State v. Frick

1" THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O .
i''\~ONTII;NA
2002 MT 298K
Pia~iltrff Respondent,
and
L
CHARLES WALTER FRICK, "--
ukii I
a ,$ q*r*
~ i r ~ a
Defendant and Appella~lt.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District.
In arid for the County of Sanders,
The Honorable C. B. McNeil; Judge presiding.
COI,WSEL OF RECORD
For Appellant:
Chad U'right, Appellate Defender Office. Helena, Montana
For Respondent.
t-Ion. Mikc McGrath, Attonley Geiieral; John Paulson,
Assistarit Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Robert Zimmemlan, Sanders Courlt) Attorney, Thompson Falls, Montana
Subrn~tted Briefs: No\ ember 7. 2002
oil
Decided: Deccmher 12, 21102
Filed:
Justice '1-el-I-y I'rieweiler delivered the Opinion of rhc Court.
5.
1 Pursuant to Section 1. Paragraph 3jc); Montana Supreme Court IOi"i Intcrnai
C)pcrating Rules, the following dccisiorl shall not be cited as precedent but sha!l be filed as
a pubhc document m ~ t h Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be rcported bq case t~tle,
the
Supreme Court cause number, and result to the State Reporter Publ~shtiig
Cornpan! and to
West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.
72 Defendant Charles Frick was charged with one count of criminal distribution of
dangerous drugs (marijuana) in the District Court for the Twentieth Judicial District in
Sandcrs C:ounty, Folio\\-ing trial by jury Frick was found guilty of the charge against him.
FIc appcals from his conviction. LVe affirm the judgment of the District Coun.
73 The sole issue on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to find Frick guilty
of criminal sale of dangerous drugs.
FACTUAI, AND PROCIEDLRAL, BACKGROUND
74
1 In December 2000, Steve Montgomery was arrested for driving under the influence
of alcohol or drugs and Lvas also cited for driving without insurance and contributing to the
delinquency of a minor. At the time of his arrest, Montgomery was serving a three-year
deferred sentence for selling dangerous drugs (marijuana.) While being transported to jail,
Montgomery ofkreci to be an informant regarding other people involved ivith the sale of
drugs in Sanders County. In exchange, he sought leniency for his offense arid to avoid
revocation of his deferred sentence. After considering his offer, while Montgomery was in
jail, officers rliet with Montgomery to discuss being an inforl-llant. The ofticcrs suggested
assistaricc, but ~\lcintgomei-y
at least four people with whonr they could nse Monigorne~-y's
arid
latcr tcstiiicd that he considered rhose pccipic "roc dangei.ousW declined to ,work aoainst.
0
them. I-lowever, Montgomery did agree to act as an inforniant against Frich. The policc
agreed to use tlontgomery as an informant, and the State promised to witlidra\v any petition
to revoke his defer~ed
sentence. The State did withdraw its petition and also dropped the
charge that Montgomery contributed to the delinquency of a minor.
75 On Cfecember 21, 2000, Montgomery met with Sheriff Gene Arnold and Deputy
Sheriff Darrell Chenoweth in preparation for a marijuana purchase from Frick. Chenowetlt
did a pat-down search of Montgomery and searched his pockets for drugs. Chenoweth did
noi search Montgon1e1-y's shoes or socks. After the search, Chenoweth attached a "body
wire" to Montgoniery's shirt and put the shirt on Montgomery. Arnold then gave
Montgomery $60 ill $20 denominations and drove his police car to a gas station so that
Montgomery could get some change for the drug pruehase. Montgomery \vent into the gas
station, purchased a soda, and walked several bloelts to a house rented or owned by Tammy
Weeks, Frick's girlfriend at the time. The officers followed Montgomery in their ear, and
monitored his conversations by way of tltc electronic listening device with which he was
equipped. The officers saw Montgomery approach Weeks' house, but did not see ltim enter.
'jh Mor~tgomerywent to the house, knocked on the door, and %)asallowed irrsicie by
Weeks. 111sidethe ltousc, Montgomery allegedly purchased one to two grams of marijuana
from Fuick. After the alleged purcl~ase,
Montgomery left Weeks' housc, was followed by
A-tmoltl and C'henow~th~ agreed to tneet them at the police department. .4t the police
and
3
the
depikritt~eni. sireriffs retrieved $3'1 and one to two grams ofmarijuana from Montgomery's
in
pockcis. ?'he marijuana tcsicci positivc for a prohibited suhsiar~ci. i k i d test aiid crime
lab results.
(17 On April 27,200 I , the Statc charged Frick by Information with one count of felony
criminal distribution ofdangerotis drugs, in violation of 3 45-0-101, LICA. At trial, the Statc
called Montgonlery as a witness, and in his testimony, he admitted that the State had agreed
to witlidraw tlie petition to revoke his deferred sentence. Ele admitted that he knew that Frick
was his sister's ex-boyfriend and that he did not like Frick in part because of the way hc
believed Frick had treated his sister. Molltgomery then testified regarding his recollection
of the allcgcd drug transaction. Eic testified that ~vhen entered the house he saw about six
he
people in the housc-three childre11 and three adults. The three adults were CVeeks, Frick. and
a personal friend of Montgomery's, Rober-t Thon~pson.Montgolnery testified that he went
to the bedroom door and knocked on it and that Frick opened the bedroom door.
Montgomery testified that he asked Frick if he could buy some marijuana and tliat Frick
agreed to sell niarijuana to Llontgomery. Frick allegedly pulled a small sandwich bag with
marijuana in it from his pocket and gave approximately two grams to tlontgomery.
blorttgomery said that he removed the cellopha~ie
wrapper from a pack of cigarettes he was
carrying and placed the niarijuana in the cellophane. Montgomery testified that he put tlie
cellophane wrapper ill his pants pocket, gave Frick $20 for the marijuana, and leii Weeks'
house.
718 During Montgomery-'~
testimony, the Srate played a tape recording of ~virar been
irad
overheard by way oit11e electronic iistcning device tlciril b) Mci~igninery. Whiic some of
thc voices and parts of the tapc were difficult to hear or understand; the tape did record %hat
sounded to be a transaction between &tontgomer>and another person to exchange $20 for
a cewaiu anlount of marijuana:
MON'TGOMERY: Come here a minutc, wotild you'?
[Background voice says something, unable to discern]
MONTGOMERY: Vo way. . . Don't includes you [L.aughs]
BACKGROCIND VOICE: I'm glad.
IVONTGOMERY: Alright. [Chuckles]
MOKTGOW ERY: Do you think you could get me a bag of weed? Even a little
bit?
VO!CE: I don't know.
MONTGOMERY: You don't know'?
VOICE: What an eighth'!
MONTGOMERY: An eighth, a dime, a twenty, whatever.
VOICE: 1'11 sell ya---I'llsell ya a little bit.
MON'TGOMERY: Alright.
VOICE: Bc back.
[Approximate 20 second pause, with four intermittent coughs:;
MONTGO&IERV: Got anything to put it in'?
210kTiiOMER"i: [lnco~ap~aihensible
taicirds] . . . ceilophttilc here. in
pocket.
M0NTC;OMEKY: How about--how about a twenty?
VOICE: Alright, a twcnty ~vould fine
be
VOICE: That'll help you.
MONTGOMERY: Sweet.
[Pause]
UNKKOWU VOICE: There you go.
MOXl'GOM ERY: Okay.
After playing the tape for the jury, Frtck's attorney cross-exam~nedMontgomerq and
questioned Montgomery about several lnconsisteneies betueen the tape, prior statements, and
Montgomery's testimony when examined by the State. L particular, h'lontgomery's testimony
n
was inconsistcnt with regard to whether he knocked on the bedroom door, whether he
purchased t a o grants or four grams of n~arijnana, h e t h e he paid for the drugs before or
~ r
after he received the drugs, and whether he went to the kitchen to find a cellophane wrapper
to hold the marijuana. Friek's attorney also pointed out that Montgoniery had not identified
or asked Frick to identify himself during the taped transaction, and that kilontgomery did not
count o ~thc money, as requested by thc sheriffs.
~ t
9 The jury, before deliberations, received the following cautionary instruction:
You have heard the testimony that Steve Montgomery, a witness, has received
a benefit from the state ~vith this case. YOLIsliould examine Steve
Montgomery's testimony with greater caution than ti~at ofothclwitrresscs. In
evaluating that testimony, you should consider the extent to which it may have
been influenced by ihc receipt of benefits firom the guvernn;ei~l.
Following its deliberstions, the jury returned its verdict that Frick was guilty as charged.
DISCUSSION
% 10
SI
IVas there sufficient evidence to find Frick guilty of criminal sale of dangerous drugs'?
i When reviewing a jury's verdict to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to
support a guilry verdict, we view the eviderlce in a light most favorable to the prosecution
and assess whether any rational trier of fact could h a w found that the State proved the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Stczte 1,. I1vorrs (1 9C)2),254 hlont.
360, 363, 838 P.2d 397, 399.
712 The jury found that Frick was g~iiltyof selling marijuana, a dangerous drug. in
violation of 9 45-9-101, MCA. Frick contends that the jury verdict must be reversed b e c a ~ ~ s e
'vlontgomet-y was st~chan t~nreliablewitness that there was insuftieient evidence for a
rational trier of fact to find that tlte State proved each elenient of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. Frick further contends that the tape recording of his con\-ersation was
incomprehensible and could not have supported tlie jury's verdict. The State rcsponds that
issues of h c t and witness credibility are matters which the jury is empowered to decide. 'l'he
State contends that the jury was properly provided with a cautionary jury instruction that
illontgoruet-y's testimony should be closely scrutinized since he received substantial benefits
from tlie State for his testimony, and that in spirc of that instruction, the jury found
hlontgornery credible and that this Court should not "second-guess" the jury,
-,
9'13 the OF
To support a convictioi~, State must prove each ele~nent the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. 7 elements of the crime charged in this case ari: set fo'orl1-1
% in 45-9-
iOi( 1). .MGA: "[a] person commits the offense of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs
ifthe person sells, barters, exchanges, gives away, or offers to sell, barter, exchange, or give
away any dangerous drug; as defined in 50-32-101 ." "'To sell [drugs] mcans to kno~vingly
and intentionally transfer possession or ownership of the [drugsj to another for money or
other valuable consideration."' S'zute v. Br-own (1986), 232 Morit. 1, 5, 755 P.2d 1364. 1367
(quoting State v. ~bf(zrt-tii~ez
(1985), 21 6 Mont. 270, 272, 700 P.2d 99 1 , 902). Marijuana is
considered a "dangerous drug" within the meaning of 5 50-12-101, MCA. See 5 50-2-
221(4)(t), MCA (mari.juana is a Schedule I dangerous drug).
T14
i There is little dispute that the State established the basic facts necessary to prove that
Frick sold marijuana to Montgomery. The State's expert and Chenoweth's testimony
established that the substance recovered from Montgomery was marijuana. The tape
recording and the testimony of Montgomery and the officers demonstrated that Montgomery
purchased marijuana from someone for $20. While some of the voices are difficult to
understand at some points on the tape, the tape is discernible at the point where an apparent
drug transaction is taking place. In addition, the rape is corroborated by the physical
,.
eviclence recovered and Montgomery and the deputy sheriffs' testimony. I he remaining
factual issue that the jury needed to determine was whetlier the State proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that Frick sold the drugs to Montgomery.
7i 5 From the record we conciudc that a rational trier of fact could find tilat thc Statc
proved beyond s rcasoiliiiiie doubt that Frick was ehc- person who sold the drugs. Ci~cnoiieth
testified that he witnessed Montgomery approach Weeks' liouse. b$ontgomcry testified that
Wceks was Frick's girlfriend and that Frick lived wit11 her. Tliese facts are not disputed by
the defendant. Finally, Montgomery testified that when he entered the house he saw only two
adult males, Robert Thompson and Charles Frick, and that he purchased the marijuana from
Frick alone. This evidence was sufficient for a rational hier of fact to find that Frick was
- of selling marijuana to Montgomery
euilty
1 6 Frick insists that Pvlontgomery's testimony was so incredible and motivated by the
desire to avoid prison that no rational jury could have found that the State proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that Frick sold marijuana to Montgomery. Frick suggcsts that the numerous
inconsistencies bettveen Montgomery's testimony and the tape from the "body wire" further
dc~nonstrate unreliability of Montgomery's testimony. However, we have previously-held
thc
that "[tjhe weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses is exclusively the province
of the trier of fact. If the evidence conflicts, it is within the province of the trier of fact to
determine ivhich shall prevail," State I,,. 0111irt1(Ic)85), 218 Mont. 260, 2 6 , 707 P.2d 11 17>
1 120. Furthcrmore:
Only in those rare cases where the story told is so inherently improbable or is
so nullified by material self-contradictions that no fair-minded person could
believe it may we say that no lirin foundation exists for the verdict based upon
it.
Stare V, (19821, 1 % bforrt. 4%. 50 1 , 647 P.2d 348, 35 I (quoting Slirlc v. (;iiinlos
;1f``ivelI
( 1 91 6), 53 lhoni. I 18, 126. 162 P. 506. 599). The record rtl-lecls that tlhrrc -LVC~C
i~consisrcncies Mnntgome~y's
in testimony with pre~ious
statements and the tape from the
"body wire." However9his testimony was also corroborated by the tape from the body wire?
and we cannot conclude that Montgomery's testimony \?as "nullified by material self-
contradictions." It was the jury's duty to resolve any conflicts in the evidence, and the jury
resolved the conflicts in fal:or of the State. We concl``de a rational jury could find that
that
the State proved the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
'j 17 For these reasons; we affirm the jttdginent of tile District Court.
<,
...
...
/ Justice
We Concur: