STATE v THOMAS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12875 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1975 THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - WAYNE THOMAS, 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 i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Frank E. B l a i r , ~ u d g ep r e s c d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: J a r d i n e and McCarthy, W h i t e h a l l , . , Montana J a c k M. McCarthy a r g u e d , W h i t e h a i l , Montana F o r Respondent: Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Mont? K r a f t , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , argued, Carl Helena, Montana C h e s t e r L. J o n e s , County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , E n n i s , Montana Submitted: J a n u a r y 22, 1975 -P. Decided: F i l e d : :-EL. 5 , , -L '5 + . h. 2 .i - ' ;; I Mr. 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 o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s an a p p e a l by d e f e n d a n t , Wayne Thomas, from a judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Madison County, s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , c o n v i c t i n g him o f t h e crime of s a l e o f dangerous d r u g s . A t 2:00 p.m. on F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 1974, C h r i s t y J o h n s , a g e 1 5 , was b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f t h e Twin B r i d g e s High S c h o o l . A t that time, s h e was found t o be i n p o s s e s s i o n of a b l u e p l a s t i c box, w i t h i n which was a p l a s t i c sandwich bag c o n t a i n i n g some g r e e n m a t e r i a l , s u b s e q u e n t l y d e t e r m i n e d t o be marijuana . A t t r i a l , M i s s Johns t e s t i f i e d : T h a t s h e and Rhonda S h e l l y approached d e f e n d a n t i n t h e Blue Anchor R e s t a u r a n t i n Twin B r i d g e s on F e b r u a r y 2 0 , 1974, and t h a t t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n concerned t h e p u r c h a s e of m a r i j u a n a from d e f e n d a n t ; t h a t s h e and M i s s S h e l l y m e t w i t h d e f e n d a n t a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8:00 a.m. on F e b r u a r y 22, 1974, a t which t i m e d e f e n d a n t t r a n s f e r r e d a p l a s t i c bag t o M i s s S h e l l y . bag conta.ined m a r i j u a n a . M i s s J o h n s s t a t e d s h e assumed t h e M i s s S h e l l y p l a c e d t h e bag i n h e r s o c k . M i s s J o h n s d i d n o t s e e t h e p l a s t i c bag a g a i n u n t i l a b o u t noon i n t h e washroom of t h e Blue Anchor; t h a t t h e r e M i s s S h e l l y t r a n s f e r r e d t o h e r t h e b l u e box, w i t h i n which was a p l a s t i c bag and i t s c o n t e n t s , which s h e p u t i n h e r s o c k . M i s s Johns i n d i c a t e d s h e and M i s s S h e l l y m e t w i t h d e f e n d a n t , who was s i t t i n g a l o n e a t a b o o t h a t t h e Blue Anchor, between 12:15 and 1 2 : 2 0 p.m. on F e b r u a r y 22, 1974, and t h e y p a i d d e f e n d a n t t h e sum of $15. Defendant c a t a g o r i c a l l y d e n i e d he had e v e r m e t w i t h M i s s J o h n s and M i s s S h e l l y e i t h e r a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8:00 a.m. a t noontime on F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 1974. or M i s s Shelly did not t e s t i f y . Bruce and S h e i l a Burke, husband and w i f e , t e s t i f i e d t h e y meet e a c h day a t noontime and have l u n c h a t t h e Blue Anchor, o f t e n with defendant. They t e s t i f i e d t h a t n e i t h e r M i s s J o h n s nor Miss Shelly ever came near their booth at any time they were having lunch with defendant. However, they were unable to recall whether or not they had Lunch with defendant on February 22, 1974. Mrs. Gage, a realtor, testified that she entered the Blue Anchor for lunch at approximately 12:25 or 12:30 p.m. on February 22, 1974, and saw defendant and Burkes eating lunch in the same booth. Mrs. Lovejoy, owner of the Blue Anchor, was working as a waitress on February 22, 1974. She testified that defendant did eat lunch with the Burkes on that day; that she saw no one go near the booth occupied by defendant and the Burkes; but added: "I mean, I was busy. I couldn't really say one way or the other." The issues presented by defendant can be summarized: (1) Whether the district court erred in admitting into evidence the blue plastic box containing the marijuana because it was not identified nor connected to defendant by competent evidence? (2) Whether the district court erred in determining that the plastic bag taken from Miss Johns at 2:00 p.m. was the same plastic bag given to Pliss Shelly at 8:00 a.m.? (3) Whether the district court erred in determining t h a t Yiss ,Johns and Miss Shelly were in the Blue Anchor and paid $15 to defendant on February 22, 1974? (4) Whether the evidence proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The district court did not err in admitting into evidence the blue plastic box containing the marijuana. Defendant contends the state failed to establish by competent evidence that the piastic bag delivered to Miss Shelly contained marijuana; that it was the same plastic bag delivered to Miss Johns at noontime; n o r t h a t it was t h e same p l a s t i c bag t a k e n from M i s s Johns. I n o t h e r words, d e f e n d a n t u r g e s t h a t t h e s t a t e must e s t a b l i s h a c o n t i n u o u s c h a i n of p o s s e s s i o n from t h e defendant t o t h e Superintendent. I n s u p p o r t d e f e n d a n t c i t e s J o y n e r v. U t t e r b a c k , 196 Iowa 1 0 4 0 , 195 N.W. 594, wherein t h e Iowa c o u r t h e l d t h a t i f one l i n k i n a c h a i n o f p o s s e s s i o n i s m i s s i n g t h e e x h i b i t c o u l d n o t be i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , T h a t c a s e s h o u l d be d i s t i n - g u i s h e d , however, and t h e r u l e n o t a p p l i e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s i t uation. I n J o y n e r , a u t h o r i t i e s s e i z e d a c e r t a i n b o t t l e from p e t i t i o n e r ' s p l a c e of b u s i n e s s and found i t t o be i n v i o l a t i o n o f a s t a t u t e p r e s c r i b i n g a l c o h o l by c o n t e n t . The s t a t e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a c h a i n of p o s s e s s i o n from t h e t i m e of c o n f i s c a t i o n u n t i l t h e t i m e of i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e . The c o u r t r e q u i r e d a complete c h a i n of p o s s e s s i o n a f t e r c o n f i s c a t i o n by law enforcement o f f i c i a l s . However, h e r e M i s s J o h n s i d e n t i f i e d t h e p l a s t i c box and t h e p l a s t i c bag which were i n t r o d u c e d by t h e s t a t e . t e s t i m o n y i n e x o r a b l y l i n k e d d e f e n d a n t t o them. Her Defendant, how- e v e r , s i m p l y a l l e g e s t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of t a m p e r i n g e x i s t e d w h i l e t h e p l a s t i c bag was i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f M i s s S h e l l y . This m e r e c o n j e c t u r e by d e f e n d a n t i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o p r e c l u d e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h i s e v i d e n c e . D e f e n d a n t ' s burden was t o show a f f i r m a t i v e l y t h a t t a m p e r i n g had t a k e n p l a c e . I n S t a t e v . O l s e n , 152 Mont. 1, 1 0 , 445 P.2d 926, t h i s Court s a i d : " I * * * I n e a c h c a s e t h e t r i a l judge b e f o r e h e a d m i t s i t i n e v i d e n c e must be s a t i s f i e d t h a t i n reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h e a r t i c l e has n o t been changed i n i m p o r t a n t r e s p e c t s . Wigmore, Evidence, 3d Ed., S 4 3 7 ( 1 ) ; 3 2 C . J . S . Evidence B 607. I n r e a c h i n g h i s c o n c l u s i o n he must be g u i d e d by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a r t i c l e , t h e c i r cumstances s u r r o u n d i n g t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n and c u s t o d y of i t , and t h e l i k e l i h o o d of i n t e r meddlers tampering with i t . ' " * * * A i e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether a f o u n d a t i o n h a s been p r o p e r l y l a i d i n o r d e r t o i n t r o d u c e e x h i b i t s i n t o e v i d e n c e r e s t s w i t h t h e lower c o u r t and such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be o v e r t u r n e d u n l e s s t h e r e i s a c l e a r a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n , a s i t u a t i o n not present here." W e f i n d no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n a d m i t t i n g i n t o e v i d e n c e t h e p l a s t i c box conThe d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c t e d w i t h i n i t s d i s - t a i n i n g t h e marijuana. c r e t i o n a s t h e t r i e r of f a c t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e p l a s t i c bag t a k e n from M i s s J o h n s a t 2 : 0 0 p.m. was t h e same a s t h a t d e l i v e r e d t o M i s s S h e l l y by d e f e n d a n t t h a t morning; t h a t M i s s J o h n s and M i s s S h e l l y were i n t h e Blue Anchor and p a i d $15 t o d e f e n d a n t on F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 1974; and t h a t d e f e n d a n t was g u i l t y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . Such d e c i s i o n s p r o p e r l y r e s t e d w i t h t h e t r i e r o f f a c t , g i v i n g whatever w e i g h t it deemed p r o p e r t o the e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d t o i t . A f t e r c l o s i n g arguments, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s which compelled i t t o b e l i e v e t h e t e s t i m o n y of Xiss J o h n s and d i s c o u n t t h e t e s t i m o n y of d e f e n d a n t ' s w i t n e s s e s . T h e t e s t i m o n y of M i s s J o h n s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e o t h e r w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e s t a t e , was s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of g u i l t y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt of t h e crime of s a l e of dangerous d r u g s . C e r t a i n l y , t h e g i v i n g o r t r a n s f e r o f t h e m a r i j u a n a , w i t h o u t even c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c a s h t r a n s £ e r , e s t a b l i s v t h e c r i m e beyond a reasonable doubt. F i n d i n g no e r r o r , t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: ' , t,.d[ .'.d . " ,-,,,,--,--,,L':~I L*' ,----... a - d ~ ~ i . ~ ~ * L Chief J u s t i c e :Z: ----- j , , :/ ~ - ~-~i'i'i.~t~iii------ i , ' f Justices - 5 -

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.