STATE v GALLAGHER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12341 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1973 THE STATE OE MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - JERRY GALLAGHER, 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 T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. Robert H e Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : S a n d a l l , Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana D. Frank Kampfe a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana J o n a t h a n B . Smith, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , Helena Harold F. Hanser, County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: March 28, 1973 Decided : MAY Filed : MAY - 1 1973 Clerk - 11973 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison 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 judgment of conviction of murder i n t h e f i r s t degree entered on a j u r y v e r d i c t i n t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Yellowstone, A f t e r d e n i a l of h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l , defendant appealed. Defendant J e r r y Gallagher r a i s e s f o u r i s s u e s on appeal : 1, Defendant i s e n t i t l e d t o a new t r i a l i n s o f a r a s h i s defense counsel had previously prosecuted him, 2, The t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t defendant's motion f a r new t r i a l based upon newly discovered evidence. 3, The t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t defendant's motion t o suppress c e r t a i n evidence obtained i n v i o l a t i o n of h i s Fourth Amendment r i g h t s . 4. The t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n admitting c e r t a i n evidence obtained i n a search i n c i d e n t t o defendant's a r r e s t where t h e a r r e s t warrant was p r e d i c a t e d upon an i n s u f f i c i e n t showing of probable cause. O September 7 , 1971, a body was discovered on " ~ a r d i n n H i l l " on U . S . Highway 87 n e a r B i l l i n g s , Montana, i d e n t i f i e d a s t h a t of one Eldon Egan. The body was The body was observed by t o u r i s t s , who had stopped a t a v i s t a p o i n t t o observe t h e Yellawstone Valley, some 75 t o 100 f e e t below t h e v i s t a p o i n t on a s t e e p i n c l i n e beyond a barbed w i r e fence, which r a n p a r a l l e l t o t h e highway. It was l a t e r observed t h e fence had been c u t a t a p o i n t n o t f a r from t h e body. The t o u r i s t s stopped a Montana Highway Patrolman, Leo Burnett, and showed him t h e body, H e immediately n o t i f i e d t h e s h e r i f f who took a team of d e p u t i e s and d e t e c t i v e s t o t h e scene, a r r i v i n g a t about 1:20 p.m. A c a r e f u l combing of t h e a r e a revealed a f i n g e r n a i l c l i p p e r , -70 s h e l l casings and one spent b u l l e t , A t the v i s t a pulloff, above t h e body, t h e r e was a t r a s h can i n which was found a paper bag containing a blood s t a i n e d pillowcase, a block of woad, and a comb, A second bag contained a broken Vodka b o t t l e , D r , Gordon L. Cox, a B i l l i n g s p a t h o l o g i s t , examined t h e body. H i s examination revealed Egan had been severely beaten and shot twice i n t h e head. One of t h e s h o t s had been f i r e d through t h e roof of t h e mouth. E i t h e r of t h e b u l l e t wounds would have produced i n s t a n t death. A "32 c a l i b e r s l u g was found i n t h e s k u l l and t h e expended s l u g found n e a r t h e body was a .32 c a l i b e r . Deputies of t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e and B i l l i n g s p o l i c e o f f i c e r s immediately began i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t o a s c e r t a i n Egan's a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e community. Much of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n concerned B i l l i n g s southside b a r s and t h e i r c l i e n t e l e . Testimony a t t r i a l revealed t h a t defendant and one John Curry, who was a l s o charged and l a t e r a c q u i t t e d of t h e murder, were t o g e t h e r i n t h e Montana Bar i n t h e e a r l y hours of September 7 , 1971. Egan had a l s o been i n t h e b a r and testimony i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was c a r r y i n g a .32 c a l i b e r r e v o l v e r , There was testimony t h a t Curry made t h e statement t o someone a t t h e b a r when Egan came i n t o t h e b a r "not t o move, you might g e t i n t o t h e c r o s s fire". This person, James Lee Marvidikis, was n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r t r i a l b u t l a t e r i n a deposition taken i n B i l l i n g s , March 16, 1972,and introduced a t t h e time of t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l , t e s t i f i e d Curry had a gun, a t one time had i t a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y o u t from under h i s b e l t and t h a t Curry t o l d Marvidikis, "There i s going t o be a beef. * * * Hold s t i l l , don't move, you might get cross-fired." I n v e s t i g a t i o n revealed and testimony was l a t e r given, t h a t defendant and Egan had a few n i g h t s before been involved i n a "beef" a t t h e Empire Bar and t h a t Egan, who came o u t t h e l o s e r , had threatened t o "get" defendant. Testimony revealed both men had l i v e d with a woman named Ida May France Egan, a l s o known a s Smoky Walker, and t h a t t h e a l t e r c a t i o n had developed because Egan a t t h e time out out of favor and defendant was being favored. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n narrowed down t o focus upon t h e whereabouts and a c t i v i t i e s of Curry and defendant. A t about 9:00 p.m. on t h e evening of September 8 , t h e day a f t e r t h e discovery of Egan's body, t h e s h e r i f f received a c a l l from a Mrs, Ruth Parker, complaining t h a t a prowler was i n o r had been i n h e r home, Knowing t h a t defendant had been l i v i n g t h e r e , t h e s h e r i f f and two d e p u t i e s went t o h e r home and upon a r r i v i n g t h e r e were r e quested by Mrs. Parker t o search t h e house, including t h e basement, While i n t h e basement, accompanied by Mrs. Parker, t h e s h e r i f f observed what appeared t o be a blood s t a i n e d s h i r t and with M r s . P a r k e r ' s permission took t h e s h i r t , which had a t e a r on t h e r i g h t s i d e of t h e r e a r of t h e s h i r t , H e a l s o took a p a i r of t r o u s e r s and a p a i r of stockings t h a t appeared t o be blood s t a i n e d . At t r i a l , only t h e s h i r t had i d e n t i f i c a b l e blood s t a i n s and t h e blood was type A. Both defendant and Egan had type A blood. Concerning t h e blood s t a i n e d pillowcase found i n t h e t r a s h can near where t h e body was found, an extensive i n v e s t i g a t i o n t r a c e d i t t o t h e home of one Lamona Northey i n Butte, Montana, Miss Northey, aged 16, i s t h e daughter of one Neddie S t . Arnant of B u t t e , a f r i e n d of John Curry. Miss Northey t e s t i f i e d t h a t John Curry came t o h e r home on t h e ev&ning of August 29, 1971; t h a t h e s l e p t on t h e couch; t h a t she gave him a pillow covered by t h e pillowcase found i n t h e t r a s h can; t h a t t h e next day Curry took t h e pillow out t o h i s c a r ; and, t h a t she had n o t seen i t again u n t i l i t was shown t o h e r by i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s a t Butte on November 30, 1971. She i d e n t i f i e d t h e pillowcase by t h e embroidery on i t and i n d i c a t e d a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n i t because i t had been made by h e r grandmother and t h a t she had intended t o embroidery over i t due t o t h e f a c t some of t h e c o l o r s had faded. Defendant and Curry were a r r e s t e d one week a f t e r Egan's death i n a remote cow camp i n Wyoming. The c a r they were d r i v i n g , which belonged t o c u r r y ' s son, was impounded and searched under a warrant issued by a Wyoming magistrate. Testimony of witnesses a t t r i a l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Curry and defendant had washed t h e c a r , i n s i d e and o u t , while a t t h e cow camp. They were observed washing t h e mats i n a h o r s e tank and hanging them t o d r y on a Blood s t a i n s were found on t h e f l o o r mats, and on a fence. p i e c e of cardboard taken from t h e t r u n k of t h e c a r , b u t t h e stai.ns were n o t i n s u f f i c i e n t amounts t o e s t a b l i s h whether they were human blood s t a i n s o r t o be typed. During t h e s e a r c h by S h e r i f f Hladky of Wyoming t h e following items were taken from t h e c a r , processed and s e n t t o t h e FBI and l a t e r i n t r o d u c e d i n t o evidence: a p a i r of g l o v e s , a small s u i t c a s e c o n t a i n i n g c l o t h e s , a motel key, f r o n t f l o o r mats, and a p i e c e of cardboard from t h e t r u n k of t h e c a r . Defendant and Curry were charged w i t h t h e d e a t h o f Egan. B a i l was s e t a t $25,000 b u t l a t e r revoked on motion by t h e county attorney. P r i v a t e counsel appeared f o r b o t h defendants and r e - presented them u n t i l December 20, 1971, when an a f f i d a v i t was f i l e d by defense counsel s e t t i n g f o r t h t h a t h e could n o t r e p r e s e n t e i t h e r defendant t o t h e p o s s i b l e p r e j u d i c e of t h e o t h e r . The withdrawal was a u t h o r i z e d and defendant r e q u e s t e d appointment of It i s counsel a l l e g i n g he was w i t h o u t funds t o h i r e counsel. noted t h a t a f t e r b e i n g a b l y defended by t h e p u b l i c defender h e found funds on appeal t o h i r e p r i v a t e counsel. Defendant d i d not t e s t i f y a t t r i a l . ~ e f e n d a n t ' s f i r s t i s s u e on appeal a l l e g e s e r r o r i n t h a t defense counsel John Adams had p r e v i o u s l y prosecuted defendant. Defendant r e l i e s on I n r e P e t i t i o n of Lucero, 504 P.2d 992, 30 St.Rep. 161. Mon t . 9 W e hold Lucero n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e f a c t s of t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . This Court r e c e n t l y considered t h i s q u e s t i o n i n I n r e P e t i t i o n of Romero, Mont , y P.2d , 30 St,Rep, 440, quoting from I n r e P e t i t i o n of Gary Lynn A l l e n , II A s t o t h e f i r s t two s e n t e n c e s t h e i r period of defense time had long s i n c e expired and counsel would be f r e e t o a c c e p t appointment s i n c e he was no longer involved i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . 11 *** Mon t . W f u r t h e r noted i n Romero: e his Court t a k e s j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f t h e f a c t t h a t s e v e r a l of o u r most eminent and s u c c e s s f u l c r i m i n a l defense lawyers a r e former p r o s e c u t o r s ; and t h a t i n no c a s e h a s our a t t e n t i o n e v e r been c a l l e d t o any l a c k o f i n t e w e s t , e f f o r t o r competency because o f t h i s f a c t o r . I1 S e c t i o n 94-3509, R,C,M. 1947, t h e s t a t u t e p r o h i b i t i n g counsel from appearing a s defense c o u n s e l f o r a person h e p r e v i o u s l y had prosecuted, r e f e r s t o t h e same c a s e ; i t h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n t o counsel appearing t o defend a t a l a t e r time and i n a different case, I n a d d i t i o n , h e r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t recognized t h e problem of t h e appointment of defense counsel and h e l d a s p e c i a l h e a r i n g a t which t h e following colloquy occurred: "THE COURT: Very w e l l , t h a t o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g endorsanent of t h e w i t n e s s i s s i g n e d , I might a s k M r . Gallagher a t t h i s time I h o w when I appointed M r , Adams t o r e p r e s e n t you I asked you i f you had a p r e f e r e n c e between M r . Adams and M r . Whalen and you s t a t e d t h a t you d i d p r e f e r M r . Adams, and I am presuming from t h a t s e l e c t i o n t h a t you hold no grudges a g a i n s t M r . Adams a p p a r e n t l y f o r h i s previous work a s Co~nntyAttorney and you do f e e l t h a t he i s a good a t t o r n e y and t h a t he i s doing and w i l l do a s good as he can f o r you i n your b e h a l f . Am I c o r r e c t i n t h a t assumption? --- "DEFENDANT GALLAGHER: Yes, Your Honor, "THE COURT: And you a r e s a t i s f i e d with him a s your a t t o r n e y and t h e work h e h a s done f o r you up t o now and s o on? "DEFENDANT GALLAGHER: "THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. You do t r u s t and depend on him? "DEFENDANT GALLAGHER : Yes "THE COURT: Very w e l l . . Okay, 11 Here defendant had a c h o i c e , he could have picked M r , Whalen, an experienced c o u n s e l , b u t chose M r . Adams. I n so doing, h e waived any r i g h t t o demand a new t r i a l on t h i s i s s u e . Defendant's second i s s u e concerns whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l based on newly discovered e v i dence, I n S t a t e v. Greeno, 135 Mont. 580, 586, 342 P.2d 1052, t h i s Court e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t e r i a t o be met b e f o r e a new t r i a l w i l l be ~ r a r i t e don t h e h s i s o f newly discovered evidence. There i t s a i d : "(1) That t h e evidence must have come t o t h e knowledge of t h e a p p l i c a n t s i n c e t h e t r i a l ; (2) t h a t i t was n o t through want of d i l i g e n c e t h a t i t was n o t discovered e a r l i e r ; (3) t h a t i t i s so m a t e r i a l t h a t i t would probably produce a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t upon m o t h e r t r i a l ; (4) t h a t i t i s n o t cumulative merely - - - t h a t i s , does n o t speak a s t o f a c t s i n r e l a t i o n r o which t h e r e was evidence a t t h e t r i a l ; (5) t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n must be supported by t h e a f f i d a v i t of t h e w i t n e s s whose evidence i s a l l e g e d t o have been newly d i s c o v e r e d , o r i t s absence accounted f o r ; and (6) t h a t t h e evidence must n o t be such a s w i l l only tend t o impeach t h e c h a r a c t e r o r c r e d i t of a w i t n e s s , To some of t h e s e t h e r e may b e , and d o u b t l e s s a r e , e x c e p t i o n s . For i l l u s t r a t i o n : t h e cumulative e v i dence may be s o overwhelmingly convincing a s t o compel t h e conclusion t h a t t o s u s t a i n t h e v e r d i c t would be a g r o s s i n j u s t i c e , o r t h e impeaching evidence may demonstrate p e r j u r y i n t h e w i t n e s s e s upon whose e v i dence t h e v e r d i c t i s founded. " See a l s o : S t a t e v. B e s t , Mon t . , 503 P. 2d 997, 29 S t . Rep. 1045. Defendant r e l i e s h e a v i l y on s e v e r a l i s s u e s which he c l a s s i f i e s a s newly discovered evidence i n h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a new t r i a l : (1) The f a c t t h a t h i s counsel on a p p e a l , who had r e p r e s e n t e d John Curry a t h i s t r i a l , had on examination of Lamora Northey r a i s e d some doubt a s t o h e r p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e pillowcase a t defendant's t r i a l . (2) The testimony of Forence Imsande who t e s t i f i e d a t curry's t r i a l , but did not t e s t i f y a t defendant's t r i a l . (3) The testimony o f M r . and Mrs. Newt Kirkland, a l i b i w i t n e s s e s f o r Curry, t h a t Curry was a t t h e i r home from t h e e a r l y hours of t h e morning of September 7 , 1971, u n t i l about 10 a,m. t h e n e x t morning. W f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n denying a new t r i a l e due t o t h e f a c t defendant f a i l e d t o produce s u f f i c i e n t new evidence t o support h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . F i r s t , d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t Miss Northey m a t e r i a l l y v a r i e d h e r testimony a t t h e Curry t r i a l from t h a t given a t defendant's t r i a l i s subject t o question. A s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , Miss Northey was s i x t e e n y e a r s o l d , h e r mother was a f r i e n d of Curry, and she was n o t what could b e termed a f r i e n d l y w i t n e s s f o r t h e s t a t e ; she gave a s t a t e m e n t i n November 1971 t o t h e d e p u t i e s i d e n t i f y i n g t h e pillowcase and l a t e r t e s t i f i e d i n accordance with t h a t statement a t defendant's t r i a l , and i t was n o t u n t i l t h e n i g h t before she t e s t i f i e d a t Curry's t r i a l t h a t she had any change of mind. L a s t , b u t n o t l e a s t , upon cross-examination a t Curry's t r i a l when asked t o review h e r previous statements a s t o t r u t h , she admitted they were t r u e . The t r i a l c o u r t noted, and we concur, one can only s p e c u l a t e a s t o what she might say on a third t r i a l . Obviously, t h e t r i a l judge was n o t impressed t h a t t h i s was newly discovered evidence e n t i t l i n g defendant t o a new trial, Second, Florence Imsande t e s t i f i e d a t Curry's t r i a l b u t d i d n o t a t defendant's t r i a l . defendant between 11:30 p.m. Her testimony was t h a t she saw and 12:00 midnight on t h e n i g h t of Egan's death; t h a t defendant was wearing a s h i r t f r e s h l y s t a i n e d about i t defendant with blood; and, t h a t when she q u e s t ~ h i m said i t came from i n j u r i e s received i n a f i g h t . a c l e r k a t t h e F r o n t i e r Club i n B i l l i n g s . M r s . Imsande was On cross-examination she s t a t e d she had s o l d defendant a b o t t l e of Vodka, she thought i t was ord don's, b u t admitted they s o l d Smirnoffs--the type b o t t l e found i n t h e t r a s h can, A t defendant's t r i a l no testimony was produced i n d i c a t i n g t h a t anyone had seen defendant a f t e r midnight September 7 with blood on h i s s h i r t . Mrs. Imsande t e s t i f i e d a t Curry's t r i a l t h a t she had known defendant s i n c e he was a boy a t Lewistawn. Both she and defendant must have been aware of t h i s so-called new evidence b e f o r e h i s t r i a l , most c e r t a i n l y i t i s n o t evidence t h a t came t o defendant's a t t e n t i o n after t r i a l and obviously with any d i l i g e n c e i t could have been produced a t h i s t r i a l , Third, t h e testimony of M r . and M r s . N e w t Kirkland, two a l i b i witnesses a t t h e Curry t r i a l . M r . Kirkland i s an admitted exconvict and on o r a l argument was described by t h e county a t t o r n e y a s a man "out on a bond of $75,000 from a r e c e n t bank robbery i n t h e midwest where he had l o s t an arm i n a gun f i g h t . " The Kirklands t e s t i f i e d a t Curry's t r i a l t h a t t h e y saw Curry s h o r t l y a f t e r 1:00 a.m. on t h e 7 t h on t h e s o u t h s i d e of B i l l i n g s , t h a t he was a f r i e n d , t h a t he had been d r i n k i n g , and t h a t t h e y took him home w i t h them and h e spent t h e n i g h t a t t h e i r ranch. t e s t i f i e d they brought him t o town about 10:00 a.m. morning. They the next How t h i s q u a l i f i e d a s t o defendant a s newly discovered evidence, escapes us. Curry and defendant were j a i l e d i n ad- j o i n i n g c e l l s where they could t a l k t o each o t h e r ; Kirklands v i s i t e d Curry a t l e a s t once and probably s e v e r a l times w h i l e he was i n j a i l , and t h e Kirklands knew defendant, I f t h i s evidence had been e i t h e r r e l e v a n t o r t r u t h f u l i t could have e a s i l y been secured by defendant b e f o r e t r i a l , had h e e x e r c i s e d due d i l i g e n c e , T h i s Court i n S t a t e v , Jones, 32 Mont. 442, 454, 80 P, 1095, stated: "* * * a motion f o r a new t r i a l i s addressed t o t h e sound l e g a l d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " Here, t h e r e was no abuse of t h a t sound d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l judge i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l , The r e q u i r e - ments of Greeno simply had n o t been met. Defendant's t h i r d i s s u e concerns t h e s e a r c h of d e f e n d a n t ' s room and s e i z u r e of c l o t h i n g found t h e r e . Fourth Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n ; A r t . 111, Sec, 7, Montana Constitution. S e c t i o n s 95-701 and 95-718, R,C.M. 1947, s e t f o r t h t h e s t a n d a r d s f o r search and s e i z u r e . S e c t i o n 95-701, R.C.M, 1947, s t a t e s : "A s e a r c h of a person, o b j e c t o r p l a c e may b e made and i n s t r u m e n t s , a r t i c l e s o r t h i n g s may be s e i z e d i n accordance w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s c h a p t e r when t h e s e a r c h i s made: "(a) A s a n i n c i d e n t t o a l a w f u l a r r e s t , "(b) With t h e consent of t h e accused or of any o t h e r person who i s l a w f u l l y i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e o b j e c t o r p l a c e t o be searched, o r who i s b e l i e v e d upon r e a s o n a b l e c a u s e t o be i n such lawful possess i o n by t h e person making t h e s e a r c h . "(c) By t h e a u t h o r i t y of a v a l i d search w a r r a n t , "(d) Under t h e a u t h o r i t y andwithin t h e scope of a r i g h t of l a w f u l i n s p e c t i o n grantkd by t h e law, I I S e c t i o n 95-718, R.C.M, 1947, s t a t e s : II Instruments, a r t i c l e s or things lawfully seized a r e a d m i s s i b l e a s evidence upon any p r o s e c u t i o n o r proceeding whether o r n o t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o r proceeding i s f o r t h e o f f e n s e i n connection w i t h which t h e s e a r c h was o r i g i n a l l y made." S e c t i o n 95-701 ( d ) , R.C.M, 1947, is c o n t r o l l i n g , f o r t h e s h e r i f f had p r i o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f a r h i s presence i n d e f e n d a n t ' s room, While engaged i n a s e a r c h f o r a prowler, t h e s h e r i f f came upon a blood s t a i n e d s h i r t , and what appeared t o be blood s t a i n e d p a n t s and sox belonging t o defendant, upon whom focus had c e n t e r e d i n r e g a r d t o Egan's d e a t h . The s h e r i f f had no p r i o r knowledge t h a t h e would f i n d such evidence n o r could he have a n t i c i p a t e d such a f i n d , Such evidence i s a c c e p t a b l e i n t o evidence and h a s been so h e l d under t h e " p l a i n view" d o c t r i n e d i s c u s s e d i n Coolidge v. Mw Hampshire, 403 U . S . 443, 91 S.Ct, 2022, 29 L ed 2d 564, 582. e There t h e c o u r t s a i d : II It i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t under c e r t a i n circums t a n c e s t h e p o l i c e may s e i z e evidence i n p l a i n view without a warrant. *** "An example of t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e ' p l a i n view' d o c t r i n e i s t h e s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e p o l i c e have a warrant t o s e a r c h a given a r e a f o r s p e c i f i e d o b j e c t s , and i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e s e a r c h come a c r o s s some o t h e r a r t i c l e of i n c r i m i n a t i n g c h a r a c t e r , [ C i t i n g a u t h o r i t y ] Where t h e i n i t i a l i n t r u s i o n t h a t b r i n g s t h e p o l i c e w i t h i n p l a i n view of such a n a r t i c l e i s supported, n o t by a w a r r a n t , b u t by one of t h e recognized e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e warrant requirement, t h e s e i z u r e i s a l s o l e g i t i mate, Thus t h e p o l i c e may i n a d v e r t e n t l y come a c r o s s evidence w h i l e i n ' h o t p u r s u i t ' of a f l e e i n g s u s p e c t , [ C i t i n g a u t h o r i t y ] And an o b j e c t t h a t comes i n t o view during a search incident t o a r r e s t t h a t i s appropriately l i m i t e d i n scope under e x i s t i n g law may be s e i z e d w i t h out a w a r r a n t . [ C i t i n g a u t h o r i t y ] F i n a l l y , t h e ' p l a i n view' d o c t r i n e h a s been a p p l i e d where a p o l i c e o f f i c e r i s n o t s e a r c h i n g f o r evidence a g a i n s t t h e accused, b u t n o n e t h e l e s s i n a d v e r t e n t l y comes a c r o s s an i n c r i m i n a t i n o b i e c t , H a r r i s v. United S t a t e s . 390 U.S. 234. 19 L E$ 2d-1067, 88 S e c t . 992; F r a z i e r v l Cupp, 394 U.5. 731, 22 L Ed 2d 684, 89 S e c t , 1420; Ker v. C a l i f o r n i a , 374 U . S . , a t 43, 10 L . Ed 2d, a t 743, *** "What t h e lain view' c a s e s have i n common i s t h a t t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r i n each of them had a p r i o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r an i n t r u s i o n i n t h e c o u r s e o f which h e came inadv e r t e n t l y a c r o s s a p i e c e of evidence i n c r i m i n a t i n g t h e accused. The d o c t r i n e s e r v e s t o supplement t h e p r i o r justification---whether i t be a warrant f o r another o b j e c t , h o t p u r s u i t , s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o l a w f u l a r r e s t , o r some o t h e r l e g i t i m a t e r e a s o n f o r b e i n g p r e s e n t unconnected w i t h a s e a r c h d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e accused--- and p e r m i t s t h e w a r r a n t l e s s s e i z u r e . O f c o u r s e , t h e e x t e n s i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s l e g i t i m a t e only where i t i s immediately a p p a r e n t t o t h e p o l i c e t h a t t h e y have evidence b e f o r e them; t h e ' p l a i n view' d o c t r i n e may n o t b e used t o extend a g e n e r a l e x p l o r a t o r y s e a r c h from one o b j e c t t o a n o t h e r u n t i l something i n c r i m i n a t i n g a t l a s t emerges .* * * "* * W e r e , once an otherwise lawful. s e a r c h i s i n p r o g r e s s , t h e p o l i c e i n a d v e r t e n t l y come upon a p i e c e of evidence, i t would o f t e n be a n e e d l e s s inconvenience, and sometimes dangerous--to t h e evidence o r t o t h e p o l i c e themselves--to r e q u i r e them t o i g n o r e i t u n t i l they have obtained a warrant p r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i b i n g i t . The ment view s e i 11 l i m i t s on t h e d o c t r i n e a r e i m p l i c i t i n t h e s t a t e of i t s r a t i o n a l e , The f i r s t of t h e s e i s t h a t p l a i n a l o n e i s never enough t o j u s t i f y t h e w a r r a n t l e s s z u m evidence. *** The second l i m i t a t i o n i s t h a t t h e discovery o f evidence ( ~ m p h a s i sadded). i n p l a i n view must be i n a d v e r t e n t . II * *" The r u l e i s : Where t h e r e i s p r i o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e p a l i c e t o s e a r c h a n a r e a , and i n s e a r c h i n g t h e a r e a , t h e y inadv e r t e n t l y f i n d i n c r i m i n a t i n g evidence which they had no reason t o a n t i c i p a t e , t h e y may l a w f u l l y s e i z e t h a t i n c r i m i n a t i n g evidence, S t a t e v , Quigg, 155 Mont. 119, 467 P.2d 692; S t a t e v. Williams, Man - t. , 502 P.2d 50, 29 %,Rep. and Hoffer v , D i s t r i c t Court, Mon t 802; S t a t e ex r e l . Wilson . 498 P. 2d 1217, 29 St,Rep. 523; United S t a t e s v. M i t c h e l l , 458 F,2d 960 (9th Cir.1972). Here a l l t h e requirements o f t h e " p l a i n view" d o c t r i n e enunciated i n Coplidge were met and t h e evidence was a d m i s s i b l e , ~ e f e n d a n t ' sf o u r t h and f i n a l i s s u e concerns whether t h e s e a r c h of John Curry's automobile and t h e s e i z u r e of a r t i c l e s therefrom was a v i o l a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s under t h e Fourth Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . A. Defendant made no timely motion t o suppress t h e evidence taken from John Curry's c a r . S e c t i o n 95-1806, R.C.M, 1947, provides f o r t h e motion t o suppress evidence a l l e g e d l y i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d , and r e a d s : " ( a ) A defendant aggrieved by an unlawful s e a r c h and s e i z u r e may move t h e c o u r t t o suppress a s evidence anything s o o b t a i n e d , "(b) The motion s h a l l be made b e f o r e t r i a l u n l e s s f o r good cause shown t h e c o u r t s h a l l otherwise d i r e c t , "(c) The defendant s h a l l give a t l e a s t t e n (10) days' n o t i c e of such motion t o t h e - a t t o r n e y prosecuting o r such o t h e r time a s t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t , The defendant s h a l l serve a copy of t h e n o t i c e and motion upon t h e a t t o r n e y prosecuting. "(d) The motion s h a l l be i n w r i t i n g and s t a t e f a c t s showing wherein t h e search and s e i z u r e were unlawful. "(e) I f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e motion s t a t e f a c t s which i f t r u e show t h a t t h e search and s e i z u r e were unlawful t h e c o u r t s h a l l conduct a hearing i n t o t h e m e r i t s of t h e motion, " ( f ) The burden of proving t h a t t h e search and s e i z u r e were unlawful s h a l l be on t h e defendant, "(g) I f t h e motion i s granted t h e evidence s h a l l not be admissible a g a i n s t t h e movant a t any t r i a l of t h e case. 1t This Court has s e t f o r t h t h e r u l e f o r suppressing evidence i n S t a t e v. Callaghan, 144 Mont. 401, 406, 396 P,2d 821: "'One wishing t o preclude t h e use of evidence obtained through a v i o l a t i o n of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s must p r o t e c t himself by timely a c t i o n , I f he has had opportrxnity t o suppress t h e evidence b e f o r e t r i a l , and h a s f a i l e d t o take advantage of h i s remedy, o b j e c t i o n t o t h e evidence upon t h e t r i a l w i l l n o t a v a i l him. I "* * * Of course, i f t h e f i r s t knowledge of t h e e v i dence comes a t t h e t r i a l s t a g e then o b j e c t i o n i s proper a t t h a t time, [Citing authority], I I See a l s o : S t a t e v , Souhrada, 122 Mont. 377, 385, 204 P.2d 792, Here no motion was made f o r suppression of t h e f l o o r mats o r t h e cardboard taken from t h e Curry automobile, ~efendant's o b j e c t i o n d i d n o t r a i s e any question a s t o t h e l e g a l i t y of t h e search, and t h e r a i s i n g of t h e i s s u e on appeal before t h i s Court i s n o t timely. B, Defendant has no standing t o o b j e c t t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of evidence taken from t h e John Curry c a r , The r u l e a s t o who can q u a l i f y as a person aggrieved by an unlawful search i s set f o r t h i n Jones v , United S t a t e s , 362 U , S . 257, 261, 80 S.Ct. 4 L ed 2d 697, 702, where t h e c o u r t s a i d : "1n order t o q u a l i f y a s a 'person aggrieved by an unlawful search and s e i z u r e one must have been a v i c t i m of a search and s e i z u r e , one a g a i n s t whom t h e search was d i r e c t e d , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from one who claims p r e j u d i c e only through t h e use of evidence gathered a s a consequence of a search o r s e i z u r e d i r e c t e d a t someone e l s e . *** 725, " O r d i n a r i l y , t h e n , i t i s e n t i r e l y proper t o r e q u i r e of one who seeks t o c h a l l e n g e t h e l e g a l i t y of a search a s t h e b a s i s f o r suppressing relevant evidence t h a t he a l l e g e , and i f the a l l e g a t i o n b e d i s puted t h a t he e s t a b l i s h , t h a t h e himself was t h e v i c t i m of an invasion of privacy. t t T h i s r u l e was r e a f f i r m e d i n Alderman v, United S t a t e s , 394 U , S , 165, 89 S e c t . 961, 22 L ed 2d 176, It was a l s o a p p l i e d by t h i s Court i n S t a t e v , Dess, 154 Mont. 231, 462 P,2d 186, C. Was t h e r e probably cause f o r t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t t o i s s u e i n Wyoming? Here, t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s defendant did n o t q u e s t i o n t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e s e a r c h warrant i s s u e d i n Wyoming, He a l l e g e s a subsequent s e a r c h was made i n B i l l i n g s , Montana without a w a r r a n t . W f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s a l l e g a t i o n , e S h e r i f f Hladky o f Wyoming obtained a v a l i d s e a r c h warrant from a Wyoming m a g i s t r a t e , s e i z e d c e r t a i n i t e m s , marked them, turned them over t o S h e r i f f Meeks of Yellowstone County and t e s t i f i e d a t t h e t r i a l , The s e a r c h was l e g a l and t h e evidence taken from t h e c a r was p r o p e r , It i s recognized t h a t t h i s i s a j u r y v e r d i c t based e n t i r e l y on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence, but a s was s a i d i n S t a t e v , Cor, 144 Mont, 323, 326, 396 P.2d 86: It C i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence i s n o t always i n f e r i o r i n quality nor i s it necessarily relegated t o a 1 second c l a s s s t a t u s ' i n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o b e given i t , The v e r y f a c t i t i s c i r c u m s t a n t i a l i s not a sufficient allegation t o justify a reversal The t e s t i s whether t h e o f t h e judgment f a c t s and circumstances a r e of such a q u a l i t y and quantity a s t o legally j u s t i f y a jury i n determining g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt, I f such be t h e c a s e , then t h e c o u r t should n o t , indeed cannot, s e t a s i d e t h e solemn f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i e r of t h e f a c t s . :I * * *, The judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d , i Associate J u s t i c e We Concur: ' Hon. Edward T. Dussault, District Judge, sitting for Chief Justice James T, Harrison,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.