STATE v NELSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13133 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, DANNY NELSON and ELMER CRATON NELSON, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Bradley Parrish argued, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Michael Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Allen B. Chronister, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana William Spoja, County Attorney, Lewistown, Montana Robert L. Knopp, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Lewistown, Montana Submitted: Decided: January 21, 1977 R 2 4 1n B 9 lerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendants were convicted by 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 , Fergus County, of two counts of o f f e r i n g t o s e l l dangerous drugs i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 54-132, R.C.M. 1947. Both defendants appeal. The m a t e r i a l f a c t s a r e d i s p u t e d . The s t a t e ' s v e r s i o n i s t h a t defendants Danny Nelson and Elmer Nelson, b r o t h e r s , o f f e r e d t o s e l l marijuana on two s e p a r a t e occasions t o James B r i d g e f o r d , an undercover n a r c o t i c s agent f o r t h e Fergus County s h e r i f f ' s department. The f i r s t t r a n s a c t i o n was on t h e n i g h t of October 27, 1974, a t t h e Husky t r u c k s t o p on t h e Lewistown by-pass. Defendants drove up t o t h e t r u c k s t o p i n t h e i r c a r , bought a couple of d o l l a r s worth of g a s from Bridgeford who was working t h e r e , and asked him i f he wanted t o buy a " l i d " . II Defendants l e f t , r e t u r n e d l a t e r , arrangements" were made, and defendants waited i n B r i d g e f o r d ' s c a r w h i l e h e was s e r v i c i n g t h e i r c a r . T h e r e a f t e r Bridgeford went over t o h i s c a r where defendants were w a i t i n g and they handed him "a l i d of grass" i n a p l a s t i c baggy and he p a i d them $20. About f i v e minutes a f t e r defendants l e f t , Bridgeford c a l l e d Randall Cordle, a n a r c o t i c s agent and deputy s h e r i f f of Fergus County, who came t o t h e t r u c k s t o p where Bridgeford turned t h e p l a s t i c baggy over t o him. The second t r a n s a c t i o n , according t o t h e s t a t e , occurred on t h e n i g h t of October 30, 1974. Bridgeford went t o a p r i v a t e r e s i d e n c e on Pine S t r e e t i n Lewistown where defendants were l i v i n g . After t a l k i n g about marijuana, an arrangement was made f o r Bridgeford t o buy a n o t h e r " l i d " from them. Defendant Elmer Nelson went over t o a p l a s t i c pumpkin on a s h e l f i n a n o t h e r room, e x t r a c t e d a " l i d " , and gave i t t o defendant Danny Nelson a s t h e y were c a r f o r a d r i v e up S p r i n g Creek. going t o t h e While d r i v i n g around d e f e n d a n t s and B r i d g e f o r d passed around a " j o i n t " t h a t defendant Elmer Nelson had, which B r i d g e f o r d s i m u l a t e d smoking. During t h e d r i v e , d e f e n d a n t Danny Nelson p u t t h e "baggy" on t h e s e a t toward B r i d g e f o r d and B r i d g e f o r d handed him $20. T h e r e a f t e r B r i d g e f o r d c o n t a c t e d Deputy Randall Cordle and t u r n e d t h e baggy over t o him. Defendants' v e r s i o n d i f f e r s i n a l l m a t e r i a l p a r t i c u l a r s . According t o d e f e n d a n t s , t h e a l l e g e d e v e n t s forming t h e b a s i s of b o t h c h a r g e s a r e complete f a b r i c a t i o n s . They admit going t o t h e t r u c k s t o p on t h e n i g h t of October 27, 1974 accompanied by f i v e o t h e r p e r s o n s and g e t t i n g some g a s , b u t deny r e t u r n i n g t h e r e l a t e r . They c a t e g o r i c a l l y deny having any m a r i j u a n a , s e l l i n g o r o f f e r i n g t o s e l l any marijuana t o B r i d g e f o r d , o r r e c e i v i n g any money from him. Concerning e v e n t s of October 30, 1974, d e f e n d a n t s admit going f o r a d r i v e up S p r i n g Creek w i t h B r i d g e f o r d i n h i s c a r accompanied by two o t h e r s and smoking a " j o i n t " of marijuana which t h e y c l a i m B r i d g e f o r d himself had. Defendants deny t h e y themselves had any marijuana o r s o l d o r o f f e r e d t o s e l l any t o B r i d g e f o r d . They deny t h e i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g t h e p l a s t i c pumpkin i n t h e house on P i n e S t r e e t . The o n l y w i t n e s s i n t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f was B r i d g e f o r d . The o n l y e x h i b i t o f f e r e d by t h e s t a t e was a p l a s t i c bag o f a g r e e n s u b s t a n c e marked "Evidence d e s c r i p t i o n , one baggy of g r e e n s u b s t a n c e Srl-ieved t o be marijuana bought from Danny and Elmer Nelson, 10-27- 74." A f t e r denying i t s admission i n evidence f o r l a c k of f o u n d a t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a d m i t t e d i t f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e purposes a s shown by t h e f o l l o w i n g c o l l o q u y : - "Q. M r . B r i d g e f o r d , d i d you you obtained t h e substance from Danny Nelson, c o r r e c t ? A. Yes. And d i d you subsequently t r a n s f e r t h a t t o "Q. M r . Cordle? A . Yes, I d i d . "Q. And t h i s appears t o be b a s i c a l l y t h e same i t e m , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? A . Yes, i t does. "MR. KNOPP: Your Honor, t h e S t a t e would r e q u e s t t h a t t h e e x h i b i t be e n t e r e d f o r purposes of demons t r a t i o n , I n t h e p a r t i c u l a r charge, i t i s n o t necessary t o prove t h a t anything of t h a t n a t u r e was conveyed, o n l y t h a t t h e r e was an o f f e r t o convey t h i s p a r t i c u l a r item. "THE COURT: Inasmuch a s i t i s s i m i l a r and so on, i t could be admitted f o r t h a t purpose. "MR. PARRISH: I w i l l o b j e c t , your Honor, because t h e w i t n e s s i s n o t s u r e t h a t i s t h e same one. He s a i d i t could be. "THE COURT: He's n o t e n t e r i n g i t a s t h e same one. He's e n t e r i n g i t a s demonstrative. I t was something l i k e t h i s , and t h a t ' s t h e b a s i s on which I admit t h i s . " The two defendants were t h e only w i t n e s s e s i n t h e i r c a s e - i n chief. I n r e b u t t a l , t h e s t a t e c a l l e d two w i t n e s s e s , Jack Songer, t h e s h e r i f f of Fergus County, and William A . Spoja, J r . , t h e Fergus County a t t o r n e y . S h e r i f f Songer read a w r i t t e n r e p o r t t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e made by deputy Randall Cordle. This report reads: "A. T h i s i s d a t e d October 27th, 1974, and t h e o f f e n s e i s s a l e of dangerous drugs. On t h e above d a t e , I , Randy Cordle, r e c e i v e d a phone c a l l from a c o n f i d e n t i a l i n formant s t a t i n g t h a t approximately a t 2:15 A.M., c o n f i d e n t i a l informant had purchased a q u a n t i t y of marijuana from Danny and Elmer Nelson. I went t o t a l k w i t h conf i d e n t i a l informant and he t o l d me t h e following: Confid e n t i a l informant s t a t e d t h a t Nelsons and Steven Gavin came t o h i s p l a c e of employment t o g e t some g a s o l i n e . While c o n f i d e n t i a l informant was f i l l i n g t h e Nelson v e h i c l e , Elmer s a i d t o c o n f i d e n t i a l informant, do you want a l i d . Conf i d e n t i a l informant s a i d yeah, p o s s i b l y , how much i s i t going t o c o s t me. Danny s a i d $20.00 because we had t o go o u t o f town t o g e t i t , and we could only g e t s i x l i d s . C o n f i d e n t i a l informant s a i d when can I g e t i t . Danny s a i d we d o n ' t have i t now, b u t we can g e t it t o n i g h t . C o n f i d e n t i a l informant t h e n s t a t e d t o m t h a t t h e s u s p e c t s l e f t e f o r approximately f i f t e e n t o twenty minutes and t h e n r e t u r n e d . A f t e r r e t u r n i n g , Danny t o l d c o n f i d e n t i a l informant we a r e going t o look i n your c a r , come over when you a r e done f i l l i n g t h a t c a r . A f t e r c o n f i d e n t i a l informant f i n i s h e d , he d i d i n f a c t walk over t o h i s v e h i c l e a t which time Danny, now s e a t e d i n t h e c a r , gave c o n f i d e n t i a l informant a l i d , and c o n f i d e n t i a l informant i n t u r n gave Danny $20.00 which Danny had e a r l i e r s t a t e d t h a t was t h e amount he wanted f o r t h e l i d . A f t e r conc l u d i n g w i t h c o n f i d e n t i a l informant, I brought t h e s a i d marijuana t o t h e Fergus County S h e r i f f ' s O f f i c e , and locked i t i n t h e v a u l t . Signed R. Cordle, Deputy S h e r i f f , Fergus County . I 1 The s h e r i f f t e s t i f i e d i t was a r e p o r t given t o him a s a r o u t i n e m a t t e r i n t h e normal c o u r s e o f s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e procedures. S h e r i f f Songer i d e n t i f i e d t h e " c o n f i d e n t i a l informant" r e f e r r e d t o t h e r e i n a s J i m Bridgeford. The s h e r i f f a l s o summarized t h e c o n t e n t s of a second w r i t t e n r e p o r t submitted t o him by deputy Randall Cordle i n t h e r o u t i n e procedures of h i s o f f i c e i n t h e normal c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s covering t h e e v e n t s of October 30, 1974. T h i s r e p o r t was unsigned. The s h e r i f f ' s t e s t i m o n i a l summary i n d i c a t e d t h a t a t 1:40 a.m. t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l informant bought marijuana from Danny Nelson i n t h e i r c a r i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e t r u c k r o u t e i n L e w i s t o ~ m . The r e p o r t a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t while i n defendant Elmer Nelson's house he took o u t a p l a s t i c pumpkin from a s h e l f and reached i n and removed a handful of packaged l i d s c o n t a i n i n g marijuana and handed them t o defendant Danny Nelson. S h e r i f f Songer a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t J i m B r i d g e f o r d ' s workmanship w i t h t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e had been " r e l i a b l e , c o n f i d e n t i a l , t o where he was t r u s t e d by t h i s o f f i c e t o u s e a s a c o n f i d e n t i a l informant" and Bridgeford had been deputized and i s s u e d a gun permit. The s h e r i f f ' s testimony concerning t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e two w r i t t e n r e p o r t s was o b j e c t e d t o by defendants' counsel on t h e grounds i t was h e a r s a y , i n c o r r e c t r e b u t t a l , and lacked proper foundation. The o b j e c t i o n s were o v e r r u l e d . County a t t o r n e y Spoja t e s t i f i e d w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n t h a t " t h e f e e l i n g and information t h a t I had i n d i c a t e d t o me M r . Bridgef o r d was completely r e l i a b l e . doubt him." I have no reason whatsoever t o The county a t t o r n e y a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was aware " t h a t M r . Bridgeford was d i r e c t l y involved w i t h t h e Nelsons and i n f a c t t h a t t h e r e were funds provided f o r t h a t s p e c i f i c purpose." On January 17, 1975, defendants Danny and Elmer Nelson were charged by Information i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Fergus County, w i t h two c o u n t s of s e l l i n g dangerous drugs t o Bridgeford on October 27 and 30, 1974, r e s p e c t i v e l y . On May 23, 1975, t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y moved f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a n amended Information charging t h e defendants w i t h " o f f e r i n g t o sell" dangerous drugs on t h e same d a t e s . Leave was g r a n t e d and t h e amended Information was f i l e d on t h e same d a t e . Following p l e a s of n o t g u i l t y t o each charge by each defendant, a j u r y t r i a l was h e l d on May 29, 1975. The j u r y v e r d i c t found b o t h defendants g u i l t y a s charged. was e n t e r e d . Judgment Defendants a p p e a l from t h e judgment of c o n v i c t i o n . Defendants r a i s e t h r e e i s s u e s on a p p e a l which we summarize i n t h i s manner: 1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n a d m i t t i n g t h e s h e r i f f ' s testimony concerning t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e w r i t t e n r e p o r t s of deputy Cordle? 2) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n p e r m i t t i n g improper r e b u t t a l testimony by t h e s h e r i f f ? 3) Must t h e s t a t e prove beyond a reasonable doubt t h a t t h e substance o f f e r e d f o r s a l e was i n f a c t a dangerous drug? W need go no f u r t h e r than t h e f i r s t i s s u e t o determine e t h a t t h e judgment must b e vacated and a new t r i a l g r a n t e d . However, b e f o r e we d i s c u s s t h e f i r s t i s s u e , we wish t o make i t c l e a r t h e r e were other errors, e.g., admission of the "baggier' in evidence, and failure to have the contents of the baggie analyzed by the state criminal identification laboratory so that identification could be established at the trial. These errors must not be repeated on retrial. The first issue is whether the sheriff's testimony concerning the contents of the written reports of Deputy Cordle is reversible error. The state contends the testimony was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under section 93-901-1, R.C.M. 1947. Alternatively, the state argues the authenticity of the reports was established and they are admissible under the reasoning of State v. Cooper, 161 Mont. 85, 504 P.2d 978. In any event, the state contends, the error is harmless because no prejudice was shown. Defendants argue the testimony was inadmissible hearsay and prejudice clearly resulted. The contents of the report are clearly hearsay. They are unsworn statements made out of court with no opportunity afforded to confront the writer and question him as to their veracity. In fact, certain statements therein are hearsay twice removed. Thus unless the contents of the statement f a l l . . within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, they are inadmissible in evidence. The state contends the contents of the report are admissible under a statutory exception to the hearsay rule, section 93-901-1, R.C.M. 1947. That statute provides: "written reports or findings of fact made by officers of this state, on a matter within the scope of their duty as defined by statute, shall, in so far as relevant, be admitted as evidence of the matter stated therein." Y e r e t o f o r e this Courl~held Chdc tlze I . ~ r l t r e r lreporc > e th I 3tdte chelilist i n t h e s t a t e c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n l a b o r a t o r y con- c e r n i n g t h e p h y s i c a l and chemical t e s t i n g and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a s u b s t a n c e a s marijuana was a d m i s s i b l e under t h i s s t a t u t e . Y. Snider, Ivlont . , 541 P.2d 1204, 32 St.Rep. of State 1050 (1975). W have a l s o p r e v i o u s l y denied admission i n evidence of e A n d i t e d , undated and signed a c c i d e n t r e p o r t of a United S t a t e s ? o r e s t S e r v i c e e n g i n e e r i n a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n by a s k i e r dgdinst a s k i r e s o r t . I n t h a t c a s e t h e i n j u r i e s o c c u r r e d when a s k i l i f t c a b l e d e r a i l e d and threw t h e s k i e r t o t h e ground. The w i t n e s s through whom t h e r e p o r t was sought t o be a d m i t t e d was not t h e a u t h o r of t h e r e p o r t b u t was p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e t h e i n - s p e c t i o n was made, ( t h e s u b j e c t of t h e r e p o r t ) . W held the report e was i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y under s e c t i o n 93-901-1, R.C.M. " e s s l v . B r i d g e r Bowl, 164 Mont. 389, 524 P.2d 1101. 1947. Also s e e : Xichardson v . Farmers Union O i l Co., 131 Mont. 535, 312 P.2d 134, $&here we h e l d an A i r Force o f f i c e r ' s r e p o r t i n a d m i s s i b l e . The f e d e r a l r u l e seems t o d i f f e r and a l l o w s p o l i c e r e p o r t s l ~ u t l t a i r l i n g e a r s a y under 28 U.S . C . A . h 5 1732. The r a t i o n a l e seems t o be t h a t t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e i s designed t o a b r o g a t e t h e common law h e a r s a y r u l e . See: B r i d g e r v. Union Railway Company, 355 ?.3d 382, a s i l l u s t r a t i v e of t h e f e d e r a l approach. I n our view under Montana's s t a t u t e , t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e zwo r e p o r t s by deputy Cordle a r e i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y , n o t w i t h - s ~ a n d i n gt h e f a c t t h e r e p o r t s were o f f i c i a l r e p o r t s g i v e n t h e s h e r i f f a s a r o u t i n e m a t t e r i n accordance w i t h o f f i c e procedures. a l s o i n a d m i s s i b l e under t h e r a t i o n a l e of Cooper. It i s The r e a s o n f o r o u r h o l d i n g i s t h a t deputy Cordle h i m s e l f , had h e been c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s a t t h e t r i a l , could n o t have t e s t i f i e d t o t h e c o n t e n t s of the report. .The report is largely statements of defendants to a confidential informer who relayed the statements on to a deputy sheriff. This is patently hearsay and inadmissible through the lips of either the sheriff or deputy Cordle. The confidential informant to whom the statements were made testified to their contents, but the official character of the report does not permit the sheriff or deputy Cordle to report the statements on the witness stand to bolster the credibility of the confidential informant . The purpose of Montana's statute is not to render otherwise in- admissible hearsay admissible simply because it is contained in a police report. For the foregoing reasons, we hold the contents of deputy Cordle's report was improperly admitted in evidence, was prejudicial to defendants, and the convictions cannot stand. The judgment of the district court is vacated and the cause remanded to the district court, Fergus County, for a new trial. Justice
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.
