STATE v MICHELSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13309 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A O T N 1977 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , LELAND (TOBY) PIICKELSON, D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t . A p p e a l from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t J . Boyd, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: W i l l i a m A. B r o l i n a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana Mayo A s h l e y a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana J o s e p h C o n n o r s , County A t t o r n e y , Anaconda, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: d J N -3 1 & $a March 2 2 , JUN - (3 197-f 1977 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B , Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment of g u i l t y of felony t h e f t i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 94-6-302(1), R.C.M. 1947, by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Deer Lodge County, s i t t i n g without a jury. The s t a t e agrees with t h e f a c t s presented by defendant i n h i s b r i e f on appeal which include: "The Information a l l e g e d t h a t : 'I40n o r about October 6 , 1974, i n Deer Lodge County, Montana, t h e defendant, Toby Mickelson, purposely o r knowingly obtained o r exerted unauthorized c o n t r o l over property, a 1972 Chevrolet pickup, gold with white t r i m , V I N Number CCE142Z135099, of a value of more than $150.00, owned by Thompson's Motor Company, and purposely o r knowingly used, concealed o r abandoned t h e property i n such manner a s t o deprive t h e owner of t h e property which was i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e above s t a t u t e and a g a i n s t t h e peace and d i g n i t y of t h e S t a t e of Montana."' Section 94-6-302(1), R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s : "(1) A person commits t h e offense of t h e f t when he purposely o r knowingly o b t a i n s o r e x e r t s unauthorized c o n t r o l over property of t h e owner, and: " ( a ) has t h e purpose of depriving t h e owner of t h e property; o r "(b) purposely o r knowingly u s e s , conceals, o r abandons t h e property i n such manner a s t o deprive t h e owner of t h e property; o r " ( c ) uses, conceals, o r abandons t h e property knowing such use, concealment o r abandonment probably w i l l deprive t h e owner of t h e property," O June 15, 1975, nine months a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d t h e f t , Toby n Michelson, t h e defendant, was a r r e s t e d . O June 25, 1975, an n Information was f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t charging defendant with theft. The public defender of Deer Lodge County was appointed a s counsel f o r defendant. The Information l i s t e d t h e names of witnesses, f i v e i n number: B i l l Rhoades, Joe Thompson, Eugene Thompson, Gary Jacobs, and Anthony Bamonte. O September 8, 1975 defendant f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of i n t e n t n t o r e l y on t h e defense of a l i b i , which n o t i c e contained t h e names of various witnesses upon whom defendant intended t o r e l y t o e s t a b l i s h h i s defense. of Polson, Montana. Included i n t h a t l i s t was one F o r e s t Walter The county a t t o r n e y thereupon f i l e d an a l t e r - n a t i v e motion t o s t r i k e t h e defense of a l i b i a s being untimely, o r t o continue t h e t r i a l d a t e of September 15, 1 9 The c o u r t allowed t h e defense and continued t h e t r i a l d a t e u n t i l January 5 , 1976. On December 31, 1975, t h e s t a t e requested another continuance based on t h e u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of witness William Rhoades, because of h e a l t h . Rhoades was t h e witness t h e s t a t e a l l e g e d purchased t h e s t o l e n pickup from defendant. ~hoades"testimony was continued, however t h e t r i a l commenced a s scheduled. was submitted t o t h e c o u r t on January 19, 1976. The matter O January 23, 1976, n t h e c o u r t entered judgment finding defendant g u i l t y ; motion f o r a new t r i a l was denied and defendant t h e r e a f t e r f i l e d t h i s appeal. Owner Thompson t e s t i f i e d h i s t r u c k was missing from h i s l o t October 7 , 1974, and l a t e r was located i n t h e s t a t e of Washington i n t h e possession of B i l l Rhoades i n November. Dan Gochanour t e s t i f i e d he met defendant i n Polson, Montana around t h e f i r s t of October on a weekend o r a Monday. Defendant was d r i v i n g a 1972 Chevrolet t r u c k , t h e same a s t h e one i n q u e s t i o n here. He and defendant went t o defendant's s i s t e r ' s home i n Wallace, Idaho, where defendant t o l d him how he s t o l e t h e t r u c k from Thompson Motors. Then he and defendant went t o Winthrop, Washington and picked apples f o r one "Ed Bryan". Three o r four weeks l a t e r they went t o t h e home of M r . & Mrs. B i l l Rhoades a t Metaline F a l l s , Washington. There defendant purchased mirrors f o r t h e t r u c k and traded it t o B i l l Rhoades f o r a Dodge. Marlin Gochanour t e s t i f i e d he knew defendant who s t a y e d overn i g h t a t ''about t h e time of t h e pickup." and w h i t e 1972 Defendant drove a g o l d Chevrolet pickup i n t o t h e w i t n e s s ' yard. Defendant had a n o t h e r pickup i n t h e yard b u t Marlin could n o t a f f i r m t h e p l a t e s were switched. He could n o t f i x a d a t e even a s t o t h e month when he saw d e f e n d a n t , e x c e p t i t was a weekend. The s t a t e r e c e i v e d a week's continuance f o r w i t n e s s Rhoades' testimony b u t r e s t e d t h e following week a s w i t n e s s Rhoades passed away. Defendant t e s t i f i e d : 1. That a t no time d i d he e v e r have i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n a gold and w h i t e 1972 Chevrolet pickup. 2. That he had owned a 1971 Chevrolet pickup b l u e and w h i t e i n c o l o r , which was s o l d t o c r a f t ' s Conoco i n Missoula. 3. That when t h e b l u e and w h i t e pickup was s o l d t o c r a f t ' s Conoco t h e l i c e n s e p l a t e s were l e f t on t h e t r u c k , a l o n g w i t h t h e registration. 4. That h e purchased from C r a f t a t t h e same time he s o l d h i s pickup, a 1968 Chevrolet c o n v e r t i b l e which he kept about two weeks and t h e n t r a d e d C r a f t a g a i n , t h i s time f o r a w h i t e '67 Plymouth automobile. These t r a n s a c t i o n s occurred approximately i n June 1974. 5. That on October 6 , 1974 he was i n Polson, Montana w i t h F o r e s t Walter. 6. That w i t n e s s D a n i e l Gochanour was n o t a t F o r e s t W a l t e r ' s r e s i d e n c e i n Polson on October 6 , 1974. 7. That w i t n e s s D a n i e l Gochanour d i d n o t accompany him (de- f e n d a n t ) t o t h e s t a t e of Washington, s t o p p i n g a t h i s s i s t e r ' s home i n Wallace, Idaho. 8. That he l e f t Polson a week and a h a l f a f t e r October 6 , 1974 f o r t h e s t a t e of Washington i n a w h i t e ' 6 7 Plymouth automobile i n t h e company of one Howard White. 9. That he returned t o Montana from Washington t h e following s p r i n g (1975) with a white '67 Plymouth and s o l d t h e c a r t o Dale Combs. 10. That he saw a pickup, otherwise u n i d e n t i f i e d , i n t h e garage owned by B i l l Rhoades e a r l y i n November 1974 b u t he d i d not s e l l a c a r nor pickup t o B i l l Rhoades, nor d i d he g e t one from him, 11. That B i l l Rhoades' wife i s t h e mother of Daniel Gochanour and formerly was married t o Merlin Gochanour. Mrs. Rhoades i s a s i s t e r t o h i s former wife (defendant's) and t h a t bad f e e l i n g s e x i s t between defendant and t h e Gochanours. A t t h i s point of t h e t r i a l defendant endeavored t o introduce an a f f i d a v i t from F o r e s t Walter i n t o evidence, and upon o b j e c t i o n of t h e s t a t e being s u s t a i n e d , defendant moved f o r a continuance t o allow a subpoena t o i s s u e and be served r e q u i r i n g t h e attendance of t h i s witness. The motion was granted and t h e t r i a l was again recessed u n t i l January 1 9 , 1976. O January 14, 1976, t h e s t a t e f i l e d a document e n t i t l e d n '!Notice of Additional Witnesses" i n which defendant was apprised of t h e s t a t e ' s i n t e n t t o c a l l Mrs, William Rhoades of Hot Springs, Montana, a s an a d d i t i o n a l witness f o r t h e prosecution. Upon t r i a l reconvening on January 19, t h e c o u r t d i r e c t e d t h e county a t t o r n e y t o secure a bench warrant f o r t h e a r r e s t of F o r e s t Walter f o r contempt of c o u r t , a s being unavailable t o t h e defendant a s d i r e c t e d by t h e subpoena issued and served. A t t h e request of t h e defense a t t o r n e y t h e c o u r t allowed t h e defendant t o personally address t h e c o u r t . Defendant f i r s t r a i s e d t h e question of l a c k of speedy t r i a l and then requested t h e c o u r t t o appoint a new lawyer. The c o u r t denied both requests. The de- fendant then, through h i s a t t o r n e y , moved f o r d i s m i s s a l f o r f a i l u r e t o e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e case. defendant t e s t i f i e d : The motion was denied. Thereafter 12. That he was n o t a t t h e home of N e r l i n Gochanour o r i n Anaconda a t any time on October 5 , 6 , o r 7 , 1974. 13. He denied t e l l i n g Daniel Gochanour t h a t he, t h e defendant, broke a window from t h e pickup, crossed t h e wires and s t o l e t h e truck. He denied buying any m i r r o r s , denied s t a y i n g a t t h e ~ h o a d e s ' residence except f o r a h a l f hour, denied going t o a b a r w i t h B i l l Rhoades f o r a d r i n k , and denied ever having seen t h e s t o l e n pickup. Without being a b l e t o introduce any f u r t h e r testimony because of t h e f a i l u r e of witness F o r e s t Walter t o appear, t h e defense r e s t e d . The s t a t e r e c a l l e d Daniel Gochanour a s a r e b u t t a l witness, he testified: 1. That he was i n Polson on October 6 , 1974, r e s i d i n g with F o r e s t Walter, h i s wife and family. 2. That he was involved with a u t o r e p a i r work f o r F o r e s t Walter;, 3. That defendant Michelson d i d n o t work f o r F o r e s t Walter on t h e days of October 4 , 5 , 6 , and 7 , 1974. i n Polson on October 7 , 1974. That defendant a r r i v e d The witness Daniel Gochanour then g e n e r a l l y gave t h e same testimony on going t o Washington, t h a t he previously gave. F i r s t , we s t a r t t h i s discussion with t h e a f f i d a v i t of Forest Walter, defendant's proposed Exhibit B , dated August 11, 1975, a t Polson, Montana. Although n o t admitted, i t s e t s f o r t h t h a t de- fendant and Howard White spent October 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , and 7, 1974, with F o r e s t Walter f i x i n g a 1940 Chevrolet pickup t r u c k and defendant was d r i v i n g a 1967 white Plymouth c a r . Second, we have i n t h e record f o r t h e s t a t e t h e two Gochanours' testimony, which i s f a r from unbiased, considering t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , to t e s t i f i e d / b y the defendant and unrebutteii by t h e ; - s t a t e . Thompson was j u s t a corpus d e l e c t i witness and t h u s t h i s proved only t h e v e h i c l e was s t o l e n . Third, we have t h e two witnesses, William Rhoades and F o r e s t Walter, who could have c l e a r e d up t h e m a t t e r , but t h e power of t h e s t a t e could n o t g e t them t o c o u r t . Defendant denied each and every f a c t i n t h e record a g a i n s t him and gave t h e names of raft'^ Conoco, Missoula; B i l l Combs, Polson; Howard White; and of course Mrs. Rhoades and Mrs. F o r e s t Walter, a l l of whom could have been c a l l e d t o determine t h e t r u t h . was never done. This The search f o r t r u t h was l e s s than vigorous by counsel i n t h i s matter and t h i s w r i t e r f e e l s t h a t , p a r t i c u l a r l y on a bench t r i a l , t h e judge has t h e inherent power, r i g h t and yes, duty, t o sua sponte demand'that a search f o r t h e t r u t h be exhausted before t h e matter be accepted f o r decision. Otherwise, t h e defendant, a s h e r e , has been denied a f a i r t r i a l and due process under A r t . 11, S e c t i o n 24, 1972 Montana Constitution. The judgment of t h e t r i a l court i s reversed and t h e cause Chief J u s t i c 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.
