"The ’65 Corvette Case"

Case developer is unknown.

2006

 

Disclaimer: The individuals named in this case are imaginary and any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental.

 

IN THE YMCA MODEL SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

NO. 2006-101

 

STATE OF MONTANA

Plaintiff, Respondent

v.

TANNER B. WILLIAMS

Defendant, Appellant

 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Tanner B. Williams is an 18-year-old high school senior attending Martin County High School in Van Buren, Montana. During the fall semester, he took a class in automobile upholstery from a part time teacher, Mr. Otto K. Lector. As part of his class assignments Williams reupholstered the seats in a 1965 Corvette that Mr. Lector was restoring. Williams liked the class and spent many hours working on the project. Despite minor flaws, Williams was very proud of the seats and he took every opportunity to show his work to other students and faculty. He told many of his friends he was hopeful for a good grade in this class to bolster his 1.4 GPA.

Mr. Lector was not as impressed with Williams’ work. On the last day of the semester, Mr. Lector spoke to the class about their projects. In relation to his Corvette, he told the class the seats looked like an amateur did them. They simply were not of the quality needed for a restored classic like his ‘65 Corvette. He said he would have to redo all the seats personally. Williams received a “D” in the class.

Mr. Lector left Montana the day after the semester ended. He teaches during the fall semester and spends the winter semester in Arizona where it is warmer

During the winter semester, Williams took a class in metal shop from Mr. James Campbell. On January 22, 2003, Williams was making a set of small, thin metal pieces similar to the tools a locksmith uses. When asked what he was working on, Williams told Campbell he was practicing to see how fine he could grind a piece of metal. Later that day Campbell overheard Williams talking with one of his friends, Lenny Arp. Williams said, “I’m going to make sure Lector isn’t happy with the seats.” He went on to say, “The metal pieces are to open the dead bolt on the garage and the car door lock.”

After thinking about Williams’ conversation, Campbell decided he had better inform the police and see if they thought anything should be done. On January 23, 2003, he called Officer Peter Johns and told him of the discussion between Williams and Arp. Johns discussed the tip with his partner, Paul Weston. Both were well acquainted with Williams from past juvenile problems. After securing a proper search warrant, the officers went looking for Williams. Williams was pulled over on the evening of January 23, 2003. When the officers searched the vehicle, they found the metal pieces and arrested Williams He was subsequently charged with possession of burglary tools.

While preparing the case for trial, the District Attorney contacted Mr. Lector to see if any damage had been done to his car. He said that to his knowledge nothing had happened. He said a neighbor was watching the house for him and had a key. He gave the D.A. the name of the neighbor and permission to check the vehicle for damage. The D.A. asked Johns and Weston to talk to the neighbor to see if Lector’s car was damaged.

When they got to the neighbor’s house, no one was home. They then went to Lector’s house where the garage was locked. They looked through the windows and the car had no visible damage. The two officers made no further attempt to locate the neighbor or to inspect the car. The two officers made a report of their findings to the D.A.

On March 15, 2003, Williams was tried for possession of burglary tools. At the trial both Campbell and Arp testified against Williams. Arp testified specifically that Williams had told him on January 22, 2003, that he planned to use the metal pieces to get into Lector’s garage and car and cut the seats.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Specifically, they found that, “Williams intended to break into Mr. Lector’s garage and damage his 1965 Corvette.” Williams was sentenced to 30 days confinement in the county jail.

On June 5th Lector returned from Arizona. Upon inspecting his car, he found several knife cuts in the seats (damage that amounted to more than $500.) He immediately called the police to report the damage. Officers Johns and Weston went to Lector’s house to investigate. Fingerprints were lifted from the vehicle that were later found to belong to Williams.

Williams was arrested on July 14, 2003 and charged with felony criminal mischief. The state’s bill of particulars stated that it would prove Williams had the intent to damage Mr. Lector’s car.

At trial, Williams’ counsel made two motions to dismiss based on Double Jeopardy. The first was based on Montana’s statute prohibiting dual convictions for preparation to commit an offense and the offense itself. (§46-11-410 M.C.A.)

The second was based on the Fifth Amendment’s protection against a second conviction, “The Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.” Grady v. Corbin 495 U.S. 508, 110 S. Ct. 2084, 109 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1990).

All the facts previously mentioned in this memo came out at trial. Campbell and Arp again both testified to Williams’ intent to damage Lector’s car. The jury found Williams guilty of criminal mischief and sentenced him to one year in jail and $1000 fine.


 

 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

  1. Does the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution bar prosecution of Tanner Williams the second time? If so, why? If not, why not?
  2. Did probable cause exist for the initial "search" conducted prior to the filing of the 1st charge? If so, why? If not, why not?
  3. Was the second prosecution, for criminal mischief, barred by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits placing a person in jeopardy a second time for the same conduct or by the Montana Constitution’s prohibition against double jeopardy?

 

STATUTES

§ 45-6-101 M.C.A.

§ 45-6-205 M.C.A.

§ 46-11-503(1) M.C.A.

§ 46-11-410 M.C.A.

5th Amendment, United States Constitution

 

CASES

Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S. Ct. 2084, 109 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1990).

Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S. Ct. 2221, 53 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1977).

Ash v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S. Ct. 1189, 25 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1970).

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932).

State v. Wolfe, 821 P. 2d 339, 48 Mt. St. Rep. 1001 (1991).

State v. Palmer, 207 Mont. 152, 673 P.2d 1234, 40 St. Rep. 1957 (1983).

State v. Mitchell, 192 Mont. 16, 625 P.2d 1155, (1981).

State v. Davis, 176 Mont. 196, 577 P. 2d 375 (1978).

People v. Hambreck, 6 I11. App.3d 739, 286 N.E. 2d 557, (1972).

Neal v. State, 55 Cal.2d 11, 357 P. 2d 839, 9 Cal. Rep. 607 (Calif. 1960).

 

 

Special thanks to Tom Boland, Attorney at Law and Carl E. Rostad, Criminal Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney, both of whom helped find case law and crystallize the questions for this case.