STATE v ROBERTS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-412 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1981 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsT O A D L ROEERTS, H M S AE Defendant 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 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 a c k L. Green, 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: Hood & Sherwood, 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 R o b e r t L. Deschamps, County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: $23) 15 1981 June 24, 1 9 8 1 September 1 5 , 1981 M r . C h i e f ~ u s t i c eF r a n k I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. D e f e n d a n t Thomas D a l e R o b e r t s was c o n v i c t e d o f b u r g l a 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 o f M i s s o u l a County. J u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d t h e r e o n s e n t e n c i n g him to f i v e y e a r s i m p r i sonment w i t h t w o y e a r s suspended. D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from t h e j udgment and s e n t e n c e . On S e p t e m b e r 2 9 , 1 9 7 9 , d e f e n d a n t and h i s e x - w i f e Carol were t r a v e l i n g i n d e f e n d a n t ' s g r e e n B u i c k s t a t i o n wagon from D i l l o n , Montana t o C o e u r D I A l e n e , I d a h o , w h e r e t h e y i n t e n d e d to be remarried. They s t o p p e d i n B u t t e w h e r e t h e y p i c k e d u p H a r o l d N i x o n , Carol s s t e p f a t h e r , and two j u v e n i l e s - - D a l e Chelini, d e f e n d a n t 1 s nephew, and D e n n i s O I D o n n e l l , C h e l i n i l s f r i e n d . They proceeded to Missoula where t h e y s t o p p e d a t t h e r e s i d e n c e of E d r i e B o u l t e r who was a g i r l f r i e n d o f C h e l i n i and t h e d a u g h t e r o f R o b e r t B o u l t e r , p a r t owner o f t h e S n a k e Eyes S t o r e i n Lolo. C h e l i n i and O I D o n n e l l g o t o u t o f t h e car and t a l k e d to E d r i e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f an hour. They t h e n r e j o i n e d t h e t h r e e a d u l t s i n t h e car and t h e f i v e o f them d r o v e to t h e L o l o T a v e r n which i s l o c a t e d n e a r t h e Snake Eyes S t o r e i n Lolo. A c c o r d i n g to d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y , t h e o c c u p a n t s o f t h e car had b e e n d r i n k i n g s u b s t a n t i a l a m o u n t s o f b e e r and Snap-E-Tom tomato c o c k t a i l during the t r i p . The f i v e o f them c o n t i n u e d d r i n k i n g i n t h e L o l o T a v e r n f a r i n t o the night. A c c o r d i n g t o d e f e n d a n t , he and Carol g o t i n t o a n a r g u m e n t i n t h e T a v e r n , he g o t mad and h e w e n t t o t h e c a r . f o l l o w e d him t o t h e car where t h e a r g u m e n t c o n t i n u e d . Carol Defendant t e s t i f i e d h e " g r a b b e d up a l l of t h e s t u f f " i n t h e c a r , l e f t t h e c a r and w a l k e d t o w a r d t h e highway i n t e n d i n g to h i t c h h i k e t o Butte. H e s t a t e d he was u n s u c c e s s f u l i n h i t c h h i k i n g , g o t c o l d and b e g a n t o w a l k b a c k t o t h e t a v e r n l o c a t e d n e a r t h e S n a k e Eyes Store. About 2:00 a . m . Deputy S h e r i f f Newlon who w a s t h e n i n t h e a r e a r e c e i v e d a d i s p a t c h e r ' s c a l l a b o u t a p o s s i b l e b u r g l a r y of a small g r o c e r y s t o r e . s t a t i o n wagon. The r e p o r t a l s o d e s c r i b e d a s u s p e c t g r e e n Deputy Newlon n o t i c e d a g r e e n s t a t i o n wagon o u t - s i d e t h e L o l o T a v e r n and upon i n v e s t i g a t i o n l e a r n e d t h a t t h e r e g i s t e r e d owner was Thomas Dale R o b e r t s . Deputy Newlon t e s t i f i e d he o b s e r v e d someone i n t h e g a r a g e p o r t i o n of t h e b u i l d i n g i n which t h e Snake Eyes s t o r e is l o c a t e d . The o f f i c e r w e n t t o i n v e s t i g a t e , h e a r d someone b e h i n d t h e s t o r e , and a p p r e h e n d e d d e f e n d a n t who f i t t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e p e r s o n t h e o f f i c e r had s e e n i n t h e g a r a g e . c a r r y i n g t w o t h r e e - p a c k s o f Snap-E-Tom R o b e r t s was found to be tomato c o c k t a i l , 1 6 p a c k s o f c i g a r e t t e s o f f i v e d i f f e r e n t b r a n d s , t w o m a g a z i n e s , and a c a n of lighter fluid, a l l stuffed inside h i s shirt. R o b e r t s was a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d w i t h b u r g l a r y . I n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e f r o n t d o o r of t h e s t o r e was u n l o c k e d and t h e r e were no s i g n s o f f o r c e d e n t r y i n t o t h e s t o r e or g a r a g e . Numerous items from t h e s h e l v e s and cooler were s c a t t e r e d o n t h e f l o o r i n c l u d i n g cases of b e e r and p a c k s o f Snap-E-Tom tomato c o c k t a i l . Robert B o u l t e r , part-owner of t h e s t o r e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e g r e a s e p e n c i l p r i c e m a r k i n g s on t h e Snap-E-Tom t o m a t o c o c k t a i l s i n t h e s t o r e a p p e a r e d to be t h e same a s t h o s e found i n d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n , b u t t h a t t h e o t h e r items c o u l d n o t be i d e n t i f i e d a s coming from h i s s t o r e a s t h e y were e i t h e r p r e p r i c e d when t h e y came to t h e store or had no p r i c e m a r k i n g s o n them. B o u l t e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l items found i n d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n were s o l d i n h i s s t o r e . He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s d a u g h t e r , E d r i e , had a k e y to t h e s t o r e . D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w a s m a r r i e d to C a r o l a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l . Over d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n , C a r o l was c a l l e d a s a p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s a t h i s t r i a l and was p e r m i t t e d to t e s t i f y c o n c e r n i n g h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s o f d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s on t h e n i g h t i n question. The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t a l l o w h e r to t e s t i f y con- c e r n i n g a n y c o m m u n i c a t i o n s made t o h e r by t h e d e f e n d a n t . On a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s (1) 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 a l l o w i n g h i s w i f e t o t e s t i f y o v e r h i s o b j e c t i o n , and ( 2 ) t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t h i s c o n v i c t i o n o f burglary. The a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f a s p o u s e ' s t e s t i m o n y i n Montana is g o v e r n e d by two s e p a r a t e s t a t u t e s . S e c t i o n 46-16-212, MCA provides : .. " E x c e p t w i t h t h e c o n s e n t - -t h o r i n c a s e s o f of bo c r i m i n a l v i o l e n c e by o n e upon t h e o t h e r , aband o n m e n t or n e g l e c t o f c h i l d r e n by e i t h e r p a r t y , o r a b a n d o n m e n t or n e g l e c t o f o n e by t h e o t h e r , n e i t h e r s p o u s e i s a c o m p e t e n t w i t n e s s -r-r fo o a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n-a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n - - or pro c e e d i n g t o w h i c h ---- a r e p a r t i e s . " one o r both ( ~ m p h a iss a d d e d ) . S e c t i o n 26-1-802, MCA, h e r e a f t e r i d e n t i f i e d as t h e marital p r i v i - l e g e s t a t u t e , provides : "A h u s b a n d c a n n o t be examined f o r or a g a i n s t h i s w i f e w i t h o u t h e r c o n s e n t or a w i f e f o r or a g a i n s t h e r husband w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t ; n o r c a n e i t h e r , during the marriage o r afterward, be, w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e o t h e r , examined a s t o a n y c o m m u n i c a t i o n made by o n e t o t h e o t h e r d u r i n g the marriage; b u t t h i s exception does not a p p l y t o a c i v i l a c t i o n o r proceeding by one a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r o r t o a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n or p r o c e e d i n g f o r a crime c o m m i t t e d b y o n e a g a i n s t the other." I n a c r i m i n a l case t h a t d o e s n o t i n v o l v e v i o l e n c e or aband o n m e n t o r n e g l e c t o f s p o u s e o r c h i l d r e n and where t h e parties a r e m a r r i e d a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l , t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e is s e c t i o n 46-16-212. S t a t e v. T a y l o r ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 1 0 6 , 515 P.2d Both p a r t i e s a g r e e . 695. However, t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e d o e s n o t impose a b l a n k e t e x c l u s i o n o f t h e s p o u s e a s a w i t n e s s , b u t r a t h e r e x c l u d e s o n l y t h e s p o u s e ' s t e s t i m o n y as t o comm u n i c a t i o n s made by t h e d e f e n d a n t to h i s s p o u s e d u r i n g t h e marriage. The t r i a l c o u r t a g r e e d w i t h t h e S t a t e ' s t h e o r y and p e r m i t t e d Carol t o t e s t i f y b u t e x c l u d e d a n y t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b e t w e e n d e f e n d a n t and C a r o l . This w a s error. B o t h t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e and Montana case l a w e s t a b l i s h the contrary. 46-16-212, MCA, The e x p r e s s l a n g u a g e o f s e c t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t a w i f e is n o t - c o m p e t e n t w i t n e s s a a g a i n s t h e r husband w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t i n a c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g a g a i n s t him ( s u b j e c t to e x c e p t i o n s n o t r e l e v a n t to t h i s c a s e ) . " E x c e p t w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of b o t h . . . neither spouse - - i s a com- p e t e n t w i t n e s s f o r or a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g t o which o n e or b o t h are p a r t i e s . " MCA. (Emphasis added.) S e c t i o n 46-16-212, Where t h e l a n g u a g e o f a s t a t u t e is p l a i n , u n a m b i g u o u s , d i r e c t and c e r t a i n , t h e s t a t u t e s p e a k s f o r i t s e l f a n d t h e r e is n o t h i n g l e f t f o r t h e c o u r t t o c o n s t r u e . Dunphy v . Anaconda Company ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 7 6 , 438 P.2d 6 6 0 and cases cited therein. The f u n c t i o n of t h e c o u r t i n s u c h cases is s i m p l y t o a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e w h a t i n terms or i n s u b s t a n c e is cont a i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e and n o t t o i n s e r t w h a t h a s b e e n o m i t t e d o r t o o m i t what h a s been i n s e r t e d . S e c t i o n 1-2-101, MCA. A person who is n o t a c o m p e t e n t w i t n e s s c a n n o t t e s t i f y a t a l l . Montana case l a w c o m p e l s t h e same r e s u l t . ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 1 2 4 Mont. 1 0 2 , 220 P.2d 6 7 4 . cessor to s e c t i o n 46-16-212, S t a t e v . Storm T h e r e we a p p l i e d t h e p r e d e - MCA, to r e v e r s e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c - t i o n of a s s a u l t where d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e w a s p e r m i t t e d to t e s t i f y o v e r h e r h u s b a n d ' s o b j e c t i o n t h a t i n p o i n t i n g a l o a d e d gun a t t h e s h e r i f f , h e was r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t . T h e r e , as h e r e , t h e p r e d e - cessor s t a t u t e e x p r e s s l y d e a l t w i t h t h e c o m p e t e n c y o f a h u s b a n d and w i f e as a w i t n e s s a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n a c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g . The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t S t o r m is i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h S t a t e v . D i x s o n ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 8 0 Mont. 1 8 1 , 2 6 0 P. 1 3 8 , and S t a t e v . H o u c h i n ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 1 4 9 Mont. 5 0 3 , 428 P.2d 9 7 1 . these decisions. W e f i n d no i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n Dixson i n v o l v e d a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n where t h e m a r r i a g e o f d e f e n d a n t and t h e w i t n e s s had b e e n a n n u l l e d p r i o r t o t r i a l and a c c o r d i n g l y t h e p r e d e c e s s o r o f s e c t i o n 26-1-802, MCA, t h e m a r i t a l p r i v i l e g e s t a t u t e , was a p p l i e d r a t h e r t h a n t h e p r e d e c e s s o r o f t h e s t a t u t e i n v o l v e d i n t h i s case. The s t a t u t e i n ~ i x s o nd i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e s t a t u t e a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h a t d e c i s i o n is n o t g e r m a n e t o t h e s i t u a t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s case. H o u c h i n is i n a p p o s i t e . I t also involved t h e p r e d e c e s s o r o f s e c t i o n 26-1-802, MCA, t h e m a r i t a l p r i v i l e g e s t a t u t e , which s e r v e s t o p r o t e c t c o n f i d e n t i a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s be t w e e n s p o u s e s during marriage. I n Houchin s i n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s w i f e was n o t c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s , t h e m a r i t a l p r i v i l e g e s t a t u t e d i d n o t p r o h i b i t a deputy s h e r i f f ' s testimony t h a t defendant's wife pointed o u t t h e l o c a t i o n o f s t o l e n c o p p e r wire. T h u s t h e r e a r e two d i s t i n c t s p o u s a l p r i v i l e g e s which may apply i n a criminal proceeding. I f t h e d e f e n d a n t is m a r r i e d a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , t h e s p o u s e i s i n c o m p e t e n t to t e s t i f y e i t h e r f o r or a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t s u b j e c t to t h e s t a t u t o r y exceptions. S e c t i o n 46-16-212, If d e f e n d a n t i s MCA. n o t m a r r i e d a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , h i s f o r m e r s p o u s e is c o m p e t e n t t o t e s t i f y b u t c a n n o t be examined w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t as to a n y c o m m u n i c a t i o n made be t w e e n t h e s p o u s e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . S e c t i o n 26-1-802, MCA. The S t a t e c r i t i c i z e s t h e s w e e p i n g m a r i t a l p r i v i l e g e of s e c t i o n 46-16-212, MCA, which p e r m i t s t h e d e f e n d a n t to p r e v e n t h i s spouse from t a k i n g t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d . We note the current t r e n d i n o t h e r s t a t e s and i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s toward e r o s i o n o f t h e marital p r i v i l e g e . U.S. 40, 100 S e c t . 906, Trammel v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 4 4 5 L.Ed. 2d . The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n Trammel m o d i f i e d t h e common law m a r i t a l p r i v i l e g e so t h a t t h e s p o u s a l w i t n e s s a l o n e may e x e r c i s e t h e p r i v i l e g e t o r e f u s e t o t e s t i f y a d v e r s e l y and may n e i t h e r be c o m p e l l e d n o r f o r e c l o s e d from t e s t i f y i n g i n f e d e r a l c o u r t . The C o u r t r e a s o n e d : "The c o n t e m p o r a r y j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a f f o r d i n g a n a c c u s e d [ t h e p r i v i l e g e to e x c l u d e a l l a d v e r s e s p o u s a l testimony] is also u n p e r s u a s i v e When o n e s p o u s e is w i l l i n g t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r i n a c r i m i n a l proceed ing--whatever t h e m o t i v a t i o n - - t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p is a l m o s t cert a i n l y i n d i s r e p a i r ; t h e r e is p r o b a b l y l i t t l e i n t h e way o f m a r i t a l harmony f o r t h e p r i v i l e g e t o preserve. I n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a r u l e of e v i d e n c e t h a t permits a n a c c u s e d t o p r e v e n t a d v e r s e s p o u s a l t e s t i m o n y seems f a r more l i k e l y t o f r u s t r a t e j u s t i c e t h a n to f o s t e r f a m i l y ( B r a c k e t e d material p a r a p h r a s e d . ) peace Trammel, s u p r a , 4 4 5 U.S. a t 5 2 , 1 0 0 S . C t . a t 913. . ." W h a t e v e r merit t h i s v i e w may p o s s e s s , it a p p l i e s o n l y i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s and is c o n t r a r y to t h e s t a t u t o r y l a w o f Our d u t y is t o c o n s t r u e t h e l a w as we f i n d i t . Montana. v . Anaconda Company, s u p r a , and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . Dunphy Absent c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or s t a t u t o r y i n £ i r m i t i e s , t h i s C o u r t is n o t empowered t o c h a n g e t h e s t a t u t o r y law o f t h i s s t a t e . However, w e h o l d t h a t t h e e r r o r i n p e r m i t t i n g Carol to t e s t i f y is h a r m l e s s e r r o r u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e case. Montana l a w p r o v i d e s t h a t no c a u s e s h a l l be r e v e r s e d by r e a s o n of a n y error c o m m i t t e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e e r r o r was p r e j u d i c i a l ( s e c t i o n 46-20-701, MCA) and t h a t a n y e r r o r which d o e s n o t a f f e c t s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s s h a l l be disregarded. ( s e c t i o n 46-20-702, MCA. ) The f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t e s t o f h a r m l e s s e r r o r i s w h e t h e r t h e r e is 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 t h e e v i d e n c e complained o f m i g h t have c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e c o n v i c t i o n . C o n n e c t i c u t ( 1 9 6 3 ) r 3 7 5 U.S. 8 5 , 8 4 S.Ct. Fahy v . 2 2 9 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171. O r s t a t e d a n o t h e r way, c a n we as a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t d e c l a r e a b e l i e f t h a t t h e e r r o r was h a r m l e s s beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ? Chapman v. C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 6 7 ) t 386 U.S. L.Ed.2d 705. 1 8 , 8 7 S.Ct. 824, 17 Under e i t h e r t h e Montana t e s t or t h e f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t e s t , t h e e r r o r i n p e r m i t t i n g Carol to t e s t i f y is harmless. Here Carol s t e s t i m o n y was e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l to t h e defendant's. Her t e s t i m o n y d i d n o t c o n t r a d i c t or v a r y d e f e n d a n t ' s own t e s t i m o n y i n a n y m a t e r i a l respect. The d e f e n d a n t himself agreed with her testimony: "Q. Is t h e r e a n y t h i n g s u b s t a n t i v e l y o r m a t e r i a l l y d i f f e r e n t as you remember i t from No." w h a t Carol remembers and t e s t i f i e d t o ? A. Under s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e error was c l e a r l y n o t p r e j u d i c i a l t o d e f e n d a n t , d i d n o t a f f e c t a n y s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t o f d e f e n d a n t , and t h e r e is no 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 Carol I have c o n t r i b u t e d to d e f e n d a n t ts c o n v i c t i o n . s testimony could D e f e n d a n t a l s o c o n t e n d s t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t h i s c o n v i c t i o n of b u r g l a r y . A p e r s o n commits b u r g l a r y i f h e k n o w i n g l y e n t e r s or r e m a i n s i n a n o c c u p i e d s t r u c t u r e w i t h t h e p u r p o s e of committing a n o f f e n s e t h e r e i n . S e c t i o n 45-6-204, MCA. Here t h e e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g e n t r y i n t o t h e s t o r e by d e f e n d a n t i s c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , b u t it is s u f f i c i e n t to e n a b l e t h e j u r y to r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e crime. The f r o n t d o o r of t h e s t o r e was u n l o c k e d ; d e f e n d a n t was a p p r e h e n d e d b e h i n d t h e s t o r e s h o r t l y a f t e r 2:00 a . m . ; h e had i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n v a r i o u s a r t i c l e s o f m e r c h a n d i s e s o l d i n t h e s t o r e ; and a p e r s o n was o b s e r v e d i n t h e g a r a g e p o r t i o n of t h e s t o r e b u i l d i n g s h o r t l y b e f o r e d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p r e h e n s i o n and a r r e s t whose g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n matched d e f e n d a n t ' s. E v i d e n c e t h a t t h e m e r c h a n d i s e found i n d e f e n d a n t f s p o s s e s s i o n came from t h e s t o r e r a t h e r t h a n from d e f e n d a n t ' s car is found i n t h e t e s t i m o n y o f R o b e r t B o u l t e r t h a t t h e g r e a s e p e n c i l p r i c e m a r k i n g o n t h e Snap-E-Tom tomato c o c k - t a i l s a p p e a r e d t o be t h e same as t h o s e i n t h e s t o r e ; t h e f a c t t h a t f i v e p a c k s o f C a m e l f i l t e r c i g a r e t t e s were found among t h e m e r c h a n d i s e s t u f f e d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s s h i r t and none o f t h e f i v e p e r s o n s t r a v e l i n g i n h i s car smoked t h a t b r a n d ; and t h e i m p l a u s i b i l i t y of d e f e n d a n t ' s e x p l a n a t i o n of h i s p o s s e s s i o n of the articles. T h i s is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e crime of burglary. The i s s u e o f s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e b o i l e d down t o t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of the S t a t e ' s witnesses vis-a-vis defendant's testimony. the The j u r y b y i t s v e r d i c t r e s o l v e d t h i s c o n f l i c t i n f a v o r of t h e S t a t e . Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e q u a l i t y of t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o meet t h e s t a n d a r d o f s u f f i c i e n c y i n J a c k s o n v. V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 4 4 3 U.S. 3 0 7 r 99 S . C t . 2781r 6 1 L.Ed.2d 560. disagree. Jackson states t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d i n t h i s language: ... t h e r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n is w h e t h e r , a f t e r " v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e We t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , - r a t i o n a l t r i e r of f a c t any c o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t Jackson, supra, 4 4 3 U.S. a t 3 1 9 , 99 S . C t . a t 2 7 8 9 , 6 1 L.Ed.2d a t 573. ." W e f i n d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e meets t h i s s t a n d a r d . Although t h e d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e o f f i c e r s conc e r n i n g h i s o b s e r v a t i o n o f a p e r s o n i n t h e g a r a g e p o r t i o n of t h e s t o r e b u i l d i n g s h o r t l y b e f o r e d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p r e h e n s i o n is u n w o r t h y o f b e l i e f and t h a t m i s s i n g t o o l s from t h e g a r a g e were n e v e r r e c o v e r e d , t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s i n no way p r e v e n t a n y r a t i o n a l j u r o r from c o n c l u d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t u n l a w f u l l y e n t e r e d t h e Snake Eyes S t o r e w i t h t h e i n t e n t of committing t h e £ t t h e r e i n . Af f i r m e d . 3 -kg pa,4-ust tic-e ----------- -- ----- --------Chief W e concur: 1

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.