN

STATE O MONTANA, F

P l a i n t i f f and R.espondent ,

-VS - J O H N EUGENE HENDRICKS,

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

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record :

For Appellant:

S t i m a t z and Engel, B u t t e , Montana Joseph C. Engel, 1 1 a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana 1

F o r Respondent :

Hon. R o b e r t Td. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana John North a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Edward L. Deschamps, 1 1 County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , 1 Montana Edward McLean, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana

Submitted: September 1, 1976

Decided : EjCT i. 3 ;_, .,

Filed : I . -, Mr.J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court . Defendant a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e f t , a g g r a v a t e d

a s s a u l t , and two c o u n t s of s a l e of d a n g e r o u s d r u g s i n t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t , Missoula County.

On J u n e 5 , 1975, O f f i c e r B i l l O l s e n , o f t h e Region One

Anti-Drug Team, Missoula s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e , and K e i t h Sorenson o f

t h e Glasgow p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t , m e t d e f e n d a n t i n M i s s o u l a .

According t o O l s e n ' s t e s t i m o n y , Hendricks s a i d h e would

s e l l him 1 , 0 0 0 h i t s of speed. Olsen d i d n ' t have enough money,

s o t h e n Hendricks s a i d he c o u l d g e t some c o c a i n e . The o f f i c e r s

d i d n o t have enough money f o r t h i s e i t h e r , s o Hendricks s a i d h e

would g e t them some c r y s t a l methamphetamine. O f f i c e r Olsen and

d e f e n d a n t went t o a Missoula b a r where Hendricks e n t e r e d and re-

turned. Hendricks t h e n g a v e Olsen a p a p e r p a c k e t c o n t a i n i n g

powder i n exchange f o r t h i r t y d o l l a r s , r e p r e s e n t i n g i t t o be

c r y s t a l methamphetamine. I t w a s from t h i s t r a n s a c t i o n t h a t o n e

c o u n t of s a l e of d a n g e r o u s d r u g s r e s u l t e d . The powder l a t e r

proved t o be c a f f e i n e , a n u n c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e .

The second c o u n t of c r i m i n a l s a l e o f dangerous d r u g s

a r o s e from a n i n c i d e n t o c c u r r i n g i n t h e e a r l y morning h o u r s of

J u n e 8 , 1975.

A c o u p l e o f d a y s a f t e r buying t h e p a c k e t o f powder, O f f i c e r

Olsen and Hendricks e n c o u n t e r e d e a c h o t h e r on t h e s t r e e t i n

Missoula. Hendricks asked t h e undercover o f f i c e r i f he had h i s

money t h i s t i m e . The o f f i c e r answered t h a t he d i d , b u t when h e

r e f u s e d t o show i t Hendricks poked him w i t h a k n i f e , l a t e r re-

s u l t i n g i n t h e aggravated a s s a u l t charge. Olsen t h e n p u l l e d h i s

gun. Olsen t e s t i f i e d t h a t H e n d r i c k s , upon s e e i n g t h e gun, r a n

from Olsen s h o u t i n g " D o n ' t s h o o t ! * * * L e t ' s make a d e a l , * * * I ' v e g o t t h e dope. * * *" A f t e r Hendricks produced two p a p e r p a c k e t s from t h e t r u n k of h i s c a r and handed them t o O l s e n , Olsen a t t e m p t e d t o p l a c e

Hendricks under a r r e s t . A s c u f f l e and f o o t c h a s e e n s u e d . After

Hendricks had been apprehended, Olsen r e t u r n e d t o t h e H e n d r i c k s '

car. A young woman p a s s e n g e r i n t h e c a r was gone and t h e p a p e r

p a c k e t s and k n i f e c o u l d n o t be found.

The t h e f t c h a r g e r e s u l t e d a f t e r H e n d r i c k s ' b r o t h e r - i n -

l a w r e p o r t e d t o p o l i c e he had found i t e m s i n t h e t r u n k of h i s

c a r t h a t proved t o be s t o l e n .

Defendant p r e s e n t s two i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w :

(1) Did t h e e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l s u p p o r t t h e

c o n v i c t i o n s o f two c o u n t s , s a l e s of d a n g e r o u s d r u g s , u n d e r s e c -

t i o n 5 4 - 1 3 2 ( a ) , R.C.M. 1947?

(2) Is i t m a n i f e s t e r r o r e n t i t l i n g d e f e n d a n t t o a new

t r i a l on a l l i s s u e s , when a b r o t h e r - i n - l a w o f t h e t r i a l judge

becomes a member o f t h e j u r y ?

With r e s p e c t t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h e

p r o s e c u t i o n f a i l e d t o p r o v e Hendricks i n t e n d e d t o s e l l d a n g e r o u s

d r u g s when t h e o n e p a c k e t c o n t a i n e d c a f f e i n e and t h e c o n t e n t s of

t h e o t h e r two p a c k e t s were n o t r e c o v e r e d .

S e c t i o n 5 4 - 1 3 2 ( a ) , R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s :

"A p e r s o n commits t h e o f f e n s e o f a c r i m i n a l s a l e o f dangerous d r u g s i f he s e l l s , b a r t e r s , exchanges, gives s e l l , b a r t e r , exchange o r g i v e away, m a n u f a c t u r e s , r e p a r e s , cultivates, compounds o r p r o c e s s e s any d a n g e r o u s d r u g a s d e f i n e d in this act." ( ~ m p h a s i s dded.) a

The two c o u n t s of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n by which d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d

i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e a l l e g e d defendant " o f f e r e d t o s e l l " danger-

o u s d r u g s on J u n e 5 and a g a i n on J u n e 8 , 1975.

The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d a s f o l l o w s on t h i s p o i n t :

"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i f you f i n d i n your d e l i b e r a t i o n s t h a t t h e defendant o f f e r e d f o r s a l e what h e b e l i e v e d t o be a d a n g e r o u s d r u g , you must f i n d him g u i l t y i r r e g a r d l e s s of whether o r n o t t h e s u b s t a n c e was i n f a c t a d a n g e r o u s d r u g . "

T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s t a t e s e s s e n t i a l l y what d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h e law t o be. I t s meaning i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same a s 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 , b u t it i s more c l e a r l y worded.

D e f e n d a n t ' s argument i s on a f a c t u a l b a s i s . Counsel

a r g u e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t knew t h e powder was n o t a n i l l e g a l d r u g i n

s p i t e o f what he may have r e p r e s e n t e d t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e p a p e r

p a c k e t s t o be when he s o l d them t o t h e undercover o f f i c e r . Coun-

s e l a r g u e s d e f e n d a n t ' s o n l y i n t e n t was t o o b t a i n money.

Such a f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n was f o r t h e j u r y and w i l l

n o t be s e t a s i d e by t h i s C o u r t i f 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 support t h e v e r d i c t .

W e f i n d t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o j u s t i f y t h e

j u r y ' s v e r d i c t t h a t d e f e n d a n t t h o u g h t he was s e l l i n g d a n g e r o u s

d r u g s on J u n e 5 and J u n e 8 , 1975.

On J u n e 5 , d e f e n d a n t o b t a i n e d t h e s u b s t a n c e from h i s

s o u r c e o n l y seconds b e f o r e he d e l i v e r e d it t o O f f i c e r Olsen.

H e t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o t e s t i t . The sub-

s t a n c e i n f a c t looked l i k e c r y s t a l methamphetamine. Within a

b l o c k o f t h e p o i n t t h a t d e f e n d a n t and O f f i c e r Olsen g o t i n t h e

c a r a f t e r obtaining t h e substance, defendant i n s i s t e d t h a t Offi-

c e r Olsen t r y some of i t . Had d e f e n d a n t known t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e

was n o t c r y s t a l methamphetamine, it i s r e a s o n a b l e t o b e l i e v e , he

would n o t have made such a r e q u e s t .

The e n c o u n t e r on J u n e 8 o c c u r r e d by a c c i d e n t . Defendant

was headed s o u t h on Ryman S t r e e t and O f f i c e r Olsen was d r i v i n g

north. Defendant made a U-turn and d r o v e up behind t h e o f f i c e r .

Had d e f e n d a n t t h o u g h t t h a t he had s o l d O f f i c e r Olsen c a f f e i n e

and s u g a r on J u n e 5 , d e f e n d a n t would p r o b a b l y have a t t e m p t e d t o

a v o i d him by c o n t i n u i n g s o u t h on Ryman S t r e e t .

Defendant d i s p l a y e d t h e c a u t i o n which i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

of one who d e a l s i n d r u g s . H e wanted t o s e e O f f i c e r O l s e n ' s

money b e f o r e a l l o w i n g t h e o f f i c e r t o see where he k e p t t h e d r u g s . One could certainly infer from this conduct that defendant was afraid that Olsen would seize the drugs and leave without pay- ing. Defendant knifed the officer when he demanded to see the drugs first. If defendant thought that he had only worthless powder in the trunk, he would not have needed to be so cautious. Concerning the second issue, defendant's contention is that he was deprived of a fair trial by an impartial jury be- cause the trial judge's brother-in-law served on the jury. Defendant alleges the prosecuting attorney, Ed McLean, asked the entire jury panel on voir dire whether any of them were related to any of the court officials and none responded. McLean however, on oral argument, denied he asked the question. The juror in question stated under oath he would have made his relationship known if he had been asked, as he did in the form questionnaire sent to prospective jurors. Defendant's unsupported allegation to the contrary will not support his claim of erroneous answers on voir dire examin- ation of this juror. State v. Mont . , 545 P.2d 1070, 33 St.Rep. 95, 100, (1976). (Habeas corpus granted on other grounds, 33 St.Rep. 681.) There is no record of the voir dire examination before us. It is the practice in Missoula County to send a form questionnaire to prospective jurors as to their qualification for jury service. On this questionnaire, the juror in question indi- cated that the Hon. E. Gardner Brownlee, the trial judge in this case, was his brother-in-law. Defendant did not make timely ob- jection on voir dire nor exercise his option to a preemptory challenge of this juror. Defendant has not shown authority for disqualification of this juror. Section 95-1909(d) (2), R.C.M. 1947, sets forth the grounds for challenge for cause. Relation to the trial judge i s n o t o n e o f t h e g r o u n d s a s was s t a t e d i n S t a t e v -. ' -;CIm-un at

" * * * u n l e s s t h e j u r o r f a l l s w i t h i n one o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f s e c t i o n 95-1909, h e w i l l n o t be removed f o r c a u s e w i t h o u t a showing o f p a r - t i a l i t y . * * *"

T h e r e i s no showing o f p a r t i a l i t y h e r e .

Defendant a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l judge spoke w i t h

h i s brother-in-law on t h e j u r y d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e t r i a l

resulting i n prejudice. The most t h a t c a n be made o f t h i s a l l e -

g a t i o n i s t h a t t h e j u r o r may have commented t o t h e judge t h a t j u r y

s e r v i c e w a s a demanding and t i r i n g e x p e r i e n c e .

I f d e f e n d a n t s e r i o u s l y c o n t e n d s t h e r e was a d i s c u s s i o n o f

t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e , w e f i n d no i n d i c a t i o n it o c c u r r e d . R a t h e r ,

t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h e j u r o r and t h e judge c o n d u c t e d t h e m s e l v e s

w i t h honor and p r o p r i e t y w i t h a h i g h e s t r e g a r d f o r f a i r n e s s t o

t h e accused.

Defendant h a s shown n e i t h e r e r r o r n o r p r e j u d i c e , t h e r e -

fore we affirm the convictions.

Justice