STATE v DOLAN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14820 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1980 THE STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , CHARLES W. DOLAN, D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth 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 C a s c a d e . Honorable J o e l G. Roth, 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: R o b e r t Ernrnons a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , 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 S a r a h Power, L e g a l I n t e r n , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s O f f i c e , a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana J. F r e d Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Mark Barer a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: September 9 , 1980 /q J i - 4uJ Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C. S h e e h y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . D e f e n d a n t C h a r l e s W. Dolan a p p e a l s f r o m t h e judgment o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Cascade County. The d e f e n d a n t was a c c u s e d by i n f o r m a t i o n o f r o b b e r y and t h e f t . F o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t was f o u n d g u i l t y o f t h e f t b u t n o t g u i l t y of robbery. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d i t s s e n t e n c e and judgment and d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s t - t r i a l m o t i o n s . I n t h i s a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h a t a number o f e r r o r s were c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g h i s t r i a l : 1. The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n a t t r i a l was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v e a c h a r g e o f t h e f t . 2. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e t e s t i m o n y of John Grissom, an a c c o m p l i c e i n t h e t h e £t . 3. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o the jury. 4. The p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c l o s i n g r e m a r k s t o t h e j u r y c o n t a i n e d i m p e r m i s s i b l e comments on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d e c i s i o n t o p r e s e n t no e v i d e n c e t o r e b u t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e . W f i n d no m e r i t i n d e f e n d a n t ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t r e v e r s i b l e e e r r o r was c o m m i t t e d a t t r i a l . W a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e e D i s t r i c t Court. A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 : 0 0 a.m. on S e p t e m b e r 22, 1 9 7 8 , a "holdup" o c c u r r e d a t t h e C r o s s r o a d s Truck S t o p i n G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. A man b r a n d i s h i n g a h a n d g u n , e n t e r e d t h e t r u c k s t o p and demanded t h a t t h e c a s h i e r g i v e him t h e t r u c k - s t o p ' s money. The c a s h i e r d e s c r i b e d t h e gunman a s w e a r i n g b l a c k t e n n i s s h o e s , b l u e denim j e a n s , a g r e e n j a c k e t , g l o v e s , a r e d h e l m e t and a w h i t e c l o t h over h i s face. The t r u c k s t o p c a s h i e r g a v e t h e gunman a p p r o x i m a t e l y $5,000 i n U n i t e d S t a t e s and C a n a d i a n c u r r e n c y f r o m t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r and t h e t r u c k s t o p o p e r a t o r ' s o f f i c e . The gunman t o o k t h e money and f l e d . The c a s h i e r r e p o r t e d t h e h o l d u p t o t h e G r e a t F a l l s police. D e t e c t i v e David War r i n g t o n , a s s i g n e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e holdup, apprehended John Grissom, a s u s p e c t i n t h e holdup. Grissom admitted h i s involvement i n t h e holdup t o D e t e c t i v e W a r r i n g t o n , s t a t i n g t h a t h e had d r i v e n t h e " g e t a w a y c a r " f o r the defendant. Following h i s c o n f e s s i o n t o Warrington, Grissom a g r e e d t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t i n e x c h a n g e f o r immunity. The prosecution presented s i x w i t n e s s e s t o prove its charges against defendant including t h e truck s t o p cashier, t h e t r u c k s t o p o p e r a t o r , two G r e a t F a l l s d e t e c t i v e s i n c l u d i n g W a r r i n g t o n , W i l l i a m S t e e l e , a f r i e n d o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , and J o h n Grissom. G r i s s o m l s t e s t i m o n y , however, p r o v i d e d t h e key e v i d e n c e l i n k i n g defendant t o t h e t r u c k s t o p holdup. d e f e n d a n t "held-up" Grissom t e s t i f i e d t h e t r u c k s t o p w e a r i n g t h e same g a r b a s d e s c r i b e d by t h e c a s h i e r , t h a t d e f e n d a n t showed him t h e money t a k e n f r o m t h e t r u c k s t o p , and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d e s c r i b e d t o him i n d e t a i l t h e holdup sequence of e v e n t s . Key c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e o f G r i s s o m l s t h e f t a c c o u n t was g i v e n by t h e t e s t i m o n y o f W i l l i a m S t e e l e . A t t h e t i m e of t h e h o l d u p , S t e e l e was a b a r t e n d e r a t a l o c a l b a r . Steele testified t h a t h e v i s i t e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t a few d a y s a f t e r t h e h o l d u p w h i l e a t work i n t h e b a r , and t h a t d e f e n d a n t o r d e r e d s e v e r a l r o u n d s o f d r i n k s a t t h e b a r and p a i d f o r e a c h r o u n d w i t h C a n a d i a n money. When S t e e l e a s k e d d e f e n d a n t where h e g o t t h e C a n a d i a n money, S t e e l e t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t f i r s t r e p l i e d t h a t t h e money was l e f t o v e r f r o m a t r i p t o Canada. L a t e r t h a t e v e n i n g , however, d e f e n d a n t a d m i t t e d t o S t e e l e t h a t t h e C a n a d i a n money was p a r t o f t h e t r u c k s t o p h o l d u p money. D u r i n g t h e t r i a l , S t e e l e c o u l d n o t remember w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t s a i d , " I got t h e money f r o m t h e C r o s s r o a d s " o r "I r o b b e d t h e Crossroads". Detective Warrington t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s p o l i c e r e p o r t o f a n i n t e r v i e w w i t h S t e e l e made f o l l o w i n g t h e h o l d u p i n d i c a t e d S t e e l e t o l d t h e d e t e c t i v e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s a i d , "I held-up t h e Crossroads." D e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e f o l l o w i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e . C o u n s e l f o r d e f e n d a n t made a m o t i o n t o the court for a directed verdict, claiming i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o p r o v e t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e . Defense counsel argued t h a t l e g a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence was o f f e r e d t o s u b s t a n t i a t e G r i s s o m ' s t e s t i m o n y . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t acknowledged t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d was n o t s t r o n g , b u t t h e c o u r t h e l d t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e was l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o support Grissom's testimony. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n and a l l o w e d t h e c a s e t o be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y f o l l o w i n g i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e . The j u r y f o u n d d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f t h e f t and n o t g u i l t y o f r o b b e r y . I s s u e No. 1: S u f f i c i e n c y of t h e Evidence Count I1 o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g e s ". . . d e f e n d a n t did p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly o b t a i n o r e x e r t u n a u t h o r i z e d c o n t r o l o v e r p r o p e r t y , c a s h i n U.S. t h a n $150.00, and C a n a d i a n c u r r e n c y , o f a v a l u e o f more owned by C r o s s r o a d s T r u c k S t o p , w i t h t h e p u r p o s e of d e p r i v i n g t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y . " Count I , t h e r o b b e r y c o u n t , c h a r g e d d e f e n d a n t committed t h i s t h e f t w h i l e p l a c i n g t h e t r u c k s t o p c a s h i e r i n f e a r of immediate b o d i l y i n j u r y . In order t o prove t h e robbery charge, t h e prosecution o f f e r e d t h e c a s h i e r ' s t e s t i m o n y of f e a r of i n j u r y . While t e s t i f y i n g , t h e c a s h i e r f u r t h e r provided important testimony regarding t h e amount o f money t a k e n by t h e gunman d u r i n g t h e h o l d u p . Defense c o u n s e l a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u r y must have d i s t r u s t e d t h e c a s h i e r ' s t e s t i m o n y b e c a u s e t h e j u r y found d e f e n d a n t n o t g u i l t y of r o b b e r y . Defense counsel a s s e r t s t h a t t h e c a s h i e r ' s t e s t i m o n y i s c r i t i c a l t o p r o v e t h a t a t h e f t was committed. I f the jury disbelieved the cashier, the defendant claims t h e evidence then is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o prove t h e t h e f t a s charged. W r e j e c t t h i s argument. e a r g u e s t h a t a l l of t h e c a s h i e r ' s The d e f e n d a n t e r r o n e o u s l y t e s t i m o n y m u s t be d i s r e g a r d e d . The c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y s p e c i f i c a l l y a b o u t i t s r i g h t t o b e l i e v e o r d i s b e l i e v e any p o r t i o n o f a w i t n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y . S t a t e v. DeGeorge ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. In 35, 566 P.2d 59, w e h e l d t h a t " [ t l h i s C o u r t h a s f r e q u e n t l y o b s e r v e d t h a t d i s p u t e d q u e s t i o n s of f a c t and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d on appeal b u t t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n of such m a t t e r s is w i t h i n t h e A s long a s t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence p r o v i n c e of t h e j u r y . t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , i t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l . (Citations omitted.)" A r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s s u f f i c i e n t evidence supports t h e jury v e r d i c t i n t h i s case. The d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s f u r t h e r t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t show t h e C r o s s r o a d s T r u c k S t o p l e g a l l y owned t h e s t o l e n money. T h i s argument f a i l s . The p r o s e c u t i o n p r o v e d t h r o u g h t h e c a s h i e r ' s and o p e r a t o r ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e t r u c k s t o p p o s s e s s e d t h e money s t o l e n . ownership. Proof of p o s s e s s i o n s u f f i c e s h e r e t o prove S e e , s e c t i o n 45-2-101(40), MCA. In t h i s case, the d e f e n d a n t p r o p o s e d and t h e c o u r t a c c e p t e d a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n p r o v i d i n g t h a t " o w n e r " s h o u l d b e d e f i n e d by t h e j u r y i n t e r m s o f p o s s e s s i o n of p r o p e r t y . I s s u e No. 2: Testimony of John Grissom D e f e n d a n t a s s e r t s t h r e e e r r o r s w e r e made by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s u s e of John Grissom as a witness against defendant. The f i r s t a l l e g e d e r r o r c o n c e r n s t h e c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l o f d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r d i s c o v e r y of G r i s s o m ' s " r a p s h e e t " . This i n f o r m a t i o n , d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s , c o u l d v a l i d l y b e u s e d t o damage Grissom's c r e d i b i l i t y . I n s u p p o r t of t h i s motion, c o u n s e l f o r d e f e n d a n t c i t e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n D a v i s v . A l a s k a ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 415 U.S. 347. 3 0 8 , 94 S . C t . 1 1 0 5 , 39 L.Ed.2d The c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d D a v i s , b u t r e j e c t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion. On a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t c i t e s D a v i s and c o n t e n d s t h e c o u r t denied defendant due p r o c e s s . W disagree. e I n D a v i s , t h e Supreme C o u r t a s s u r e d a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t of h i s r i g h t under t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e of t h e S i x t h Amendment t o e x p l o r e t h r o u g h c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n t h e p a r t i a l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n o f a p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s . held t h a t cross-examination should be p e r m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y t h e f a c t s from w h i c h j u r o r s , The C o u r t ". . . t o expose a s t h e s o l e t r i e r s of f a c t and c r e d i b i l i t y , c o u l d a p p r o p r i a t e l y d r a w i n f e r e n c e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e witness." A comparison of t h e f a c t s of t h e D a v i s c a s e w i t h t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e , i n d i c a t e s d e f e n d a n t ' s r e l i a n c e on D a v i s i n t h i s c a s e i s misplaced. The D a v i s c o u r t p r o h i b i t e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l from e x p o s i n g t o the jury the witness' criminal record. The D a v i s d e f e n d a n t t h e r e f o r e was u n a b l e t o make a r e c o r d from which t o a r g u e a t t r i a l the witness' witness. b i a s o r l a c k of i m p a r t i a l i t y e x p e c t e d of a D e f e n s e c o u n s e l i n t h i s c a s e was p e r m i t t e d t o f u l l y p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e o f G r i s s o m ' s c r i m i n a l c h a r a c t e r and b i a s . The j u r y h e r e was a w a r e o f t h e immunity b a r g a i n made b e t w e e n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n and G r i s s o m , and o f G r i s s o m ' s c o m p l i c i t y i n t h e t r u c k stop theft. The c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n was w e l l w i t h i n its d i s c r e t i o n t o c o n t r o l cross-examination. The s e c o n d and t h i r d a l l e g e d e r r o r s p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n d a n t a r e d i r e c t a t t a c k s on t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f G r i s s o m ' s t e s t i m o n y . D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o s u b s t a n t i a t e Grissom's testimony. Defendant f u r t h e r contends t h e evidence used t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h i s testimony is -6- inadmissible hearsay evidence. Section 46-16-213, MCA, provides the test for sufficient corroborating evidence of accomplice testimony: "A conviction cannot be had on the testimony of one responsible or legally accountable for the same offense, as defined in 45-2-301, unless the testimony is corroborated by other evidence which in itself and without the aid of the testimony of the one responsible or legally accountable for the same offense tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. The corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof." In State v. Kemp (1979), Mont . , 597 P.2d 96, 36 St.Rep. 1215, we summarized Montana case law of corroboration of accomplice testimony as follows: "The sufficiency of evidence necessary to corroborate accomplice testimony is a question of law. (Citations omitted.) In defining the quantum and character of proof required to corroborate accomplice testimony, a substantial body of case law has evolved. "To be sufficient, corroborating evidence must show more than that a crime was in fact committed or the circumstances of its commission. (Citation omitted.) It must raise more than a suspicion of the defendant's involvement in, or opportunity to commit, the crime charged. (Citation omitted.) But corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, by itself, to support a defendant's conviction or even to make out a prima facie case against him. (Citations omitted.). .. ". . . each case must be examined on its particular facts to determine if the evidence tends, in and of itself, to prove defendant's connection with the crime charged. " The key evidence corroborating Grissom's testimony was included in the testimonies of Steele and Warrington. The evidence indicates defendant admitted to Steele that the defendant "robbed" or "held-up" the truck stop, and that Steele reported to Warrington defendant's admitted involvement in the holdup. This evidence is sufficient corroborating evidence for the admissions of Grissom's testimony. We disagree with defendant's contention that this evidence is inadmissible hearsay. This evidence is not hearsay. R u l e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( l ) ( A ) , Mont.R.Evid., which a r e n o t h e a r s a y . provides: "(d) Statements A s t a t e m e n t i s n o t h e a r s a y if1'-- P r i o r s t a t e m e n t by w i t n e s s . (1) The d e c l a r a n t t e s t i f i e s a t t h e t r i a l o r h e a r i n g and i s s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t , and t h e s t a t e m e n t i s ( A ) i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s . . ." testimony R u l e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) Mont.R.Evid. S t a t e m e n t s which a r e n o t h e a r s a y . ... (2) provides: "(d) A statement is not hearsay i f : A d m i s s i o n by a p a r t y - o p p o n e n t . The s t a t e m e n t i s o f f e r e d a g a i n s t a p a r t y and i s ( A ) h i s own s t a t e m e n t . . ." The s t a t e m e n t made by d e f e n d a n t t o S t e e l e i s a n a d m i s s i o n by a p a r t y opponent t o t h e a c t i o n . The s t a t e m e n t made by S t e e l e t o Warrington is a p r i o r s t a t e m e n t of t h e w i t n e s s S t e e l e . I s s u e No. 3: Jury Instructions Defendant c o n t e n d s t h e c o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by r e j e c t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o p o s e d j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g a c c o m p l i c e t e s t i m o n y and o r a l a d m i s s i o n s , and f u r t h e r e r r e d by g i v i n g t h e "Sandstrom" j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n . G r i s s o m ' s t e s t i m o n y was a c c o m p l i c e t e s t i m o n y . Steele's t e s t i m o n y i n c l u d e d t h e a d m i s s i o n by t h e d e f e n d a n t o f h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e holdup. D e f e n d a n t p r o p o s e d a number o f j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s regarding t h e weight t h e jury should assign t o testimony. Each o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s was r e j e c t e d by t h e c o u r t . W agree with defendant t h a t cautionary instructions regarding e a c c o m p l i c e t e s t i m o n y and o r a l a d m i s s i o n s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n included i n t h e c o u r t ' s jury i n s t r u c t i o n s . W e disagree with defendant's contention t h a t the c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o give these i n s t r u c t i o n s amounts t o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . S e c t i o n 26-1-303(4), MCA, provides t h e following: "The j u r y i s t o be i n s t r u c t e d by t h e c o u r t on a l l proper occasions: " ( 4 ) t h a t t h e testimony of an accomplice ought t o be viewed w i t h d i s t r u s t , and t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e o r a l admissions of a party with caution." The c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n s p r o f f e r e d by d e f e n d a n t w e r e e l a b o r a t e and m i s l e a d i n g . T h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s d i d n o t employ t h e s i m p l e s t a t u t o r y language of s e c t i o n 26-1-303(4), The MCA. proposed a c c o m p l i c e t e s t i m o n y i n s t r u c t i o n s p l a c e d unneeded e m p h a s i s on t h e u n r e l i a b i l i t y and i n v o l u n t a r y n a t u r e o f G r i s s o m ' s testimony. The p r o p o s e d o r a l a d m i s s i o n s i n s t r u c t i o n e r r o n e o u s l y included " c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n " language. The e r r o r c r e a t e d b y t h e c o u r t ' s o m i s s i o n i n i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h i s e v i d e n c e was m i n i m i z e d by o t h e r instructions. These i n s t r u c t i o n s were d i r e c t e d t o t h e testimony of p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s because t h e defendant d i d n o t p r e s e n t any w i t n e s s e s . These i n s t r u c t i o n s provided: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t you may a l s o c o n s i d e r a n y demonstrated b i a s , prejudice o r h o s t i l i t y of a w i t n e s s toward t h e d e f e n d a n t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e weight t o be a c c o r d e d t o h i s t e s t i m o n y . " I n w e i g h i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a n y w i t n e s s , you s h o u l d t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t h i s i n t e r e s t o r want o f i n t e r e s t i n t h e r e s u l t of t h i s c a s e ... " E v e r y w i t n e s s i s presumed t o s p e a k t h e t r u t h . T h i s p r e s u m p t i o n , h o w e v e r , may b e r e p e l l e d by t h e manner i n w h i c h h e t e s t i f i e d , by t h e c h a r a c t e r o f h i s t e s t i m o n y , o r by e v i d e n c e a f f e c t i n g h i s r e p u t a t i o n f o r t r u t h , honesty, i n t e g r i t y o r h i s motives . . ." D e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h e c o u r t c o m m i t t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by g i v i n g t h e "Sandstrom" i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r y . 17 p r o v i d e d : I n s t r u c t i o n No. "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e l a w p r e s u m e s t h a t a person i n t e n d s t h e o r d i n a r y consequences of h i s voluntary a c t s . " T h i s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n is i d e n t i c a l t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n h e l d t o b e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n S a n d s t r o m v. Montana ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 6 1 L.Ed.2d 39. I n a number o f r e c e n t c a s e s w e have c o n s i d e r e d t h e e f f e c t of t h e Sandstrom d e c i s i o n . S e e , S t a t e v. Hamilton ( 1 9 8 0 ) , St.Rep. 70; S t a t e v . McKenzie ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 428, 37 S t . R e p . , P. 2d 605 P.2d 1 1 2 1 , 37 Mont. 325; S t a t e v . Wogamon ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 610 P.2d 1 1 6 1 , 37 S t . R e p . Mont. , Mont. , 608 P.2d Mont. 840: and S t a t e v . M a r t i n e z ( 1 9 8 0 ) , , 37 S t . R e p . 982. , I n Hamilton, we h e l d t h e Sandstrom-type i n s t r u c t i o n s t o be h a r m l e s s e r r o r s i n c e t h e e v i d e n c e o f i n t e n t i n t h a t c a s e was overwhelming g i v e n t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e c a s e . In t h i s c a s e , t h e Sandstrom i n s t r u c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s harmless e r r o r . e v i d e n c e of i n t e n t i s o v e r w h e l m i n g . The The e s s e n t i a l i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e masked gunman, n o t t h e g u n m a n ' s intent. I n d e e d , t h e d e f e n d a n t p r o p o s e d , and t h e c o u r t a c c e p t e d a s p e c i f i c jury instruction regarding identity: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n f a c t t h e c r i m i n a l a c t o r , and n e c e s s i t a t e s y o u r r e s o l v i n g any c o n f l i c t o r u n c e r t a i n t y i n t e s t i m o n y on that issue. "The b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s on t h e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t h reference t o every element of t h e crimes charged, and t h i s b u r d e n i n c l u d e s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e d e f e n d a n t a s t h e p e r p e t r a t o r of t h e crimes charged." I s s u e No. 4 Argument I m p e r m i s s i b l e Remarks i n t h e P r o s e c u t i o n ' s C l o s i n g The d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s a p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c l o s i n g argument t o t h e j u r y denied d e f e n d a n t a f a i r t r i a l . Defendant a t t a c k s t h e remarks i n c l o s i n g argument a s an i m p e r m i s s i b l e comment on t h e f a c t t h a t d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d no evidence following t h e c l o s e of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n case-in-chief. The a l l e g e d p r e j u d i c i a l r e m a r k s a r e a s f o l l o w s : " ( B y Mr. V e r m i l l i o n : ) N O W , w h e r e d o e s Mr. D o l a n s a y h e g o t t h e C a n a d i a n money--well, f i r s t , h e t e l l s young B i l l S t e e l e t h a t h e w e n t o n a t r i p t o C a n a d a , now, t h e r e h a s b e e n no e v i d e n c e b r o u g h t b e f o r e you t o show t h a t C h a r l e s D o l a n was e v e r i n C a n a d a , o r t h a t h e had made a t r i p up t h e r e , and i f h e had a c t u a l l y been up i n C a n a d a , where was t h e p r o o f ? Canada i s n o t a t o t a l l y b a r r e n l a n d , w i t h nobody up t h e r e , and i f h e had made a t r i p u p t o Canada t o b r i n g back sums o f C a n a d i a n money, why s u r e l y t h e r e would h a v e b e e n somebody, and c e r t a i n l y h e would h a v e b e e n u p t h e r e somewhere, you know, where somebody would h a v e s e e n him ... " ( a f t e r a review of p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s testimony, V e r m i l l i o n c o n t i n u e s ) N O W , l a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n , w e had i n t h i s c a s e no w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d by t h e d e f e n s e , t o c o n t r a d i c t t h a t evidence. S u r e l y t h e r e must be someone, some a c q u a i n t a n c e o f Mr. D o l a n ' s who c o u l d t e s t i f y a s t o h i s v o i c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and i f h e d i d n o t have s u c h a s p e e c h impediment, t h a t p e r s o n c o u l d h a v e t e s t i f i e d , b u t none was c a l l e d . " ( f o l l o w i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s c l o s i n g argument sugg e s t i n g a r e a s o n f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t t o be d r i v i n g n e a r t h e t r u c k s t o p ) The same remark m i g h t be made o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n s e c a l l e d no w i t n e s s e s , t o s a y t h a t Chuck Dolan w a s n ' t t h e r e t h a t n i g h t - - " Counsel f o r defendant o b j e c t e d contending t h e remarks of the prosecution prejudiced defendant. Following t h i s o b j e c t i o n , t h e c o u r t reminded t h e j u r y t o f o l l o w o n l y i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e law. These remarks do n o t c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r under t h e t e s t o f p r o s e c u t o r i a l comment w e employed i n S t a t e v . A n d e r s o n ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 156 Mont. 1 2 2 , 476 P.2d 780: "The t e s t i s w h e t h e r t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d was m a n i f e s t l y i n t e n d e d o r was o f s u c h c h a r a c t e r t h a t t h e j u r y would n a t u r a l l y and n e c e s s a r i l y t a k e i t t o be a comment on t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e a c c u s e d t o t e s t i f y . " The r e m a r k s made h e r e a r e s i m i l a r t o t h e r e m a r k s u s e d i n S t a t e v. A r m s t r o n g ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 256, 552 P.2d 616. In Armstronq, t h i s C o u r t acknowledged t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s r i g h t t o s t r e s s t h e s t r e n g t h o f i t s own e v i d e n c e : "While it i s t r u e t h a t t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y o f t e n a s k e d r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s w h i c h amounted t o comments t h a t t h e r e was ' n o e v i d e n c e ' o r ' n o t e s t i m o n y ' t o r e b u t t h e i n f e r e n c e s r a i s e d by t h e s t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e , nowhere d o e s i t a p p e a r t h a t t h e s e comments would n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l y t h a t def e n d a n t was t h e o n l y s o u r c e w h i c h c o u l d n e g a t e s t a t e ' s evidence. The most t h a t c a n b e s a i d o f t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s comments i s t h a t t h e y r e f e r r e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d no c a s e a t a l l . C e r t a i n l y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , a s an adversary f o r t h e s t a t e , c a n n o t be p r o h i b i t e d f r o m a r g u i n g t h e The m a n i f e s t strength of its case t o the jury. f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d no t e s t i m o n y o f i t s own may be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , b u t s u c h f a c t cannot deny t h e p r o s e c u t i o n its r i g h t t o s t r e s s (Citation t h e s t r e n g t h o f i t s own e v i d e n c e . omitted. ) " For t h e r e a s o n s i n c l u d e d a b o v e , w e a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Affirmed. We Concur: Chief Justice C w Justice Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea dissents and will file a written dissent later.

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.