STATE v HATFIELD

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12468 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A OR F OTN 1973 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - ROBEY HATFIELD, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : S a n d a l l , Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana K. D. T o l l i v e r argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : . Hon. Robert L Woodahl , Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. C. Weingartner, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Diane G. Barz argued, Deputy County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: October 2 , 1973 Decided : DEC 7 1973 - Filed : DEc - 7 1973 I Clerk Hon. Edward T. Dussault, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Robey N. H a t f i e l d was convicted of murder i n t h e f i r s t degree by a j u r y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Yellowstone. l i f e imprisonment. He was sentenced t o From t h i s c o n v i c t i o n , he a p p e a l s . H a t f i e l d , a 68 y e a r o l d c o l l e g e g r a d u a t e , i n t h e l a s t few y e a r s had a s s i s t e d h i s 53 y e a r old w i f e , Eva, i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of a c a f e i n B i l l i n g s . I n t h e l a t e a f t e r n o o n of A p r i l 8 , 1972, an a c q u a i n t a n c e , S t a n l e y McMillian, age 45, came t o t h e c a f e f o r a cup of c o f f e e , a s he had done many times p r e v i o u s l y . A t about 5:30 p.m. the c a f e was c l o s e d and H a t f i e l d , Eva, a male cook, and McMillian had c o f f e e t o g e t h e r a f t e r Eva had r e t u r n e d from a s h o r t shopping trip. H a t f i e l d announced he was going home t o check on t h e i r son, Robey H a t f i e l d , Jr., w i t h whom t h e p a r e n t s trouble i n the l a s t year. had had some Mrs. H a t f i e l d s a i d she was going w i t h McMillian and a s s i s t him i n f i n d i n g h i s g i r l f r i e n d , C a r o l i n e , and t h a t s h e would be home e a r l y . H a t f i e l d d i d go t o t h e i r home b u t found t h e son a b s e n t . He s t a y e d a t home, d i d some r e a d i n g , watched TV, t h e n f e l l a s l e e p . A t about 10:OO p.m. he was awakened by a telephone c a l l from one of t h e i r w a i t r e s s e s , i n q u i r i n g whether she should come t o 1 work t h e n e x t day. H a t f i e l d then dozed o f f a g a i n and l a t e r was awakened by a telephone c a l l , b u t by t h e time he answered i t t h e c a l l i n g p a r t y had hung up. p.m. He a g a i n awakened around 1 1 : O O and f i n d i n g h i s w i f e was n o t home, he d r e s s e d , put on h i s o v e r c o a t and h a t and p u t a . 2 2 c a l i b e r r e v o l v e r i n h i s overcoat pocket. I n s e a r c h of h i s w i f e and McMillian, H a t f i e l d went t o s e v e r a l b a r s , had one d r i n k on t h e way, then went t o t h e C r y s t a l Lounge, e n t e r i n g by t h e back e n t r a n c e , a r r i v i n g t h e r e about mid- H i s w i f e was s i t t i n g w i t h McMillian i n a booth. night. n o t i c e d H a t f i e l d and waved t o him t o come over. She H a t f i e l d went t o t h e booth and s a t n e x t t o h i s w i f e , f a c i n g McMillian. Harsh words were had between H a t f i k l d and h i s w i f e about h e r n o t coming home and running around w i t h M i l l i a n . There was t a l k of a divorce. McMillian asked H a t f i e l d t o come s i t b e s i d e him, a s he wanted t o t a l k t o him a s a f r i e n d . and M r s . He t r i e d t o e x p l a i n what h e H a t f i e l d were doing t o g e t h e r , and t r i e d t o convince H a t f i e l d t h a t they had attempted t o c a l l him s e v e r a l times t h a t evening. "sit I n doing s o , McMillian grabbed h at field's arm and s a i d : down, I want t o t a l k t o you a s a f r i e n d " . replied, "YOU w i t h m wife." y To which H a t f i e l d a r e no f r i e n d of mine, you son-of-a-bitch, you a r e A f t e r s e v e r a l a t t e m p t s t o g e t H a t f i e l d t o remain s e a t e d and a f t e r tugging on h i s overcoat t o t h e e x t e n t i t p a r t l y came o f f h i s l e f t s h o u l d e r , H a t f i e l d stood up a t t h e end of t h e booth t a b l e , took t h e p i s t o l from h i s pocket and f i r e d f i v e s h o t s , two h i t McMillian and k i l l e d him almost i n s t a n t l y . Hatfield then s a t down, put t h e gun on t h e t a b l e and awaited a r r i v a l of the police. Following h i s a r r e s t H a t f i e l d gave a s t a t e m e n t t o t h e p o l i c e , s t a t i n g he "intended t o k i l l him and put him o u t of h i s misery. 'I A w i t n e s s i n t h e booth n e x t t o t h a t where t h e crime occurred t e s t i f i e d he heard H a t f i e l d s t a t e he meant t o k i l l McMillian. Defendant urges t h a t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e t r i a l t e s t i mony r e v e a l e d c e r t a i n f a c t s which gave r i s e t o t h e p o s s i b l e presence of t h e defense of s e l f - d e f e n s e . He s t a t e s t h e p o s s i b l e e x i s t e n c e of s e l f - d e f e n s e was n o t a t a l l a p p a r e n t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e p r e t r i a l investigation. Accordingly, a t t h e conclusion of t h e t r i a l defense counsel offered an i n s t r u c t i o n a s t o self-defense. The county a t t o r n e y o b j e c t e d on t h e ground t h e r e was no evidence introduced and no n o t i c e of s e l f - d e f e n s e was given. offered instruction. The t r i a l c o u r t r e f u s e d t h e Defendant p r e d i c a t e s h i s a p p e a l t o t h i s Court f o r a r e v e r s a l of h i s c o n v i c t i o n and t h e g r a n t i n g of a new t r i a l on t h e grounds t h a t t h e n o t i c e requirement of s e c t i o n 95-1803(d), R.C.M. 1947, although h e l d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , can b e a p p l i e d un- constitutionally i n certain factual situations, particularly those i n t h i s c a s e . Defendant contends t h e p r e t r i a l s t a t e m e n t s of s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s d i d n o t c o n t a i n s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o show t h e a l l e g e d II violence" and " a l t e r c a t i o n " between t h e deceased and h i m s e l f , and f o r t h a t r e a s o n he could n o t r a i s e t h e a f f i r m a t i v e defense. The statement of w i t n e s s Charles Kuchera was i n p a r t : "Wayne H y s j u l i e n a n d 1 met Wally Anderson a t t h e C r y s t a l Lounge about 11:45 p.m. Saturday n i g h t t h e 8 t h of A p r i l , 1972. ?t 9 Roby was doing most : of t h e t a l k i n g . Eva d i d n ' t y e l l and t h e o t h e r ; t h e r e is trouble man wasn' t saying anything. b Jx i n t h e n e x t booth 9 r i g h t behind u s , t h e y a r e : I heard him [ H a t f i e l d ] s a y , 'Get fighting I could your hands o f f of m and l e t m g o ' . e e s e e t h a t something was going on, l i k e w r e s t l i n g . Jx I a l s o heard him say [McMillian] t o H a t f i e l d 1 e why d o n ' t you s h u t up, s i t down and l e t m t a l k *.I' t o you a s a f r i e n d ' * * ** ** *** * * ** A t t r i a l , M r . Kuchera t e s t i f i e d i n p a r t : "Q. And when t h e y were having t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n was t h e defendant, M r . H a t f i e l d , s i t t i n g b e s i d e M r . McMillian7 A. Yes, ma'am. Did you s e e them w r e s t l i n g ? "Q. A. Never. "Q. Did you s e e M r . McMillian j e r k i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ? A. I d o n ' t t h i n k I could c l a s s i f y i t a s a j e r k i n g motion. II Q. Well, can you t e l l t h e J u r y what you d i d s e e , how i t happened? A. I-- A s I s a i d , I d i d n ' t make myself a s p e c t a c l e t o t u r n around and s t a r e a t t h e e n t i r e t y , b u t when I d i d t u r n around I was looking over m shoulder and M r . H a t f i e l d s t a r t e d t o , l i k e y he was going t o g e t up, move away, and M r . McMillian grabbed hold of h i s shoulder and s a i d , 'Come on, s i t down, I want t o t a l k t o you.' "Q. Did he a c t v i o l e n t ? "Q. Yes. A. A. M r . McMillian9 No. ' Q Was he speaking loudly? A. I d o n ' t ---Well, i t was loud enough t h a t I could h e a r i t , b u t i t was no shout. I t was nothing t h a t would have proba b l caught anyone's o r t h e e n t i r e b a r ' s a t t e n t i o n , no. x The statement given by w i t n e s s Walter Anderson was, i n part : I' W s a t i n a booth n e x t t o a man and woman and our e : I was f a c i n g booth was j u s t west of t h e i r s . J towards t h e w e s t and could s e e t h e back of t h e l a d i e s head who I have been t o l d was Eva H a t f i e l d . I could n o t s e e t h e man t h a t was s i t t i n g a c r o s s from Eva v e r y w e l l , b u t I could s e e t h a t he was wearing g l a s s e s and I could s e e h i s shoulder. I saw t h e man Roby, s e a t e d on t h e o t h e r s i d e of t h e booth along s i d e of t h e man w i t h g l a s s e s and h i s overcoat was p u l l e d o f f of one shoulder I n o t i c e d t h e c o a t on H a t f i e l d b e i n g p u l l e d down. t h e r e was going t o be t r o u b l e . lI ** *** *** *** *** Anderson's testimony a t t r i a l was, i n p a r t : N w what kind of t r o u b l e were you speaking o "Q. about when you t o l d t h e barmaid t h a t t h e r e i s going t o b e t r o u b l e ? A. Well, I j u s t thought t h a t t h e r e was going t o be a f i g h t o r something, I j u s t d i d n ' t know what was going t o t a k e p l a c e . "Q. A. When you say f i g h t , do you mean a f i s t f i g h t ? Well, some t r o u b l e , yes. So what you observed i n your own mind you "Q. were concerned because t h e r e might b e p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e i n t h e booth n e x t t o you. A . Yes, s i r . I I The s t a t e m e n t given by w i t n e s s Wayne H y s j u l i e n was, i n part: 11 When t h i s man f i r s t came i n , I could t e l l t h a t he was very angry by t h e tone of h i s voice. I heard t h i s man s a y t h a t he wanted a d i v o r c e t h e : : n e x t day. J J 9: Then t h i s man t h a t d i d t h e s h o o t i n g s t o o d up and s a i d I am g e t t i n g o u t of h e r e and t h e n t h i s man t h a t was s h o t p u l l e d him down i n t h e booth. Then t h i s o t h e r man s a i d you t a k e your hands o f f of m r i g h t now. J e : Then I heard t h i s man t h a t d i d t h e shooting s a y , 'Take your hands o f f of me.' I looked over t o s e e what was going on and I saw t h i s man shoot t h r e e times b u t I d o n ' t have any i d e a where t h e t h r e e s h o t s went. I I ** . ~ y s j u l i e n ' stestimony a t t r i a l was: Did you observe o r h e a r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s t o n e "Q. of v o i c e t h a t n i g h t ? A. Yes, i t was angry t o n e of voice. "Q. Was i t loud? Q . But you could h e a r ? gig A. Not o v e r l y loud. A. Yes. I'Q. What you h e a r t h e defendant s a y ? A . I heard him say/%hat he was a gentleman and he kept h i s hands o f f of o t h e r women. Also, l e t ' s s e e . That he wanted a d i v o r c e t h e n e x t day o r was t o g e t one. II Q. Was h e s i t t i n g r i g h t b e s i d e Eva H a t f i e l d a t t h a t time? A . Yes. "Q. Did t h e man t h a t got s h o t , S t a n l e y McMillian, d i d he say a n y t h i n g t h a t you could h e a r ? A,. Only t h e confirmation of h e r saying t h a t she had c a l l e d him. A t what p o i n t d i d t h e defendant s t a n d up and "Q. s i t down b e s i d e t h e v i c t i m , d i d you s e e t h a t ? A . Y e s , when he s a i d t h a t he wanted t o t a l k t o him a s a friend. "Q. S t a n l e y McMillian s a i d t h a t ? Yes. A. And d i d you s e e how he s a t down, was he p u l l e d "Q. down'! A. He was p u l l e d down. A f t e r he was p u l l e d down b e s i d e S t a n l e y Mc"Q. M i l l i a n , could you h e a r any more c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t went on? A. He s a i d , 'Let g o 1 . He asked him t o l e t go. "Q. Mr. Hatfield said that? A.. Yes. Did you s e e t h e defendant g e t up and t r y and "Q. Once. g e t away s e v e r a l times? A. I1Q. You saw him g e t up only once? only t r y t o p u l l away once. I saw him A. "Q. And when he p u l l e d away what d i d h e do? A. He j u s t s a i d t o s i t down and t r i e d t o p u l l him back down i n t h e booth. Was he p u l l i n g a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o a t a t t h a t time? A. Yes, on t h e arm of h i s c o a t . "Q. 11 Q. Was he b e i n g v i o l e n t ? A. No. "Q. Did i t sound l i k e he was t h r e a t e n i n g t h e defendant? A. No. "Q. Did you s e e them w r e s t l e ? A. No. II ~ e f e n d a n t ' sp r e t r i a l statement w a s , i n p a r t : "About 10:OO p.m., I s t a r t e d g e t t i n g mad because Eva was n o t home and about 12:00 I took a .22 r e v o l v e r and loaded i t w i t h 8 rounds of high c a l i b e r magnum ammunition. A f t e r I loaded t h e gun, I put i t i n m y r i g h t h a n d overcoat pocket and went o u t 9: I walked i n t o t h e C r y s t a l , looking f o r Eva. I saw Eva w i t h McMillian and she waved a t m e . I went over and s a t down b e s i d e h e r McMillian i n t e r r u p t e d us w h i l e we were t a l k i n g and s a i d t h a t he wanted m t o s i t on h i s s i d e . I moved over and e 9~ he grabbed me. I s a t down b e s i d e McMillian Jc t o l d him t o l e t go, which he d i d 2k McMillian grabbed m a g a i n and r e l e a s e d m and t h e t h i r d time e e t h a t he j e r k e d me; I t o l d him i f you do t h a t a g a i n , y o u ' l l be s o r r y . I p u l l e d t h e r e v o l v e r out of m y ** ** * * * pocket and s h o t him. I was n o t t r y i n g t o h u r t him, and I s h o t him u n t i l he was dead. I intended t o k i l l him and put him o u t of h i s misery." A t t r i a l defendant t e s t i f i e d i n p a r t : * * "A. I g o t up and s t a r t e d t o go and he s a i d , 'Why d o n ' t you s i t down over h e r e w i t h m and t a l k ? ' e 7 k So I s a t down over t h e r e and he s t a r t e d t o y grab ahold of m arm and c o a t and j e r k e d me over toward him and n o t t o o roughly, b u t rough enough y s o he bothered up m c o a t , and m arm 9~ ik y * *. "Q. How d i d he j e r k you over t h e r e , M r . H a t f i e l d ? A. Well I would s a y t h a t t h e f i r s t time t h a t he y j u s t took ahold of m c o a t and s l e e v e and a r m and t h e f i r s t time w a s n ' t too mild. pulled it. The second time was q u i t e v i o l e n t , and I would say much more than was n e c e s s a r y a t a l l I said, ' I d o n ' t c a r e f o r you. I d o i ' t want t o h e a r anything you have g o t t o say a t a l l . 9: There i s n o t h i n g t h a t you could p o s s i b l y t e l l m t h a t would e 9~ I f you keep on i n t e r e s t m f o r f i v e minutes. e b o t h e r i n g me you a r e going t o b e more than s o r r y ' , and t h e t h i r d time when he p u l l e d m over t o him e why he g o t h i s arm around m neck s o r t of i n a y t w i s t i n g ugly h o l d , you might c a l l i t , and j e r k e d me over t o him v i o l e n t l y and w e l l , you might c a l l i t roughhouse and p u l l e d m over t o him very e v i o l e n t l y and very c r u d e l y and I was q u i t e s u r p r i s e d . I s a i d , 'Okay, t h a t ' s t h e way you f e e l about i t , ' s o I g o t up, unlatched m c o a t , took o u t m gun and y y s h o t him. I' *** *** * * ** ** *** W f a i l t o s e e where t h e testimony a t t r i a l made a b e t t e r e c a s e f o r s e l f - d e f e n s e than d i d t h e p r e t r i a l s t a t e m e n t s . r e v e a l e d "violence" o r an '1 Neither a l t e r c a t i o n " t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t Hat- f i e l d a c t e d under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a r e a s o n a b l e f e a r t h a t someone was going t o be murdered o r s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d . There was no evidence from w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e s t a t e t h a t H a t f i e l d d i d t h e k i l l i n g i n f e a r , n o r d i d he himself t e s t i f y t h a t he a c t e d under any f e a r of harm. I n S t a t e v. Brooks, 150 Mont. 399, 410, 436 P.2d 91, t h i s Court had t h e same i s s u e b e f o r e i t . There we s a i d : "Under Montana law i f a homicide i s t o be j u s t i f i e d by s e l f - d e f e n s e t h e r e must b e evidence t h a t t h e p a r t y k i l l i n g a c t e d under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a reasona b l e f e a r t h a t someone was going t o be murdered o r seriously injured. [Citing a u t h o r i t i e s ] I n t h i s case t h e r e i s no evidence whatever t h a t t h e defendant a c t e d under a r e a s o n a b l e apprehension of d e a t h o r g r e a t b o d i l y harm. The w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e S t a t e gave no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e defendant d i d t h e k i l l i n g i n f e a r n o r d i d t h e defendant himself c l a i m t h a t he a c t e d under any f e a r of harm. II I n s t r u c t i o n s must have r e l a t i o n t o t h e f a c t s given i n a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . S t a t e v. Evans, 60 Mont. 367, 199 P. 440. Although i n s t r u c t i o n s may s t a t e a c o r r e c t p r i n c i p l e of law, i f they a r e n o t based upon o r i n conformity w i t h t h e i s s u e s o r f a c t s r a i s e d o r supported by t h e evidence t h e y ought n o t t o be given. S t a t e v. Smith, 57 Mont. 563, 190 P. 107; S t a t e v. M i t t e n , 36 Mont. 376, 92 P. 969. I n t h i s c a s e Judge McClernan was c o r r e c t i n r e f u s i n g t o i n s t r u c t on s e l f - d e f e n s e . 1 1 I n S t a t e v. Eisenman, 155 Mont. 370, 374, 472 P.2d 857, t h e defendant d i d g i v e n o t i c e of i n t e n t i o n t o r e l y on s e l f - d e f e n s e pursuant t o s e c t i o n 95-1803(d), R.C.M. 1947. Defendant t h e r e o f f e r e d s e v e r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s on s e l f - d e f e n s e . The t r i a l c o u r t r e f u s e d them on t h e grounds t h a t t h e r e was no evidence presented t h a t supported such a t h e o r y . This Court a f f i r m e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , saying: I' According t o a p p e l l a n t ' s own v e r s i o n , she saw h e r husband waving a gun i n t h e i r home and looking 'goofy'. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she t r i e d t o disarm him and i n t h e ensuing s c u f f l e and w r e s t l i n g match, he was s h o t f i v e times! A t b e s t s h e was claiming a c c i d e n t a l shooting. She never claimed t h a t she s h o t i n defense of anything. There simply i s no evidence s u p p o r t i n g a s e l f - d e f e n s e theory. 1 1 For t h e foregoing reasons we cannot a g r e e w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s contention, A f t e r c a r e f u l r e a d i n g of t h e t r a n s c r i p t and s t a t e m e n t s , we f i n d t h e undisputed f a c t s prove t h a t defendant could n o t have a v a i l e d himself of t h e defense of s e l f - d e f e n s e . Having found no i s s u e of s e l f - d e f e n s e , t h e c l a i m of un- c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y a s t o s e c t i o n 95-1803, R.C.M. us. 1947, i s n o t b e f o r e Ho~irever, f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s m a t t e r s e e : S t a t e ex rel. Sikora v. D i s t r i c t Court, 154 Mont. 241, 462 P.2d 897; S t a t e v. Bentley, 155 Mont. 383, 472 P.2d 864; S t a t e ex r e l . K r u t z f e l d t , Mon t . 9 F l o r i d a , 399 U.S. - P. 2d 78, 90 S.Ct. , 30 St.Rep. 993; Williams v. 1893, 26 L ed 2d 446; Radford v. Stewart 320 F.Supp. 826 472 F.2d 1 6 1 Wardius v. Oregon, , 37 2 ed 2d 82 tI-973). 93 S.Ct. The judgment of c o n v i c t i o n i s a f f i r m e d . U. S. 9 Hon. Edward T. Dussault, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison. Justices.

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.