STATE v VAN NATTA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-189 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1982 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS. VERNON L. VAN NATTA a/k/a J O H N SMITH, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: F&(ifi D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Judicial District, I n and f o r t h e County o f Cascade Honorable H. William Coder, J u d q e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: K a r l N a g e l , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana For 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 S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : Decided: Filed: SEP 2 3 1982 A p r i l 1, 1982 September 2 3 , 1982 M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d Court. the was a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d w i t h t w o c o u n t s Def e n d a n t - a p p e l l a n t of t h e O p i n i o n of f e l o n y b u r g l a r y and two c o u n t s of felony t h e f t . Following a r a s h o f i n c i d e n t s i n C a s c a d e County and L e w i s and C l a r k County o n November 1 6 , 1 9 8 0 , and November 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 . a jury verdict found defendant On F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 1 9 8 1 , guilty on four all counts. D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from t h i s c o n v i c t i o n . I n t h e e a r l y m o r n i n g h o u r s of November 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 , t h r e e b a r s C r e e k a r e a were b u r g l a r i z e d . i n t h e Cascade-Wolf burglaries, o n November P r i o r to t h e 1980 , J a c k Pachek r e p o r t e d 16 s t o l e h i s l a t e model p i c k u p t r u c k . The t r u c k , someone a 1977 two-tone b l u e and w h i t e Ford c l u b c a b was s t o l e n w h i l e p a r k e d i n f r o n t of Pachek' s b u s i n e s s l o c a t e d i n G r e a t F a l l s . The f i r s t b r e a k - i n took p l a c e a t t h e U l m B a r i n U l m , Montana. The i n t r u d e r f i r s t a t t e m p t e d t o e n t e r t h e b a r by r e m o v i n g p i e c e s o f t h e window f r a m e on t h e f r o n t d o o r . e n t r a n c e was g a i n e d unsuccessful, When t h i s a t t e m p t p r o v e d by breaking into a residence owned by F r a n k B a l l w h i c h l i e s a d j a c e n t to t h e b a r . morning of 1982, November When intruder. 17, looked Ron Ron down Ball the was Early in the awakened h a l l w a y of the by an house he o b s e r v e d a n i n d i v i d u a l , who h e l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as t h e d e f e n d a n t , r e m o v i n g g u n s from t h e gun room. removed the guns, garage door. down a h a l l w a y and l e f t through a F r a n k B a l l l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d t h e s t o l e n g u n s as a n o l d Winchester shotgun, proceeded Ron w a t c h e d a s t h e d e f e n d a n t Model 70 r i f l e , a 12-gauge shotgun, a 300 S a v a g e and a Remington 22-250. a 10-gauge Frank B a l l , who was n o t p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y , a l s o n o t e d t h a t s e v e r a l i t e m s had been s t o l e n from t h e b a r a d j a c e n t t o t h e r e s i d e n c e i n c l u d i n g a stamp machine, a saddle, a c a s e of R a i n i e r b e e r and a p p r o x i - m a t e l y $40 f r o m t h e j u k e b o x . A second November south of 17, break-in 1980, Cascade, occurred a t the Montana. in the e a r l y morning Mountain P a l a c e B a r , At the hours of t h i r t e e n miles Mountain P a l a c e Bar the i n t r u d e r g a i n e d e n t r y b y p r y i n g loose t h e wooden s t r i p s of a window frame, removing unlocking the intruder the door. removed a window After case and then unplugging of Olympia reaching the beer through from the alarm, the cooler burglar and and a p p r o x i m a t e l y $300 t o $500 f r o m t h e j u k e b o x . A third break-in occurred i n t h e e a r l y m o r n i n g of 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 , a t t h e C r a i g B a r i n C r a i g , Montana. A t the Craig B a r t h e i n t r u d e r g a i n e d e n t r a n c e by r e m o v i n g t h e p i n s of of the front door. items Several i n c l u d i n g t h e money i n t h e j u k e b o x , were November stolen the hinges from the bar some Lucky L a g e r b e e r , and a b o t t l e of Seagram's Seven whisky. A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1:30 a.m. t o 2:00 a . m . o n November 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 , E l m e r L i n d q u i s t o b s e r v e d someone m a t c h i n g t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of the d e f e n d a n t p a r k a b l u e p i c k u p t r u c k o u t s i d e h i s house l o c a t e d n e a r C a s c a d e , Montana. individual When L i n d q u i s t made a n o i s e i n t h e h o u s e , t h e returned to the truck and drove to the highway. L i n d q u i s t w e n t o u t s i d e and n o t e d a s i z e L-78 b y 1 5 G o o d r i c h t i r e mounted on a c r e a m c o l o r e d w h e e l had b e e n s t o l e n from t h e bed of h i s pickup. On the afternoon deputy s h e r i f f Interstate Palace 1 5 t o do follow-up break-ins. Strandel C a s c a d e on S t . Strandel November On behind had Falls. 1980, John Strandel, a to On the t h e U l m and M o u n t a i n r e p o r t s on Strandel way, a Ford observed Peter's stopped the a observed c l u b cab pickup. similar M i s s i o n Road investigate Patrolman, Larry Strickland, Great 17, i n Cascade County, w a s d r i v i n g to G r e a t F a l l s on patrolman parked night of pickup a highway The p r e v i o u s parked west a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4:00 and learned from of a.m. Highway t h a t t h e t r u c k had b e e n s t o l e n from southside of the pickup, in the ditch, S t r a n d e l f o u n d s i x c a n s o f Olympia b e e r , o n e c a n of R a i n i e r b e e r , t h r e e cans of bottle. Lucky L a g e r b e e r and one Seagram's Seven whisky L y i n g on t h e p a v e m e n t n e x t t o t h e p a s s e n g e r d o o r of t h e p i c k u p S t r a n d e l f o u n d o n 12-gauge Remington s h o t g u n s h e l l , o n e 1 0 - g a u g e Remington s h o t g u n s h e l l . and Strandel then searched an a r e a a few y a r d s from t h e d i t c h w h e r e he f i r s t found t h e b e e r and a found stamp machine a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i f t y pickup. Approximately ten yards east y a r d s away of the S t r a n d e l found s i x r i f l e s l a i d side-by-side of from the stamp machine, i n the grass. Five t h e r i f l e s w e r e l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s t h o s e t a k e n from t h e B a l l residence i n U l m and identified as t h a t I n t h e b a c k of t h e t r u c k S t r a n d e l f o u n d t a k e n f r o m t h e U l m Bar. a B.F. s t a m p m a c h i n e was the G o o d r i c h t i r e and w h e e l l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as b e l o n g i n g The s i x t h r i f l e was l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as a .22 Elmer Lindquist, caliber to r i f l e which had been s t o l e n from a h o u s e i n Craig on November 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 . On t h e m o r n i n g o f November 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 , a man l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as the defendant registered f o r a room a t t h e Belmont Hotel G r e a t F a l l s u n d e r t h e name o f J i m Todd. h i s room w i t h £ i f t y - c e n t pieces. The i n d i v i d u a l p a i d f o r On November 1 7 and 1 8 , 1 9 8 0 , a man l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d as t h e d e f e n d a n t , a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e and o n e - h a l f in e n t e r e d t h e Town T a v e r n b l o c k s from t h e Belmont H o t e l . On November 1 7 , t h e man s p e n t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $40 i n t h e b a r and p a i d f o r a l l h i s drinks with f i f ty-cent pieces. On November 1 8 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e man r e t u r n e d and a g a i n p a i d f o r a l l o f h i s d r i n k s w i t h f i f t y cent pieces. On November 2 0 , 1 9 8 0 , d e f e n d a n t 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 and t h e £ t . D e f e n d a n t r e f u s e d to i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f e x c e p t a s "John Smith." An FBI c h e c k l a t e r r e v e a l e d h i s t r u e name of Vernon Natta. L e r o y Van i n f o r m a t i o n of of Pachek's Count I : pickup; Initially, d e f e n d a n t was F e l o n y T h e f t , a r i s i n g o u t of Count defendant's alleged break-in 11: Burglary, a t the Ulm Bar; and C o u n t I V : Mountain Palace C o u n t 111: On February 11, 1 9 8 1 , out of Felony a t the Craig B u r g l a r y , a r i s i n g o u t of t h e break-in Bar. at the respondent sent n o t i c e to d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h a t t h e county a t t o r n e y i n t e n d e d amend t h e i n £ o r m a t i o n . by t h e the£ t arising T h e f t , a r i s i n g o u t of d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g e d break-in Bar; charged to R e s p o n d e n t moved t o amend t h e i n £ o r m a t i o n by s u b s t i t u t i n g t h e t h e £ t of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a t t h e U l m B a r i n the place of the break-in at the Craig B a r . The m o t i o n g r a n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 1 9 8 1 . was On F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t was r e a r r a i g n e d and p l e d n o t g u i l t y to a l l four counts. Up u n t i l F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t r e f u s e d cooperate with defense counsel. On t h a t d a y , d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t e d t h e District C o u r t to a p p o i n t o t h e r d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . was d e n i e d . On F e b r u a r y 2 0 , to H i s request 1981, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion to c o n t i n u e t h e t r i a l d a t e set f o r F e b r u a r y 23, 1981, on t h e grounds t h a t d e f e n d a n t was now r e a d y to c o o p e r a t e w i t h d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a n d more t i m e was n e c e s s a r y t o p r e p a r e f o r t r i a l . Immediately p r i o r to t r i a l , on F e b r u a r y 23, 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o c o n t i n u e . defendant's motion in The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o d e n i e d to limine exclude evidence of similar crimes c o m m i t t e d o n t h e same d a t e as t h e crimes w i t h which d e f e n - d a n t was a l r e a d y c h a r g e d . found On F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 1 9 8 1 , a j u r y v e r d i c t d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y on a l l four counts. Defendant appeals from t h i s c o n v i c t i o n . The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w are: 1. crimes 2. W h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d b y a d m i t t i n g e v i d e n c e of similar to those with which defendant was charged? W h e t h e r 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 motion t o continue t h e t r i a l ? R u l e 4 0 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid. d e f i n e s t h e r u l e on t h e a d m i s s i o n o f o t h e r crimes e v i d e n c e as f o l l o w s : " E v i d e n c e o f o t h e r crimes, w r o n g s , o r a c t s is 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 he a c t e d i n conI t may, however, be formity therewith. a d m i s s i b l e f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s , s u c h as p r o o f of motive, opportunity, i n t e n t , preparation, or a b s e n c e o f plan, knowledge, identity, mistake o r accident." R u l e 4 0 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) Mont.R.Evid., incorporates the general rule that e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r crimes is n o t a d m i s s i b l e to show d e f e n d a n t committed (1981) a particular - Mont . crime , Hanson ( 1 9 8 0 ) , ---- Mont as charged. 637 P.2d . , State 8 2 6 , 38 S t . R e p . 6 0 8 P.2d v. Casagranda 2122; S t a t e v . 1 0 8 3 , 37 S t . R e p . 657. Rule 4 0 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) a l s o states t h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e g e n e r a l These e x c e p t i o n s are governed by t h e g u i d e l i n e s s e t o u t i n rule. J u s t ( 1 9 7 9 ) , --- - .- S t a t e v. . Mont . I 6 0 2 P.2d 9 5 7 , 36 S t . R e p . 1649 : " T h e r e e m e r g e s a f o u r - e l e m e n t t e s t to d e t e r m i n e t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e of o t h e r crimes or a c t s c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s s u c h a s t h e one h e r e . The f i r s t t h r e e of t h e s e elem e n t s were i d e n t i f i e d i n S t a t e v. J e n s e n , 1 5 3 Mont. a t 2 3 9 , 4 5 5 P.2d a t 634; t h e f o u r t h is b a s e d on R u l e 4 0 3 , Mont.R.Evid. The f o u r h&e a r e : -Pc,Ct"P: - 1 "1. S i m i l a r i t y o f crimes o r a c t s ; "2. Nearness i n t i m e ; and " 3 . Tendency t o e s t a b l i s h and p l a n o r system; - a common scheme "4. The p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e e v i d e n c e i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d by t h e p r e j u d i c e to the defendant." 6 0 2 P.2d a t 9 6 1 . t e s t h a s b e e n f o l l o w e d and a p p l i e d i n S t a t e T h i s four-element State v. St.Rep. . -- Mon t v . Wurtz ( 1 9 8 1 ) , (1981) , Brubaker 4 3 2 ; and S t a t e v. 1 0 6 6 , 37 S t . R e p . - , 636 P.2d Mont - - -- .- Case ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 246, 38 S t . R e p . . ---- 1 6 2 5 P.2d Mon t - . , When w e a p p l y t h e f o u r - p a r t 2057. 1808; 78, 38 6 2 1 P.2d t e s t to t h e f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t case w e f i n d t h e e v i d e n c e of t h e C r a i g b r e a k - i n was a d m i s s i b l e . F i r s t , the break-ins of a t a l l t h r e e b a r s were s i m i l a r . the the open three a door intruder break-ins or window. broke i n t r u d e r gained a t each of Also, i n t o and stole the entrance by p r y i n g bars the the jukebox and some t i m e change the A t each during the from three s t o l e some b e e r or o t h e r a l c o h o l . Second, three all break-ins occurred e a r l y m o r n i n g h o u r s o f November 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 . Ulm and Craig, Montana, is The d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n approximately thirty miles. The M o u n t a i n P a l a c e b a r is b e t w e e n U l m and C r a i g . C e r t a i n l y , t h e f a c - tors of timing and location indicate that the three break-ins were t h e work o f t h e same p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s . T h i r d , t h e p a t t e r n of t h e t h r e e b r e a k - i n s mon scheme, plan or s y s t e m . As stated d o e s t a b l i s h a com- above , t h e methods of break-in were similar, similar items were t a k e n and all three o c c u r r e d i n t h e same t i m e f r a m e w i t h i n t h i r t y m i l e s of break-ins each o t h e r . As all t h r e e b a r s a r e c o n n e c t e d by I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 , were e f f e c t u a t e d p u r s u a n t t h e f a c t s indicate the t h r e e break-ins t o a common s c h e m e , p l a n o r s y s t e m . Fourth, t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e e v i d e n c e is n o t s u b s t a n - t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d b y p r e j u d i c e to t h e d e f e n d a n t . The a d m i s s i o n p r o v i d e d c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e which e x p l a i n e d t h e f i n d i n g o f t h e Lucky L a g e r b e e r and t h e S e a g r a m ' s S e v e n w h i s k y b o t t l e w i t h t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e found a t o r n e a r P a c h e k ' s s t o l e n p i c k u p t r u c k . Here t h e e v i d e n c e was n o t a d m i t t e d m e r e l y to impugn d e f e n d a n t ' s character. The e v i d e n c e w a s a d m i t t e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e of showing a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c m e t h o d , p l a n o r scheme used i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n of the or f o r offense the purpose of identifying the person who c o m m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e and t h e j u r y w a s so i n f o r m e d . J I n - u s t , s u p r a , t h i s C o u r t h e l d a l t h o u g h o t h e r crime e v i d e n c e may be a d m i s s i b l e p e r t h e a b o v e c r i t e r i a , it w i l l n o t be a d m i t t e d unless the proper procedure is followed. That procedure is: "(a) E v i d e n c e o f o t h e r crimes may n o t be r e c e i v e d u n l e s s t h e r e h a s b e e n n o t i c e to t h e d e f e n d a n t t h a t s u c h e v i d e n c e is to be i n t r o duced. The p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 46-18-503, MCA, s h o u l d s e r v e as g u i d e l i n e s f o r the form and content of such notice. Additionally, t h e n o t i c e to t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a l l i n c l u d e a s t a t e m e n t as to t h e p u r p o s e s f o r w h i c h s u c h e v i d e n c e i s to be a d m i t t e d . " ( b ) A t t h e time o f t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of s u c h e v i d e n c e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l e x p l a i n to t h e j u r y t h e p u r p o s e o f s u c h e v i d e n c e and s h a l l admonish it to weigh t h e e v i d e n c e o n l y f o r such purposes. "(c) In its f i n a l charge, the court should i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y i n u n e q u i v o c a l terms t h a t s u c h e v i d e n c e was r e c e i v e d o n l y f o r t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e s e a r l i e r s t a t e d and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s n o t b e i n g t r i e d and may n o t be convicted f o r any o f f e n s e e x c e p t t h a t charged, w a r n i n g them t h a t t o c o n v i c t f o r o t h e r o f f e n s e s may r e s u l t i n u n j u s t d o u b l e p u n i s h m e n t . " 6 0 2 P.2d a t 9 6 3 . Again, we find p r e s e n t case. notice of the the proper procedure The f i r s t r e q u i r e m e n t intent to was followed in the is t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a v e introduce other crime evidence. Respondent reflected limine, did by give defendant notice defense counsel's introduction " [ylour honor, the State has of intent its given of notice is motion the as in that they i n t e n d t o i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r crimes c o m m i t t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same d a t e as t h e crimes w i t h which M r . Van N a t t a is charged. " The s e c o n d and t h i r d r e q u i r e m e n t s are t h a t t h e j u r y m u s t be properly instructed that the evidence only received is for a l i m i t e d p u r p o s e , w h a t t h a t p u r p o s e i s , and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s not being tried for the other offenses. Here t h e trial court i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y as f o l l o w s : " L a d i e s and g e n t l e m e n o f t h e j u r y , e v i d e n c e i s a b o u t t o be i n t r o d u c e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s h o w i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d crimes o t h e r You t h a n t h e o n e s f o r which he is on t r i a l . may n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s e v i d e n c e to p r o v e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t is a p e r s o n of bad c h a r a c t e r , o r t h a t he h a s a d i s p o s i t i o n t o c o m m i t crimes. You may o n l y c o n s i d e r t h i s e v i d e n c e f o r t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e s of p r o v i d i n g a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c m e t h o d , p l a n o r scheme used i n 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 i n t h i s case, o r t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e p e r s o n who c o m m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e . You may a l s o c o n s i d e r t h i s e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e e x i s t a n c e o f i n t e n t , which is a n e l e m e n t of t h e crime c h a r g e d . You may n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s e v i d e n c e f o r a n y o t h e r p u r p o s e t h a t would expose the defendant to unjust double punishment." This instruction s a t i s f i e s the requirements t h i s Court put f o r t h in - s t , supra. Ju Defendant defendant's argues motion the to District continue the Court trial erred date. by denying Defendant's m o t i o n f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e s t a t e s , " [ c l o m e s now t h e d e f e n d a n t and moves the above-entitled motion, the Court for an order continuing trial i n the matter f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t up to t h e d a t e of t h i s defendant has cooperate with h i s counsel. d a t e of the ... t h i s motion that refused to discuss the case or The d e f e n d a n t h a s i n d i c a t e d o n t h e he will cooperate with his counsel. T h e r e f o r e , c o u n s e l w i l l r e q u i r e t i m e t o p r e p a r e f o r t r i a l and t h e two d a y s b e t w e e n t h e d a t e of t h i s m o t i o n , and t h e d a t e s e t f o r t r i a l is i n s u f f i c i e n t t i m e f o r s u c h p r e p a r a t i o n . " dated February 20, 1981. The m o t i o n is D e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d o n November 20, tinuance defendant Before 1980. Up u n t i l refused the to d a t e of cooperate the motion with for defense a m o t i o n f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e is g r a n t e d , con- counsel. t h e movant m u s t show t h a t h e h a s employed d u e d i l i g e n c e to p r o c u r e t h a t which he now requests (1981)1 time additional Mont . , to 6 3 4 P.2d procure. State 6 3 2 , 38 S t . R e p . v. Klemann Here t h e 1627. r e c o r d shows d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t employ d u e d i l i g e n c e t o c o o p e r a t e t h e m o t i o n and t h u s t h e t r i a l c o u r t with defense counsel before was correct in denying t i n u a n c e are a d d r e s s e d defendant's motion. t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of Motions for con- t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e g r a n t i n g o f a c o n t i n u a n c e h a s n e v e r b e e n a matter of right. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c a n n o t be o v e r t u r n e d o n a p p e a l i n a b s e n s e of a showing of - -- .. p r e j u d i c e t o t h e movant. Mont . - .- - -- -- , 602 Kirkland S t a t e v. P.2d 586, (1979), St.Rep. 1963. 36 On a p p e a l d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h e c o n t i n u a n c e s h o u l d h a v e b e e n g r a n t e d b e c a u s e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was amended on F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 1 9 8 1 , and t h e t r i a l d a t e was F e b r u a r y 23, 1981. W e note defendant did A simi- n o t make t h i s o b j e c t i o n i n h i s m o t i o n f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e . l a r s i t u a t i o n arose i n S t a t e v. 6 1 4 P.2d 1 0 6 1 , 37 S t . R e p . Olson (1980 ), . f a c t s and b e c a u s e t h e i n v o l v e d were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , t h e r e was no prejudice to the defendant when the information was amended. Here t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n w a s b a s e d o n t h e same s e t of and there was no prejudice to the defendant, facts Judgment affirmed. W e concur: '" I 1313, where t h i s Court r u l e d s i n c e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s were b a s e d on t h e same s e t of charges Mont J u s t i c e Shea d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s d e c i s i o n . is
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.
