STATE v HALL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Yo. 82-232 I N THE SUPREME COURT O TEE STATE O F MONTANA F 1983 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vsK E V I N D. HALL, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . A s p e a l 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 a n d 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 h n M. McCarvel, J u d g e ? r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Thomas E . B o l a n 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 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: MAY 5 - 1983 Clerk -- March 1 7 , 1 9 8 3 MaY 5 1 1 9 8 3 Mr. Justice Court. John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e O p i n i o n of the K e v i n H a l l was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e crime o f f e l o n y t h e f t i n t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l filed on District, January County 1982, 11, of Cascade. alleged that An information, k n o w i n g l y o b t a i n e d c o n t r o l o v e r a 1 9 6 4 C h e v r o l e t 3/4 truck, knowing that the t r u c k had p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly used, or purposely Hall ton pickup b e e n s t o l e n by a n o t h e r , and c o n c e a l e d o r abandoned t h e p r o p e r t y i n s u c h a manner as to d e p r i v e t h e o w n e r . These a l l e g a t i o n s , supported, the would establish commission of p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 45-6-301 ( 3 ) ( b ) , MCA. of guilty. recognizance tencing, The pending was defendant imposition of The j u r y r e t u r n e d a released sentence. on his Prior d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . t h e m o t i o n was h e l d May 7, 1 9 8 2 . the£ t of The d e f e n d a n t p l e d n o t g u i l t y and t h e case was p r e s e n t e d to a j u r y . verdict offense if to own sen- Hearing on The c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion. T h e r e a f t e r , o n May 1 0 , 1 9 8 2 , d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d to t e n y e a r s as imprisonment a persistent felony i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r t h e crime o f t h e £ t . suspended. At to seek review in this and The f i v e - y e a r the sentencing hearing, intentions offender five s e n t e n c e was d e f e n d a n t made known h i s Court, and in connection t h e r e w i t h made a n o r a l m o t i o n t o s t a y t h e e x e c u t i o n of pending appeal. years sentence The w r i t t e n m o t i o n and t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l were f i l e d o n t h a t same d a y . The c o u r t d e n i e d t h e s t a y of e x e c u t i o n , a n d d e f e n d a n t was s e n t to t h e s t a t e p r i s o n a t Deer L o d g e . On A u g u s t 31, 1982, the C o u r t t o s t a y t h e a p p e a l and Court. defendant motion w a s based discovered evidence. On S e p t e m b e r 3 , Court for motion a and upon the 1982, claim o f in this of whether t h e new e v i d e n c e . a newly- t h i s Court granted t h e c a s e was a g a i n b e f o r e determination g r a n t e d because of a motion t o remand t h e case to t h e D i s t r i c t Defendant's defendant's filed new the D i s t r i c t trial should be On November 1 5 , 1 9 8 2 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e a r d a r g u m e n t s and o n November 30 e n t e r e d f i n d - i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . In effect, the court ruled t h a t t h e r e was no new e v i d e n c e on w h i c h t o award a new t r i a l . The defendant has raised three issues f o r o u r review; (1) w h e t h e r t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t of ( 2 ) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by n o t g r a n t i n g a new guilty, t r i a l , and ( 3 ) w h e t h e r t h e r e was a d e n i a l o f e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of W h a v e c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w e d t h e r e c o r d and e counsel a t trial. f i n d no merit i n a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n s , t h e r e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t Court I s j u d g m e n t and s e n t e n c e is a f f i r m e d . On or a b o u t November 1 3 , 1 9 8 0 , a b l a c k - c o l o r e d 3/4 t o n p i c k u p was r e p o r t e d s t o l e n f r o m Lucky M o t o r s The p i c k u p was n o t Falls. 1964 C h e v r o l e t i n Great s e e n a g a i n u n t i l more t h a n a y e a r l a t e r when Wayne Thody s p o t t e d it i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t of a Great Falls restaurant. ferring Thody had t o Lucky Motors. it t e l e p h o n e d P l a n t who the truck prior to trans- Thody knew t h a t Chuck P l a n t , Lucky Motors , had owner o f owned reported the i n turn telephoned truck stolen. the Thody the police department. Thody had t h e f o r e s i g h t t o r e l a y t h e l i c e n s e p l a t e n u m b e r , which was 2T-41247. The p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t e d . to The l i c e n s e p l a t e number b e l o n g e d a t r u c k owned 1 9 6 3 g r e e n GMC defendant's stepfather. pickup registration, registered Fladstol, the A p o l i c e o f f i c e r c o n t a c t e d Mrs. F l a d s t o l Mrs. F l a d s t o l showed t h e o f f i c e r a concerning the license p l a t e . vehicle by M r . con£ i r m i n g that f o r a 1 9 6 3 GMC p i c k u p . the number was 2T-41247 Mrs. F l a d s t o l a l s o i n f o r m e d t h e o f f i c e r t h a t t h e GMC t r u c k had r e c e n t l y b e e n i n v o l v e d i n a n accident officer plate the defendant, was the d r i v e r . i n which h e r s o n , who number investigated of the GMC the was l i c e n s e p l a t e on t h e v e h i c l e . accident 2T-41247; noted that taken from the the The license front The o f f i c e r d i d n o t n o t i c e w h e t h e r t h e v e h i c l e had a rear l i c e n s e p l a t e . A t t h i s point, t h e p o l i c e were c o n f u s e d . They had r e c e i v e d a r e p o r t t h a t a s t o l e n 1 9 6 4 C h e v r o l e t p i c k u p was s e e n b e a r i n g the same l i c e n s e p l a t e number as a 1 9 6 3 GMC p i c k u p which had r e c e n t l y been involved i n an a c c i d e n t . incorrectly However, relayed the The p o l i c e t h o u g h t t h a t Thody had number on the s t o l e n 1964 Chevrolet. s o o n l e a r n t h a t no m i s t a k e was made. t h e p o l i c e would Dave R i c h a r d s o n c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e and i n f o r m e d them t h a t h e t h o u g h t h i s r e c e n t l y a c q u i r e d 1964 b l a c k C h e v r o l e t p i c k u p t r u c k was a stolen acquired the vehicle. About 1964 C h e v r o l e t , d e f e n d a n t , Kevin H a l l . two earlier, weeks without title Richardson or k e y s , With t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , from the t h e p o l i c e con- t a c t e d Chuck P l a n t who p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e t r u c k as t h e o n e t h a t was s t o l e n f r o m h i s u s e d car l o t . The p o l i c e t h e n impounded the vehicle. When license the police plates. first However, Richardson r e t r i e v e d number 211-41247, Mr. Fladstol. viewed when the questioned truck about had it no matter, the from t h e garbage a l i c e n s e p l a t e w i t h the w h i c h s h o u l d h a v e b e e n on t h e 1 9 6 3 GMC owned b y R i c h a r d s o n had removed t h e p l a t e a t t h e u r g i n g o f the defendant. the the a t t r i a l t h a t when he g o t Richardson t e s t i f i e d truck stolen from defendant the plate a p p a r e n t l y an arrangement whereby t h e was on the vehicle; t r u c k c o u l d be d r i v e n o n t h e streets. According t o t h e s t a t e ' s v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s , t h e d e f e n d a n t b e g a n t o w o r r y when h e l e a r n e d t h a t t h e p o l i c e had c o n t a c t e d h i s mother concerning the license plate. The d e f e n d a n t t h e n con- t a c t e d R i c h a r d s o n and t o l d him t h a t he s h o u l d remove t h e l i c e n s e p l a t e and t h r o w it away, and t h a t h e s h o u l d d i s g u i s e t h e t r u c k by p a i n t i n g i t w i t h g r a y p r i m e r p a i n t b e c a u s e t h e t r u c k was s t o l e n . I t w a s a f t e r l e a r n i n g t h e s e t h i n g s t h a t Richardson contacted the police. The d e f e n d a n t a d m i t s t h a t he t r a n s f e r r e d a p i c k u p t r u c k to Richardson in exchange balancer. However, for an air compressor t h e d e f e n d a n t claims t h a t Chevrolet was not the pickup involved. He and the a wheel s t o l e n 1964 claims t h a t he g a v e R i c h a r d s o n a n o t h e r p i c k u p , a 1962 C h e v r o l e t h a l f - t o n . Concerning t h e l i c e n s e p l a t e , d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t Richardson must have removed t h e p l a t e from t h e 1 9 6 3 GMC when i t had b e e n towed t o a wrecking yard a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t . H e f u r t h e r a d m i t s t h a t h e con- t a c t e d R i c h a r d s o n , n o t t o t e l l him t h e t r u c k was s t o l e n , b u t to q u e s t i o n him a b o u t t h e l i c e n s e p l a t e t h a t h e s u s p e c t e d R i c h a r d s o n had t a k e n . The j u r y d i d n o t b e l i e v e d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e f a c t s and r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y . Defendant argues t h a t t h e v e r d i c t is n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . W disagree. e I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e e x i s t s to s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , w e w i l l v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to the prevailing party. The e v i d e n c e may be i n h e r e n t l y weak and i t may c o n f l i c t w i t h o t h e r e v i d e n c e y e t s t i l l be deemed s u b s t a n - G u n n e l s v. Hoyt ( 1 9 8 1 ) , tial. St.Rep. . , 6 3 3 P.2d 1 1 8 7 , 38 1492. Appellant from t h e argues that testimony of possession of the investigation. between Mont the Dave stolen Richardson, truck Apparently, t h e d e f i n i t i o n of questionable actions only evidence the when the the appellant a g a i n s t him comes p e r s o n who w a s in police began sees relationship a their s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e and R i c h a r d s o n ' s i n t h i s case. Richardson admitted during d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t he a c c e p t e d t h e 1964 C h e v r o l e t w i t h o u t a t i t l e and w i t h o u t k e y s . Also, upon l e a r n i n g t h a t t h e v e h i c l e d i d n o t have a V I N ( v e h i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number) p l a t e , R i c h a r d s o n admitted t h a t he i n s t a l l e d a f a k e number p l a t e and o b t a i n e d a f a k e t i t l e to match. Nonetheless, Richardson maintained t h a t he d i d n o t know t h e t r u c k was s t o l e n u n t i l a f t e r t h e d e f e n d a n t t o l d him so. Regardless of Richardson's actions, c o n c l u s i o n s drawn a b o u t h i s v e r a c i t y are q u e s t i o n s f o r t h e j u r y . -- the -- Mont. a t record - , 6 3 3 P.2d contains A s we s a i d a t 1 1 9 1 , 38 S t . R e p . con£ l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e , i n -- u -n e l s , G n- a t 1495, where " t h e c r e d i b i l i t y and w e i g h t g i v e n t o s u c h c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e is t h e p r o v i n c e of t h e j u r y and n o t t h i s C o u r t While Richardson 's ." t e s t i m o n y was important to the state's case , it c a n n o t be s a i d t h a t it was t h e o n l y e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t Michael Barsotti defendant. testified t h a t the defendant t o l d h i m t h a t t h e p i c k u p was s t o l e n and t h a t h e ( B a r s o t t i ) s h o u l d t e l l to Richardson some get Barsotti also t e s t i f i e d paint to cover the original color. t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s a i d h e had l e n t t h e l i c e n s e p l a t e t o R i c h a r d s o n so t h e t r u c k c o u l d be d r i v e n on t h e streets. find We substantial to evidence support the verdict of guilty. we Next, defendant's first consider motion motion, for not the whether court trial. a new the This motion made issue while in denying concerns arguing the for newly- . F i r s t, is t w o - f o l d A p p e l l a n t ' s argument discovered evidence. erred a p p e l l a n t claims t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t r e c o g n i z e i t s i n h e r e n t discretion, and as a result, to failed exercise discretion. S e c o n d , a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d by n o t s p e c i f y i n g its reasons f o r denying t h e motion. T h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s w i l l be d e a l t with in turn. W e f i n d it d i f f i c u l t t o i m a g i n e how t h e c o u r t c o u l d d e n y t h e motion without exercising discretion. Appellant cites the f o l l o w i n g comment by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t j u d g e : " W e l l , I h a v e some p e r s o n a l d o u b t s i n my own mind a b o u t t h i s case. I t is n o t up to m e to d e c i d e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s , t h a t i s f o r t h e j u r y to d e c i d e . The t e s t i m o n y o f o n e w i t n e s s who is e n t i t l e d t o f u l l c r e d i t is s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e p r o o f o f a n y f a c t . And, o f c o u r s e , twelve people i n t h e j u r y decided t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , so I c a n ' t see how I c a n t u r n a r o u n d now and t r y t o s a y t h e i r j u d g m e n t o f c r e d i b i l i t y was wrong. So, theref o r e , I ' m g o i n g t o d e n y t h e M o t i o n f o r new trial." We do n o t see the d i s c r e t i o n a r y power, rather aware o f t h e l i m i t s o f Scofield above as it a judicial shows its d i s c r e t i o n . ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 0 Mont. that denial the court A s we s a i d 1 7 7 , 1 8 0 , 5 8 9 P.2d of i t s own was w e l l i n L y n d e s v. 1000, 1002, " ' t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n is e x h a u s t e d when it f i n d s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence to support t h e v e r d i c t . ' ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) N e i t h e r may a D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t a new t r i a l o n l y o n t h e b a s i s t h a t i t c h o s e to b e l i e v e one l i n e of jury believed." t e s t i m o n y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t which The j u d g e ' s the comments o n l y r e f l e c t a n a w a r e n e s s o f t h e above p r i n c i p l e s . we Next, failed consider appellant's to s p e c i f y reasons contention f o r d e n i a l of Mont . -- , - the the motion. court Appellant W e are c i t e d to S t a t e v. assumes t h a t such r e a s o n s a r e r e q u i r e d . W i l l i a m s (1981), - that 6 3 2 P.2d 3 2 8 , 38 S t . R e p . 1253, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t when a t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e s a m o t i o n f o r new trial, state must it misreads the case. its regarding for W noted e taking whatever action ." [ m o t i o n s f o r new t r i a l ] the grounds apprise the and underlying the ruling, with However, w e h e l d t h a t t h e requires the sufficient particularity a p p e l l a t e C o u r t of the as to rationale and t h i s may be d o n e i n t h e b o d y o f o r d e r , or i n an a t t a c h e d o p i n i o n . " m u s t be appropriate t h e c o u r t g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l , s h a l l spe- therefor parties deems R u l e 59 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P. new t r i a l i n c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s . cify it are a p p l i c a b l e to m o t i o n s f o r m a n d a t e s o f R u l e 5 9 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P. t h a t "[aJny order of t h a t s e c t i o n 46-16-702, t h a t the District Court expressly state "does not r e q u i r e reasons Appellant I n g r a n t i n g t h e new t r i a l , t h e c o u r t d i d not specify its reasons. its therefore. we reviewed an o r d e r g r a n t i n g I n --- l- , Wil iams - t h e d e f e n d a n t a new t r i a l . MCA, reasons the W -- a m s- h o l d s t h a t r e a s o n s -i l l i s t a t e d when g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l , it d o e s n o t h o l d as s u c h when a c o u r t d e n i e s a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l . Even if appellant's reading of W i l l i a m s were - a r g u m e n t would n o t p e r s u a d e t h i s C o u r t . s t a t e h i s r e a s o n s f o r d e n i a l of the judge's correct, his The d i s t r i c t j u d g e d i d the motion. I t is e v i d e n t from comments c i t e d a b o v e t h a t h e d e f e r r e d to t h e j u r y as t h e f i n d e r of fact; in effect, ruling t h a t substantial evidence existed t o support the verdict. Next, we address a p p e l l a n t ' s e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of alleges instance numerous in and t h a t h e was counsel a t the t r i a l i n s t a n c e s of of assertion itself error, would level. conceding warrant that reversal. denied Appellant no single However, a p p e l l a n t a s k s t h i s Court t o c o n s i d e r t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t of t h e many " e r r o r s and o m i s s i o n s . " t h a t t h e claim o f W e have recognized ineffective assistance o f c o u n s e l may be p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t o f r e p r e I n S t a t e v. McElveen ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 8 Mont. 5 0 0 , 5 0 9 , 5 4 4 sentation. " ' [ a l d e q u a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n a cri- 820, 824, we s t a t e d : P.2d m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g is t h e c u m u l a t i v e a c t o f a f f o r d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t an adequate defense ." F.Supp. I n s u p p o r t of h i s a r g u m e n t , a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e s 579, 5 8 6 ) . ( c i t i n g Smotherman v . more t h a n t h i r t y i n s t a n c e s o f e r r o r . the record and conclude that 642, a p p e l l a n t was effectively repre- t h e s t a n d a r d a d o p t e d b y t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v. .-- .- Mon t .- (1980 W e have c a r e f u l l y reviewed I n r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d , we h a v e b e e n s e n t e d by t r i a l c o u n s e l . mindful of ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 276 Beto 649-50; . - - " ' [plersons . . , 6 0 8 P.2d accused of Rose 1 0 7 4 , 1 0 8 1 , 37 S t . R e p . crime a r e e n t i t l e d to the c o u n s e l a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e r a n g e o f com- e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of p e t e n c e demanded o f a t t o r n e y s i n c r i m i n a l cases. " A p p e l l a n t ' s claim is g r o u n d l e s s . W e a r e d i s t u r b e d and i r r i - t a t e d b y w h a t is a n u n f o u n d e d a t t a c k on t h e c o m p e t e n c e of counsel. trial I t is o b v i o u s t h a t a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l s c o u r e d t h e r e c o r d i n a n e f f o r t t o make h i s c u m u l a t i v e t o t a l as h i g h as p o s s i b l e ; a p p a r e n t l y n o t c a r i n g w h e t h e r h i s a r g u m e n t s had s e v e r a l instances the record o u t of all, context. and if Many o f there are substance. S e n t e n c e s are t a k e n is m i s s t a t e d . t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r s are n o t instances of In error, they errors a t are trivial. A p p e l l a n t s e e m s t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e b a s i s of a l l e r r o r was inadequate preparation. c i t e d to a p o r t i o n of i l l u s t r a t i v e of As this point, we are t h e t r a n s c r i p t w h e r e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l sup- p o s e d l y t e l l s t h e j u r y i n c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t t h a t " h e d i d n o t meet w i t h D e f e n d a n t ' s w i t n e s s e s and p r e p a r e them f o r t h i s t r i a l In other words, appellant would have us believe . . ." t h a t defense c o u n s e l f a i l e d to i n t e r v i e w h i s own w i t n e s s e s p r i o r to t r i a l , and e v e n a d m i t t e d it t o t h e j u r y . T h i s is n o t s o . Defense counsel was a t t e m p t i n g to e x p l a i n i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h e t e s t i m o n y of h i s witnesses. He straighten their honest, stated, "I d i d n ' t a s k them t o g e t t o g e t h e r and s t o r i e s o u t because wanted I them t o a l s o be and t h e y came and t o l d you w h a t t h e y remembered i s c l e a r l y n o t a n a d m i s s i o n of ." This f a i l u r e to i n t e r v i e w w i t n e s s e s . T h i s is c l e a r l y a n e f f o r t t o m i s l e a d t h i s C o u r t . alleged error, appellant claims t h a t I n a n o t h e r i n s t a n c e of trial counsel, if i n c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t , s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t know t h e g r e e n GMC had l i c e n s e p l a t e a t t h e t i m e of a rear the a c c i d e n t ; t h i s s t a t e m e n t being c o n t r a r y to d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e r e was a r e a r l i c e n s e p l a t e on t h e v e h i c l e . suggests that statements. defense A reading counsel of cast doubt Appellant o n h i s own c l i e n t ' s the t r a n s c r i p t indicates t h a t defense c o u n s e l made t h e s e r e m a r k s i n r e f e r e n c e to t h e t e s t i m o n y of accident investigation o f f i c-- , er d i d n o t know . o t h e r words, officer, if who testified t h e r e was a r e a r that license d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was m e r e l y r e l a t i n g he -, plate. the the - In the off icer's A g a i n , t h i s is a n e f f o r t to m i s l e a d t h i s C o u r t . testimony. I n another instance, appellant refers to a p o r t i o n of the t r a n s c r i p t where t h e " T r i a l C o u r t r e p r i m a n d s t h e p r o s e c u t o r f o r continually asking hearsay questions from the Defense Counsel) and the (i n s p i t e of Court then no o b j e c t i o n lectures the P r o s e c u t o r on t h e d e f i n i t i o n of h e a r s a y and t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e hearsay rule." rather, W e see no h i n t of a reprimand w e see a n e x p l a n a t i o n t o t h e j u r y of from t h e c o u r t ; the hearsay r u l e . F u r t h e r m o r e , w e n o t e t h a t it was d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s h e a r s a y o b j e c t i o n t h a t prompted t h e c o u r t ' s comments. A p p e l l a n t ' s r e a d i n g of t h e t r a n s c r i p t is s t r a i n e d . S e v e r a l o t h e r a l l e g e d errors was striving t o make the "error i n d i c a t e to u s t h a t a p p e l l a n t count" as high as possible. A p p e l l a n t c o m p l a i n s o f t h r e e q u e s t i o n s a s k e d by t h e p r o s e c u t o r of a police detective. Each of t h e t h r e e q u e s t i o n s c o u l d h a v e b e e n o b j e c t e d to a s h e a r s a y , y e t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l made no o b j e c t i o n s . The q u e s t i o n s f o c u s e d on s t a t e m e n t s made by Dave R i c h a r d s o n concerning the fake VIN plate. Appellant contends t h a t defense c o u n s e l s h o u l d n o t have l e t t h i s t e s t i m o n y i n . Yet, in another s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a l l e g e d e r r o r , a p p e l l a n t c r i t i c i z e s t r i a l coun- sel for a perceived failure to cross-examine Richardson con- c e r n i n g h i s q u e s t i o n a b l e a c t i o n s i n o b t a i n i n g t h e f a k e VIN p l a t e . A p p e l l a n t sees e r r o r b o t h ways, f i r s t f o r l e t t i n g the testimony i n , and t h e n f o r n o t g e t t i n g i t i n . Many o t h e r question of tactics. e r r o r a t a l l or d e a l with claims are not instances counsel Appellant that s h o u l d h a v e o b j e c t e d t o t h e a d m i s s i o n of the stolen truck, objection. yet he Appellant offers fails no defense a s e v e r a l p h o t o g r a p h s of possible to r e c o g n i z e grounds that the for the photographs were u s e f u l ; h i s w i t n e s s e s viewed t h e p h o t o g r a p h s and t e s t i f i e d t h a t they did not represent the pickup t h a t defendant transferred to Richardson. Also, in connect ion with the photographs; a p p e l l a n t claims t h a t a n e x c e l l e n t o p p o r t u n i t y was m i s s e d to v o i r d i r e Chuck P l a n t c o n c e r n i n g t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e v e h i c l e s i n c e it h a d b e e n m i s s i n g f o r o v e r a y e a r and s i n c e it was o n l y o n P l a n t ' s l o t f o r a c o u p l e of weeks. W e d o n o t see a m i s s e d o p p o r t u n i t y ; w e see w i s e r e s t r a i n t on t h e p a r t o f d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . rather, P l a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r e c o g n i z e d h i s t r u c k i n t h e p h o t o g r a p h s because of two distinctive features, damage o n t h e d o o r . A c h a l l e n g e of homemade mud£ l a p s and b o d y P l a n t on t h e s e p o i n t s c o u l d have been d e t r i m e n t a l to d e f e n d a n t , n o t b e n e f i c i a l Appellant lists several individuals c a l l e d as w i t n e s s e s by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . v i d u a l s had a d d i t i o n a l and material who . should have been Supposedly, these indi- in£o r m a t i o n . I t was p a r t l y o n t h e b a s i s o f a f f i d a v i t s from t h e s e p e o p l e t h a t a p p e l l a n t moved f o r a new t r i a l o n t h e g r o u n d s of n e w l y - d i s c o v e r e d denying these a new trial, affidavits as the court either considered cumulative, not the evidence. In information in probative or not material. S e v e r a l o t h e r a l l e g e d errors are d i s c u s s e d by a p p e l l a n t , n o n e of which d e s e r v e d i s c u s s i o n . These c o u n s e l f o r r e s e r v i n g h i s opening iqclude: e r r o r of d e f e n s e statement until t h e close o f the state's during case opening to o b j e c t failure statement that to p r o s e c u t o r i a l defendant was comments guilty; several m i s s e d o b j e c t i o n s to l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s and q u e s t i o n s c a l l i n g f o r hearsay; as a e r r o r o f d e f e n s e c o u n s e l f o r r e f e r r i n g to t h e 1 9 6 3 GMC 1964 model; failure of i n s t r u c t i o n on d e f e n d a n t ' s defense counsel to o f f e r a jury t h e case ," y e t a p p e l l a n t " t h e o r y of d o e s n o t s u g g e s t what m i g h t have been o f f e r e d ; f a i l u r e of d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t o o b j e c t to p r o s e c u t o r i a l s t a t e m e n t s on c l o s i n g argument v o u c h i n g f o r t h e t r u t h f u l n e s s of Dave R i c h a r d s o n ; and f a i l u r e of d e f e n s e c o u n s e l to e x p l a i n t h e c o n c e p t of r e a s o n a b l e doubt to t h e jury. Where ineffective d e f e n d a n t must assistance show error o f of counsel counsel is stemming claimed, from n e g l e c t i g n o r a n c e and r e s u l t i n g i n p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . Mon t Morigeau ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - . , -. 6 5 6 P.2d W e see no e r r o r , s i n g l y or c u m u l a t i v e l y , the or S t a t e v. 1 8 5 , 39 S t . R e p . 2311. which p r e j u d i c e d d e f e n - dant. The serious assertion charge. possession. of An ineffective attorney's Appellate assistance counsel is a is h i s most p r i z e d reputation counsel might of have conducted the trial d i f f e r e n t l y , however, ... " t h e f a c t t h a t some o t h e r l a w y e r would is no ground f o r h a v e done d i f f e r e n t l y branding the appointed attorney with the opprobrium of i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s , or in£ i d e l i t y , or incompetency A s no t w o men c a n be e x a c t l y a l i k e i n t h e p r a c t i c e of t h e prof e s s i o n , it is b a s i c a l l y u n r e a s o n a b l e t o j u d g e a n a t t o r n e y by w h a t a n o t h e r would h a v e d o n e , o r s a y s h e would h a v e d o n e , i n t h e , b e t t e r l i g h t of hindsight." S t a t e v. Lopez ( 1 9 8 O ) , Mont 6 0 5 P.2d 1 7 8 , 180-81, I -37- S t . ~ e p . 3%, -38-9-. ( C i t i n g W i l l i a m s v. B e t o ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 5 ) , 3 5 4 F.2d 6 9 8 , 7 0 6 . ) .. . . . . . Our f o l l o w i n g comments a r e n o t and substantiated sel. a s s e r t i o n s of intended t o discourage valid i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of coun- The r i g h t to e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l is g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h i s S t a t e ' s C o n s t i t u t i o n . S t a t e v. Rose, s u p r a . if he fails An a t t o r n e y would be remiss i n h i s d u t i e s t o a c t when h e reasonably believes h i s c l i e n t is denied this However, to manufacture a n attempted frivolous, record. right. is b a s e d it in t h i s case, issue. His a p p e l l a t e counsel argument is n o t only i n p a r t o n b l a t a n t m i s s t a t e m e n t s of Such a c t i o n s w i l l n o t be t o l e r a t e d . the C o u n s e l is r e m i n d e d o f D i s c i p l i n a r y R u l e s 7 - 1 0 2 ( A ) ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) w h i c h s t a t e : " I n h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of s h a l l not: a c l i e n t , a lawyer " ( 2 ) k n o w i n g l y a d v a n c e a claim o r d e f e n s e t h a t is unwarranted under e x i s t i n g l a w ; " ( 5 ) k n o w i n g l y make a f a l s e s t a t e m e n t of l a w or f a c t . Canons o f P r o f e s s i o n a l E t h i c s , 1 6 0 Mont. x x i i i , x l i v . " we Finally, consider a matter raised in appellant's reply A p p e l l a n t r e a s s e r t s h i s i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l brief. argument i n view of an e x h i b i t contained i n respondent's A p p e l l a n t claims t h a t e x h i b i t 3 o f respondent's p o s i t i v e t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t , Kevin H a l l , t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of brief brief. is " p r o o f did not receive ef fec- c o u n s e l a t h i s t r i a l and h i s c o n v i c t i o n -- u s t m be reversed. " E x h i b i t 3 is a n a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , s t a t i n g t h a t "Kevin D. H a l l a d v i s e d af f i a n t t h a t H a l l r e c e i v e d t h e t r u c k f r o m o n e P e t e P e t e r s o n .I1 traveled F u r t h e r m o r e , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l s t a t e s he t o t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n t o i n t e r v i e w P e t e r s o n who w a s s e r v i n g time f o r forgery. Apparently, Peterson told defense c o u n s e l t h a t h e knew n o t h i n g o f t h e b l a c k 1 9 6 4 C h e v r o l e t . Respondent included this exhibit to counter arguments by a p p e l l a n t t h a t P e t e r s o n s h o u l d h a v e b e e n c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s ; and since was he assistance of not called, counsel. it helped Appellant urges illustrate that ineffective defense counsel v i o l a t e d t h e Canons o f P r o f e s s i o n a l E t h i c s by f a i l i n g t o p r e s e r v e t h e c o n f i d e n c e s and s e c r e t s o f a c l i e n t . We refuse t h e e x h i b i t and t h e a s s e r t i o n s of a p p e l l a n t . v a n t to t h e record. i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l , to c o n s i d e r They are n o t r e l e - n o r are t h e y p a r t of the W w i l l n o t t o l e r a t e a t t e m p t s to i n t r o d u c e e x t r a n e o u s e i n f o r m a t i o n by a t t a c h i n g Bank o f Conrad v . A£f irmed W e concur: . appendices to b r i e f s . Farmers I v e r s o n and Bouma ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 2 Mont. State 1 3 0 , 509 .

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.