STATE v CASAGRANDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-150 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA 1981 S T A T E O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , VS JOHN A. . CASAGRANDA, 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 C o u r t of t h e Second 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 C o u n t y of S i l v e r B o w H o n o r a b l e M a r k P. S u l l i v a n , Judge p r e s i d - i n g C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : T h o m a s M. Malee, Helena, Montana For R e s p o n d e n t : Hon. M i k e 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 , M o n t a n a R o b e r t McCarthy, County Attorney, B u t t e , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : A u g u s t 2 0 , Filed: QEC - l Q 1981 =- 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l 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 a p p e a l s f r o m h i s c o n v i c t i o n of two c o u n t s of aggravated burglary following a jury trial in the D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and for t h e County commenced on J a n u a r y 20, of Silver Bow. Trial 1 9 8 1 , and on J a n u a r y 2 2 , 1981, a j u r y found defendant g u i l t y of both o f f e n s e s . Defendant's m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l was d e n i e d , and t h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w s . Early i n t h e morning of July 1980, 6, a doctor's o f f i c e and a n a d j o i n i n g pharmacy w e r e b u r g l a r i z e d i n B u t t e , Montana. On J u l y 7 , M i s s o u l a , Montana, 1 9 8 0 , W i l l i a m H a n l e y was a r r e s t e d i n for a parole violation. Later t h a t day, a box o f d r u g s was f o u n d i n some b u s h e s n e a r t h e m o t e l w h e r e H a n l e y had been s t a y i n g . The box o f d r u g s was l a t e r i d e n t i - f i e d a s b e i n g p a r t of t h e d r u g s t h a t were s t o l e n from t h e B u t t e pharmacy. concerning H a n l e y was q u e s t i o n e d by t h e a u t h o r i t i e s the burglary in Butte, Hanley gave a statement claiming he that burglary. his in the testimony, a July participant in 18, 1980, authorities the Butte time t h a t Hanley i m p l i c a t e d h i s burglary, individual. on S i l v e r Bow County been I t was a t t h i s accomplices another had to and and named the defendant and I n e x c h a n g e f o r t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n and Hanley was informed the given complete immunity from prosecution. Hanley and another waited individual outside completed, in the authorities burglarized car. the After that the defendant pharmacy w h i l e the burglary he was t h e y a l l t h r e e went t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s home and examined t h e q u a n t i t y and t y p e s o f d r u g s t h e y had s t o l e n . The n e x t d a y , t h e d e f e n d a n t , accompanied by h i s f a m i l y , some f r i e n d s and H a n l e y , d r o v e t o M i s s o u l a , c h e c k e d i n t o a m o t e l and s p e n t t h e n i g h t i n a d j o i n i n g rooms. h e saw a box o f Hanley s t a t e d t h a t drugs i n the defendant's room t h e b e f o r e h e was a r r e s t e d f o r t h e p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n . night T h i s was t h e same box o f d r u g s , a c c o r d i n g t o H a n l e y ' s s t a t e m e n t , t h a t was f o u n d o u t s i d e t h e m o t e l t h e n e x t d a y . Based upon Hanley's statement, the s u b s e q u e n t l y a r r e s t e d and b r o u g h t t o t r i a l . the third individual were dismissed defendant was Charges a g a i n s t on grounds of i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence. The d e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t s two a l l e g a t i o n s o f e r r o r : 1. Did c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e c o n s t i t u t e e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r c r i m e s and t h e r e b y p r e j u d i c e t h e d e f e n d a n t ? 2. Was t h e accomplice's testimony sufficiently corroborated? The f i r s t i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s p r e m i s e d o n t h e i d e a t h a t c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e , a p h a r m a c e u t i c a l b o t t l e , was e v i d e n c e of other crimes and thereby caused the jury to draw p r e j u d i c i a l inferences about the defendant's character. The p h a r m a c e u t i c a l b o t t l e was f i r s t brought before t h e j u r y when c o u n s e l f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t was c r o s s - e x a m i n i n g the police officer who investigated the burglary. r e l e v a n t t e s t i m o n y was a s f o l l o w s : "Q. Andy did. Did you e v e r h a v e o c c a s i o n A. Casagranda's apartment? to search Yes, we "Q. Did you f i n d a n y t h i n g a t a l l i n t h a t a p a r t m e n t which would l i n k Andy C a s a g r a n d a t o W f o u n d some e v i d e n c e a t e t h i s b u r g l a r y ? A. . t h e Casagranda . . am j u s t s p e a k i n g o f f r u i t s o f t h e c r i m e , s o t o s p e a k , o r e v i d e n c e of t h e s e burglaries? A. P o s s i b i l i t y t h e r e was a "Q. I The p r e s c r i p t i o n or a , not a p r e s c r i p t i o n b o t t l e b u t a pharmaceutical b o t t l e a t t h e Casagranda r e s i d e n c e t h a t was s i m i l a r . . . "Q. Now, I am n o t t a l k i n g a b o u t p o s s i b i l i ties. Did you f i n d a n y t h i n g t h a t would l i n k Mr. C a s a g r a n d a t o t h e c r i m e ? A. Not directly. "Q. So t h e answer would be ' n o ' ? A. I s t i l l h a v e t o q u a l i f y my answer by s a y i n g t h e r e was b o t t l e f o u n d t h e r e t h a t was s i m i l a r t o o n e t a k e n f r o m t h e pharmacy, t h a t i s u s e d a t t h e pharmacy. P o s s i b i l i t y it could have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t . " Then, after pharmaceutical several bottle, more these questions questions concerning were asked of the the police officer : "Q. Did you d e t e r m i n e i f t h a t came from C e n t r a l Pharmacy? A . No, s i r , i t was n e v e r determined. . IIQ S o t h e n i t d o e s n o t c o n n e c t Mr. Casagranda? A. Could n o t d i r e c t l y c o n n e c t i t , no, s i r . " (Emphasis added.) The p h a r m a c e u t i c a l bottle was a g a i n b r o u g h t t h e j u r y when d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was c r o s s - e x a m i n i n g o f t h e pharmacy. t h e owner The r e l e v a n t t e s t i m o n y was a s f o l l o w s : "Q. A t any r a t e , t h e r e ' s a l o t of t h o s e l i t t l e b o t t l e s around, r i g h t [ r e f e r r i n g t o I am s u r e t h e r e t h e b o t t l e i n q u e s t i o n ] ? A. are. "Q. Can you p o s i t i v e l y coming f r o m y o u r pharmacy? identify that as Your h o n o r , I t h i n k t h e e x h i b i t "MR. WHEAT: s h o u l d be marked s o t h e r e c o r d c a n b e c l e a r . "THE COURT: Is t h i s some o t h e r e x h i b i t t h a t i s n ' t marked now? "MR. MILLER: marked . No, "THE COURT: This E x h i b i t P, r i g h t ? "MR. MILLER: "MR. MALEE: that was before your is honor, an item it is from not box, No, y o u r h o n o r . This found is a b o t t l e , your honor, when Mr. Casagranda's a p a r t m e n t was s e a r c h e d . "THE COURT: I f you want t o i t h a s n ' t been marked, l e t ' s s o you c a n r e f e r t o i t and s o show what you a r e r e f e r r i n g c a n mark i t f o r y o u . r e f e r t o i t and h a v e i t marked the record w i l l to. The C l e r k "MR. MALEE: T h e r e i s no c o n n e c t i o n shown t o t h i s c a s e , o r t h i s b o t t l e , your honor. "THE COURT: T h a t i s b e f o r e t h e J u r y now. If you want t o p u r s u e t h e m a t t e r , you a r e g o i n g t o have t o i d e n t i f y i t . "MR. MALEE: d a n t ' s 1. Could w e h a v e i t marked Defen( C l e r k marked t h e e x h i b i t . ) Can you i d e n t i f y t h i s b o t t l e a s h a v i n g A. NO, t h e l a b e l come from your pharmacy? h a s been s c r a t c h e d o f f . "Q. "Q. T h e r e i s no way? A . Not t o my knowledge. "Q. There A. around? them. are thousands "MR. MALEE: In that won't even o f f e r t h i s . "MR. MILLER: of these bottles a r e a l o t of I am s u r e t h e r e case, your honor, I No o b j e c t i o n , y o u r h o n o r . " A f t e r t h i s c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f t e s t i m o n y e l i c i t e d by t h e d e f e n s e f r o m two d i f f e r e n t w i t n e s s e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e b o t t l e , t h e S t a t e r e s p o n d e d by q u e s t i o n i n g t h e owner o f t h e C e n t r a l Pharmacy on r e d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n a s f o l l o w s : "Q. With r e f e r e n c e t o what h a s b e e n marked D e f e n d a n t ' s No. 1 and what was marked e a r l i e r a s P l a i n t i f f ' s [P-21 a r e t h e y t h e same t y p e o f b o t t l e . A. Same t y p e o f b o t t l e e x a c t l y . "Q. C o u l d you t e l l from t h e l a b e l on P-2 what is i n t h a t b o t t l e o r d i n a r i l y ? A. Codeine Phosphate, 15 miligrams. "Q. That is an a d d i c t i v e drug? A. Yes. "Q. Do t h e d r u g c o m p a n i e s p u t d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of d r u g s i n d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f b o t t l e ? A. Yes. "Q. Is t h i s t y p e o f b o t t l e , t h e s e two b o t t l e s , D e f e n d a n t ' s No. 1 and S t a t e ' s P-2, i s t h i s t y p e o f b o t t l e u s e d t o y o u r knowledge f o r any o t h e r p ur p o s e t h a n t o keep v a r i o u s narcotic substances? A. I don't s e e i n g it used f o r a n y t h i n g e l s e . recall . ." Later, d u r i n g f u r t h e r r e d i r e c t of t h e pharmacy o w n e r , following d i s c u s s i o n took p l a c e : "MR. MILLER: I am g o i n g t o o f f e r S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t P-2 f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s and I b e l i e v e t h a t I have provided f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h a t w i t h Mr. S t a j c a r . "MR. MALEE: W e l l , I make t h e same o b j e c t i o n . c aT h i s h a s n o t b e e n t i e d t o M r . S t a j -r ' s ................................. pharmacy and n e i t h e r h a s t h e o t h e r b o t t l e , s o what a r e t h e y demonstratinq? Let's see that bottle. "THE COURT: d o e s n ' t h a v e a c o s t l a b e l on i t . This "MR. MILLER: I t h a s a mark Mr. S t a j c a r t e s t i f i e d c o u l d be a p o r t i o n o f h i s c o s t c o d e number. W e a r e o f f e r i n g t h i s f o r c o m p a r a t i v e p u r p o s e s . Mr. Malee h e l d up what was l a b e l e d No. 1 and we f e e l t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t t h e J u r y s h o u l d be a b l e t o d i s c e r n and f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s P-2 s h o u l d go i n . "THE COURT: Not t h a t i t n e c e s s a r i l y came f r o m Mr. S t a j c a r ' s s t o r e b u t t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h i s is t h e t y p e of b o t t l e t h a t holds narcotics. "MR. M I L L E R : And a l s o , a s Mr. S t a j c a r t e s t i f i e d , prescriptions a r e not given out i n t h a t type of b o t t l e . A l l right. W e l l , f o r demon"THE COURT: s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s o n l y we w i l l a c c e p t i n t o e v i d e n c e P-2 a n d o v e r r u l e t h e o b j e c t i o n . "MR. M I L L E R : Thank y o u . For t h e same r e a s o n I would o f f e r D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 a t t h i s t i m e s o i t c a n be compared f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s by t h e J u r y w i t h [ S t a t e ' s ] P-2. "MR. MALEE: Your h o n o r , I t h i n k w e a r e leading t o a conclusion here. I don't b e l i e v e it h a s been s a i d p o s i t i v e l y t h a t t h a t is t h e only drug t h a t goes i n t o t h i s b o t t l e ... "MR. MILLER: Your honor, Mr. Malee i d e n t i f i e d t h i s b o t t l e w i t h D e t e c t i v e Lee a s coming from t h e C a s a g r a n d a a p a r t m e n t . W e . . f e e l t h a t is . "THE COURT: If I u n d e r s t a n d w h a t you a r e the a t t e m p t i n g t o d o is show t h a t D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 now, f o r d e m o n s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s only, is t h e type of b o t t l e t h a t u s u a l l y contains narcotics. That's right. "MR. MILLER: "THE: COURT: And i t ' s a l s o a t y p e o f b o t t l e t h a t i s n o t n o r m a l l y i s s u e d o r h a n d l e d by drug s t o r e s a s a p r e s c r i p t i v e i t e m . "MR. MILLER: Yes, y o u r h o n o r . It's a pharmaceutical b o t t l e "THE COURT: rather than a prescription type b o t t l e ? "MR. MILLER: That's correct. "THE COURT: For o n l y t h o s e p u r p o s e s t h e n , we w i l l o v e r r u l e t h e o b j e c t i o n and a d m i t Defend a n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 a s -- w e l l , I g u e s s we w i l l j u s t r e f e r t o i t a s D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t 1, a c c e p t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e by m o t i o n o f t h e Plaintiff." ( E m p h a s i s added.) I n S t a t e v. P.2d 47, 50, concerning Frates this Court evidence of ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. reiterates other the crimes 431, 436, general by 503 rule stating: ". . . when a d e f e n d a n t i s p u t upon t r i a l f o r o n e 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 he i s g u i l t y o f t h e o f f e n s e a l o n e ; and e v i d e n c e which i n any manner shows o r t e n d s t o show, t h a t he 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 i t be a c r i m e o f t h e same s o r t , i s i r r e l e v a n t and i n a d m i s s i b l e . " This general rule, along with the been c o d i f i e d i n Rule 4 0 4 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid., exceptions, has which s t a t e s : " E v i d e n c e of o t h e r c r i m e s , w r o n g s , o r a c t s i s n o t a d m i s s i b l e t o p r o v e t h e c h a r a c t e r of a p e r s o n i n o r d e r t o show t h a t h e a c t e d i n conformity therewith. I t may, h o w e v e r , be admissible f o r o t h e r purposes, such a s proof of motive, opportunity, i n t e n t , p r e p a r a t i o n , p l a n , knowledge, i d e n t i t y , o r absence of mistake or accident." The i m p o r t a n t l a n g u a g e o f t h i s r u l e o v e r l o o k e d by t h e S t a t e is t h a t t h e r u l e is n o t l i m i t e d t o "other crimes." The r u l e a l s o a p p l i e s t o "wrongs o r a c t s " o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . H e r e , t h e t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e p h a r m a c e u t i c a l b o t t l e was s u c h t h a t a j u r y c o u l d i n f e r from i t t n a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had illegally acquired a bottle used t h i s b o t t l e was e v i d e n c e o f for narcotics. "wrongs o r Clearly, acts," if not the e v i d e n c e of " o t h e r c r i m e s , " o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . The codified general in enforced. Rule rule out in Frates, is 4 0 4 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid., This Court , 602 P.2d set 957, i n S t a t e v. 962, Just 36 S t . R e p . to supra, be strictly - (1979), 1649, and when Mont. reviewing other crimes evidence, s t a t e d : "The g e n e r a l r u l e s h o u l d be s t r i c t l y e n f o r c e d i n a l l c a s e s where a p p l i c a b l e , b e c a u s e o f t h e p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t and i n j u s t i c e of such e v i d e n c e , a n d s h o u l d n o t be d e p a r t e d from e x c e p t under c o n d i t i o n s which c l e a r l y j u s t i f y such a departure. The e x c e p t i o n s s h o u l d be c a r e f u l l y l i m i t e d , and t h e i r number and s c o p e not increased. S t a t e v . Tiedemann ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 139 Mont. 237, 242-243, 362 P.2d 529, 5 3 1 . " The S t a t e c o n t e n d s S t a t e v. St.Rep. is that ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 1 Mont. Jackson 169, t h a t under other crimes evidence connected to wholly the 257, test set 589 P.2d includes independent in 1009, 36 only and out evidence unrelated crimes, and d o e s n o t i n c l u d e e v i d e n c e t h a t i s i n e x t r i c a b l y related t o t h e crime charged. Further, the S t a t e contends t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e b o t t l e was n o t e v i d e n c e f r o m a n o t h e r c r i m e and t h e r e f o r e u n d e r J a c k s o n t h e e v i d e n c e c a n n o t be c o n s t r u e d t o be e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r c r i m e s . T h i s a r g u m e n t is f l a w e d i n s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t ways. First, i t is a x i o m a t i c t h a t t h e burden of p r o o f d o e s not r e s t with the defendant, the State failed to prove but with the State. that the connected with t h e burglary i n Butte. State testified pharmaceutical that bottle there was no bottle was Second, in fact The w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e c o n n e c t i o n between the i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a p a r t m e n t and t h e B u t t e pharmacy. crimes, Again, wrongs o r t h e b o t t l e was e v i d e n c e o f a c t s " of "other t h e d e f e n d a n t and was t h e r e b y severely p r e j u d i c i a l t o the defendant. The S t a t e ' s f i n a l c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s e s t o p p e d f r o m a l l e g i n g e r r o r b e c a u s e h i s c o u n s e l o p e n e d up t h e i s s u e of the pharmaceutical b o t t l e . The g e n e r a l r u l e c o n c e r n i n g t h i s c o n t e n t i o n i s s e t o u t i n S t a t e v . Tiedemann ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 1 3 9 Mont. 237, 243, 362 P.2d 529, 5 3 2 , a s f o l l o w s : "A p a r t y d o e s n o t o r d i n a r i l y w a i v e h i s objection t o t h e erroneous admission of e v i d e n c e by s u b s e q u e n t l y i n t r o d u c i n g e v i d e n c e t o disprove the matter t e s t i f i e d t o , t o e x p l a i n them o r t o p r o v e f a c t s i n c o n s i s t e n t t h e r e w i t h , e v e n t h o u g h i t i s o f t h e same k i n d or nature. " H e r e , d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l had r e c e i v e d a n u n s o l i c i t e d r e s p o n s e f r o m t h e S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s c o n c e r n i n g t h e pharmaceutical bottle Court, P.2d found i n S t a t e v. 1004, 1007, in the d e f e n d a n t 1s apartment. R i v e r s ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 1 3 3 Mont. when referring to defense This 1 2 9 , 1 3 5 , 320 counsel in a similar situation, stated: "His e f f o r t s t o s a v e t h e day f o r his the client by explaining matter in redirect is not waiver." D e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l may h a v e d i s c u s s e d t h e pharma- ceutical bottle evidence, b u t t h i s d i d n o t waive t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s object or to urge before this the as State error introduced on appeal. it into right to Tiedemann, supra. Finally, these i s s u e s were b e s t summarized C o u r t i n Tiedemann, where i t was s t a t e d : "The e r r o r i n t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e s t a t e m e n t was p r e j u d i c i a l , was n o t w a i v e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n t o meet t h a t o f t h e S t a t e , and was of s u c h a n a t u r e t h a t i t c o u l d n o t be c u r e d by s t r i k i n g t h e o b j e c t i o n a b l e p o r t i o n , n o r by i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e j u r y t h a t i t was n o t t o c o n s i d e r a n y r e m a r k s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . " 362 P.2d a t 532- by this The second allegation that issue the in this case accomplice's is p r e m i s e d testimony was on the insuffi- c i e n t l y c o r r o b o r a t e d by t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e . I n S t a t e v. S t a n d l e y ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 1 0 7 5 , 1 0 7 7 , 35 S t . R e p . 1 5 3 , 586 P.2d 1631, 1634, t h i s Court held: "The r u l e on c o r r o b o r a t i o n is s t a t e d i n S t a t e In v . Cobb ( 1 9 2 6 ) , 76 Mont. 8 9 , 245 P. 265. t h a t c a s e , we h e l d t h a t t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e may be s u p p l i e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t o r h i s w i t n e s s e s ; i t may b e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ; i t need n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n or e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i a c a s e o f g u i l t ; and i t n e e d n o t b e s u f f i c i e n t t o connect the defendant with the c r i m e b u t m u s t t e n d t o c o n n e c t him w i t h t h e crime. I n S t a t e v . Keckonen ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 1 0 7 Mont. 253, 84 P.2d 3 4 1 , w e h e l d t h a t w h e r e t h e a l l e g e d c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e is e q u a l l y consonant with a reasonable explanation p o i n t i n g toward i n n o c e n t c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t of defendant, then such evidence does n o t t e n d t o c o n n e c t him w i t h t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e o f f e n s e and i s i n t h e r e a l m o f s p e c u l a tion, not corroboration. Where t h e c l a i m e d c o r r o b o r a t i o n shows no more t h a n a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o commit a c r i m e and s i m p l y p r o v e s suspicion, it is not suff i c e n t corroboration t o j u s t i f y a c o n v i c t i o n upon t h e t e s t i m o n y o f an accomplice. S t a t e v . J o n e s ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 95 Mont. 3 1 7 , 26 P.2d 341; S t a t e v . Coleman Here, the State's t h e d e f e n d a n t had evidence, as a conviction. never an o p p o r t u n i t y matter coupled with t h e evidence merely of law, testimony of illustrated t o commit a was not that crime. The sufficient when t h e accomplice t o support a The p r y m a r k s , f o o t p r i n t s and s t o l e n d r u g s w e r e shown t o h a v e been c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h e r e b y do n o t tend t o connect t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e crime. The m o t e l r e c o r d s , t h e box c o n t a i n i n g t h e s t o l e n d r u g s , and d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e ' s p r e s c r i p t i o n b o t t l e t h a t was f o u n d i n t h e b u s h e s o u t s i d e t h e m o t e l d o no more t h a n p l a c e t h e d e f e n d a n t in a suspiclous circumstance. The explanation given to t h e s e f a c t s and c i r c u i n s t a n c e s by t h e a c c o m p l i c e i s no more reasonable his wife. than the Clearly, corroborating explanation provided the State did evidence to by d e f e n d a n t not present support the and sufficient accomplice's testimony. The c o n v i c t i o n i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c h a r g e s d i s m i s s e d . W concur: 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.
