State v. Stokes

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: November 12, 1981
• Docket: 81-169
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 81-169 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- SIDNEY MILES STOKES, Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The Honorable Cardon Bennett, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Herron, Meloy and Llewellyn, Helena, Montana

For Respondent:

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Charles Graveley, County Attorney, Helena, Pllontana

Submitted on briefs; August 21, 1981 Decided: November 12, 1981

ROY 12 1987 Filed: Mr. ~ u s t i c eF r a n k B. M o r r i s o n , J r . d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e

Court.

D e f e n d a n t , S i d n e y Miles S t o k e s , was c o n v i c t e d o n J a n u a r y 1 4 , 1 9 8 1 , of r o b b e r y , t h e £ t , a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t and a g g r a v a t e d burglary. H e was s e n t e n c e d o n March 1 3 , 1 9 8 1 , b y t h e F i r s t

J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , to t e n y e a r s o n e a c h o f t h e f o u r c o u n t s , to run c o n c u r r e n t l y . F i v e y e a r s on e a c h c o u n t were suspended. The d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n o n a l l f o u r

counts.

A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8 : 4 5 a.m. o n November 2 5 , 1 9 8 0 , C a r o l y K e l l y and F r e d K e t r o n s u r p r i s e d a man who w a s b u r g l a r i z i n g K e l l y ' s r e s i d e n c e on Van O r s d a l Road i n t h e H e l e n a V a l l e y . The b u r g l a r ' s lower f a c e was c o v e r e d w i t h a p i l l o w case. He forced

K e l l y and K e t r o n a t g u n p o i n t to l i e on t h e f l o o r and c o v e r e d t h e t w o with blankets. The b u r g l a r r e p e a t e d l y t o l d t h e t w o i f t h e y

l o o k e d a t him he would k i l l them. H e c o n t i n u e d w i t h t h e t h e f t o f items f r o m t h e r e s i d e n c e . A f t e r he d e p a r t e d t h e L e w i s and C l a r k C o u n t y S h e r i f f s D e p a r t m e n t was summoned.

The t w o v i c t i m s and a n e x t d o o r n e i g h b o r , Jewel H u r l e y , who had n o t i c e d a n u n u s u a l - l o o k i n g s t r a n g e r i n f r o n t of t h e h o u s e o n t h e m o r n i n g o f t h e crime, were r e q u e s t e d by t h e sheriff I s o f f ice t o v i e w p h o t o g r a p h s c o n t a i n e d i n mug s h o t b o o k s

i n an a t t e m p t to i d e n t i f y t h e i n d i v i d u a l . The v i e w i n g s were con- d u c t e d s e p a r a t e l y and w i t h i n a few d a y s f o l l o w i n g t h e b u r g l a r y . K e l l y , H u r l e y , and K e t r o n d i d n o t d i s c u s s w i t h e a c h o t h e r , t h e i r

attendance a t these photographic displays.

A l l t h r e e i d e n t i f i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t as t h e p e r s o n s e e n o n

November 25, 1 9 8 0 . The t h r e e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s w e r e made from a mug s h o t book c o n t a i n i n g s e v e r a l h u n d r e d p h o t o g r a p h s of d i f f e r e n t individuals. The d e f e n d a n t ' s p h o t o g r a p h s were c o n t a i n e d i n t h e b o o k as a r e s u l t o f p r e v i o u s D W I a r r e s t s .

N o l i n e u p was e v e r c o n d u c t e d . The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r e q u e s t e d a l i n e u p from t h e s h e r i f f I s department. The c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e c o n t e n d e d t h a t no s u c h r e q u e s t was e v e r

t r a n s m i t t e d to i t .

P r i o r t o t r i a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t made a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e to e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e or r e f e r e n c e s to t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had

p r e v i o u s l y b e e n a r r e s t e d , c h a r g e d , o r c o n v i c t e d o f o t h e r crimes.

The d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n made s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e s to t h e b o o k i n g p h o t o g r a p h s of t h e d e f e n d a n t which had b e e n i d e n t i f i e d b y K e t r o n , K e l l y , and H u r l e y . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n i n l i m i n e b u t a g r e e d t o g i v e a c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n to t h e j u r y c o n c e r n i n g t h e pho- t o g r a p h s of t h e defendant.

A t t r i a l , the S t a t e introduced t h e p h o t o g r a p h s of t h e defendant. K e t r o n , K e l l y , and H u r l e y a l s o made i n - c o u r t iden- t i f i c a t i o n s of the defendant. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e mug s h o t s o f d e f e n d a n t and 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 of d e f e n d a n t comprised a l l of t h e evidence submitted by t h e S t a t e , c o n n e c t i n g

defendant with the burglary. The d e f e n d a n t r e l i e d on a n a l i b i d e f e n s e , c l a i m i n g h e had b e e n a t h i s m o t h e r ' s h o u s e on t h e o t h e r s i d e o f town a t t h e t i m e

of the burglary. The d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t h e r , b r o t h e r , w i f e and a

f r i e n d t e s t i f i e d on h i s b e h a l f . A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of the t r i a l , the defendant submitted

two p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y . The

D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e f u s e d o n e as b e i n g r e d u n d a n t i n l i g h t o f o t h e r

instructions. The r e f u s e d i n s t r u c t i o n r e l a t e d e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i - mony t o t h e w i t n e s s ' s a b i l i t y to o b s e r v e t h e e v e n t .

The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t o f g u i l t y o n a l l f o u r c o u n t s . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d o n a p p e a l : 1 ) . W h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by

f a i l i n g t o e x c l u d e t h e mug s h o t p h o t o g r a p h s ? 2 ) . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by

a l l o w i n g an in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ?

3 ) . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by r e f u s i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n r e l a t i n g e y e w i t n e s s t e s ti- mony t o t h e w i t n e s s ' s a b i l i t y to o b s e r v e t h e e v e n t ?

4 ) . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t ? Defendant f i r s t c o n t e n d s t h a t a l l o w i n g t h e DWI booking

p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t t o go to t h e j u r y , n e c e s s a r i l y pre- judiced t h e j u r y because those photographs implied t h a t defendant had c o m m i t t e d p r i o r c r i m i n a l a c t s . The d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t con-

t e n d t h a t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s made b y t h e e y e w i t n e s s e s u s i n g t h e p h o t o g r a p h s were t a i n t e d or made u n d e r s u g g e s t i v e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; o n l y t h a t t h e mug s h o t s c r e a t e d a p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t o n t h e j u r y t h a t c o u l d n o t be e r a s e d .

D e f e n d a n t r e l i e s on R u l e s 4 0 4 ( b ) and 6 0 9 , Mont.R.Evid. in

s u p p o r t of h i s contention. R u l e 6 0 9 , Mont .R. E v i d . p r o v i d e s t h a t

" F o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a t t a c k i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of a w i t n e s s , e v i - d e n c e t h a t he h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a crime is n o t a d m i s s i b l e ." T h i s r u l e is c l e a r l y i n a p p l i c a b l e to t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s i t u a t i o n .

The b o o k i n g p h o t o g r a p h s a r e n o t e v i d e n c e of c o n v i c t i o n s ; t h e y m e r e l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was booked o n p r i o r o c c a s i o n s . S e c o n d l y , t h e p h o t o g r a p h s were i n t r o d u c e d f o r p u r p o s e s of

identification. N o e v i d e n c e was adduced b y t h e S t a t e a t t r i a l

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had e v e r b e e n c o n v i c t e d of a n y crime, n o r was s u c h s u g g e s t i o n made d u r i n g t r i a l . Therefore t h e p h o t o g r a p h s were - used t o a t t a c k t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e not

defendant. R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid. provides: " E v i d e n c e o f o t h e r crimes, w r o n g s , o r a c t s is n o t a d m i s s i b l e t o prove t h e c h a r a c t e r of a p e r s o n i n o r d e r to show t h a t he a c t e d i n c o n f o r - mity therewith. I t may, h o w e v e r , b e a d m i s s i b l e for o t h e r purposes, such a s ... identity . . ." T h i s e v i d e n t i a r y r u l e m u s t be viewed i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h R u l e 403 , Mont .R. E v i d . which s t a t e s : " A l t h o u g h r e l e v a n t , e v i d e n c e may be e x c l u d e d i f i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e is s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d b y t h e danger of u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e . . ." I n t h e i n s t a n t case, t h e v e r y i s s u e b e f o r e t h e j u r y w a s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t . A s a r e s u l t the photographs

u s e d b y t h e e y e w i t n e s s e s t o i d e n t i f y t h e d e f e n d a n t were r e l e v a n t evidence. T h e r e f o r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was f a c e d w i t h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e photographs, n e c e s s a r y f o r purposes o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , were u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c i a l . I t is w e l l - s e t t l e d i n Montana t h a t " . . . the q u e s t i o n of a d m i s s i b i l i t y of . . . evidence m u s t i n e v e r y case be l e f t l a r g e l y t o t h e sound l e g a l d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , s u b j e c t

t o r e v i e w o n l y i n case o f m a n i f e s t a b u s e . " S t a t e v. M e d i c i n e

B u l l ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 2 Mont. 3 4 , 4 5 , 4 4 5 P.2d 916, 922. In the i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c h o s e t o a l l o w t h e p h o t o g r a p h s to go to t h e j u r y , coupled with the following c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n : "The f a c t , a s it a p p e a r s i n e v i d e n c e , t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d and p h o t o g r a p h e d i n con- n e c t i o n w i t h a c h a r g e n o t r e l a t e d i n a n y way to t h i s case is n o t t o be c o n s i d e r e d b y you as e v i - d e n c e o f h i s g u i l t i n t h i s case, n o r is s u c h f a c t t o be c o n s i d e r e d b y you as e v i d e n c e of t h e d e f e n d a n t 1s c r e d i b i l i t y . " A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p h o t o g r a p h s stemmed from DWI c h a r g e s was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y b y t h e d e f e n d a n t . Under t h e s e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s it is i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h i s C o u r t to s a y t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e s e p h o t o g r a p h s c o n s t i t u t e s " a case of m a n i f e s t abuse ." W h a t e v e r p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t was c r e a t e d by t h e pho- t o g r a p h s w a s n e g a t e d b y t h e c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n and t h e e x p l a - n a t i o n of t h e background o f t h e photographs. D e f e n d a n t ' s s e c o n d i s s u e stems from t h e i n - c o u r t iden-

t i £ i c a t i o n s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t made b y t h e S t a t e ' s e y e w i t n e s s e s , F r e d K e t r o n , C a r o l y K e l l y , and Jewel H u r l e y . Counsel f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t o b j e c t e d to t h e in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s on t h e b a s i s t h a t no o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s i n t h e c o u r t r o o m and t h a t s e v e r a l m o n t h s had p a s s e d s i n c e t h e b u r g l a r y . The D i s t r i c t Court permitted the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , ruling t h a t defendant's

o b j e c t i o n s went to t h e w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e , n o t to i t s admissibility. With r e g a r d t o p o t e n t i a l l y t a i n t e d o u t - o f - c o u r t photo

l i n e u p i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , t h i s Court h a s s t a t e d t h a t :

" ... u n l e s s t h e error i s o b v i o u s and t h e p r e - j u d i c e c l e a r , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s remedy is i n e f f e c - t i v e cross-examination with the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n q u e s t i o n t h e n becoming o n e o f w e i g h t to be d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e j u r y and n o t o n e o f admissibility." S t a t e v. M i n e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9 Mont. 2 6 0 , 2 6 6 , 546 P.2d 2 5 2 , 256. T h i s s t a n d a r d i s e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to t h e i n s t a n t s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v i n g an in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h no claim o f t a i n t or

s u g g e s t i v e n e s s i n t h e underlying out-of - c o u r t photo identification. T h e r e f o r e t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t r u l e d c o r r e c t l y and C

c o m m i t t e d no e r r o r .

The l i n e o f cases c i t e d b y d e f e n d a n t m a n d a t i n g a r e v i e w o f "t h e t o t a l i t y of the circumstances" surrounding the in-court i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t o determine i f the proffered in-court iden-

t i £i c a t i o n s " p o s s e s s s u f f i c i e n t a s p e c t s of r e l i a b i l i t y " a p p l i e s

o n l y where a s u g g e s t i v e o r t a i n t e d o u t - o f - c o u r t identification has occurred. Such is n o t t h e case h e r e and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a r g u m e n t , a1t h o u g h n o v e l , is i n a p p l i c a b l e . Defendant n e x t asserts t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d by r e f u s i n g to g i v e t h e f o l l o w i n g proposed i n s t r u c t i o n :

" I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 1 3 . E v e r y p e r s o n who t e s t i f i e s u n d e r o a t h o r x f i r m a t i o n is a w i t n e s s . You a r e t h e sole judges of t h e b e l i e v a b i i t y of a w i t n e s s a n d t h e w e i g h t to be g i v e n to h i s t e s t i m o n y . " I n determining t h e b e l i e v a b i l i t y of a w i t n e s s y o u may c o n s i d e r a n y t h i n g t h a t h a s a t e n d e n c y i n r e a s o n t o p r o v e or d i s p r o v e t h e t r u t h f u l n e s s o f h i s t e s t i m o n y , i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d to t h e e x t e n t o f h i s o p p o r t u n i t y and a b i l i t y to see a n y matter a b o u t which he t e s t i f i e s . " The d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e a b o v e i n s t r u c t i o n m u s t be g i v e n i n conj u n c t i o n w i t h h i s i n s t r u c t i o n r e g a r d i n g e y e w i t n e s s iden- t i f i c a t i o n and g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , which was g i v e n b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t as I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 16. However, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t 1s

proposed I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 3 was s u b s t a n t i a l l y g i v e n i n

I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 which read i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "You are t h e sole j u d g e s o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f a l l t h e w i t n e s s e s who w i l l t e s t i f y i n t h i s case, a n d o f t h e w e i g h t to be g i v e n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y . "A w i t n e s s is presumed t o s p e a k t h e t r u t h ; b u t t h i s p r e s u m p t i o n may be r e p e l l e d b y t h e manner i n w h i c h he t e s t i f i e s , b y t h e n a t u r e o f h i s t e s t i m o n y , o r by e v i d e n c e a f f e c t i n g h i s c h a r a c t e r f o r t r u t h , h o n e s t y , o r i n t e g r i t y , or h i s m o t i v e s , o r by c o n t r a d i c t o r y e v i d e n c e . In d e t e r m i n i n g t h e w e i g h t t o be g i v e n to t h e t e s t i - mony of a n y w i t n e s s , you h a v e a r i g h t to con- s i d e r t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f e a c h w i t n e s s on t h e s t a n d , h i s manner o f t e s t i f y i n g , h i s a p p a r e n t c a n d o r or l a c k o f c a n d o r , h i s a p p a r e n t f a i r n e s s or l a c k of f a i r n e s s , h i s a p p a r e n t i n t e l l i g e n c e o r l a c k of i n t e l l i g e n c e , h i s knowledge and means - k n o w l e d g e o n t h e s u b j e c t upon w h i c h h e of testifies, tost= w i t h a l l t h e o t h e r dir- c u m s t a n c e s a p p e a r i n g i n e v i d e n c e on t h e t r i a l ." ( Emphasis added. )

A f t e r reviewing t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s a t i s s u e h e r e , t h i s Court a g r e e s w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ; d e f e n d a n t 1s p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n

No. 1 3 is s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o v e r e d b y I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 1. T h i s Court h a s s t a t e d many times t h a t t h e r e f u s a l t o g i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e same s u b j e c t is n o t p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r . S t a t e v. S u l l i v a n

(1979), Mon t . , 5 9 5 P.2d 3 7 2 , 36 S t . R e p . 936. F i n a l l y , defendant argues t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g h i s m o t i o n f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , b e c a u s e t h e r e was

a l a c k o f e v i d e n c e t o go t o t h e j u r y . The d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s

t h a t t h e e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d b y K e t r o n , K e l l y , and H u r l e y was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o t a k e t h e case to t h e j u r y . T h i s C o u r t r e c e n t l y s t a t e d t h e g r o u n d s o n which a m o t i o n f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s h o u l d be g r a n t e d : "A d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i n a c r i m i n a l case is granted ... o n l y where t h e S t a t e f a i l s t o p r o v e i t s case and t h e r e is no e v i d e n c e upon which a j u r y could base its v e r d i c t . " S t a t e v. F i t z p a t r i c k (1980), Mont . 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 5 6 , 37 ~ t . ~ e p . 9 4 , 2 0 9 . I 6 0 6 P.2d

I n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s case, t h r e e p e o p l e t e s t i f i e d t o e i t h e r s e e i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t a t or a r o u n d t h e s c e n e o f t h e b u r g l a r y . These t h r e e w i t n e s s e s s e p a r a t e l y s e l e c t e d d e f e n d a n t s photograph from a g r o u p of s e v e r a l hundred p i c t u r e s . A l l t h r e e l a t e r iden-

t i f i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t i n c o u r t as e i t h e r b e i n g p o s i t i v e l y t h e i n d i v i d u a l who c o m m i t t e d t h e b u r g l a r y or as h a v i n g a l l t h e

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p e r s o n o b s e r v e d a t t h e crime s c e n e . Absent a t a i n t e d or s u g g e s t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n procedure , w h i c h is n o t t h e case h e r e , t h i s e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y p l a c e s

d e f e n d a n t a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e crime p r i o r to t h e b u r g l a r y and a l s o i d e n t i f i e s him as t h e i n d i v i d u a l c o m m i t t i n g t h e o f f e n s e . S u c h e v i d e n c e , a l t h o u g h s u b j e c t t o j u r y e v a l u a t i o n , would i f

b e l i e v e d b y t h e j u r y , be s u f f i c i e n t o n which to b a s e a v e r d i c t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n f o r a d i r e c t e d

verdict . The c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t is a f f i r m e d .

W e concur:

Chief J u s t i c e