IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. 00-756
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JONATHAN WAYNE VANDERSLOOT,
Defendant and Appellant.
BRIEF OF RESPONDENT
On Appeal from the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Big Horn County,
The Honorable Blair Jones, Presiding
APPEARANCES:
MIKE McGRATH
Montana Attorney General
CAROL E. SCHMIDT
Assistant Attorney General
2 15 North Sanders
P.O. Box 201401
Helena. MT 59620-1401
JAMES L. VOGEL
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 525
Hardin, MT 59034
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
AND APPELLANT
CHRISTINE A. COOKE
Big Horn County Attorney
CURTIS BEVOLDEN
Deputy County Attorney
P.O. Box 908
Hardin, MT 59034-0908
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
AND RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
.
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
ii
. . 1
. 1
. 2
10
10
10
16
. 19
. 21
. 22
23
. 24
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
State v. Devlin,
251 Mont. 278,825 P.2d 185 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...”
.-,_
,....
.._
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Cont.)
State v. Salois,
235 Mont.
.
.
. .
. .
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
15
........... 15
........... 15
..........
I,2
...........
14
...........
........... 19
........... 19
........... 19
............ 20
........... 19
........... 16
........... 16
........ lo,16
111
!
Vandersloot’s motion to exclude Trent Burke’s testimony, arguing that Burke met
all of the requirements of a competent witness
subsequently arrested on August 2, 2000. Shortly thereafter, he began serving his
six-month sentence in the Big Horn County Jail. (Trial Tr. at 166.)
--.>
I
..~
!
3
walked around in the jail and cleaned for approximately ten to fifteen minutes and
then Vandersloot asked Burke to deliver a paperback book to
As a result of Burke reporting the incident to the jailers, Harvey Burke was
called a snitch, rat, stoolie, pigeon wings and the
,,..
,~.,.
Liming, who left it to Dalton’s discretion on how to handle the matter, Dalton
decided against a shakedown of the jail. He
his concern for Burke’s safety. (Trial Tr. at 243-44.) A few days later, though, the
jail personnel did conduct a shakedown. (Trial Tr. at 184-85.)
the only one in the jail that
7
had a prescription for an orange and black pill called Dexedrine. (Trial Tr. at 296-
97, 306.) Hert further testified
324-25, 33 l-32.) Dexedrine is a capsule which pulls apart, with one half being
black
..~
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
When the evidence is viewed in the light most
.~~
sufficient evidence supports the jury’s findings that Vandersloot was guilty of the
offense of criminal sale of dangerous drugs. The ,,,,
review ofthe sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of
Vandersloot was the one who first received each of his orange and black
Dexedrine pills. Thus, the only way another inmate
particular, the record demonstrates that Big Hair had the jailers transfer $30 from
his account to Vandersloot’s account. Big
Next, Vandersloot argues that since no drugs were found in Big Hair’s
possession, the State failed to prove that
This Court in Henrich recognized that a suspected intoxicating substance
does not need
II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT ALLOWED THE STATE TO INTRODUCE A
MEDICATION SIGNOUT SHEET FOR VANDERSLOOT’S
qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or
circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. . . .
qualified as records of regularly-conducted business activities. Romannose, 28 1
Mont. at
III. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT ALLOWED TRENT BURKE’S TESTIMONY INTO
EVIDENCE.
Vandersloot argues that the
to the offense and he was not suffering any mental disease or defect which would
have precluded him from understanding his duty to
held that there is “no authority that would require the trial court to disqualify the
witness, sua sponte, . . simply because of inconsistencies in the witness’ [sic]
testimony. Indeed, were that the rule, the testimony of very few witnesses would
survive disqualification.” zd, at 208, 887 P.2d at 1193. Vandersloot has provided
no authority that Burke was not a competent witness and that he should not be
allowed to testify. The weight of Burke’s testimony should be left to the jury.
CONCLUSION
Vandersloot’s conviction for the offense of criminal sale of dangerous drugs
should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of June, 200 1.
MIKE McGRATH
Montana Attorney General
2 15 North Sanders
P.O. Box 201401
Helena, MT 59620-1401
21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I caused a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Brief
of Respondent to be mailed to:
Mr. James L. Vogel
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 525
Hardin, MT 59034
Ms. Christine A. Cooke
Big Horn County Attorney
P.O. Box 908
Hardin, MT 59034
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Rule 27 of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, I certify
that this principal brief is printed with a proportionately spaced Times New
Roman text typeface of 14 points; is double-spaced except for footnotes and for
quoted and indented material; and the word count calculated by WordPerfect 8.0
for Windows is not more than 10,000 words, not averaging more than 280 words
per page, excluding certificate of service and certificate of compliance.
CAROL ti SCHMIDT
23
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. 00-756
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
V.
JONATHAN WAYNE VANDERSLOOT.
Defendant and Appellant.
APPENDIX
6/l 6100 Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit A
24
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. 00-756
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
V.
JONATHAN WAYNE VANDERSLOOT.
Defendant and Appellant.
APPENDIX
6/l 6100 Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit A
24
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. 00-756
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
V.
JONATHAN WAYNE VANDERSLOOT.
Defendant and Appellant.
APPENDIX
6/l 6100 Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit A
24
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. 00-756
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
V.
JONATHAN WAYNE VANDERSLOOT.
Defendant and Appellant.
APPENDIX
6/l 6100 Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit A
24
’ .
/
MONTANA TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, STATE OF MONTANA
1 '
THE STATE OF MONTANA ) Case
’ .
/
MONTANA TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, STATE OF MONTANA
1 '
THE STATE OF MONTANA ) Case
CONSECUTIVE to any term imposed in Cause No.
DC 97-44 and CONSECUTIVE
to any term imposed in Cause No. DC 98-14.
Defendant, during any period of parole, shall
weapons,
including
i 1 Defendant must obtain permission from
his parole officer before financing a vehicle,
purchasing property, or engaging in business.
G. -
Upon reasonable cause, Defendant shall,
i 1 Defendant must obtain permission from
his parole officer before financing a vehicle,
purchasing property, or engaging in business.
G. -
Upon reasonable cause, Defendant shall,
2.
Defendant shall not frequent any place of business where the
primary source of revenue is from the sale of alcohol.
3.
2.
Defendant shall not frequent any place of business where the
primary source of revenue is from the sale of alcohol.
3.
The Court finds this Sentence to be appropriate in view of the
fact that this is Defendant's third felony conviction
within a
relatively short period of time.
Defendant chose to use and traffick
in methamphetamine. This was accomplished in a correctional facility
and will not be tolerated by the Court. Because
of the evidence
relative to the use and trafficking of methamphetamine,
the Court
finds that Defendant would pose a danger to the community.
The danger
can be limited by imposition of a lengthy prison term.
DONE IN OPEN COURT this 12th day of June, 2000.
- +I,
DATED this
I\ -
day of June, 2000.
CC:
Christine A. Cooke
James L. Vogel
DISTRICT
P
DGE
//
The Court finds this Sentence to be appropriate in view of the
fact that this is Defendant's third felony conviction
within a
relatively short period of time.
Defendant chose to use and traffick
in methamphetamine. This was accomplished in a correctional facility
and will not be tolerated by the Court. Because
of the evidence
relative to the use and trafficking of methamphetamine,
the Court
finds that Defendant would pose a danger to the community.
The danger
can be limited by imposition of a lengthy prison term.
DONE IN OPEN COURT this 12th day of June, 2000.
- +I,
DATED this
I\ -
day of June, 2000.
CC:
Christine A. Cooke
James L. Vogel
DISTRICT
P
DGE
//