STATE v LANE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No, 12267 I N T E 'SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A H OR F OTN 1973 STATE O M N A A F OTN, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, T R Y A. LANE a /k/a ER TERRY VAN DIVER, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presbding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : D. R. Matthews argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. C. Weingartner , A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Robert L, Deschamps, 111 County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Gene McLatchy, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Missoula, Montana January 26, 1973 Submitted: Decided : F'E'E in w. 3 Filed: 1 fi 7973 Y r , J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a judgment of c o n v i c t i o n of t h e crime of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y e n t e r e d on a j u r y v e r d i c t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of 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 , county o f Missoula. Defendant had a p r i o r f e l o n y and was sentenced t o a term of f i v e y e a r s , He had been charged w i t h b u r g l a r y i n t h e f i r s t degree o r a l t e r n a t i v e l y , receiving s t o l e n property. The home of M r , & M r s . Charles H u r t , i n Missoula, was b u r g l a r i z e d on October 22, 1971. Access had been gained through a window i n a bedroom d u r i n g t h e H u r t s ' absence. S t o l e n were a Gibson Super 400 g u i t a r , an a m p l i f i e r , a Pioneer r e v e r b e r a t o r u n i t , a s t e r e o u n i t and one suede j a c k e t . I t s h o r t l y became a p p a r e n t t h a t two men, P e t e r P r o b s t and defendant T e r r y Lane, l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s T e r r y Lane Van D i v e r , were involved because t h e two went t o Bakke Motors i n Missoula and t r a d e d a 1959 C a d i l l a c , $50 of d e f e n d a n t ' s money, and t h e s t o l e n g u i t a r f o r a 1965 P o n t i a c purchased i n d e f e n d a n t ' s name. The s t o l e n a m p l i f i e r was s o l d t o a l o c a l secondhand s t o r e f o r $50 by P r o b s t w h i l e defendant w a i t e d i n h i s c a r . Both men s o l d t h e s t e r e o and s p e a k e r s t o an employee a t S t , p a t r i c k ' s H o s p i t a l f o r $40. The two men, P r o b s t and Van Diver, d i s a p p e a r e d . Subse- q u e n t l y , a f t e r t r a v e l i n g t o g e t h e r t o New Orleans and Canada, t h e two were a r r e s t e d i n Canada f o r having an i l l e g a l weapon, among o t h e r charges. While i n j a i l i n Regina, Saskatchewan, t h e y i n - formed t h e Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t t h e r e was a w a r r a n t f o r t h e i r a r r e s t i n Missoula, Montana. They were s u b s e q u e n t l y d e p o r t e d t o t h e United S t a t e s from Canada and were a r r e s t e d on December 3 , 1971, i n Plentywood, Montana, and r e t u r n e d t o Missoula. The suede j a c k e t t a k e n i n t h e b u r g l a r y was found i n defendant Van ~ i v e r ' sc a r i n Plentywood, W h i l e t h e c h a r g e s were pending, P r o b s t dismissed h i s a t t o r n e y , made a s t a t e m e n t , and p l e a d g u i l t y t o f i r s t d e g r e e burglary. He was sentenced t o two y e a r s ; which s e n t e n c e was deferred, Defendant Van Diver plead n o t g u i l t y and t h e c a s e went to trial. During t h e t r i a l , t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e b u r g l a r y and i d e n t i f i e d t h e s t o l e n i t e m s . The i t e m s were a l l connected t o t h e p o s s e s s i o n and s a l e by b o t h P r o b s t and defendant Van Diver. P r o b s t t e s t i f i e d t h a t b o t h h e and Van Diver b u r g l a r i z e d t h e Hurt home; t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e i r purchase o f Van ~ i v e r ' sautomobile, t h e i r s a l e of t h e i t e m s , t h e i r t r i p t o Canada, t h e i r a r r e s t , and h i s subsequent d e c i s i o n t o p l e a d g u i l t y . As s t a t e d b e f o r e , t h e charge was i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , burglary o r receiving stolen property. The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d on b o t h c h a r g e s and given a l t e r n a t i v e v e r d i c t s . The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y . Defendant on a p p e a l r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review: (1) That 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 No. 1 3 ; ( 2 ) t h a t an a l l e g e d p r o s e c u t i o n comment on d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o e x p l a i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e goods was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r ; and ( 3 ) whether t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g defendant a new t r i a l on t h e r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y charge by i t s e l f . I s s u e 1 concerns t h e g i v i n g , over t h e o b j e c t i o n of d e f e n d a n t , of I n s t r u c t i o n No. 13 which r e a d s : 1l You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e mere p o s s e s s i o n of s t o l e n p r o p e r t y , however soon a f t e r t h e t a k i n g , unexplained by t h e person having p o s s e s s i o n , i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y conviction. It i s , however, a c i r c u m s t a n c e t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n conn e c t i o n w i t h o t h e r evidence i n determining t h e q u e s t i o n of innocence o r g u i l t . I f you should f i n d from t h e evidence t h a t a b u r g l a r y was comm i t t e d on t h e premises involved i n t h i s c a s e and t h a t t h e r e a f t e r t h e defendant was found i n possess i o n , o r claimed t o be t h e owner, of p r o p e r t y s t o l e n from t h e b u r g l a r i z e d premises, such a f a c t would be a c i r c u m s t a n c e t e n d i n g i n some d e g r e e t o show g u i l t , a l t h o u g h n o t s u f f i c i e n t , s t a n d i n g a l o n e and unsupported by o t h e r e v i d e n c e , t o w a r r a n t your f i n d i n g him g u i l t y . I n a d d i t i o n t o proof of p o s s e s s i o n of such p r o p e r t y t h e r e must be proof of c o r r o b o r a t i n g ciwcumstances t e n d i n g of themselves t o e s t a b l i s h guilt, Such corroborating circumstances may consist of the acts, conduct, falsehoods, if any, or other declarations, if any, of the defendant, and any other proved circumstances tending to show the guilt of the accused, "One who is found in the possession of property that was stolen from burglarized premises is bound to explain such possession in order to remove the effect of that fact as a circumstance, to be considered with all other evidence, pointing to his guilt. I I In addition to Instruction No. 13, other instructions on receiving stolen property were given. Instruction No. 18 specifically required proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Defendant argues Instruction No. 13 violated his constitutional rights. Namely, that the instruction allows the judge, by way of an instruction, to comment on the fact defendant did not take the stand during the trial, Such comments, on the defendant not taking the stand during a criminal trial, have been held to violate defendants' rights against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States ConstiGriffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 1 4 tution. This Court recently considered the question of the constitutionality of such an instruction, In State v. Branch, 155 Mont. 22, 23, 26, 465 P,2d 821, this instruction was given: It One who is found in possession of stolen property is bound to explain such possession in order to remove the effect of that fact as a circumstance, to be considered with all other evidence, pointing to his guilt, and if he gives a false account of how he acquired that possession or, having reasonable opportunity to show that his possession was honestly acquired he refuses or fails to do so, such conduct is a circumstance that tends to show his guilt. I I In Branch, appellant contended that: "* * +c since defendant did not testify on his own behalf that the instruction is a comment on the defendant's failure to testify, forbidden by Art, 111, 5 8, of our Constitution and section 94-8803, R.C.M. 1947," As to the questioned instruction in Branch, this Court stated: "'we can f i n d no e r r o r with t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i n question. The i n s t r u c t i o n c l e a r l y s t a t e d t h a t mere possession alone i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y a c o n v i c t i o n ; such has been t h e long standing r u l e i n Montana. I 11 The Court then went on t o d e a l d i r e c t l y with t h e i d e n t i c a l i s s u e raised here: "'The defendant contends t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was a comment on h i s f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y , This contention i s without merit. [ C i t i n g cases ] W t h e r e f o r e hold t h a t t h e challenged i n s t r u c t i o n e i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . 1 I! W f i n d nothing new i n t h e argument presented by defendant e This argument has been heard before by t h i s i n t h i s appeal. Court, and we considered t h e matter a f t e r t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court case c i t e d by defendant a s c o n t r o l l i n g was handed down. This i n s t r u c t i o n i s n o t i n v i o l a t i o n of the p r o t e c t i o n of t h e r i g h t a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n , f a i l u r e of t h e defendant t o t e s t i f y , It does n o t comment on It does permit t h e defendant t o e x p l a i n how he came i n t o possession of t h e s t o l e n goods. A defendant can do t h i s by t a k i n g t h e stand h i m s e l f , by having another t e s t i f y on h i s b e h a l f , o r by introducing o t h e r types of evidence t o show how he came i n t o possession of t h e s t o l e n goods, I f t h e defendant does n o t e x p l a i n , by any of t h e enumerated methods of explaining h i s possession, then t h i s f a c t can be considered by t h e j u r y i n making i t s determination. Defendant urges t h a t i n s p i t e of our holding i n Branch and S t a t e v. Gray, 152 Mont. 145, 447 P.2d 475, i t i s e r r o r f o r t h e prosecution t o comment even by way of i n s t r u c t i o n on f a i l u r e of a defendant t o e x p l a i n h i s possession of r e c e n t l y s t o l e n goods, Defendant p u t s i t a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t l y i n t h a t he s t a t e s i t i n t h e s e terms: 11 f a i l u r e t o e x p l a i n away h i s g u i l t by a s s o c i a t i o n " , B e t h a t a s i t may, defendant urges t h a t t h e r u l e i n G r i f f i n r e - quires a reversal. I n 24 ALR3d 1093, an annotation appears £01- lowing t h e c a s e of Chapman v. C a l i f o r n i a , 386 U.S. 824, 17 L ed 2d 705, 24 ALR3d 1065. 18, 87 S.Ct. That discussion i s of harmless e r r o r , cured e r r o r , p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r , and automatic r e v e r s a l . However, i n t h i s c a s e , no comment a s such was made on defendant's f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y , t o I n s t r u c t i o n No. 13. Counsel makes i t o u t by r e f e r r i n g That i n s t r u c t i o n p l a i n l y , i n our view, i s n o t meant t o b e a comment on t h e f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y . i t i s an e v i d e n t i a r y r u l e , Rather, The unexplained possession o f r e c e n t l y s t o l e n goods--not n e c e s s a r i l y an e x p l a n a t i o n i n c o u r t - - - i s hat ' s a l l , cumstance t o be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e j u r y . s t r u c t i o n s go on t o r e q u i r e doubt. o t h e r evidence beyond a a cir- Other i n reasonable The r u l e of G r i f f i n , Chapman, and t h e o t h e r c a s e s r e f e r r e d t o , simply a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e . h e r e . ~ e f e n d a n t ' si s s u e 2 on a p p e a l r e f e r s t o a l l e g e d comments made by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o t h e j u r y concerning d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o take t h e stand. I n support of t h i s c o n t e n t i o n c o u n s e l f o r defendant produced an a f f i d a v i t , signed by h i m s e l f , i n which i s s e t o u t a l l e g e d l y verbatim t h e language t h e p r o s e c u t o r used. That i s t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d c o u n s e l f o r defendant h a s used t o support h i s position. There i s n o t h i n g e l s e , no t r a n s c r i p t ; only h i s a f f i d a v i t of what h e a l l e g e s was s a i d , The s t a t e i n i t s argument c i t e s an a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d by t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y who t r i e d t h e c a s e . r e f u t e s what was a l l e g e d by defendant. I n t h i s a f f i d a v i t he There i s no way of knowing what was a c t u a l l y s a i d , because t h e r e i s no w r i t t e n r e c o r d . This Court must have a w r i t t e n record b e f o r e i t which shows e x a c t l y what was s a i d . W cannot allow c a s e s t o b e r e v e r s e d only on what e one of t h e a t t o r n e y s thought was s a i d a t t h e time. Prejudice i n a c r i m i n a l t r i a l must b e shown from t h e r e c o r d , i t w i l l n o t b e presumed, S t a t e v. G a l l a g h e r , 151 Mont, 501, 445 P.2d 45, A d d i t i o n a l l y , on motion f o r new t r i a l t h e t r i a l judge, who was p r e s e n t when t h e a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t s were supposedly made, denied a new t r i a l . Even a t t h a t time, counsel made no e f f o r t t o supplement t h e r e c o r d . The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d i s a p p a r e n t l y t h a t i f t h i s conv i c t i o n were t o be r e v e r s e d , defendant could n o t t h e n b e charged w i t h t h e crime o f b u r g l a r y . W need n o t d i s c u s s t h i s i s s u e , s i n c e e t h e conviction of defendant of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n property i s n o t reversed. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed. ! Ass c i a t e J u s t i c e s .

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.