STATE v TROMBLEY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-186 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 , -VS- GEORGE W R E TROMBLEY, ARN Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f The E i g h t h 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 , The H o n o r a b l e 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: Marcia B i r k e n b u e l , P u b l i c Defender, 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 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 September 1 7 , 1980 S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : 'h%v 2 6 Decided : Filed: /$W Z b k3$$ 1980 Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C . Court. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d the Opinion of the D e f e n d a n t G e o r g e Trombley a p p e a l s from t h e judgment of the Cascade County Eighth J u d i c i a l District Court, entered pursuant t o a jury verdict finding defendant g u i l t y of t h e t h e f t o f a t r u c k b e l o n g i n g t o R i c h a r d Show. trial, defendant prosecution moved reference c a r d s a t t h e t i m e of the defendant (19791, the defendant's relied believed to t o defendant's on our , Mont. Defendant court use of arrest. decision 602 P.2d that prohibit reference to prosecution trial Show's State 36 credit v. St.Rep. defendant's S h o w ' s c r e d i t c a r d s amounted t o t h e u s e o f e v i d e n c e by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . at I n t h i s motion, in 957, Before Just 1649. use of "other crimes" Defendant contended t h a t t h e f a i l e d t o comply w i t h the notice requirements mandated by J u s t f o r t h e u s e o f t h i s e v i d e n c e . Defendant's m o t i o n was d e n i e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . The s o l e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t by d e f e n d a n t is whether motion. t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s We find the District Court properly denied d e f e n d a n t ' s motion. E v i d e n c e o f d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n and u s e o f S h o w ' s c r e d i t here is not "other crimes" evidence. accus e d of committing t h e theft of Show's D e f e n d a n t was truck. the A t t i m e t h e t r u c k was s t o l e n , Show s t o r e d h i s w a l l e t and c r e d i t cards in the truck. When t h e t r u c k was s t o l e n , and c a r d s were s t o l e n a s w e l l . the wallet D e f e n d a n t was a p p r e h e n d e d and t h e t r u c k was c o n f i s c a t e d s h o r t l y a f t e r d e f e n d a n t u s e d one of the cards a t a Great F a l l s service station. e v i d e n c e o f d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n and u s e o f inseparably related t o the truck t h e f t . defendant's conduct simultaneous with This the card is I t i s evidence of the acts alleged to constitute truck theft, not former wrongful a c t i v i t y . evidence of former crimes or Although t h i s evidence i n d i c a t e s m i s c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s evidence neither subjects defendant t o unfair s u r p r i s e nor t o t h e d e f e n s e of Wigmore classifies unrelated this e v i d e n c e of " o t h e r c r i m e s " In P.2d S t a t e v. 1009, t h e f t of type . evidence t h i s reason separate from 169, , Mont. (1979), defendant personal property belonging Jeszenka. was accused of 589 the t o S h e i l a and Donald The 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 t o f o n l y t h e Jeszenka's stereo equipment although additional property found of For Wigmore E v i d e n c e 5218. Jackson 36 S t . R e p . issues. i n defendant's and taken possession. Ms. Jeszenka's coat, from t h e J e s z e n k a s was I n order t o prove t h e i r t h e f t accusation, t h e prosecution presented a s evidence t h a t this other during the Defendant labeling opinion t h e f t was objected to allegedly found the affirming the e v i d e n c e and from the defendant's introduction District we r e c o g n i z e d taken in it i n a d m i s s i b l e " o t h e r evidence, crimes" property of Jeszenkas possession. the crimes" evidence. Court's evidence, admission I n our of t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between evidence of defendant's this "other simultaneous misconduct i n s e p a r a b l y r e l a t e d t o t h e a l l e g e d c r i m i n a l a c t . "We recognize the general r u l e t h a t when a d e f e n d a n t i s p u t on t r i a l f o r one o f f e n s e , h e s h o u l d be c o n v i c t e d , i f a t a l l , by e v i d e n c e which shows t h a t h e i s g u i l t y o f t h a t o f f e n s e a l o n e . E v i d e n c e which i n any manner shows, o r t e n d s t o show, h e h a s committed a n o t h e r c r i m e w h o l l y i n d e p e n d e n t , e v e n t h o u g h it i s a c r i m e o f t h e same s o r t , is i r r e l e v a n t and i n a d m i s s i b l e , s u b j e c t t o exceptions not pertinent here. (Citation omitted. ) "In t h i s case, the prosecution did not i n t r o d u c e evidence of o t h e r ' u n r e l a t e d ' o r ' w h o l l y i n d e p e n d e n t ' c r i m e s . The p r o s e c u t i o n o n l y s o u g h t t o p r o v e t h a t d e f e n d a n t was exercising unauthorized control over various items, all of which belonged to Sheila and Donald (this Jeszenka. Defendant's possession of other property) was inextricably related to the property referred to in the charging information. We are not, therefore, involved with the introduction of evidence of wholly independent or unrelated crimes. The evidence was properly admitted. " ... The prosecution here is not required to meet the Just requirements for the introduction of "other crimes" evidence because evidence of defendant's possession and use of the cards is not "wholly independent" or "unrelated" other crimes evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. We Concur: Chief Justice 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.