STATE v HALL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13084 IN THE SUPKEMli COURT OF THE STATE OF W N T A N A 1976 STATE OF MON'IAXA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - JOSEPH THERON HALL, Defendant and A p p e l l a n r . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh Judicia 1 D i s t r i c t , Honorable R o b e r t C. S y k e s , Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record : For Appellant: n o n a l d L. S h a f f e r a r g u e d , L i b b y , Montana For Aespondent : Hon. R o b e r t Td. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana ' d i l l i a m J. Anderson, 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 , H e l e n a , Montana ' d i l l i a m A. Douglas a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , L i b b y , Yontana Submitted: !)ecided: August 30, 1976 ~ t 2p ; M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lincoln County, on a j u r y v e r d i c t f i n d i n g t h e defendant g u i l t y of grand larceny. Sometime during t h e weekend of August 17 t o August 20, 1973, a food s t o r a g e t r a i l e r and cookhouse of t h e Canyon Logging Company, where defendant Joseph Theron H a l l had been employed a s a cook f o r some time, were broken i n t o and a l a r g e q u a n t i t y of f o o d s t u f f s taken. A t t h e time of t h i s break i n t h e camp, located a t Bunker H i l l near Eureka, Montana, was closed due t o f i r e conditions i n t h e a r e a . The break i n was discovered on August 20, 1973, by t h e logging supervisor who had gone t o t h e camp t o be c e r t a i n i t was closed down properly. I n v e s t i g a t i o n by t h e Lincoln County s h e r i f f ' s department r e s u l t e d i n t h e f i l i n g of an Information i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t , December 5 , 1974, charging defendant w i t h t h e f e l o n i e s of f i r s t degree burglary and grand larceny. The I n f o r - mation s t a t e d t h e offenses charged occurred "on o r about t h e 19th day of August, 1973." On December 6 , 1974, defendant's counsel f i l e d a n o t i c e of i n t e n t t o r e l y on t h e defense of a l i b i and a l i s t of supportive witnesses, pursuant t o t h e requirements of s e c t i o n 95-1803(d), R.C.M. 1947. T r i a l held on t h i s matter was commenced February 24, 1975. A t conclusion of t h e s t a t e ' s case, t h e defendant's motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t dismissing t h e charge of burglary i n t h e f i r s t degree was granted. Defendant a l s o moved f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on t h e charge of grand larceny based on t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e s t a t e ' s evidence was n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c a s t o t i m e of t h e offense. T h i s motion w a s denied. The s t a t e o f f e r e d proof i n d i c a t i n g t h e o f f e n s e charged could have taken p l a c e anytime between t h e e a r l y evening, F r i d a y , August 17, t o noon Monday, August 20, 1973. A t t r i a l d e f e n d a n t ' s defense c o n s i s t e d mainly of testimony of s e v e r a l a l i b i w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e p e r i o d from t h e n i g h t of August 18, 1973 through t h e morning of August 20, 1973. N o testimony w a s presented r e g a r d i n g t h e p e r i o d p r i o r t o t h a t time. Defendant argues on appeal t h a t t h e s t a t e ' s proof t h a t t h e o f f e n s e could have occurred over a t h r e e day p e r i o d was i n v a r i a n c e w i t h t h e Information d a t e of August 19, 1973, and denied him f a i r n o t i c e t o defend w i t h a l i b i w i t n e s s e s f o r August 17 and 18. T h i s appeal i s from t h e judgment and t h e o r d e r denying a motion f o r a new t r i a l a f t e r defendant w a s found g u i l t y of grand larceny. S e c t i o n 95-1503, R.C.M. 1947, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , s t a t e s a charge s h a l l : " (c) Charge t h e commission of an o f f e n s e by: " ( 4 ) s t a t i n g t h e time and p l a c e of t h e o f f e n s e *." ( ~ m p h a s i sadded.) a s d e f i n i t e l y as can be done ** I n S t a t e ex r e l . Borberg v . D i s t r i c t Court, 125 Mont. 481, 488, 489, 240 P.2d 854, t h i s Court s t a t e d : " P e r f e c t i o n i s n o t r e q u i r e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g of a [and] i s seldom a t t a i n e d c r i m i n a l cause *** ** *.I' The Court a l s o s t a t e d i n Borberg: "* * *the use of t h e phrase 'on o r about' a c e r t a i n day of a c e r t a i n month i n t h e y e a r 1950 i n charging such o f f e n s e simply i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e time a l l e g e d w a s s t a t e d w i t h approximate accuracy. S t a t e v. T e r r y , 77 Mont. 297, 250 Pac. 612; S t a t e v. Thompson, 1 0 Mont. 549, 27 Pac. 349." The- use of approximate d a t e language should have served t o put t h e defendant on n o t i c e t h e s t a t e intended t o prove t h e crime was committed within a reasonable period of time p r i o r t o o r subsequent t o t h e d a t e on t h e Information. The l o c a t i o n of t h e break i n and t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n determining t h e exact time of t h e offense d i c t a t e d t h e s t a t e ' s use of t h e l e s s p r e c i s e "on o r about" language. Defendant concedes time i s not o r d i n a r i l y a necessary ingredi e n t of t h e offense of grand larceny. He argues, however, t h a t n o t i c e of i n t e n t t o r e l y on a defense of a l i b i a s required by s e c t i o n 95-1803(d), R.C.M. 1947, g i v e s t h e s t a t e n o t i c e time may become an e s s e n t i a l f a c t of t h e proof required t o convict t h e accused. Assertion of t h e a l i b i defense does not change t h e n a t u r e of t h e crime charged here. Defendant should have rea.lized t h e s t a t e would present evidence proving t h e crime took place sometime i n t h e period between shutdown of t h e camp and discovery of t h e break i n . Defendant cannot r e s t r i c t t h e s t a t e ' s case by merely a s s e r t i n g i n t e n t t o r e l y on an a l i b i defense f o r a l i m i t e d period of time w i t h i n which t h e crime could have occurred. F u r t h e r , i n requesting a new t r i a l , defendant f a i l e d t o seek t h e proper r e l i e f i f he wished t o p r o t e c t himself from any prejudice a l l e g e d l y incurred by use of an approximate d a t e i n t h e charging Information and t h e proof o f f e r e d a t t r i a l . The a c t i o n suggested i n S t a t e v. Rogers, 31 Mont. 1, 4 , 77 P, 293, would have been a p p r o p r i a t e . I n t h a t c a s e , under circumstances very s i m i l a r t o those presented h e r e , t h e Court s a i d : "* ** t h e defendant might n o t be prepared t o prove an a l i b i a s t o any day except t h a t named i n t h e information. But t h e defendant i n such a case may p r o t e c t himself by asking f o r permission t o subpoena o t h e r witnesses, o r , i f necessary, t o ask f o r a continuance, and t h e a c t i o n of t h e c o u r t thereon would then become a proper sQbject f o r review on appeal." (Emphasis added.) Section 95-1803(d), R.C.M. " 1947, provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : * * After t h e t r i a l commences, no witnesses may be c a l l e d by t h e defendant i n support of t h e s e defenses, unless t h e name i s included on such l i s t , except upon (Emphasis added. ) good cause shown ." Even though t h i s s e c t i o n r e q u i r i n g advance n o t i c e of t h e def e n d a n t ' s i n t e n t t o u t i l i z e an a l i b i defense was n o t enacted u n t i l 1967, i t provides f o r a modification of t h e witness l i s t upon a showing of good cause by t h e defendant, and p r o t e c t s him from t h e type of p r e j u d i c e a l l e g e d t o have occurred here. I f de- fendant f e l t h i s defense of a l i b i was jeopardized a t t h e c l o s e of t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e , h i s proper course would be t o seek a continuance t o have time t o prepare a s u i t a b l e defense t o meet t h e charges raised, Defendant cannot have t h e b e s t of two worlds. Having e l e c t e d t o l e t t h e case go t o t h e j u r y , he cannot now complain a f t e r t h e j u r y has found him g u i l t y . The judgment i s affirmed. W Concur: e /
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.
