State v. Merritt, 10161
| Citation | 357 P.2d 683,138 Mont. 546 |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 10161,10161 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ralph MERRITT, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
Ralph J. Anderson and Stanley P. Sorenson, Helena, for appellant.
Ralph J. Anderson, Helena, argued orally for appellant.
Forrest H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Wayne E. Linnell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Wayne E. Linnell, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued orally for respondent.
Defendant has appealed from a judgment of conviction of the crime of forgery and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The information charged that defendant on or about the 18th day of March 1959, 'did, wilfully, wrongfully, unlawfully, and feloniously utter, publish and pass as true and genuine a certain false, forged document, purporting to be made by one Mrs. Walter J. Powers, and purporting to be signed by the said Mrs. Walter J. Powers, the said defendant, Ralph Merritt, then and there knowing that the said document was false and forged as aforesaid; * * * with the intent in him to prejudice, damage and defraud the Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation and the said Mrs. Walter J. Powers.' The document purported to be a chattel mortgage on an automobile and a copy of the instrument was attached to the information.
Defendant owned and operated Ralph's Auto Sales at Great Falls, Montana, and in the operation of this business sold many new and used automobiles. He sold a 1959 Chevrolet Impala 4 door sedan, to Mrs. Walter J. Powers of Conrad, Montana. As shown on the purported chattel mortgage the cash down payment was $1,200 leaving a balance of $3,954.96, which was to be paid in thirty-six successive monthly installments each in the amount of $109.86 beginning May 1, 1959.
The sales record of Ralph's Auto Sales shows sale price to have been $4,200. To this amount was added an additional charge of $206.37 and a further charge of $748.59, which appears to be the interest payable making a total of $5,154.96. After the down payment of $1,200 was made there remained a time balance of $3,954.96.
The principal question presented by the appeal is whether it was error to admit evidence of other allegedly similar offenses which was offered and received for the limited purpose of showing a pattern and design and the intent of the defendant in connection with the offense of which he is charged.
The general rule is that evidence of other alleged crimes is not admissible. There are however exceptions to the general rule.
In 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law Sec. 682, pp. 1084, 1087, it is stated:
'The general rule, which is subject to exceptions stated in Secs. 683-690, infra, is that, on a prosecution for a particular crime, evidence which shows or tends to show that accused has committed another crime wholly independent of, and unconnected with that for which he is on trial, even though it is a crime of the same sort, is irrelevant and inadmissible, and such evidence of an independent crime is inadmissible for the reason, among others, that it ordinarily does not tend to establish the commission by accused of the offense charged, that accused must be tried for one offense at a time, and that, in accordance with the more extensive general rule, which applies to all cases, civil or criminal, the evidence must be confined to the point in issue.'
One exception to the general rule is where the evidence of other crimes tends to establish a common scheme, plan or system and where such other crimes are similar to, closely connected with and not too remote from the one charged, and also where they are so related that proof of one tends to establish the other. Thus in 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law Sec. 688, p. 1109, et seq., it is said:
This court followed the general rule in State v. Ebel, 92 Mont. 413, 15 P.2d 233, 236, and gave as the reason that evidence of other crimes tends 'to draw away the minds of the jurors from the real point on which their verdict is sought, and to excite prejudice, and mislead...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Just
... ... Frates (1972), 160 Mont. 431, 436-37, 503 P.2d 47, 50; State v. Jensen (1969), 153 Mont. 233, 238-39, 455 P.2d 631, 633-34; State v. Merritt (1960), 138 Mont. 546, 548-50, 357 P.2d 683, 684; State v. Sauter (1951), 125 Mont. 109, 111-16, 232 P.2d 731, 731-34; State v. Gaimos (1916), 53 ... ...
-
State v. Derbyshire
...Mont. 431, 436-37, 503 P.2d 47, 50 (1972); State v. Jensen, 153 Mont. 233, 238, 455 P.2d 631, 633-34 (1969); State v. Merritt, 138 Mont. 546, 548-49, 357 P.2d 683, 684 (1960). ¶ 33 In State v. Hansen, 1999 MT 253, 296 Mont. 282, 989 P.2d 338, however, we rejected the notion that evidence of......
-
State v. Aakre, 01-321.
...adoption of the current Just/Matt rule, we addressed other crimes evidence in the context of common scheme or plan in State v. Merritt (1960), 138 Mont. 546, 357 P.2d 683. In that case, we Thus in 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 688, p. 1109, et seq., it is said: "As a general rule, evidence of ot......
-
State v. Hansen
...602 P.2d at 961, 36 St.Rep. at 1653. In applying the exception, each case must rest upon its own circumstances. State v. Merritt (1960) 138 Mont. 546, 549-50, 357 P.2d 683, 685. " 'The general rule should be strictly enforced in all cases where applicable, because of the prejudicial effect ......