STATE v PERRY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12213 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA F 1972 THE STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - FRED LEE PERRY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Truman G. Bradford, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Ralph Randono argued, Great F a l l s , Montana. For Respondent: Hon. Robert L , Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. J. C. Weingartner, Deputy Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana. J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, argued, Great F a l l s , Montana. Arthur G. Matteucci, Deputy County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana, Submitted: Decided: November 28, 1972 JISN 1 (J 1973 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Fred Lee Perry a p p e a l s from a judgment of c o n v i c t i o n of second degree murder and l i f e sentence i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n . He was t r i e d by a j u r y i n t h e e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Cascade, t h e Hon. Truman Bradford, judge p r e s i d i n g . The body of Vicki R.enville, a t e e n a g e r , was discovered by a m o t o r c y c l i s t on a county road n e a r Great F a l l s , Montana on February 24, 1971. Immediate i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n s t i t u t e d by t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e of Cascade County l e a d t o t h e a r r e s t and conv i c t i o n i n s e p a r a t e proceedings of two men, defendant and Michael Stillings. A f t e r making an on-the-spot i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e murder s i t e , t h e s h e r i f f had t h e body examined by D r . J a c k Henneford, a resident pathologi-st. A s a r e s u l t of h i s examination D r , Henne- f o r d t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i e d from m u l t i p l e blows t o t h e l e f t s i d e of h e r head, f r a c t u r e s of t h e s k u l l , and from e x t e n s i v e bleeding within the c r a n i a l c a v i t y , He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h e body showed two small r e c e n t t e a r s of t h e hymen; t h a t in h i s opinion t h e g i r l had been dead a t l e a s t e i g h t h o u r s ; and, t h a t she had l i v e d an hour o r more a f t e r t h e blows had been i n f l i c t e d . During t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a deputy s h e r i f f i n t e r v i e w e d defendant t h e day a f t e r t h e body was found, a s t o h i s whereabouts on t h e n i g h t of t h e murder. Defendant informed t h e deputy he was a t h i s t r a i l e r a l l evening, watched TV and went t o bed. ment was given i n t h e presence of two o t h e r d e p u t i e s , This s t a t e O March n 6 , 1971, some two weeks a f t e r t h e murder, t h e s h e r i f f r e c e i v e d word from defendant, t h e n confined i n t h e Missoula County j a i l on an u n r e l a t e d c h a r g e , t h a t he wanted t o t a l k t o the sheriff and g i v e him information concerning t h e d e a t h of Vicki R e n v i l l e . H e t o l d t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s he wanted t o h e l p them and t h e y obtained h i s r e l e a s e from t h e Missoula County j a i l i n t h e custody of t h e Cascade Collnty s h e r i f f . Although i t i s n o t c l e a r i n t h e r e c o r d , i t appears defendant i m p l i c a t e d Michael S t i l l i n g s . S t i l l i n g s was a r r e s t e d i n S e a t t l e , Washington, where he gave t h r e e deputy s h e r i f f s a statement t h a t he had k i l l e d Vicki Renville. Arrangements were made t o r e t u r n him t o Great F a l l s , where he made a n o t h e r s t a t e m e n t . Stillings told the officers t h a t defendant had k i l l e d t h e g i r l . He t o l d them t h e s t o r y of what happened t h e n i g h t of t h e k i l l i n g , where he and defendant were, who they were w i t h both b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e k i l l i n g . Accompanied by h i s a t t o r n e y , t h e county a t t o r n e y and t h r e e deputy s h e r i f f s , h e took them t o t h e scene of t h e k i l l i n g . The s t o r y r e l a t i n g t o t h e k i l l i n g , a s t o l d t o t h e j u r y by S t i l l i n g s , was t h a t he and defendant picked Vicki up l a t e i n t h e evening of February 23, 1971, and a f t e r r i d i n g around town they took Vicki t o an a r e a known a s t h e Wadsworth Park. There S t i l l i n g s suggested t h a t V i c k i have i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h him and when she r e f u s e d he put a k n i f e t o h e r t h r o a t and f o r c e d h e r t o have i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h him i n t h e back s e a t of t h e c a r . Then, according t o S t i l l i n g s , defendant had i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h h e r . A f t e r t h e s e two a c t s V i c k i g o t o u t of t h e c a r and h i s s t o r y of what happened then i s : "Q. What happened t h e n ? to rat. A. V i c k i s a i d she was going Q Vicki s a i d she was going t o r a t ? "Q. And do you know what she meant by t h a t ? "Q. What d i d she mean? A. Yes. A. A. Yes. She was going t o s q u e a l . "Q. And what happened t h e n , i f a n y t h i n g ? A . Fred ducked back i n t o t h e c a r and he grabbed t h e t i r e i r o n , and he s t a r t e d h i t t i n g h e r . 11 Q, What kind of t i r e i r o n was i t ? A, It was a - - j u s t a s i n g l e t i r e iron. I t was a b a r t i r e i r o n . . Did i t have a l u g wrench end on i t ? A. Q . Did i t have a pointed end on i t ? A. "Q. And could you s e e him s t r i k i n g h e r ? Q Did you e v e r s e e him s t r i k i n g h e r ? Yes. Yes. A. A, Not a t f i r s t . Yes. ' Q 'When d i d you s e e him s t r i k i n g h e r ' ? A , was l a y i n g on t h e ground. . Jn When she And i n whac p o s i t i o n was she i n when she was l y i n g t h e ground? A . She was l y i n g on h e r back. "Q. And i n what p o s i t i o n was M r . s t a n d i n g over h e r . Perry? A. He was . How many times d i d you s e e him s t r i k e h e r , do you Maybe h a l f a dozen times. r e c a l l ? A. "Q, And what d i d you do t h e n , i f a n y t h i n g ? jumped out of t h e c a r and grabbed h i s arm. A. 'iQ. tJhat happened a f t e r you grabbed h i s arm? dropped t h e t i r e i r o n and backed o f f . I 1 I A , . He S t i l l i n g s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he picked V i c k i up and thought she was dead. Then t h e two f l e d from t h e a r e a r e t u r n i n g t o town w h e r e t h e y picked up f r i e n d s , so t h a t t h e y could e s t a b l i s h an alibi, The n e x t day S t i l l i n g s changed t h e r e a r t i r e s on h i s c a r , c l e a n e d o f f t h e bloody t i r e i r o n , and soon t h e r e a f t e r l e f t f o r ieattle. S t i l l i n g s t o l d t h e d e p u t i e s where he threw t h e t i r e i-ron i n t h e s t a t e o f Washington, b u t a f t e r a thorough s e a r c h iio t i r e i r o n was found. k t t h e Lime h e t e s t i f i e d S t i l l i n g s had e n t e r e d a p l e a t o second degree murder, b u t s e n t e n c e had n o t been imposed. The d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y thoroughly cross-examined him about making a d e a l w i t h t h e s t a t e , b u t he s a i d he "expected no leniency". D r . Henneford i n h i s e x p e r t testimony d e s c r i b e d t h e kind ~i weapon t h a t could have i n f l i c t e d t h e blows on V i c k i , and when shown a t i r e i r o n l i k e t h a t d e s c r i b e d by S t i l l i n g s , h e t e s t i f i e d ;hat such a weapon could have i n f l i c t e d t h e i n j u r i e s d e s c r i b e d b y him which r e s u l t e d i n h e r d e a t h . Defendant was defended by two a b l e c o u n s e l of t h e Bar of Cascade County. John F. Lynch, Esq. b e f o r e e n t e r i n g p r i v a t e p r a c t i c e served a s a c l e r k t o t h i s Court and worked f o r over a y e a r on t h e r e v i s i o n of Montana's c r i m i n a l code. ;on, John D . Stephen- J r , h a s been i n a c t i v e p r a c t i c e f o r over t e n y e a r s and i s a s k i l l e d , competent,qualified t r i a l lawyer. On a p p e a l , due co a l l e g a t i o n s made about h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l , t h e t r i a l c o u r t app o i n t e d Ralph T , Randono, a former deputy county a t t o r n e y , t o handle the appeal. He was a s s i s t e d i n h i s p r e p a r a t i o n of t h e a p p e l l a t e b r i e f by t h e t r i a l counsel. Defendant s e t s f o r t h seven i s s u e s on appeal f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s consideration : 1. Defendant was n o t provided c o u n s e l a s r e q u i r e d . 2. Defendant was questioned and h a r a s s e d by s h e r i f f ' s d e p u t i e s a f t e r h i s counsel was appointed. 3. Defendant when provided c o u n s e l , was given c o u n s e l w i t h o u t experience i n c r i m i n a l law. 4. Both defendant and counsel asked f o r new counsel. 5. There was a f a i l u r e of c o r r o b o r a t i o n . 6, The c o u r t e r r e d i n a c c e p t i n g a v e r d i c t of second degree murder. The c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s t t r i a l 7. motion t o modify t h e v e r d i c t i n accordance w i t h s e c t i o n 95-2101(c), R.C.M. 1947. I s s u e s 1, 3 and 4 , concern t r i a l counsel and a s such t h e i s s u e of competency of c o u n s e l w i l l be d i s c u s s e d c o v e r i n g t h e three issues. F i r s t , defendant a l l e g e s t h a t between t h e time of h i s a r r e s t and t h e appointment of c o u n s e l , he was s u b j e c t e d t o examination by members of t h e s h e r i f f ' s and county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e s without counsel. The f a c t s a s s e t f o r t h i n our statement of f a c t s f a i l t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s charge. To t h e c o n t r a r y , defendant v o l u n t e e r e d t o a s s i s t t h e Cascade County o f f i c i a l s i n c l e a r i n g up t h e k i l l i n g of Vicki R e n v i l l e . He obtained r e l e a s e from t h e Missoula County j a i l and was allowed t o r e t u r n t o Great F a l l s t o a s s i s t i n t h e investigation. It was n o t u n t i l a f t e r he i m p l i c a t e d S t i l l i n g s and S t i l l i n g s had made t h e a c c u s a t i o n i n v o l v i n g defendant, t h a t any focus was d i r e c t e d t o defendant. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t a f t e r r e t u r n i n g t o Great F a l l s h e a g a i n g o t i n t o t r o u b l e and was p u t i n t o t h e Cascade j a i l t o s e r v e o u t t h e Missoula County sentence. He was r e l e a s e d , l e f t t h e s t a t e , and i t was n o t u n t i l August 17, 1972, t h a t a warrant f o r h i s a r r e s t was i s s u e d . The r e c o r d and t r a n s c r i p t f a i l t o show any s t a t e m e n t s made by defendant d u r i n g t h e i n v e s t i g a t i v e p e r i o d , and defendant d i d n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d t o e x p l a i n anything t h a t happened d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d . Miranda v . Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S,Ct. 1602, 16 L ed 2d 694, h a s no application t o this fact situation. Defendant was served by n o t one, b u t two, c o u r t appointed a t t o r n e y s who were f a i t h f u l t o t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l ~ b l ~ g a t i o n n is Their thanks i s now t o b e charged w i t h being "in- h i s defense. e f f e c t i v e counsel". These days t h i s i s n o t an unusual charge by convicted defendants and a s t h i s Court s a i d i n S t a t e v. F o r s n e s s , Mont . , 495 P.2d 176, 179, 29 St.Rep. 232, 236: II Success i s n o t t h e t e s t of e f f i c i e n t c o u n s e l , f r e q u e n t l y n e i t h e r v i g o r , z e a l , n o r s k i l l can overcome t r u t h , " See a l s o : P e t i t i o n of H e i s e r , 148 Mont. 149, 418 P.2d 202. Here, t h e two t r i a l counsel a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d defendant. W have s c r u t i n i z e d t h e r e c o r d w i t h c a r e and f i n d defendant was e a.dequately, e f f e c t i v e l y , f a i r l y , and competently r e p r e s e n t e d . W n e x t c o n s i d e r i s s u e 5 d i r e c t e d t o an a l l e g e d f a i l u r e of e corroboration. The r e c o r d s u p p l i e s c o r r o b o r a t i v e evidence, over and above t h e testimony of accomplice S t i l l i n g s , a s i s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 94-7220, R.C.M. 1947, There was medical evidence given by D r . Henneford t h a t Vicki had been raped. Two young g i - r l s , C h r i s S h a t t o and Joan Icimbell, t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y were a t d e f e n d a n t ' s t r a i l e r w i t h defendant and S t i l l i n g s from about 9 p.m. u n t i l a f t e r 11:30 p.m., when defendant and S t i l l i n g s took them t o t h e home of Don Shingledecker. Both g i r l s i d e n t i f i e d t h e c o a t defendant wore t h a t n i g h t . The c o a t i n q u e s t i o n wa$ i n t r o d u c e d i n evidence and an FBI a g e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t had human blood s p o t s . Mike Baldwin t e s t i f i e d t h a t defendant and S t i l l i n g s had picked him up about 12:30 a.m. and took him t o a Mona ~ r o w n ' sr e s i d e n c e where they s t a y e d u n t i l a f t e r 1:30 a.m. that night. Baldwin a l s o i d e n t i f i e d t h e c o a t defendant wore Joan Wittke, a f r i e n d of defendant, t e s t i f i e d t h a t defendant t o l d h e r i n t h e presence of one Randy Braden t h a t a b i g guy and a small guy had k i l l e d V i c k i , and " t h a t they threw the t i r e s i n the river." I n a d d i t i o n , a l l witnesses who t e s t i f i e d c c ~ r r o b o r a t e dshe 3 t i i l i n g s ' restinlony concerning 'ihe e v e n t s o f :h e n i g h t of February 23-24, 1 9 7 1 . I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Montana t h a t t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e c o r r o b o r a t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n based on t h e ~ e s t i m o n yof an accomplice i s a m a t t e r of law. S t a t e v . Dess, 1.54 Mont. 231, 462 P.2d 186; S t a t e v . B a r i c k , 143 Hont. 273, 389 P.2d 170; S t a t e v . Moran, 142 Mont. 423, 384 P.2d 777, When t h e t r i a l judge i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t th.e evidence i s c o r r o b o r a t i v e , h e must submit t h e c a s e t o t h e j u r y t o determine what e f f e c t t h e c o r r o b o r a t i o n h a s and whether i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t a conviction. The weight given an a c c o m p l i c e ' s testimony i s f o r t h e Here, t h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d a s t o jury t o d e c i d e , t h e weight t o be given an a c c o m p l i c e ' s testimony. W f i n d no e merit t o i s s u e 5 . Defendant n e x t a r g u e s t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n a c c e p t i n g a second degree murder v e r d i c t . He contends i n an i n s t r u c t i o n o f f e r e d I ~ u rr e f u s e d , t h a t i t was e i t h e r f i r s t degree o r a c q u i t t a l and ,:ites i n s u p p o r t of t h e r e f u s e d i n s t r u c t i o n S t a t e v . M i l l e r , 9 1 Nont. 596, 595, 9 P. 2d 474, a s e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e law on t h e felony-murder r u l e . There, the murder was committed d u r i n g a rubbery and t h i s Court s a i d : II The t r i a l c o u r t i s r e q u i r e d t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on l e s s e r d e g r e e s of a crime c h a r g e d , o r i n c l u d e d c r i m e s , . m l y when t h e evidence would w a r r a n t a c o n v i c t i o n of such o t h e r crimes + ; ;k consequently where, a s h e r e , 3 defendant i s e i t h e r shown t o have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a r o b b e r y , o r attempted r o b b e r y , d u r i n g which a homicide i s committed, o r t h e evidence f a i l s t o show t h a t f a c t Seyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , t h e only p e r m i s s i b l e v e r d i c t i s e i t h e r murder of t h e f i r s t degree o r a c q u i t t a l , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o i n s t r u c t on murder i n t h e second degree. I t * fn M i l l e r t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t err i-n f a i l i n g t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y i t c o u l d f i n d t h e defendant g u i l t y o f murder i n t h e second d e g r e e , because t h e evidence could n o t support t h a t v e r d i c t . Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y found, i n g i v i n g t h e i n s t r u c - t i o n on second d e g r e e , t h a t t h e M i l l e r f a c t s i t u a t i o n was n o t comparable t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . The homicide occurred a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d r a p e had been committed, i t was n o t done d u r i n g t h e perpetration of t h e r a p e . According t o S t i l l i n g s ' testimony, Vi-cki was k i l l e d a f t e r she had been raped because she s a i d she was going t o r a t ( s q u e a l ) . The t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d an second d e g r e e , and t h e j u r y so found. The c o u r t a l s o c a r e f u l l y i n s t r u c t e d on a l l t h e elements of murder. It would appear from i t s v e r d i c t t h a t t h e j u r y d i d n o t f i n d a l l t h e elements of f i r s t degree murder, b u t d i d f i n d second degree and t h e r e were s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o warrant i t s v e r d i c t . ~ e f e n d a n t ' s f i n a l i s s u e i s d i r e c t e d t o t h e c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l and m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e judgment, and a g a i n c i t e s M i l l e r . Having h e r e t o f o r e r u l e d on M i l l e r , we f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s i s s u e . A s previously noted, t h e r e was s u h s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t and we f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y denied t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l . Where t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e r e c o r d t o support t h e v e r d i c t , t h e a c t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l . S t a t e v. Walker, 148 Mont. 216, 419 P.2d 300. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . - -czm--- - &.- . v- ...- -d - ociate Justice ~ s s o c i u t e ustices. J
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
