STATE v RADI

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12893 I N THE SUPRENE COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, GARY EUGENE RADL , 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 , Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : Robert L. Stephens, Jr. 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 Thomas A. Budewitz, 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, Montana A r t h u r Ayers, County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Red Lodge, Montana . Submitted: Decided : Filed : 5 !pE September 25, 1975 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 o f t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Carbon County. Gary Eugene Radi a p p e a l s from a June 25, 1974, j u r y v e r d i c t f i n d i n g him g u i l t y o f attempted b u r g l a r y , pursuant t o s e c t i o n s 94-4-103 and 94-6-203, R.C.M. 1947. From a p p e l l a n t ' s p o i n t of view, t h e r e c o r d p r e s e n t s t h i s factual setting: I n e a r l y March 1974, Radi and s e v e r a l o t h e r s i n c l u d i n g John Miner, were i n a t t e n d a n c e a t a l o c a l n i g h t s p o t i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. Sometime d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e evening, they were i n t r o d u c e d t o a man c a l l e d "Pat" who mentioned t h a t he was from Red Lodge and l i v e d i n an apartment j u s t above a Safeway s t o r e . Radi purchased a round of d r i n k s f o r t h o s e a t h i s t a b l e , and s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he paid f o r t h e d r i n k s w i t h a one hundred d o l l a r b i l l . b i l l and l a t e r r e t u r n e d w i t h t h e change. The w a i t r e s s took t h e She observed t h a t s e v e r a l o f t h o s e p r e s e n t , i n c l u d i n g Radi, had l e f t t h e t a b l e t o dance. She placed both t h e d r i n k s and t h e change on t h e t a b l e . Upon ~ a d i ' s e t u r n he discovered t h a t h i s change and t h e man "Pat" had r disappeared. Approximately t e n days l a t e r , Radi i n v i t e d John Miner and one Daniel Cinnamon t o accompany him t o Red Lodge i n a n a t t e m p t t o locate this I1 Pat" and r e c o v e r t h e money. It i s a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s s t o r y begins t o c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e o f f i c i a l p o l i c e version. P o l i c e s u s p i c i o n s were f i r s t aroused on t h a t evening, when t h e y observed t r a c k s i n t h e f r e s h l y f a l l e n snow, i n an a l l e y behind t h e B & P Hardware s t o r e i n Red Lodge. The t r a c k s l e d t o t h e back door of t h e s t o r e , stopped, and continued up t h e a l l e y . The p o l i c e followed t h e t r a c k s t o t h e r e a r of a neighboring Safeway s t o r e , where t h e y s p o t t e d Radi and Miner i n t h e g e n e r a l a r e a of some abandoned apartments l o c a t e d above t h e s t o r e . The two men were ordered downstairs and asked t o s t a n d a g a i n s t t h e b u i l d i n g . Radi suddenly r a n down t h e a l l e y , b u t was l a t e r apprehended s e v e r a l b l o c k s away. During h i s r u n , an o b j e c t f e l l from h i s person which l a t e r was i d e n t i f i e d a s a .22 c a l i b e r p i s t o l , A s e a r c h o f Miner r e s u l t e d i n t h e recovery o f a twelve-inch crowbar c a r r i e d up t h e s l e e v e of h i s coat. The t h i r d p a r t i c i p a n t , Cinnamon, was a p p a r e n t l y s t a n d i n g i n t h e f r o n t s t a i r w a y t o t h e apartments and was l a t e r apprehended a t a nearby motel. The p o l i c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e crowbar found on Miner was very s i m i l a r t o t h e one which had been used i n an a t t e m p t t o b u r g l e t h e B & P Hardware s t o r e . charged w i t h aggravated b u r g l a r y . A l l t h r e e were a r r e s t e d and The charges a g a i n s t Pliner and Cinnamon were l a t e r dropped and t h e charge a g a i n s t Radi was reduced t o attempted b u r g l a r y . A t t r i a l a p p e l l a n t attempted t o e x p l a i n t h a t h i s presence i n t h e a l l e y on t h e evening of March 1 7 , 1974, was o n l y f o r t h e purpose o f l o c a t i n g It p a t " i n t h e hope of r e c o v e r i n g h i s money. The Carbon County j u r y r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t t h i s s t o r y and i t s a d v e r s e v e r d i c t engendered t h i s m u l t i - i s s u e a p p e a l . A t t r i a l a p p e l l a n t c o n s i s t e n t l y denied any i n t e n t t o commit the offense. O a p p e a l he f i r s t contends t h a t t h e evidence was i n n s u f f i c i e n t t o support h i s c o n v i c t i o n and s u s t a i n a f i n d i n g o f c r i m i n a l intent. I n Montana, a person commits t h e o f f e n s e of b u r g l a r y i f he II knowingly e n t e r s o r remains u n l a w f u l l y i n an occupied s t r u c t u r e w i t h t h e purpose t o commit an o f f e n s e t h e r e i n . " R.C.M. 1947. S e c t i o n 94-6-204, The charge o f attempted b u r g l a r y w i l l l i e where a - person h a s done any a c t toward t h e commission of t h e burglary i f t h e r e q u i s i t e s p e c i f i c purpose can a l s o be e s t a b l i s h e d . 94-4-103(1), R.C.M. 1947. Section The Montana "attempt" s t a t u t e i s somewhat unique i n t h a t i t e x p r e s s l y provides f o r a complete defense under circumstances where an abandonment of c r i m i n a l purpose can b e l i s h e d . S e c t i o n 94-4-103(4), R.C.M. 1947, provides: estab- "A person s h a l l n o t b e l i a b l e under t h i s s e c t i o n , i f under circumstances m a n i f e s t i n g a v o l u n t a r y and complete r e n u n c i a t i o n of h i s c r i m i n a l purpose, he avoided t h e commission of t h e o f f e n s e attempted by abandoning h i s c r i m i n a l e f f o r t . " Appellant s u g g e s t s t h a t only two p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e s could b e drawn from t h e r e c o r d a s a m a t t e r of law: 1 ) That t h e r e was a complete r e n u n c i a t i o n and abandonment of t h e a t t e m p t t o commit any o f f e n s e ; and 2) t h a t i f g u i l t y a t a l l , a p p e l l a n t could have committed no crime more s e r i o u s than a c r i m i n a l t r e s p a s s under s e c t i o n 94-6-203, 1947. R.C.M. I n support o f h i s c o n t e n t i o n a p p e l l a n t emphasizes he was never seen a t t e m p t i n g t o e n t e r t h e s t o r e , t h a t i n f a c t t h e s t o r e was never e n t e r e d and t h a t he was apprehended two b u i l d i n g s away. Appellant r e f e r s u s t o t h e uncon- t r o v e r t e d f a c t t h e t r a c k s followed by t h e p o l i c e could only have been made a t a walking pace and h i s " a c t i v i t y " a t t h e hardware s t o r e was n o t i n t e r r u p t e d by t h e p o l i c e , b u t abandoned v o l u n t a r i l y . W a g r e e t h e aforementioned f a c t o r s g i v e r i s e t o t h e e p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e of a v o l u n t a r y abandonment. But, we do n o t f i n d t h a t t h e y c o n s t i t u t e c o n c l u s i v e evidence of abandonment a s a m a t t e r of law. The r e c o r d i s s u f f i c i e n t t o demonstrate a n e n t r y i n t o t h e B Q P Hardware s t o r e had been attempted through t h e u s e of a crowbar on t h e back door. F o o t p r i n t s i n t h e snow demonstrated t h a t s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s had e n t e r e d t h e a l l e y and approached t h e door. The a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s followed t h e s e f o o t p r i n t s i n t h e a l l e y t o t h e p l a c e where a p p e l l a n t and h i s a s s o c i a t e were apprehended. F i n a l l y we c o n s i d e r t h e crowbar which was s e i z e d from John Miner. I t can h a r d l y be s a i d t h a t under t h e s e c i r c m s t a n c e s a conclusion of v o l u n t a r y abandonment i s mandated a s a m a t t e r of law. 94-4-103 (2), R.C.M. Section 1947, s t a t e s : "It s h a l l n o t b e a defense t o a charge o f a t t e m p t t h a t because of a misapprehension of t h e circumstances i t would have been impossible f o r t h e accused t o commit t h e o f f e n s e attempted. I I I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e j u r y might have reasonably concluded t h e b u r g l a r y was terminated because t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s found t h e i r e f f o r t s t o be f u t i l e o r f o r any number o f r e a s o n s o t h e r than v o l u n t a r y abandonment. This Court has o f t e n s t a t e d t h e j u r y i s t h e s o l e judge o f t h e weight t o be accorded t h e testimony and t h a t where substant i a l evidence e x i s t s t o support i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , i t w i l l s t a n d . S t a t e v. Merseal, Mon t . , 538 P.2d 1366, 32 St.Rep. 823; S t a t e v. G l e i m , 17 Mont. 1 7 , 29, 4 1 P. 998; S t a t e v. White, 146 Mont. 226, 405 P.2d 761; S t a t e v. Stoddard, 147 Mont. 402,408, 412 P.2d 827. The r e c o r d b e f o r e us s u b s t a n t i a l l y s u p p o r t s t h a t which t h e j u r y chose t o b e l i e v e , and we d e c l i n e t o d i s t u r b i t s f i n d i n g s on appeal. Appellant n e x t contends t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e o f f e n s e of c r i m i n a l t r e s p a s s , which he terms a l e s s e r included o f f e n s e , A t t h e o u t s e t , we n o t e t h e probable i s s u e of whether t h e o f f e n s e of c r i m i n a l t r e s p a s s may i n f a c t be considered a l e s s e r included o f f e n s e of b u r g l a r y . But we need n o t r e a c h t h a t i s s u e . It i s argued a p p e l l a n t never o f f e r e d t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l and t h e r e f o r e t h i s i s s u e i s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time on appeal. Generally, t h i s Court w i l l r e f u s e t o r u l e on i s s u e s which were n o t p r e s e n t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t h i s r u l e i s e s p e c i a l l y applicable t o the i n s t a n t case. The Montana Code of Criminal Procedure, s e c t i o n 95-1910 (d) , R.C.M. 1947, provides i n p e r t i n e n t part : "When t h e evidence i s concluded, i f e i t h e r p a r t y d e s i r e s s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n s t o b e given t o t h e j u r y , such i n s t r u c t i o n s s h a l l be reduced t o w r i t i n g , numbered, and signed by t h e p a r t y , o r h i s a t t o r n e y , and d e l i v e r e d t o t h e c o u r t . 11 The s t a t u t e i s w r i t t e n i n mandatory language and t h e r e f o r e should be construed a s such. S t a t e v. Cook, 42 Mont. 329, 112 P. 537; S t a t e v . Dougherty, 71 Mont. 265, 229 P. 735; S t a t e v. Sawyer, 71 Mont. 269, 229 P. 734; S t a t e v. Donges, 126 Mont. 341, 251 P.2d 254; S t a t e v , Maciel, 130 Mont. 569, 305 P.2d 335. The n e x t i s s u e r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t concerns a r e q u e s t t o exclude p r o s p e c t i v e w i t n e s s e s from t h e courtroom. The c o u r t g r a n t e d t h i s motion, b u t exempted, sua s p o n t e , t h e o f f i c e r s from t h e Red Lodge p o l i c e department. The n e t e f f e c t of t h i s a c t i o n was t o exclude a l l t h e d e f e n s e w i t n e s s e s and none of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n witnesses. Appellant now contends t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t committed p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r i n exempting t h e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s . S e c t i o n 93-1901-2, R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s : 11 Witnesses n o t under examination may be excluded. I f e i t h e r p a r t y r e q u i r e s i t , t h e judge may exclude from t h e courtroom any w i t n e s s of t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y , n o t a t t h a t time under examination, s o t h a t he may n o t h e a r t h e testimony of o t h e r w i t n e s s e s , 11 Although s e c t i o n 93-1901-2 was enacted under ~ o n t a n a ' sc i v i l code, i t has long been h e l d t o apply t o c r i m i n a l t r i a l s a l s o . S t a t e v. McDonald, 5 1 Mont. 1, 149 P. 279. The motion t o s e q u e s t e r o r exclude w i t n e s s e s n o t c u r r e n t l y under examination from t h e courtroom i s n o t g r a n t e d a s a m a t t e r of r i g h t , b u t i s addressed t o t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The motion may b e g r a n t e d when such a c t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y t o i n s u r e t h e s p o n t a n e i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s by l i m i t i n g t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t y t o be i n f l u e n d by each o t h e r ' s testimony. 32 ALR2d 358-361; 23 C.J.S. See Anno. Criminal Law, 5 1010, pp. 1072,1073. W c i t e w i t h a p p r o v a l t h e language i n S t a t e v. McLeod, e 131 Mont. 478, 492, 311 P.2d 400, t o t h e e f f e c t s e c t i o n 93-1901-2 is a 11 s a l u t a r y p r o v i s i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n f e l o n y c a s e s i n t h e a i d of a f a i r t r i a l t o which every defendant i s e n t i t l e d . " McLeod a l s o c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e a c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge cannot b e d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l a b s e n t a showing of manifest abuse of d i s c r e t i o n and prejudice. I n Montana, c e r t a i n types of witnesses have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been exempted from t h e operation of t h e witness exclusionary r u l e , including a t t o r n e y s of t h e c o u r t , c o u r t o f f i c e r s who happen t o be witnesses and whose attendance i n t h e courtroom i s necessary, and p o l i c e o f f i c e r s a s s i s t i n g i n preparation of t h e prosecution's case, S t a t e v. Walsh, 72 Mont. 110, 232 P. 194; S t a t e v, F i t z - p a t r i c k , 149 Mont. 400, 427 P.2d 300. The t r i a l c o u r t , by incor- porating one of t h e s e exceptions i n t o i t s r u l i n g , was c o r r e c t l y following t h e law of t h i s s t a t e and t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t e r r . State v. Meidinger, 160 Mont. 310, 320, 502 P.2d 58; S t a t e v. Love, 151 Mont. 190, 440 P.2d 275. While t h e record here evidences no p r e j u d i c i a l harm, we d i r e c t i n t h e f u t ~ r e where t h e t r i a l judge g r a n t s a motion t o s e q u e s t e r , t h a t i n t h e s p i r i t of f a i r n e s s , a l l witnesses who a r e t o t e s t i f y be excluded from t h e courtroom. Appellant's f o u r t h s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r r e f e r s t h i s Court t o t h e d e n i a l by t h e t r i a l c o u r t of h i s motion f o r m i s t r i a l , a motion p r e c i p i t a t e d by a r a t h e r unusual chain of events. Appellant a l l e g e s t h a t t h e defense witness Daniel Cinnamon was a r r e s t e d a t o r j u s t o u t s i d e t h e courtroom door, t o a p p e l l a n t ' s prejudice. The evidence a s t o t h e exact place of a r r e s t i s i n c o n f l i c t , a s i s whether any of t h e j u r o r s knew what went on. The t r i a l judge d i d n o t observe what took place, and when a p p e l l a n t ' s counsel made an i s s u e of what happened, he allowed argument and then r u l e d t h e r e was II no prejudice", W f i n d no e r r o r . e I n S t a t e v. Bentley, 155 Mont. 383, 405,406, 472 P.2d 864, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "This Court w i l l n o t r e v e r s e a d e c i s i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s p r e j u d i c e i s shown, and such p r e j u d i c e w i l l n o t be presumed but must be a f f i r m a t i v e l y shown. S t a t e v. Love, 151 Mont. 190, 440 P.2d 275; S t a t e v. Walker, 148 Mont. 216, 419 P.2d 300; S t a t e v. Heiser, 146 Mont. 413, 407 P.2d 370." Next a p p e l l a n t t a k e s i s s u e with what he c h a r a c t e r i z e s a s 1' c e r t a i n opinion evidence1' given by t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s a s t o t h e crowbar and t h e marks found i n t h e door of t h e hardware s t o r e . W f i n d no e r r o r . e S t a t e v. C o l l i n s , 88 Mont. 514, 294 P. 957. Two e v i d e n t i a r y i s s u e s remain f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , Appel- l a n t a l l e g e s t h a t t h e admission o f t h e weapon and ammunition c l i p , which f e l l t o t h e ground d u r i n g h i s attempted escape from custody, was improper and p r e j u d i c i a l when o f f e r e d f o r t h e purpose of a l l o w i n g t h e j u r o r s t o i n & e r c r i m i n a l i n t e n t therefrom. Appellant's contehthnn cannot b e s u s t a i n e d under t h e p e r t i n e n t Montana c a s e law, e s p e c i a l l y under t h e f a c t s presented by t h i s c a s e . The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . Justice W concur: e .................................... Chief J u s t i c e ' / ' --------/, - - l - : L - J - f 2 - , -----I ' 7 / . 3 1 ??iWE%%? ¬X% t i c e s Jus ------ . .

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.