STATE v WEST

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 79-65 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA F 1980 THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, R D E ALLEN WEST, O NY 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 Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f M i s s o u l a , The H o n o r a b l e J o h n S. Henson, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: S m i t h , Connor & Van V a l k e n b u r g , M i s s o u l a , Montana P a u l S m i t h a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r 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 Mike McGrath 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 R o b e r t L. Deschamps, 111, County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , Montana M i c h a e l S e h e s t e d t a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , Montana Submitted: Decided: September 1 6 , 1 9 8 0 OCT 2 3 198TJ Mr. ~ustice Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Defendant Rodney A l l e n West a p p e a l s from a c o n v i c t i o n and judgment of f e l o n y t h e f t i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 45-6301, MCA. Judgment was e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Missoula County. I n t h e summer o f 1977, a p i c k u p t r u c k was s t o l e n from ~ i t t e r r o o Toyota i n M i s s o u l a . t On J u l y 26, 1977, d e f e n d a n t s o l d a t r u c k , matching t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s t o l e n t r u c k , t o John Wright i n t h e S t a t e o f Idaho. Wright was g i v e n a b i l l of s a l e and t o l d t h e t i t l e would be d e l i v e r e d t o him from Montana. When Wright took t h e t r u c k i n f o r i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e , he d i s c o v e r e d t h e v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number had been o b l i t e r a t e d . Wright t u r n e d t h e b i l l of s a l e and t h e t r u c k o v e r t o I d a h o a u t h o r i t i e s who were a b l e t o o b t a i n a series o f p o t e n t i a l s e r i a l numbers from t h e p a r t i a l numbers a v a i l a b l e on t h e t r u c k . On F e b r u a r y 26, 1979, d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d by informat i o n w i t h t h e f e l o n y t h e f t of a t r u c k b e a r i n g t h e v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number of CE142515821. A t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e t r i a l on J u l y 9, 1979, t h e S t a t e moved t o amend t h e v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number t o r e a d CCE142515821. amendment was a l l o w e d o v e r d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n . The 'The j u r y w a s t h e n g e n e r a l l y i n s t r u c t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e f e l o n y t h e f t of a t r u c k b e a r i n g t h e amended v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. Defendant moved i n l i m i n e t o e x c l u d e any t e s t i m o n y from Ted B e y e r s , a n a l l e g e d accomplice of West. denied. The motion was During t h e S t a t e ' s opening remarks, t h e j u r y w a s t o l d t h a t t h e S t a t e would c a l l a d e t e c t i v e , S g t . ~ i l s o n ,who would r e l a t e a c o n v e r s a t i o n h e had w i t h Beyers c o n c e r n i n g how Beyers and d e f e n d a n t had s t o l e n t h e t r u c k . Defendant o b j e c t e d and moved f o r a m i s t r i a l . The o b j e c t i o n was s u s - t a i n e d , b u t t h e motion was d e n i e d . ~ e f e n d a n te l e c t e d t o g i v e a n opening s t a t e m e n t f o l l o w ing the State's. H e propounded h i s d e f e n s e which was based on f a u l t y v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers which d i d n o t o r could n o t i d e n t i f y t h e s t o i e n truck. A t t h i s point, the S t a t e admitted an e r r o r i n t h e information regarding t h e v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. The S t a t e was p e r m i t t e d t o amend t h e number i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n f o r a second t i m e , this t i m e s t r i k i n g t h e v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number from t h e information. Defendant t h e n moved f o r a motion i n l i m i n e of any t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number s t r i c k e n from t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . The motion w a s d e n i e d . During t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f , d e f e n d a n t was g r a n t e d a c o n t i n u i n g o b j e c t i o n t o any t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers. On J u l y 11, 1979, t h e j u r y r e n d e r e d a v e r d i c t f i n d i n g d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of f e l o n y t h e f t . Defendant moved f o r a new t r i a l on t h e ground t h a t John W r i g h t ' s t e s t i m o n y w a s n o t corroborated. T h i s motion w a s d e n i e d . On August 1 3 , 1979, d e f e n d a n t , a nondangerous o f f e n d e r , was s e n t e n c e d t o t e n years i n the s t a t e prison with c r e d i t f o r t i m e already served. Defendant h a s p r e s e n t e d some twenty i s s u e s t o be examined by t h i s C o u r t . However, o n l y e x a m i n a t i o n of (1) t h e i s s u e of ~ e t e c t i v e g t . W i l s o n ' s t e s t i m o n y and i t s u s e S i n t h e S t a t e ' s opening argument, and ( 2 ) t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e need be reviewed by t h i s C o u r t . Defendant c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t a motion i n l i m i n e and a m i s t r i a l based on proposed t e s t i m o n y of a S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s which was l a t e r h e l d t o be inadmissible. T h i s c l a i m of e r r o r s t e m s from d e f e n - d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t c e r t a i n remarks made by t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y d u r i n g h i s opening s t a t e m e n t w e r e p r e j u d i cial. These remarks r e f e r r e d t o i n f o r m a t i o n Ted Beyers, a n a l l e g e d accomplice of d e f e n d a n t , had g i v e n t o D e t e c t i v e S g t . Michael Wilson. P r i o r t o t r i a l d e f e n d a n t s u b m i t t e d a motion i n l i m i n e p r e c l u d i n g and p r o h i b i t i n g t h e S t a t e of Montana, i t s a t t o r neys o r w i t n e s s e s from m e n t i o n i n g , r e f e r r i n g t o , o r i n t e r r o g a t i n g a b o u t any i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t Ted Beyers had g i v e n t o anyone, i n c l u d i n g Wilson. T h i s motion w a s made on t h e b a s i s t h a t any s u c h t e s t i m o n y would be s t r i c t l y h e a r s a y and would d e p r i v e d e f e n d a n t of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o c o n f r o n t and examine t h e w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t him. The motion w a s d e n i e d , and t h e c o u r t a d v i s e d c o u n s e l t h a t i t c o u l d be reviewed when and i f t h e w i t n e s s was sworn and a n o f f e r of proof made i n chambers. During h i s opening remarks, t h e p r o s e c u t o r made t h e following statement: "We w i l l t h e n c a l l Mike Wilson of t h e Clearw a t e r County, I d a h o S h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e . Detect i v e S e r g e a n t Wilson w i l l t e s t i f y t h a t i n d i v i d u a l known - - -s Ted Beyers, -t o him a t h e same Ted Beyers which was w i t h M r . Wright who he ---c a n ' t l o c a t e c u r r e n t l y - who - - and - he h a s been l o o k i n a f o r f o r some t i m e , came i n s h o r t l y a f t e r M r . Wright had bought t h e p i c k u p and wanted t o t a l k t o him a b o u t a p i c k u p t h a t he and Rodney A l l e n West had s o l d t o John Wright. M r . ~ i l s o n i l l r e l a t e t h e s u b s t a n c e - -a t w of t h c o n v e r s a t i o n was t h a t M r . Beyers and C a r l a --Bray and t h e --- Defendant were i n M i s s o u l a s t a y -ing a th T h a t t h e y went - - t- e P a l a c e H o t e l . ---- o u t t o -e B i t t e r r o o t Toyota. The Defendant d r o v e th t h e v e h i c l e from B i t t e r r o o t Toyota --" (Emphasis supplied.) ~ - - Defendant o b j e c t e d t o t h i s s t a t e m e n t and i n chambers moved f o r a m i s t r i a l based on t h e p r e j u d i c e t h e s t a t e m e n t would have on t h e j u r y . C o u n s e l ' s o b j e c t i o n was s u s t a i n e d , b u t t h e c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion f o r m i s t r i a l . The h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y of D e t e c t i v e S g t . Wilson r e g a r d i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t made by Beyers w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y deemed i n a d m i s s i b l e and n o t p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y . Defendant asserts t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t made by t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y d u r i n g h i s opening remarks was h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o d e f e n d a n t , c o u l d n o t be e r a s e d from t h e j u r y ' s mind and c o n s t i tuted reversible error. T h i s C o u r t h a s f a c e d s i m i l a r i s s u e s on a number of previous occasions: S t a t e v . Zachmeier (1968) , 1 5 1 Mont. 256, 4 4 1 P.2d 737; S t a t e v . Ruona ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 507, 499 P.2d 797; S t a t e v. K o l s t a d ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 185, 531 P.2d 1346. Zachmeier was a homicide c a s e . Prior t o trial the d e f e n d a n t had f i l e d a motion t o s u p p r e s s a c o n f e s s i o n f o r v i o l a t i o n of Miranda warnings. A t t h a t t i m e the court r e s e r v e d r u l i n g on t h e motion. A t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t r i a l t h e motion was renewed. The c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion b u t g r a n t e d t h e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l l e a v e t o renew t h e motion a t a later point i n t r i a l . When t h e c o n f e s s i o n was l a t e r o f f e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e t h e c o u r t r u l e d it w a s i n a d m i s s i b l e . However, d u r i n g opening remarks t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y made a d e t a i l e d r e c i t a t i o n of t h e a d m i s s i o n of g u i l t made by t h e d e f e n d a n t . T h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h o s e remarks i n c o u n s e l ' s opening statement w e r e reversible s t a t i n g t h a t , " [wle do n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e j u r y would c o m p l e t e l y d i s r e g a r d t h i s d e t a i l e d a d m i s s i o n of g u i l t . " 4 4 1 P.2d a t 741. I n b o t h Ruona and K o l s t a d , Zachmeier was d i s t i n g u i s e d on t h e f a c t s : "Zachmeier h e l d t h a t t h e damaging o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t s of p r o s e c u t i o n were n o t of t h e n a t u r e t h a t t h e j u r y would c o m p l e t e l y d i s - regard. Too, w e a r e n o t unmindful of t h i s C o u r t ' s a d m o n i t i o n s i n S t a t e v . Langan, 1 5 1 Mont. 558, 568, 445 P.2d 565 and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . F u r t h e r m o r e , a s s t a t e d i n Fahy v . S t a t e o f C o n n e c t i c u t , 375 U.S. 85, 84 S.Ct. 229, 1 L.Ed.2d 171, c i t e d i n Langan, t h e 1 t e s t remains: " ' I s there a reasonable p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the i n a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e m i g h t have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e c o n v i c t i o n ? ' " S t a t e v. Ruona, 499 P.2d a t 800. W e g r a n t t h a t Zachmeier i s t h e e x t r e m e example and t h e s t a t e m e n t made by t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e f a l l s s h o r t of b e i n g a s b l a t a n t . However, t h e r e i s no d o u b t a s t o what h e was t r y i n g t o convey t o t h e j u r y and l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t t h e y p i c k e d i t up. I t necessarily follows t h a t t h e r e remained a " r e a s o n a b l e p o s s i b i l i t y -t h a t the i n a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e c o n t r i b u t e d - -e c o n v i c t i o n . " t o th W e next address defendant's i s s u e concerning t h e suf- f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e . A t t r i a l Detective W i l l i a m Faust t e s t i f i e d a b o u t t h e C h e v r o l e t t r u c k i n I d a h o b e i n g t h e same o n e s t o l e n i n Missoula from B i t t e r r o o t Toyota. This testi- mony was based s o l e l y o r wholly on c o n j e c t u r e and p r o b a b i l i t y . The p r o c e s s of b a l a n c i n g v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers and p r o b a b i l i t i e s t o i d e n t i f y a machine n e v e r s e e n and b e a r i n g no c o m p l e t e s e t of v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers i s n o t t h e q u a l i t y of e v i d e n c e t o be c o n s i d e r e d f o r c o n v i c t i o n beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. N t i t l e i n B i t t e r r o o t w a s ever furnished. o The t r u c k was n e v e r r e t u r n e d from Idaho. B i t t e r r o o t had two d i f f e r e n t v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers f o r t h e s t o l e n pickup truck i n i t s f i l e . The e x a c t y e a r model was n e v e r d e t e r m i n e d on t h e I d a h o t r u c k . The Idaho p i c k u p was s o l d t o a n i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r on October 31, 1977, and t h i s d a t e f a i l e d t o compliment o t h e r d a t e s deemed of i m p o r t a n c e by t h e State. I n s h o r t , nothing i n evidence proves t h a t t h e truck so d -l-i n Idaho was t h e t r u c k t a k e n from M i s s o u l a . And, t h e r e i s no proof t h a t d e f e n d a n t took t h e t r u c k i n Missoula. F u r t h e r m o r e , any proof t h a t i s a c c e p t a b l e would t e n d t o p r o v e a crime i n t h e S t a t e of Idaho; t h e r e i s no proof t h a t d e f e n d a n t committed a c r i m e i n t h e S t a t e of Montana. The a d m i s s i o n of t h e e v i d e n c e h e r e t o f o r e d i s c u s s e d w a s h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l and r e q u i r e s a r e v e r s a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s conviction. F u r t h e r e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e r e m a i n i n g e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e was l a c k i n g any s u f f i c i e n t , c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e f o r c o n v i c t i o n of a c r i m e i n Montana, and t h e r e i s l i t t l e o r no chance t o improve t h e m a t t e r inasmuch a s t i m e h a s s e e n t h e t r u c k and o t h e r e v i d e n c e d e s t r o y e d . I t appears t o o many y e a r s e l a p s e d , a s i s , t o have o b t a i n e d b e t t e r e v i d e n c e , i f b e t t e r e v i d e n c e t h e r e was. The c o n v i c t i o n and judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d , and t h e c a u s e i s d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e . W concur: e Ph 4 e &!/ Chief J u s t i c e ~ o n o F a b l eGordon R. B e n n e t t , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . S h e a c o n c u r r i n g : I c o n c u r w i t h b o t h t h e r e v e r s a l and d i s m i s s a l o r d e r e d in this case. should, on a I add, however, that the trial courts a s a m a t t e r o f c o u r s e when r e s e r v i n g a d e c i s i o n motion mention the before the in limine, allegedly time refuse to admissible comes for an the let evidence actual attorneys to the ruling jury on its admissibility. If t h a t is d o n e , t h e r e would t h e n be no d a n g e r of c r e a t i n g t h e p r e j u d i c i a l s i t u a t i o n such a s occurred here. Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t u l t i m a t e l y and p r o p e r l y r u l e d t h e evidence to be inadmissible but the jury had already h e a r d what t h e e v i d e n c e would be when t h e p r o s e c u t o r made his opening statement. The jury could t h e s e h a r m f u l s t a t e m e n t s from i t s mind decision, not eradicate i n reaching its and w e m u s t n o t d e l u d e o u r s e l v e s i n t o t h i n k i n g i t c o u l d do s o . Justi

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.