STATE v SHERIFF

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . DONALD A. SHERIFF, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone. Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Calvin Stacey, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Honorable Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Submitted on briefs: August 6, 1980 Decided: Filed: ?!Eli 3 - 3986 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 . his a p p e a l a r i s e s from a c o n v i c t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t of r o b b e r y f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, t h e Honorable R o b e r t H. Wilson p r e s i d i n g . On A p r i l 5, 1979, a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1:30 a.m., t h e 1145 Club i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, w a s robbed by a man wearing a s k i mask o v e r h i s f a c e , a r e d o r o r a n g e T - s h i r t and f a d e d b l u e jeans. The r o b b e r was c a r r y i n g a handgun. S h i r l e y Murphy, t h e barmaid a t 1145 Club on t h e n i g h t of t h e r o b b e r y , and two o f f - d u t y B i l l i n g s p o l i c e o f f i c e r s i n t h e b a r a t t h e t i m e of t h e r o b b e r y , Gary Cooper and Dennis Moen, d e s c r i b e d t h e r o b b e r a s b e i n g a b o u t 6 ' 1 " o r 6 ' 2 " tall and weighing a p p r o x i m a t e l y 130 pounds. S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e robbery, a p o l i c e o f f i c e r c a l l e d t o t h e s c e n e t o i n v e s t i g a t e approached a n a u t o m o b i l e i n t h e v i c i n i t y which was o c c u p i e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t , Donald A. Sheriff. A search of t h e c a r revealed an orange T-shirt, damp w i t h p e r s p i r a t i o n , and a p a i r of f a d e d L e v i s on t h e A . 3 8 c a l i b e r r e v o l v e r and t h e f l o o r behind t h e f r o n t s e a t . s t o l e n money were found h i d d e n under t h e f r o n t f e n d e r of a c a r which was parked i n a c a r p o r t l o c a t e d d i r e c t l y w e s t of t h e backdoor of t h e 1145 Club. A t t r i a l the bartender, S h e i l a Murphy, and e a c h of t h e two o f f - d u t y p o l i c e o f f i c e r s who w i t n e s s e d t h e r o b b e r y i d e n t i f i e d t h e s h i r t and j e a n s found i n d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r a s t h o s e worn by t h e r o b b e r . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e two o f f - d u t y p o l i c e o f f i c e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t S h e r i f f ' s v o i c e sounded l i k e t h a t of t h e r o b b e r . S h e r i f f t e s t i f i e d t h a t on t h e e v e n i n g of ~ p r i l , 1979, 4 h e had d i n n e r w i t h Pam E l l e r , a g i r l f r i e n d , and t h e n went t o v i s i t a f r i e n d , John S t e k a r . Sheriff further t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r knocking on t h e d o o r o f S t e k a r ' s r e s i d e n c e and g e t t i n g no r e s p o n s e , he l e f t and went t o t h e C a t t l e Company, a l o c a l b a r , t o have a d r i n k . After several drinks, defendant s t a t e d t h a t he l e f t t h e b a r and w h i l e d r i v i n g down Yellows t o n e Avenue, g o t s i c k and p u l l e d t o t h e s i d e of t h e r o a d . I t was h e r e t h a t S h e r i f f was approached by t h e B i l l i n g s p o l i c e and a r r e s t e d f o r t h e r o b b e r y of t h e 1145 Club. The f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d on a p p e a l i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o s u p p r e s s a l e t t e r w r i t t e n by d e f e n d a n t t o a f r i e n d w h i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d i n t h e Yellowstone County j a i l a w a i t i n g t r i a l . Shortly a f t e r h i s a r r e s t , Sheriff sent a l e t t e r t o h i s g i r l f r i e n d , Pam E l l e r , and one t o John S t e k a r . These l e t t e r s w e r e b o t h opened and photocopied by a j a i l o r . A motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e l e t t e r s was f i l e d by S h e r i f f . A t a h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r , t h e j a i l o r who "booked" t h e de- f e n d a n t i n t o j a i l on A p r i l 5 , 1979, t e s t i f i e d t h a t S h e r i f f s i g n e d a "booking s h e e t " which a u t h o r i z e d j a i l p e r s o n n e l t o open h i s m a i l . The t r i a l judge s u p p r e s s e d t h e l e t t e r w r i t - t e n t o t h e g i r l f r i e n d b u t admitted i n t o evidence t h e l e t t e r s e n t t o John S t e k a r . The l e t t e r t o S t e k a r , a l t h o u g h ad- mitted, w a s not read t o t h e jury a t t r i a l . The l e t t e r i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e d : you know I r e a l l y screwed up t h i s t i m e . of t h i s I w i l l deserve. the same. "Well, I g u e s s Whatever I g e t o u t I ' v e g o t t o look t o t h e f u t u r e j u s t " On a p p e a l d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e l e t t e r h e w r o t e t o S t e k a r s h o u l d have been s u p p r e s s e d based on h i s r i g h t of p r i v a c y a s g u a r a n t e e d by 1972 Mont. C o n s t . , Art. 11, ~ 1 0 . Defendant f u t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t u s e of t h e l e t t e r a t t r i a l v i o l a t e d h i s F i r s t Amendment r i g h t t o freedom of s p e e c h and h i s F o u r t h Amendment r i g h t t o freedom from u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h and s e i z u r e . Censorship p r a c t i c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o unconvicted p r i s o n e r s ' m a i l , n o t r a i s i n g t o t h e l e v e l of d e p r i v a t i o n o r s i g n i f i c a n t impairment o f a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l o r of a c c e s s t o t h e c o u r t s , g e n e r a l l y have n o t been r e g a r d e d a s o b j e c t i o n a b l e o n grounds t h a t s u c h p r a c t i c e s c o n s t i t u t e a n i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y o r a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h and s e i z u r e . S t a t e v . McCoy ( O r . Wilson ( 9 t 5 C i r . 1053, 92 S.Ct. 70 Wash.2d S.Ct. 1 9 7 4 ) , 527 P.2d 725; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . 1 9 7 1 ) , 447 F.2d 1, c e r t . d e n i e d , 404 U.S. 723, 30 L.Ed.2d 742; S t a t e v . Hawkins ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 697, 425 P.2d 390, c e r t . d e n i e d , 390 U.S. 840, 1 9 L.Ed.2d Cal.App.2d See 912, 88 883; P e o p l e v . D i n k i n s ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 242 892, 52 C a l . R p t r . 134. Courts, i n allowing t h e p r a c t i c e , r e c o g n i z e d t h e need f o r j a i l o f f i c i a l s t o r e a d p r i s o n e r s ' m a i l i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e e n f o r c e m e n t of j a i l s e c u r i t y and d i s c i p l i n e . I n f o r m u l a t i n g t h e g e n e r a l r u l e , t h e c o u r t s based t h e i r d e c i s i o n s , i n p a r t , on S t r o u d v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 1 9 ) , 251 U.S. 1 5 , 40 S.Ct. 50, 6 4 L.Ed. 103, and p l a c e a d e g r e e of emphasis on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e w r i t e r was aware t h a t t h e m a i l was s u b j e c t t o c e n s o r s h i p . Mail c e n s o r s h i p by j a i l o f f i c i a l s , however, h a s r e c e n t l y come under a t t a c k on b o t h F i r s t and F o u r t h Amendment grounds. I n P r o c u n i e r v. M a r t i n e z ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 416 U.S. 1800, 4 0 L.Ed.2d 396, 94 S.Ct. 224, t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t C a l i f o r n i a ' s p r i s o n r e g u l a t i o n s , which p e r m i t t e d t h e r e a d i n g of incoming and o u t g o i n g m a i l , were c o n t r a t o t h e F i r s t Amendment and c o u l d n o t be p e r m i t t e d b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e y were r e a s o n a b l y o r n e c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e d t o t h e advancement of some j u s t i f i a b l e p u r p o s e of imprisonment o r prison security. See a l s o Palmigiano v . T r a v i s o n o ( D . R.I. 1 9 7 0 ) , 317 F.Supp 776, i n which t h e c o u r t condemned a s i m i l a r p r a c t i c e on b o t h F i r s t and F o u r t h Amendment grounds. Upon r e v i e w i n g t h e above d e c i s i o n s , i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t a b s e n t a showing of some c o m p e l l i n g j u s t i f i a b l e p u r p o s e i n t h e n a t u r e of p r i s o n s e c u r i t y and d i s c i p l i n e , t h e i n t e r c e p t i o n and photocopying of t h e l e t t e r w r i t t e n by S h e r i f f t o S t e k a r was v i o l a t i v e of t h e F i r s t and F o u r t h Amendments. H e r e , no s u c h f i n d i n g was made. I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e s o l e r e a s o n t h e l e t t e r w a s examined and t h e n p h o t o c o p i e d was t o o b t a i n e v i d e n c e t o be used a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t . A t no t i m e d u r i n g t r i a l d i d t h e S t a t e r e v e a l any r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e c e n s o r s h i p p r a c t i c e and p r i s o n s e c u r i t y o r d i s c i p l i n e . With t h i s b e i n g t h e c a s e , t h e l e t t e r s h o u l d have been e x c l u d e d . D e s p i t e t h e f a i l u r e t o e x c l u d e t h e l e t t e r , however, S h e r i f f ' s c o n v i c t i o n must s t a n d . There w a s ample e v i d e n c e o f S h e r i f f ' s g u i l t even a b s e n t t h e l e t t e r . Therefore, t o e x c l u d e i t would n o t r e s u l t i n a d i f f e r e n t outcome. With t h i s b e i n g t h e c a s e , w e c o n c l u d e t h e r e i s no r e v e r s i b l e error. I n s u p p o r t of h i s argument t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e a t i s s u e unduly v i o l a t e s t h e r i g h t of p r i v a c y under t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , d e f e n d a n t c i t e s S t a t e v. Brackman (1978) , Mont. - , 582 P.2d 1216, 35 St.Rep. 1103. I n Brackman t h e C o u r t made a n i n - d e p t h a n a l y s i s of t h e r i g h t o f p r i v a c y under t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . W e n o t e , however, that Brackman d o e s n o t d e a l w i t h how t h e r i g h t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y a f f e c t e d by a p e r s o n ' s i n c a r c e r a t i o n , t h e gravaman of t h e i s s u e a t hand. Thus, i t w i l l n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d c o n t r o l l i n g i n regard t o t h i s appeal. Even assuming d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o p r i v a c y was v i o l a t e d and t h e l e t t e r s h o u l d have been s u p p r e s s e d , i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , a s s t a t e d above, t h e f a i l u r e t o e x c l u d e t h e l e t t e r was n o t reversible error. The second i s s u e r a i s e d on a p p e a l i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n l i m i t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t of c r o s s examination. S h e r i f f was i n t e r r o g a t e d by D e t e c t i v e Henry Fox a f t e r h i s a r r e s t and e v e n t u a l l y gave a r e c o r d e d s t a t e m e n t l a t e r A t t r i a l , t h e S t a t e q u e s t i o n e d Detec- reduced t o w r i t i n g . t i v e Fox c o n c e r n i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t and had t h e s t a t e m e n t marked f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p u r p o s e s s o t h a t Fox c o u l d examine i t while t e s t i f y i n g . P r i o r t o Fox's testimony, defendant requested t h e c o u r t ' s p e r m i s s i o n t o cross-examine Fox as t o p a r t of t h e statement--namely, whether S h e r i f f responded i n t h e a f f i r m a - t i v e when asked i f h e would s u b m i t t o a p o l y g r a p h t e s t . S h e r i f f s o u g h t t o q u e s t i o n Fox a b o u t t h i s m a t t e r t o e s t a b l i s h h i s willingness t o cooperate with the police. Defen- d a n t ' s r e q u e s t w a s d e n i e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . On a p p e a l S h e r i f f c o n t e n d s t h a t Rule 106, Mont.R.Evid., i s an appropriate b a s i s f o r finding t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n denying h i s r e q u e s t . Rule 106, Mont.R.Evid., p r o v i d e s t h a t when p a r t of a n a c t , d e c l a r a t i o n , conservation, w r i t i n g o r recorded statement i s i n t r o d u c e d by a p a r t y , t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y c a n req u i r e , i f f a i r n e s s s o r e q u i r e s , t h a t any o t h e r p a r t of such i t e m a l s o be admitted. The purpose of t h i s r u l e i s t o a v o i d a m i s l e a d i n g and u n f a i r i m p r e s s i o n which c a n r e s u l t when m a t t e r s a r e p r e s e n t e d o u t of c o n t e x t . ment t o Rule 106, M o n t . R . ~ v i d . See omm mission Com- This Court i s unable t o f i n d t h a t an u n f a i r o r m i s l e a d i n g i m p r e s s i o n on t h e minds of t h e j u r y r e s u l t s i f d e f e n d a n t i s u n a b l e t o i n q u i r e on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n a s t o h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o t a k e a polygraph test. The p a r t of d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t t e s t i f i e d t o by Fox on d i r e c t examinat i o n r e l a t e d t o whether o r n o t d e f e n d a n t owned a gun o r t h e c l o t h i n g found i n t h e back s e a t of h i s c a r . The f a c t t h a t d e f e n d a n t a l s o made a s t a t e m e n t showing t h a t h e would t a k e a p o l y g r a p h t e s t i s n o t of t h e n a t u r e t h a t t o o m i t i t c r e a t e d a m i s l e a d i n g i m p r e s s i o n on t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s t h a t w e r e ad- m itted. Even assuming t h e r e was e r r o r by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t o omit t h e inquiry does n o t s o prejud.ice defendant t h a t a d i f f e r e n t d e c i s i o n would have r e s u l t e d . A t no t i m e d i d t h e p r o s e c u t i o n r a i s e t h e i s s u e t h a t d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o cooperate with the police. Defendant was a b l e t o t a k e t h e s t a n d and i n h i s own d e f e n s e t e s t i f i e d a s t o h i s f u l l cooperation with the police. The f a c t t h a t he was a l s o w i l l i n g t o t a k e a p o l y g r a p h t e s t would n o t be d e t e r m i n a t i v e i n t h e c a s e , e s p e c i a l l y when s u c h t e s t s g e n e r a l l y a r e n o t a l l o w e d a s evidence i n a criminal t r i a l . Mont. - 614 P.2d 4 7 0 , , - See S t a t e v . Bashor ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 37 St.Rep. 1098. F i n a l l y , w e c a n f i n d no m e r i t i n d e f e n d a n t ' s f i n a l i s s u e , 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 h i s proposed I n s t r u c t i o n No. 21. D e f e n d a n t ' s proposed I n s t r u c t i o n No. 2 1 read a s f o l - lows: "The mere f a c t t h a t Donald S h e r i f f was found i n t h e r e l a t i v e v i c i n i t y of t h e r o b b e r y i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t i n and of i t s e l f t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of g u i l t y . " Defendant c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e f u s a l t o g i v e t h i s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n was e r r o r ; however, he f a i l s t o i n d i c a t e why s a i d a c t i o n was improper. I n h i s b r i e f defendant merely p o i n t ' s o u t t o t h e C o u r t t h a t h i s a r r e s t took p l a c e s e v e r a l b l o c k s away from t h e s c e n e of t h e r o b b e r y . I t i s t r u e t h a t mere p r e s e n c e a t t h e s c e n e of a c r i m e does n o t e s t a b l i s h criminal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . See S t a t e ex r e l . Murphy v. McKinnon ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 1 2 0 , 125, 556 P.2d 906, 909. I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , however, we a r e u n a b l e t o f i n d t h a t an i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s regard i s e s s e n t i a l t o a proper decision. This c a s e does n o t involve an attempt t o c o n v i c t on mere p r e s e n c e . The j u r y w a s p r o p e r l y and a d e q u a t e l y i n s t r u c t e d on t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w and burden o f p r o o f , a s w e l l a s b e i n g i n s t r u c t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t may n o t b e c o n v i c t e d on m e r e conjecture, suspicion o r probability. With t h i s b e i n g t h e c a s e , w e f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o o m i t t h e proposed i n s t r u c t i o n . The d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: 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.