STATE v MCCLURE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. I N THE 81-535 SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. HAROLD MCCLURE, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: Counsel of D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourth Judicial D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Missoula Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Record: For Appellant: Patterson, Montana Marsillo, Tornabene & Schuyler, Missoula, For Respondent : 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 L . D e s c h a m p s 111, C o u n t y 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: FEB 2 4 1983 Clerk January 20, 1983 February 2 4 , 1983 J u s t i c e John Court. Mr. Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e O p i n i o n of the D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s a c o n v i c t i o n of b u r g l a r y e n t e r e d o n O c t o b e r 3 , 1 9 8 0 , i n t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of Missoula. The n a t u r e of t h i s appeal concerns the defense of entrapment. The d e f e n d a n t is a s k i n g u s t o f i n d t h a t e n t r a p m e n t e x i s t e d as a matter o f law. T h i s we cannot do. was l u r e d o r i n d u c e d Whether o r not d e f e n d a n t i n t o committing t h e o f f e n s e was a f a c t u a l question f o r the jury, e v i d e n c e being p r e s e n t e d on e i t h e r s i d e . In we such a situation not will overturn a jury verdict. C o n s e q u e n t l y , we m u s t a £ £ i r m t h e c o n v i c t i o n . On March 27, 1980, the defendant and his friend, Brown, m e t w i t h T e r r y P a d e r n o s i n a M i s s o u l a b a r . been casually acquainted was McClure with asked if he and wanted P a d e r n o s had Brown. to buy Merritt A t an this electric meeting, Padernos guitar. P a d e r n o s t e s t i f i e d t h a t v a r i o u s o t h e r items were a l s o offered for sale, including a motorcycle. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he l e a r n e d t h a t t h e g u i t a r and o t h e r items had come from a t r a i l e r i n Frenchtown. P a d e r n o s p u r c h a s e d t h e g u i t a r and b e c a u s e he w a s s u s p i c i o u s , c o n t a c t e d M i s s o u l a County d e t e c t i v e Chuck McCall and i n f o r m e d him t h a t h e t h o u g h t a b u r g l a r y had o c c u r r e d . The d e f e n - d a n t d i s p u t e s t h i s v e r s i o n of The d e f e n - t h e March 27 m e e t i n g . d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t Brown d i d s e l l a g u i t a r t o P a d e r n o s b u t t h e r e w a s no c o n v e r s a t i o n a b o u t o t h e r items f o r s a l e n o r c o n v e r s a t i o n s a b o u t a t r a i l e r i n Frenchtown. Padernos also t e s t i f i e d McClure and Brown. t h a t on March 28 h e a g a i n met w i t h This t i m e , two r i f l e s were o f f e r e d f o r s a l e . I t was suggested t h a t Brown would b r i n g t h e r i f l e s f o r i n s p e c - tion. P r i o r to s e e i n g t h e r i f l e s McCall and action from a d i s t a n c e . , Padernos contacted d e t e c t i v e i t was a r r a n g e d t h a t M c C a l l would w i t n e s s t h e Brown p r o d u c e d the rifles. trans- Padernos t o o k t h e r i f l e s and had them i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n f o r a b o u t a n h o u r . D u r i n g t h i s time, P a d e r n o s showed t h e r i f l e s to McCall who marked P a d e r n o s r e t u r n e d t h e r i f l e s t o Brown. them. No purchase was C o n c e r n i n g t h i s t r a n s a c t i o n , McClure t e s t i £ i e d t h a t h e was made. b u t w a s o u t of not present, town. Later during the same d a y , March 2 8 , P a d e r n o s t e s t i f i e d t h a t McClure and Brown a g a i n o f f e r e d to s e l l him a m o t o r c y c l e . further He testified that the two the motorcycle was d i s c u s s e d g o i n g b a c k t o F r e n c h t o w n t o see i f still there. The n e x t c o n t a c t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f P a d e r n o s was o n t h e a f t e r n o o n o f A p r i l 1. t h a t t i m e P a d e r n o s and McClure At had a telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n . McClure a s k e d P a d e r n o s i f he was still interested i n purchasing the motorcycle. was, if the price and s i z e were r i g h t . i n s t r u c t e d Padernos t o i n d i c a t e P a d e r n o s s a i d he D e t e c t i v e McCal1 had a n o f f e r was made. interest if McClure s t a t e d t h a t h e would g e t i n c o n t a c t w i t h Brown and t h e y would go t o F r e n c h t o w n t o see i f and to see w h a t size i t was. McClure w e n t t o see P a d e r n o s purchase price; t h e m o t o r c y c l e was s t i l l t h e r e Padernos The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d Within a short i n person. offered $600, t i m e Brown and The p a r t i e s d i s c u s s e d if the s i z e was right. t h a t a t t h i s m e e t i n g P a d e r n o s t o l d them w h e r e t o g e t t h e m o t o r c y c l e and how t o s t e a l i t . Meanwhile, detectives had learned of F r e n c h t o w n t h a t had r e c e n t l y b e e n b u r g l a r i z e d . a trailerhouse in Many o f t h e items t a k e n f r o m t h i s t r a i l e r were l a t e r r e c o v e r e d from B r o w n ' s h o u s e . The d e t e c t i v e s had n o t e d the attached garage. i t was b e l i e v e d motorcycle. A t h a t a m o t o r c y c l e was s t i l l p a r k e d T h r o u g h i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from P a d e r n o s , t h a t McClure and Brown would come to s t e a l t h e s t a k e o u t w a s s e t up on t h e e v e n i n g o f O f f i c e r s witnessed April 1. t h e crime and f o l l o w e d t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s accomplice back t o Missoula. The two c o n t a c t e d P a d e r n o s and a p l a n was s e t t o c o n c l u d e t h e s a l e . were a r r e s t e d in T h e r e a f t e r , Brown and McClure . The e n t r a p m e n t d e f e n s e is p r o v i d e d f o r i n s e c t i o n 45-2-213, MCAt "A p e r s o n i s n o t g u i l t y o f a n o f f e n s e i f h i s c o n d u c t is i n c i t e d or i n d u c e d by a p u b l i c ser- v a n t o r h i s a g e n t f o r t h e purpose of o b t a i n i n g e v i d e n c e f o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of such p e r s o n . However, t h i s s e c t i o n is i n a p p l i c a b l e i f a p u b l i c s e r v a n t o r h i s a g e n t m e r e l y a f f o r d s to s u c h p e r s o n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y or f a c i l i t y f o r c o m m i t t i n g a n o f f e n s e i n f u r t h e r a n c e of c r i m i n a l p u r p o s e which s u c h p e r s o n h a s o r i g i n a t e d . " W e h a v e s t a t e d t h a t e n t r a p m e n t is a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , as is on t h e d e f e n d a n t . s u c h , t h e burden of proof (1980)I . Mont -- , - . S t a t e v. 6 1 1 P.2d 1 8 8 , 37 S t . R e p . 933. Kamrud Although -e n t r a p m e n t may e x i s t as a m a t t e r o f l a w , Kamrud, s u p r a , and S t a t e Grenfell v. conflicting (1977)r evidence is one f o r t h e jury. P.2d 172 Mont. 345, is p r e s e n t e d , S t a t e v. 564 as in P.2d this 171, case, where the issue F r a t e s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 6 0 Mont. 4 3 1 , 5 0 3 I t is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e j u r y d i d n o t a c c e p t d e f e n d a n t ' s 47. theory. A r e v i e w of instructed. Jury entrapment properly the record instruction shows t h a t t h e y were number twelve contains l a n g u a g e v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l to t h e above-ci t e d s t a t u t e . In our r e v i e w of j u r y v e r d i c t s we have s a i d : " I t is t h e p r e r o g a t i v e o f t h e j u r y t o d e c i d e t h e f a c t s , and t h i s C o u r t m u s t u p h o l d s u c h f i n d i n g s when t h e y a r e s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. A s we s t a t e d i n S t a t e v . K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 2 8 3 , 587 P.2d 1298, 1305, 35 St.Rep. 1532, 1539, ' [ t l h e j u r y i s t h e f a c t - f i n d i n g b o d y and i t s d e c i s i o n is controlling Given t h e r e q u i r e d l e g a l minimum o f e v i d e n c e , w e w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s f o r t h a t of t h e jury I f s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s found t o .' s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , it w i l l s t a n d (citations omitted.)" S t a t e v. Rumley ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont , 6 3 4 P.2d 4 4 6 , 4 4 9 , 38 I .S t . R e p . 1 3 5 1 -1351-E. ~ ~ . . . ... . . . W e f i n d more t h a n s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c tion. Padernos offered items offered. stated tes t i £ i e d f o r sale. Padernos they Frenchtown. had In Brown and McClure repeatedly On s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s a m o t o r c y c l e w a s further several the that testified items presence that of that came Padernos, Brown from Brown and McClure trailer a and in McClure d i s c u s s e d whether o r n o t t h e m o t o r c y c l e w a s s t i l l a t French town. and others, which were These facts jury, are c o n t r a r y to d e f e n d a n t ' s obviously entrapment dence presented s u p p o r t s t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t . believed theory. by the The e v i - The defendant's conviction is affirmed. We concur:

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.