STATE v BAUGH

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13547 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF M N A A O T N 1977 THE STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsRANDALL C R A I G BAUGH, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l District, Honorable Robert Sykes, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Donald L. S h a f f e r argued, Libby, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana A l l e n B. C h r o n i s t e r a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , I-lelena, Montana W i l l i a m A. D o u g l a s a r g u e d , C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , L i b b y , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: lU\( , S :~fl September 29, YO\I i 5 ]gn 1977 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. was discovered I n August 1975, t h e body of ~ a v i d s c c a i n an i s o l a t e d a r e a of Lincoln County, Montana. Sometime a f t e r t h a t , warrants of a r r e s t were issued f o r Randall Craig Baugh, defendant h e r e i n , and William Beechman. never been found. William Beechman has I n November 1975, Randall Craig Baugh turned himself i n t o t h e a u t h o r i t i e s . Defendant was arraigned and plead n o t g u i l t y t o t h e charge of d e l i b e r a t e homicide i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Lincoln County. P r e t r i a l motions were made by t h e s t a t e and t h e defense. Among t h e s e was a motion by t h e s t a t e t o amend the Information a s t o the alleged d a t e o f t h e crime and motions f o r discovery made by defendant. Two prospective witnesses were a r r e s t e d by t h e s t a t e f o r t h e d e l i b e r a t e homicide of D a v i d m c c a . One, Randy Jacobsen, was a r r e s t e d before t h e defense could t a l k t o him and held over n i g h t . I t was a week a f t e r t h i s i n c i d e n t t h a t Jacobsen consented t o an interview by t h e defense. The o t h e r w i t n e s s , William P h i l l i p S t u a r t , was a r r e s t e d i n N w Mexico e and then released. The defense requested t h e c o u r t t o h e l p locate Stuart. The c o u r t ordered t h e Lincoln County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e t o cooperate with t h e Lincoln County public defender's o f f i c e i n l o c a t i n g S t u a r t because t h e Lincoln County p u b l i c defender has no budget o r personnel t o pursue such matters. The Lincoln County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e located S t u a r t i n N w Mexico, d i d n o t e inform t h e public defender, but i n s t e a d informed t h e Lincoln County a t t o r n e y , who then flew t o N w Mexico, interviewed S t u a r t , e a r r e s t e d him, gave him a polygraph examination, r e l e a s e d him, flew back t o Montana, and then informed t h e defense and t h e c o u r t of t h e whereabouts of S t u a r t . T r i a l was had i n Lincoln County, Montana, s t a r t i n g on May 1 7 , 1976. The j u r y was interviewed p r i o r t o v o i r d i r e by Hon. Robert C . Sykes, because of a controversy t h a t e x i s t e d a t t h a t e x i s t e d a t t h a t time between t h e Lincoln County s h e r i f f and t h e county a t t o r n e y , William Douglas. Evidence began on May 18, 1976. O May 21, 1976, t h e defense made two motions f o r a m i s t r i a l . n The f i r s t motion was made because defendant had been brought t o c o u r t on t h e morning of May 21 i n handcuffs, and t h o e h a n d c u f f s were unlocked i n f r o n t of t h e j u r y before t h e t r i a l commenced. The reason f o r t h e handcuffs, according t o t h e deputy s h e r i f f , was t h e defendant's bickering. The o t h e r motion was because a j u r o r , Sandy Kolar, had evidence of t h e matter acquired o u t s i d e of t h e t r i a l . In fact, Kolar was p r e s e n t with Douglas when videotape of t h e exhumation of t h e body of D a v i d p c c a had been shown. Douglas was f u l l y aware Kolar was p r e s e n t a t t h i s videotape showing. Both motions f o r m i s t r i a l were denied; Kolar was excused and an a l t e r n a t e j u r o r was seated. A f u r t h e r motion f o r m i s - t r i a l was made and a motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t . Defendant was found g u i l t y and sentenced t o 75 years i n t h e Montana s t a t e prison. Defendant appeals from t h e judgment, and p r e s e n t s four i s s u e s on appeal: 1. Whether a defendant charged with d e l i b e r a t e homicide has a r i g h t t o a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n on mitigated d e l i b e r a t e homicide? Whether t h e a r r e s t of p o t e n t i a l defense witnesses 2. deprives a defendant of due process and a f a i r t r i a l ? 3. Whether it i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r an accused t o appear i n handcuffs before a j u r y ? Whether t h e replacing of a j u r o r who i s a personal 4. f r i e n d of t h e prosecutor and has personal knowledge of evidence of the. c a s e i s e r r o r , i f replaced by an a l t e r n a t e j u r o r p r i o r t o t h e time t h e jury goes i n t o d e l i b e r a t i o n s ? I s a defendant charged with d e l i b e r a t e homicide I s s u e 1. e n t i t l e d t o a jury i n s t r u c t i o n on mitigated d e l i b e r a t e homicide even though no evidence i s presented on t h a t i s s u e . 94-5-103, R.C.M. Under s e c t l o n 1947, d e l i b e r a t e homicide i s mitigated i f committed "under t h e influence of extreme mental o r emotional s t r e s s f o r which t h e r e i s reasonable explanation o r excuse." A s ascertained from t h e record, defendant's theory i s t h a t he did n o t k i l l the deceased and had no knowledge of who d i d . A t t r i a l , defendant's a t t o r n e y , i n h i s opening statement s t a t e d : "* * * 'Now,-,Randy w i l l take t h e stand and I w i l l t e l l you e s s e n t i a l l y what he w i l l say. He has no knowledge o r information a s t o how ~ a v i d G c c a met h i s death, he could speculate and t h a t i s a l l i t would be i s pure *" s p e c u l a t i o n , he doesn' t know, ** This Court reaffirmed t h e Montana r u l e on t h e requirement f b r an i n s t r u c t i o n on mitigated d e l i b e r a t e homicide i n S t a t e v . Buckley , Mont , , 557 P.2d 283, 33 St.Rep. 1204, 1207 (1976) and s e t out t h i s t e s t : "* ** t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s must cover every i s s u e o r theory having support i n t h e evidence, and t h e inquiry of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t must only be whether o r not any evidence e x i s t s i n t h e record t o warrant an i n s t r u c t i o n on mitigated d e l i b e r a t e homicide .'' 557 P.2d 285. The United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n Keeble v. United S t a t e s , 412 U.S. 205, 93 S.Ct. 1993, 36 L ed 2d 844 (1973), s t a t e d t h a t t h e defendant i s ' e n t i t l e d t o i n s t r u c t i o n on a l e s s e r included o f f e n s e , i f evidence would permit t h e j u r y r a t i o n a l l y t o f i n d him g u i l t y of t h e l e s s e r offense and a c q u i t him of t h e g r e a t e r . I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e r e was no evidence i n t h e record t o show m i t i g a t i o n a s required by s e c t i o n 94-5-103. In fact, defendant's theory throughout t h e t r i a l was t h a t he d i d n o t murder t h e victim. I n S t a t e v. McDonald, 5 1 Mont. 1, 16, 149 P. 279 (1915), i t was s a i d : "* * * I n many i n s t a n c e s , however, t h e evidence i s such a s t o show t h a t t h e defendant i s e i t h e r g u i l t y of t h e o f f e n s e charged o r i s e n t i t l e d t o an a c q u i t t a l . I n such cases t h e c o u r t may not be put i n e r r o r f o r r e f u s i n g o r f a i l i n g t o i n s t r u c t a s t o t h e lower degree o r t h e included offense ." This r a t i o n a l e a p p l i e s t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t e d properly i n not g i v i n g t h e a l t e r n a t e i n s t r u c t i o n on m i t i gated homicide. I s s u e 2, concerns t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s a r r e s t i n g and holding *itnesses Jacobsen and S t u a r t and a f t e r questioning r e l e a s i n g them. Defendant a l l e g e s t h i s p r e j u d i c i a l l y impaired t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of defense c o u n s e l f s e f f o r t s t o interview t h e s e same witnesses. This Court i n S t a t e v. Gangner, 73 Mont. 187, 194, 235 P. 703 (1925) s t a t e d : "Whatever t h e popular notion may be, i t i s n e i t h e r t h e duty nor t h e r i g h t of t h e s t a t e , a c t i n g through i t s p u b l i c o f f i c e r s , t o secure t h e convict i o n of one of i t s c i t i z e n s by any a v a i l a b l e means, f a i r o r f o u l . The C o n s t i t u t i o n guarantees t o everyone accused of crime a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l and t h e s t a t e had no more r i g h t t o deny defendant's counsel access t o a witness m a t e r i a l t o t h e defense then i t would have had t o s e c r e t e t h e witness t o prevent *.I' t h e defendant using him *** ** I n t h e i n s t a n t case while defense counsel was a b l e t o t a l k t o t h e s e witnesses, defendant contends t h e prosecution so intimidated them t h a t t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e interviews was s u b s t a n t i a l l y diminished. Yet, t h e r e i s no showing how t h e prosecution intimidated these witnesses o r t h a t i t i n s t r u c t e d them n o t t o cooperate with t h e defense a t t o r n e y , o r t h a t i t otherwise attempted t o d i r e c t l y impede t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of defense counsel. The record shows t h a t a t t h e time t h e s e witnesses were interviewed and a r r e s t e d , they were p o t e n t i a l defendants i n t h i s case. There i s extensive d i s c u s s i o n in1 t h e record concerning t h e s e witnesses. I t i s c l e a r from t h a t d i s c u s s i o n t h e c o u r t took every a c t i o n p o s s i b l e t o provide t h e defense access t o them. While defense counsel may have had d i f f i c u l t y i n l o c a t i n g and interviewing witnesses Jacobsen and S t u a r t , t h e r e i s nothing i n t h e record t o show l a c k of due process, which could be a t t r i buted t o the s t a t e ' s i n v e s t i g a t o r y procedure. Issue 3. O t h e morning of May 21, 1975, defendant was n escorted i n t o t h e courtroom i n handcuffs by a deputy s h e r i f f . Apparently t h e handcuffs were removed once defendant was i n t h e courtroom. Counsel f o r defendant contends defendant having been seen by t h e jury i n handcuffs i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . When t h e handcuff i n c i d e n t occurred, defense counsel moved i n chambers f o r a m i s t r i a l and was denied. Ruling, however, on t h e m i s t r i a l was reserved i n order t o give t h e c o u r t opportunity t o question t h e j u r o r s a f t e r t h e v e r d i c t was i n t o determine whether t h e j u r o r s were influenced by t h e handcuff i n c i d e n t . This was done a f t e r t h e j u r y reached i t s v e r d i c t , b u t before i t was announced. This exchange took place between t h e c o u r t and j u r o r s : "THE COURT: N w before presenting t h i s v e r d i c t t o o .me, I would l i k e t o ask t h e j u r o r s some questions. Did any of t h e j u r y observe t h e defendant during t h e course of t h e t r i a l being brought i n t o t h e courtroom i n handcuffs? Yes s i r . "THE JURY: "THE COURT: Now, d i d t h a t i n any way a f f e c t any of you i n your d e l i b e r a t i o n s a s t o h i s g u i l t o r innocence? ''THE JURY: No. "THE COURT: It did n o t , any of you? The b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system i s t h a t an accused, whatever h i s p a s t record, i s presumed innocent u n t i l proven g u i l t y beyond a reasonable doubt. United S t a t e s , 156 U.S. 432, 15 S.Ct. Coffin v. 394, 39 L ed 481 (1895). I t follows t h a t t h e accused i s a l s o e n t i t l e d t o t h e i n d i c i a of innocence. I n t h e presence of t h e j u r y , he is o r d i n a r i l y e n t i t l e d t o be r e l i e v e d of handcuffs, o r o t h e r r e s t r a i n t s , s o he w i l l not be m d e d a s an obviously bad person o r t o suggest t h a t t h e f a c t of h i s g u i l t i s a foregone conclusion. United S t a t e s v. Samuel, 431 F.2d 610, 614 (4th C i r . 1970). The Montana case c l o s e s t i n point i s S t a t e v. Bentley, 155 Mont. 383, 472 P.2d 864 (1970). There t h i s Court h e l d t h e defendant was n o t prejudiced by having t o wear j a i l c l o t h i n g during t h e t r i a l . However, t h e Ninth C i r c u i t Court i n Bentley v. C r i s t , 469 F.2d 854 (1972), reversed t h e Montana holding and held t h a t compelling t h e accused t o wear prison c l o t h i n g mag deny him t h e presumption of innocence. I n S t a t e v. Sawyer, 60 Wash.2d 83, 371 P.2d 932 (1962), - t h e defendant was handcuffed i n t h e courtroom upon adjournment, much l i k e t h e i n s t a n t case wherein t h e defendant was brought i n t o c o u r t handcuffed and then unlocked. The c o u r t found no prejudicial error. Sawyer r e l i e d upon Way v. United S t a t e s , 285 F.2d 253, 254, (10th C i r . 1960) where, a s h e r e , t h e defendant was brought i n t o t r i a l handcuffed, without o r d e r of t h e c o u r t , and t h e handcuffs were then removed. I n Way t h e c o u r t held t h a t " i n t h e absence of an i n d i c a t i o n of prej u d i c i a l consequences, such an occurrence does Inot warrant t h e g r a n t i n g of a new t r i a l . " It i s incumbent upon defendant t o demonstrate a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e , which he has n o t done here. The Ninth C i r c u i t i n United S t a t e s v. Kress, 451 F.2d 576 (1971), held t h a t an appearance before t h e jury during t r i a l by a defendant i n shackles i s n o t i n h e r e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l . The majority r u l e i s t h a t , absent unusual circumstances, a p r i s o n e r brought i n t o c o u r t f o r t r i a l i s e n t i t l e d t o appear f r e e from a l l bonds o r shackles, t h i s r i g h t being an important component of a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l . v. Jones, 130 N.J.Super. However, i n S t a t e 596, 328 A.2d 41 (1974), t h e c o u r t h e l d defendant's r i g h t t o be f r e e of shackles during t r i a l need n o t be extended t o t h e r i g h t t o be f r e e of shackles while being taken back and - f o r t h between t h e courthouse and t h e j a i l . Most c o u r t s now agree with Sawyer t h a t a defendant i s n o t denied a f a i r t r i a l and i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a m i s t r i a l s o l e l y because he was momentarily and i n a d v e r t e n t l y seen.:in handcuffs by j u r y members. I n t h e i n s t a n t case counsel f o r defendant admits t h e j u r y was w e l l aware of t h e f a c t defendant was i n custody and n o t f r e e on b a i l . judicial. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h i s occurrence was pre- I n t h e absence of an i n d i c a t i o n of p r e j u d i c i a l conse- quences, such an occurrence does n o t warrant t h e g r a n t i n g of a new t r i a l . - 8 - Issue 4 . On May 21, 1976, f i v e days a f t e r t h e t r i a l commenced i t came t o t h e c o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n t h a t j u r o r Kolar, along with t h e county a t t o r n e y and h i s wife had, s e v e r a l months p r i o r t o t r i a l , viewed a videotape of t h e exhumation o f t h e deceased. This f a c t was unknown t o t h e c o u r t and counsel f o r t h e defendant p r i o r t o t h a t time. Z t was immediately apparent t o the court that: "* * * under t h e s e circumstances, M i s s Kolar was n o t q u a l i f i e d nor should have been made p a r t of t h i s jury unless t h i s was known t o defendant's a t t o r n e y p r i o r t o t h i s time. 11 P r i o r t o determining a course of a c t i o n , t h e c o u r t c a l l e d j u r o r Kolar i n t o chambers and i n t h e presence of counsel and defendant, the following t r a n s p i r e d : "THE COURT: So would you have t h e b a i l i f f,:aBki h e r t o come i n here. The l a s t time I asked, I t h i n k I asked Mrs. Hunt t o come i n here and I scared t h e t a r o u t of h e r . Well,- I don' t want t o s c a r e the t a r o u t y of you. I t has j u s t come t o m a t t e n t i o n and confirmed by M r . Douglas t h a t p r i o r t o t h e time of t h i s t r i a l , i n h i s .presence, you d i d observe and s e e t h e videotaping t h a t had been conducted of t h e exhumation of t h e body. "MISS KOLAR: Yes. y "THE COURT: Well, now i t i s m opinion t h a t t h a t should have i n i t s e l f d i s q u a l i f i e d you from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s t r i a l , because you have observed p a r t of t h e process of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n and i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h i s case and t h a t could a f f e c t your d e l i b e r a t i o n s fiossibly and t h i s information, n o t being known t o M r . Shaffer prevented him from possibly e x e r c i s i n g t h e r i g h t of a peremptory challenge t h a t he might have exercised o r might n o t have. Now, what I am concerned with i s whether o r n o t during t h e course of t h i s t r i a l have you a t any time discussed t h i s f a c t with any o t h e r member of t h e j u r y ? "MISS KOLAR: No, I have n o t . "THE COURT: And t h e r e h a s n ' t been any j u r o r t h a t knows f r o m you t h a t you saw any of t h i s videotaping o r anything? "MISS KOLAR: N o ." I t was f u r t h e r developed upon questioning by defense counsel t h a t j u r o r Kolar was a f r i e n d of t h e county a t t o r n e y , and "more so" of h i s wife and t h e videotape was viewed p r i o r t o going t o s e e a movie. The c o u r t then f u r t h e r questioned j u r o r Kolar: "THE COURT: Well, j u s t one thing. A s i t p e r t a i n e d t o your p a r t i c i p a t i n g on t h e jury and i n t h e v o i r d i r e , you f e l t t h a t viewing t h a t had n o t i n any way a f f e c t e d your opinion a s t o t h e g u i l t o r innocence of M r . Baugh? "MISS KOLAR: No. s i r . "THE COURT: And you f e l t t h a t s i n c e t h i s was j u s t a viewing of t h e exhumation t h a t t h a t i n no way would a f f e c t your d e l i b e r a t i o n s ? "MISS KOLAR: No, it would n o t . "THE COURT: Now, d i d you f e e l t h a t your f r i e n d s h i p with Mrs. Douglas and your knowledge of M r . Douglas would ,.. ! . i n - any way a f f e c t your d e l i b e r a t i o n s ? . MISS KOLAR: No, sir." The c o u r t then excused j u r o r Kolar from f u r t h e r s e r v i c e and even though t h i s v i n f o r m a t i o n "should have been d i s c l o s e d by M r . Douglas during t h e v o i r dire" t h e c o u r t f e l t t h e t r i a l could proceed by s e a t i n g one of t h e a l t e r n a t e j u r o r s . The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t no prejudice had r e s u l t e d i s c l e a r from t h e d e n i a l of defendant's motion f o r a m i s t r i a l . I I n open c o u r t , t h e j u r y , with t h e a l t e r n a t e s i t t i n g f o r Kolar, was admonished: ** M r . Smith, a t t h i s time, you should ':'THE COURT: JC take t h e jury box and i n so doing, although t h e Court knows o r makes t h i s assumption, t h e reasons f o r Miss Kolar's n o t p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n any f u r t h e r proceedings should n o t and w i l l h o t a f f e c t t h e r e s t of you j u r o r s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s case and t h a t we a r e proceeding with t h e t r i a l . That was one of t h e reasons we have a l t e r n a t e j u r o r s i f c e r t a i n circumstances do a r i s e . Now, a t t h i s time, having reconvened, M r . Douglas, c a l l your next witness ." A t t h e conclusion o f t h e t r i a l , a f t e r t h e j u r y had reached i t s v e r d i c t , b u t before t h a t , v e r d i c t was announced, t h e c o u r t questioned t h e jury: "THE COURT: During t h e time t h a t Miss Kolar was a member of t h e j u r y , d i d she d i s c u s s with any of you any of t h e evidence on t h e t r i a l ? "THE JURY :' No. "THE COURT: Let t h e record show t h a t a l l of t h e j u r y answer no t o t h a t question. That t h e previous q u e s t i o n , they s t a t e d t h a t t h e b r i n g i n g of t h e defendant i n handcuffs i n t o t h e courtroom i n t h e i r presence d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s and t h e presumption of t h e defendant's innocence u n t i l proven g u i l t y . Now, t h e f a c t t h a t Miss Kolar was removed from t h e jury and M r . Smith replaced h e r , d i d t h a t i n any way a f f e c t your d e l i b e r a t i o n s on t h i s c a s e ? "THE JURY: N .I1 o Defendant was n o t prejudiced by t h e occurrence involving j u r o r Kolar. While s e r i o u s prejudice may have a r i s e n i f j u r o r Kolar had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e v e r d i c t , those problems were thus a r r e s t e d by replacing h e r with an a l t e r n a t e j u r o r and t h e f u r t h e r safeguards taken by t h e t r i a l judge. The v e r d i c t and judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s affirmed. .---We 1 : Concur

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.