State v. Riley, 91-571
| Decision Date | 05 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-571,91-571 |
| Citation | 830 P.2d 549,252 Mont. 469 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James RILEY, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Kevin E. Vainio, Butte, for defendant and appellant.
Marc Racicot, Atty. Gen., Helena, Micheal S. Wellenstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert M. McCarthy, County Atty., Carlo Canty, Deputy, Butte, for plaintiff and respondent.
James Riley (Riley) appeals a judgment of the Second Judicial District, Silver Bow County, which convicted him of failure to keep property clean under Sec. 8.08.090(A) of the Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code following a trial de novo. We affirm.
We rephrase the issues on appeal as follows:
Did sufficient evidence exist to support Riley's conviction of failure to keep property clean under Sec. 8.08.090(A) of the Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code?
On February 27, 1991, Riley was charged by complaint in police court with one count of failing to keep property clean and one count of permitting a disabled, wrecked, or abandoned vehicle to remain on property in violation of the Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code. Following a trial in police court, the police judge on July 15, 1991, found Riley guilty of both counts. Riley timely appealed to District Court.
On September 5, 1991, a trial de novo was held in District Court. Five witnesses testified regarding the extensive materials Riley had accumulated and stored on his property, which included wood, metal, glass, plastic containers, cardboard, paper and machinery parts piled at depths ranging from six to twelve feet. Photographs of Riley's property revealed a yard bursting at the seams with junk.
The District Court, sitting without a jury, found Riley guilty of failing to keep property clean and not guilty of permitting a disabled, wrecked, or abandoned vehicle to remain on property. The District Court ordered Riley to pay a $50 fine and clear his property of all litter within thirty days. If he failed to clear his property of the litter within thirty days, the District Court ordered the Butte-Silver Bow Department of Public Works to clear and clean Riley's property under the supervision of the Butte-Silver Bow Health Department with all charges being billed to Riley. Thereafter, the District Court by an amended order allowed Riley an additional thirty days to remove the litter from his property. From this judgment, Riley now appeals.
Did sufficient evidence exist to support Riley's conviction of failure to keep property clean under Sec. 8.08.090(A) of the Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code?
The standard for reviewing issues concerning sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brogan
...elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bower (1992), 254 Mont. 1, 6, 833 P.2d 1106, 1110 (citing State v. Riley (1992), 252 Mont. 469, 830 P.2d 549). In addition, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence are exclusively within the province of the tr......
-
State v. Johnston
...elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bower (1992), 254 Mont. 1, 6, 833 P.2d 1106, 1110 (citing State v. Riley (1992), 252 Mont. 469, 830 P.2d 549). In this case, we consider the record without evidence of Johnston's prior forgery conviction, which we have held should ha......
-
State v. Bower
...any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Riley (Mont.1992), --- Mont. ----, 830 P.2d 549. This standard of review is the same whether reviewing the trial court's refusal to grant the defendant's motion for a directed......
-
State v. Fuller
...prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Riley (1992), 252 Mont. 469, 470, 830 P.2d 549, 550; citing Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573. This case presents an......