*1
Respondent
MONTANA, Plaintiff
STATE OF
THE
Appellant.
GRANSBERRY, Defendant
ROBERT
10249.
January
7, 1961.
1962.
Submitted
Decided
November
This is an from a of conviction crime grand upon larceny jury entered verdict. No motion for *2 a new trial was made in the court below. charged by
The defendant was information with the crime grand larceny larceny automobile, of in together of an with prior plead five of He guilty convictions felonies.
charge plead charge prior “true” to the and felonies. Trial jury. was had before a giving charge
The facts rise to the were that and Hillesheim, one a Belt, drinking ranch laborer from near were together places in in 15, various Falls on Great November 1960. evening That parked two them Hillesheim’s car behind the James Hotel and then went to defendant’s room in sleep. Great Falls Hotel to
When Hillesheim awoke the next morning the defendant and keys gone. to HiResheim’s car were After a search around Falls, Great reported Hillesheim the car as stolen. apprehended
Defendant was in Anaconda, some 200 miles distant, on November with in possession. his car Testi- mony was introduced that defendant trying had been to sell car both Anaconda and Butte.
The defense testimony by consisted of the defendant that he had permission Hillesheim’s take ear.
Although defendant’s does not brief conform our in many respects, rules shall analyze ap endeavor to what pear specifications upon to be the relied appeal. this Al though defendant made no motion for a new trial after ver judgment, argues dict his brief that the verdict contrary argument to the law and evidence. Such cannot be considered since would grounds have been for a motion for (See a new trial. Ritz, 180, State v. 65 Mont. 298; P. English, State v. 71 Mont. 727.) 229 P. pre- brief, principal question in Ms “tbe
Defendant states regard appeal is whether it was error to sented allegedly admit evidence of other similar offenses which pat- showing offered and received the limited design tern and intent in connection charged.” with the offense of wMch he is During complain- of the cross-examination of the the course Hillesheim, by counsel, witness defendant’s information ing an was elicited about another sale of automobile on day charge later, exchange as the here involved. follows, being cited as error is as defendant’s counsel Mr. Mer- rill.
“Q. belonged he sell? A. "Which car did One Stringer. Bill Objection, HALL: for a calling
“MB. conclusion witness. Objection
“THE overruled. COUBT: “Q. night, you present (By Merrill) Mr. That were *3 A. when he sold the car? I request
“MB. MEBBILL: the answer stricken be Jury pay and the be instructed to no attention to it. “THE COUBT: Overruled.”
Now, appeal urges that on counsel the answer should hearsay. it was It have been stricken because comes too late Also, appeal. response it was in to his own cross-examin on ation, position complain. and he is not to See State v. Wakely, P. 95. complain the
In the course of the cross-examination of ing brought witness, defendant’s counsel out that the defendant names, used other aliases. The next State witness was one John manager Gress, brought of the Great Falls Hotel who out the signed register that defendant the hotel as Bob Evans on one occasion, then as Bobert another occasion. Sorenson brought concerning out from the witness details the State brought previously by de- sale of the other automobile out complaining wit- on cross-examination of fendant’s counsel evidence, but no appellant specifies as to that ness. The error authority allegations of argument support is to or cited upon to answer each con- error. Therefore we are not called tention. case, brought de-
In of the out the course State’s wit- complaining fendant’s on cross-examination counsel person that the many ness who used signed register aliases. He hotel as Bob Evans and as Rob- signed papers Sorenson, ert as Sorenson. ITe Robert specifications go Woods. The defendant’s of error to testi- mony or attach, main, exhibits which in the the connection person defendant as various names All used. evidence, seemingly objected to, signifi- proof went to this but cantly testimony did not amount offenses; of similar nor were put the incidents forth as at all. The testimony offenses merely was in up its nature a connecting of various names to prior the defendant and evidence of sales of automobiles.
The defendant offered an instruction as follows: jury “The are instructed evidence has been introduced case, purported with reference to a an sale of auto- allegedly mobile sold the defendant to witness, Wil- Stenger, liam and thereafter sold to a party, by third defendant; jury
“The are instructed that such evidence is not evi- guilt dence of or innocence of the defendant herein with to the crime charged reference with which is in the In- herein, formation but that such evidence was admitted for the limited of showing propensity of the de- an fendant sell automobile not property de- fendant.
“THE 16? COURT: No. object
“MR. HALL: We that by is covered our in- giving structions that we ‘purpose are about for it. which 74
may Proposed 37-A. considered’, be Instruction State’s object grounds We on the it is covered. given.
“THE It will be COURT: “GIVEN AS: Instruction No. 10.” appellant- just what the We have endeavored to understand thereby regard prejudiced or claims as error how he being appellant but to find has not sus- unable do so that of pointing burden out the error. tained refusing alleges Next, giving or error certain not Again point appellant’s out that brief does instructions. we complained instructions comply setting with our rules out the objection of, proper or most situations no made. appellant urges prin However, get to to what as the attempted raised shall examine cipal to be question though objection was raised. No. 9 no instruction even Court’s The Court instructed: purpose for the showing was offered
“Evidence alleged involving acts a fraudu- other defendant committed alleged against in the than one him intent lent other for is now on trial. Such which he evi- Information prove distinct offenses con- was received not dence only. criminality, purposes limited but for tinual only such for such bear- may consider evidence “You might question whether or as it have on the ing, any, if respect fraudulent intent in had Larceny now for trial; for which he is alleged Grand purpose for the corroboration, or estab- purpose permitted to consider identity. are not such You lishing any purpose; as to for that evidence you permitted evidence, such will you consider are which you all other.” do weigh evidence urges this allowed evidence other offenses Appellant Merritt, jury. cites v. State be considered Tiedemann, P.2d State 546, *5 other of the evidence 529, P.2d rule that is crimes not admissible. out brought previously remarked,
As defendant’s counsel car and sale another by the use aliases defendant day charged. The State’s witnesses on the offense wit- only complaining testified that defendant not took it, nesses’ car he tried to sell to Anaconda but that Butte, and by having evidence, possession in title. restricted his The the court’s Instruction 9 was admissible. Merritt, supra, supra,
In State and Tiedemann, v. State v. recognize exception rule general by stating in State Merritt: exception to general
“One ride is where evidence of other crimes tends to establish a scheme, common plan system where to, closely such crimes similar are with and not charged, connected too remote from the one they also where are related proof so that of one tends to establish the other.”
Assuming complained evidence here did estab- offense, necessary lish another it was up to connect the aliases used in this crime with ex- and to plain evidence elicited cross-examination the defend- ant’s counsel. The court’s Instruction 9No. limited use evidence even more than would been have required, thus appellant complain. cannot
We carefully have examined the record and find no reversible judgment error. The is affirmed.
ME. JUSTICE CHIEF JAMES T. HARRISON and MR. JUSTICES C. HARRISON and JOHN DOYLE concur.
MR. JUSTICE ADAIR:
I concur the result but all that is said in ma- jority opinion herein.