STATE v RADI

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14937 I N THE SUPREPIIE COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1979 THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vsGARY EUGENE R A D I , Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , H o n o r a b l e W. W. L e s s l e y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: McKinley A n d e r s o n , Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: H o n o r a b l e 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 Submitted on B r i e f s : Decided: DEC28 O c t o b e r 1 4 , 1979 1 m 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 o f t h e Court. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l r e s u l t i n g from a r e s e n t e n c i n g of a p p e l l a n t t o a sentence of 50 years. Appellant w a s convicted i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County of Sweet G r a s s , of t h e c r i m e o f b u r g l a r y . The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r - d i c t a t t h e same t i m e which a c q u i t t e d a p p e l l a n t of t h e charge of t h e f t . Appellant w a s sentenced a s a p e r s i s t e n t offender t o a t e r m of 50 y e a r s . Appeal w a s t a k e n t o t h i s C o u r t . C o u r t , i n S t a t e v . Radi ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1169, 35 St.Rep. , Mont. This 578 P. 2d 489, a f f i r m e d t h e i s s u e r a i s e d on a p p e a l i n f a v o r o f t h e S t a t e , b u t h e l d t h a t s i n c e t h e s e n t e n c e pronounced w a s done w i t h o u t a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , r e turned t h e c a s e t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e purpose of r e s e n t e n c i n g a p p e l l a n t a f t e r a p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t had been filed. Two i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on t h e p r e s e n t a p p e a l : 1. W a s t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t p r e p a r e d by t h e Board of P a r d o n s and P a r o l e s p r e j u d i c i a l t o a p p e l l a n t i n t h i s c a s e ? 2. Is t h e r e a n i n c o n s i s t e n c y between t h e v e r d i c t r e t u r n e d by t h e j u r y o f g u i l t y of Count I , t h e c o u n t of b u r g l a r y , and of n o t g u i l t y o f Count 11, t h e f t ? The f i r s t i s s u e i s d i r e c t e d t o whether t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t p r e p a r e d by t h e Board o f Pardons and P a r o l e s w a s prejudicial t o appellant. S e c t i o n 46-18-112, MCA, provides f o r a sentencing r e p o r t a s follows: "Whenever a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d , t h e prob a t i o n o f f i c e r s h a l l promptly i n q u i r e i n t o t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , c i r c u m s t a n c e s , n e e d s , and pot e n t i a l i t i e s of t h e defendant; h i s criminal r e c o r d and s o c i a l h i s t o r y ; t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e o f f e n s e ; t h e t i m e t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s been i n d e t e n t i o n ; and t h e harm t o t h e v i c t i m , h i s i m m e d i a t e f a m i l y , and t h e community. A l l l o c a l and s t a t e m e n t a l and c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , c o u r t s , and p o l i c e a g e n c i e s s h a l l f u r n i s h t h e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r , on r e q u e s t , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c r i m i n a l r e c o r d and o t h e r r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h a l l i n c l u d e a p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t when i t i s d e s i r a b l e i n t h e o p i n i o n of t h e c o u r t . " B e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g t o a n a l y z e e a c h of t h e p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e r e p o r t of t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h a t i s a l l e g e d t o be i n e r r o r , w e w i l l a d d r e s s some g e n e r a l comments reg a r d i n g such r e p o r t s i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e s s . This Court has held t h a t a presentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t " i s a v i t a l t o o l o f t h e d i s t r i c t judge i n a r r i v i n g a t what i t c o n s i d e r s a p r o p e r s e n t e n c e . " 578 P.2d a t 1182, 35 St.Rep. a t 504. S t a t e v. Radi, s u p r a , The p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s t o a s s i s t t h e judge i n making h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s t o t h e d i s p o s i t i o n a f t e r conviction. P e o p l e v . Edwards ( 1 9 7 6 ) r 1 8 Cal.3d 796, 135 Cal.Rptr. 411, 557 P.2d 995. The p r o b a t i o n r e p o r t i s g e n e r - a l l y a p r o p e r s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n upon which j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n c a n be e x e r c i s e d when a d e f e n d a n t i s b r o u g h t before the c o u r t f o r sentencing. (1976) P e o p l e v . Chi KO Wong 18 Cal.3d 698, 135 C a l . R p t r . 392, 557 P.2d 976. The s e n t e n c i n g judge c a n n o t be d e n i e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n by imposing s t r i c t r e q u i r e m e n t s o r r e s t r i c t i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o t h e r u l e s of e v i d e n c e a p p l i c a b l e a t a trial. Thus, h e a r s a y and o t h e r matters a r e a c c e p t a b l e i n a presentence report. 241, 247, 69 S . C t . W i l l i a m s v . New York ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 337 U.S. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337. Montana h a s l o n g a l l o w e d t h e u s e of r e p o r t s of p r e sentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n s f o r sentencing purposes. See S t a t e v. K a r a t h a n o s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 158 Mont. 461, 493 P.2d 326; S t a t e v . Harris ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 425, 498 P.2d 1222. I t i s a g e n e r a l r u l e t h r o u g h o u t t h i s c o u n t r y t h a t when matters c o n t a i n e d i n a r e p o r t a r e c o n t e s t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e defendant has, i n e f f e c t , an a f f i r m a t i v e duty t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e showing t h e i n a c c u r a c i e s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e report. Crowder v. S t a t e (Okla. 1 9 7 4 ) , 518 P.2d 890; P e o p l e v . Carter ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 186 Colo. 391, 527 P.2d 875. A recent Supreme C o u r t c a s e from t h e S t a t e o f A l a s k a , Nukapigak v . S t a t e ( A l a s k a 1 9 7 8 ) , 576 P.2d 982, 983, h e l d t h a t f a i l u r e on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t t o c h a l l e n g e t h e a c c u r a c i e s o f s t a t e m e n t s o r t o o f f e r c o n t r a r y e v i d e n c e a t t h e t i m e of sentencing i s f a t a l . "That f a c t alone i s s u f f i c i e n t t o support our decision t o affirm h i s sentences." Nukapigak, 576 P.2d a t 983. Nukapigak r e l i e d upon a C a l i f o r n i a d e c i s i o n , P e o p l e v. Chi KO Wong, s u p r a , and found t h a t i t i s a d e f e n d a n t ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o comply w i t h " p r o c e d u r e s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e claimed u n r e l i a b i l i t y of m a t e r i a l s p r o p e r l y submitted f o r t h e s e n t e n c i n g p u r p o s e s ; a mere c l a i m of i n v a l i d i t y i s insufficient." Nukapigak, 576 P.2d a t 984. A number of c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t , i f a d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t p r e s e n t evidence o r witnesses t o c o n t r a d i c t o r otherwise r e b u t materials i n a p r o b a t i o n r e p o r t , h e i s f o r e c l o s e d from r a i s i n g such i s s u e s on a p p e a l . See Crowder, s u p r a ; C a r t e r , supra. This s t a t e t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t adopted t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i n I n r e P e t i t i o n o f J e r a l d M. Amor ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 143 Mont. 479, 389 P.2d 180, where t h e d e f e n d a n t , on a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t , a l l e g e d t h a t he w a s n o t g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e f u t e evidence contained i n t h e presentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t . T h i s C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o h e a r t h a t argument r e a s o n i n g t h a t s i n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t was r e p r e s e n t e d by competent c o u n s e l a t s e n t e n c i n g , t h e d e f e n d a n t had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e f u t e o r c o n t r a d i c t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e r e p o r t b u t c h o s e n o t t o do SO. T h i s c a s e i s much l i k e Amor. Here, a p p e l l a n t had t h e opportunity t o r e f u t e o r c o n t r a d i c t t h e information t h a t w a s contained i n the report. Both a p p e l l a n t and h i s c o u n s e l w e r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h a copy of t h e r e p o r t p r i o r t o t h e h e a r ing. A p p e l l a n t c h o s e t o o f f e r no w i t n e s s e s t o r e b u t o r c o n t r a d i c t any i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e r e p o r t . I n f a c t , appel- l a n t n e i t h e r t e s t i f i e d n o r o f f e r e d w i t n e s s e s on h i s b e h a l f . While c o u n s e l f o r a p p e l l a n t d i d make mention t o t h e c o u r t o f c e r t a i n p o i n t s i n t h e r e p o r t t h a t he t h o u g h t were i n a c c u r a t e o r inconsistent, the court indicated t h a t those matters would be t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n r e a c h i n g i t s d e c i s i o n . Appellant d i d n o t m e e t h i s a f f i r m a t i v e duty of presenting evidence o r testimony t o c o n t r a d i c t o r r e f u t e t h e m a t t e r s alleged i n the report a s objectionable. A p p e l l a n t asserts t h a t t h e r e p o r t l a c k e d any informat i o n a s t o " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , c i r c u m s t a n c e s , n e e d s and p o t e n t i a l i t i e s " of a p p e l l a n t . W e do n o t a g r e e . Taken a s a whole, t h e r e p o r t i s f u l l of i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and p o t e n t i a l . Information of t h a t nature i s n o t only contained i n a p p e l l a n t ' s criminal h i s t o r y , b u t a l s o c o n t a i n e d i n i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g h i s phys i c a l c o n d i t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n ; h i s f a m i l y and s o c i a l background; h i s e d u c a t i o n a l , v o c a t i o n a l , and m a r i t a l h i s t o r i e s ; and summarized i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e r e p o r t . Appellant next a l l e g e s t h a t t h e r e p o r t t o a l a r g e e x t e n t shows b i a s and p r e j u d i c e on b e h a l f o f t h e o f f i c e r presenting the report. W e f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s c o n t e n t i o n . The r e p o r t i s a f a c t u a l summary o f a p p e l l a n t ' s c r i m i n a l , p h y s i c a l , f a m i l y , s o c i a l and e d u c a t i o n a l background. There i s n o t h i n g on i t s f a c e t h a t would s u b s t a n t i a t e an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e o f f i c e r who p r e s e n t e d i t was b i a s e d o r p r e j u d i c e d . A p p e l l a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t it was improper f o r t h e probation o f f i c e r t o include information about a p p e l l a n t ' s j u v e n i l e r e c o r d , c i t i n g s e c t i o n 41-3-205, t h a t contention. MCA, However, s e c t i o n 41-3-205, t o support MCA, does n o t a p p l y t o t h e j u v e n i l e r e c o r d of t h o s e y o u t h s under t h e d e l i n q u e n c y p r o v i s i o n s of t h e j u v e n i l e l a w , commonly known a s t h e Youth C o u r t Act. That s e c t i o n i s contained i n t h e c h a p t e r of j u v e n i l e law concerned o n l y w i t h d e p e n d e n t and neglect situations. The p r o v i s i o n s o f C h a p t e r 3, T i t l e 4 1 , d o n o t p e r t a i n t o p r o c e e d i n g s f o r d e l i n q u e n t s under t h e Youth C o u r t Act. The Youth C o u r t A c t d o e s , however, c o n t a i n a p r o v i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of t h e r e p o r t s . S e c t i o n 41-5- 604, MCA. I t i s the general r u l e t o allow juvenile records a s a p a r t of p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t a t a s e n t e n c i n g hearing. S e e 47 Am.Jur.2d J u v e n i l e C o u r t s S56 a t 1029. The l e a d i n g c a s e i n t h i s f i e l d i s Hendrickson v. Myers ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 393 Pa. 224, 1 4 4 A.2d 367, which h e l d t h a t d e p r i v i n g t h e c o u r t s o f t h e i r r i g h t t o be informed o f and t o c o n s i d e r t h e e n t i r e h i s t o r y and background of a p e r s o n s u b j e c t t o sent e n c e may r e s u l t i n s e n t e n c e s t h a t are u n j u s t and u n f a i r t o b o t h s o c i e t y and t h e d e f e n d a n t . While w e a r e u n a b l e t o f i n d any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a s t a t u t e s i m i l a r t o Montana's, t h e r e a r e c a s e s t h a t have i n t e r p r e t e d s t a t u t e s regarding t h e use of juvenile records t h a t have a s i m i l a r p u r p o s e t o t h e Montana s t a t u t e . Wash- i n g t o n h a s a s t a t u t e t h a t p r o v i d e s t h a t a n o r d e r of t h e c o u r t a d j u d i c a t i n g a c h i l d d e l i n q u e n t s h a l l i n no c a s e be deemed a c o n v i c t i o n o f a c r i m e . S e c t i o n 13.04-240, S e e S t a t e v. Dainard ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 85 Wash.2d R.C.W. 624, 537 P.2d 760, a c a s e h o l d i n g t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e w a s broad enough i n i t s i n t e n t t o p e r m i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s i n sentencing hearings. F o r c o u r t s t h a t have a l l o w e d t h e u s e o f j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s i n p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t s see Young v . S t a t e (Okla. 1 9 7 6 ) , 553 P.2d 192; P e o p l e v . McFarlin ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 389 Mich. 557, 208 N.W.2d 504; S t a t e v . F i e r r o ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 0 1 A r i z . 118, 416 P . 2d 551. The gravamen o f t h e d e c i s i o n s a l l o w i n g t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge t o u s e t h e f u l l and complete r e p o r t s o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s background i n making t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of s e n t e n c e was s e t f o r t h by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t : ". . . h i g h l y relevant--if not essential--to h i s s e l e c t i o n of an appropriate sentence i s t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e f u l l e s t i n f o r m a t i o n poss i b l e c o n c e r n i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s l i f e and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . And modern c o n c e p t s i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g punishment have made i t a l l t h e more n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge n o t be d e n i e d t h e opp o r t u n i t y t o o b t a i n p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n by a requirement of r i g i d adherence of r e s t r i c t i v e r u l e s of evidence properly a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e trial [ p r o b a t i o n ] r e p o r t s have been g i v e n a h i g h v a l u e by c o n s c i e n t i o u s judges who want t o s e n t e n c e p e r s o n s o n t h e b e s t a v a i l a b l e informat i o n r a t h e r t h a n o n guesswork and i n a d e q u a t e Williams v. N e w York, s u p r a , information 337 U.S. a t 247. . .. . . ." The same r a t i o n a l e c a n be a p p l i e d t o t h i s c a s e . W n o t e t h a t t h e p u r p o s e of t h e Montana s t a t u t e r e g a r d e i n g j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s i s t o p r e v e n t p u b l i c d i s s e m i n a t i o n of a j u v e n i l e r e c o r d once t h a t i n d i v i d u a l a t t a i n s a n a g e of majority. A s p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t s a r e r e q u i r e d by l a w t o b e s e a l e d as w e l l , s e c t i o n 46-18-113(3), semination of m a t e r i a l i s avoided. MCA, the public dis- A t t h e same t i m e t h e sentencing judge is afforded the opportunity to have a complete picture of the individual who is before him for sentencing. There would seem to be no other purpose in maintaining the sealed records of the youth court over a period of at least ten years if they were not to be used in considering the sentencing of an individual later as an adult. See Young v. State, supra, where the Oklahoma court used that rationale in allowing the admission of the juvenile records. In this case, appellant was 34 years of age at the time of sentencing. The report indicates an extensive criminal record, subsequent to appellant's juvenile record. The juvenile record was compiled long before the Youth Court Act was passed in 1974. Considering the report as a whole, it is doubtful that the information in the juvenile records contained in the report played any significant role in the court's sentence. Appellant makes several other contentions concerning factual inconsistencies. One, that the report had an al- leged escape from Pine Hills at the time when appellant was incarcerated in the state prison; two, that the report concerned appellant's military record when he contended that he had no such record; and three, that the report laid some significance to information regarding the fact that he was acquitted of Count I1 of the information with which he was charged at trial, These matters were brought to the attention of the trial judge, and we can presume that the trial judge was capable of giving appropriate weight to unconfirmed and inconsistent matters contained in the presentence report. See State v. McManus (19731, 12 Ore-APP- 84, 504 P.2d 1046. Appellant next alleges that the report is void of information regarding harm to the victims and immediate family or the community. However, the charge itself in this case, which is set forth in the official version of the crime section of the report, does contain that information. Also, the sentencing and trial judge in this case was well aware of that information. See State v. James (1977), 223 Kan. 107, 574 P.2d 181. We note in summary that the entire report is consistent with the purposes and rationale for requiring a presentence investigation. The report did not make any recommendation one way or the other regarding the sentencing, although appellant, for some reason, contends it did. The summary of the report provides no reason to return this matter to the District Court for resentencing. The report was properly used by the sentencing judge and provided him with a fair objective review of appellant's history and meets all of the rationale applied by courts for the use of such reports. Appellant made no attempt to present witnesses to contradict any of the provisions contained in the report or to provide the court with additional information as to his character or history. case. The report was, we find, properly applied in this Its use provides no basis to remand for a further resentencing hearing. The second issue raised by appellant concerns the inconsistency of the verdicts on the two counts of the information charging appellant with burglary and theft. He urges that, since he was acquitted on the charge of theft, the conviction of burglary is inconsistent and therefore must be reversed. T h i s argument i s a l l b u t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e argument t h a t was r a i s e d i n t h e f i r s t a p p e a l . 578 P.2d a t 1176, 35 St.Rep. See S t a t e v . Radi, s u p r a , a t 496, where t h i s C o u r t r u l e d on t h e contention a s follows: "Defendant n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t h e f t c h a r g e s h o u l d have been d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e i t a r o s e from t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n a s t h e b u r g l a r y and t h e def e n d a n t c o u l d n o t be c h a r g e d w i t h two o f f e n s e s . However, d i f f e r e n t e l e m e n t s must be proven f o r t h e c h a r g e o f t h e f t t h a n f o r a c h a r g e of b u r g l a r y and we c a n n o t see e r r o r t o c h a r g e d e f e n d a n t w i t h both offenses. W e n o t e a l s o t h a t t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t o f i n d defendant n o t g u i l t y of t h e t h e f t i f t h e y found him g u i l t y o f b u r g l a r y . S i n c e i t d i d s o , w e s e e no p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . " While t h e argument h e r e i s n o t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e a r g u ment r a i s e d on t h e p r i o r a p p e a l , t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e was d e t e r m i n e d i n t h a t o p i n i o n , and we f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s issue. A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n r e c e n t l y w a s a d d r e s s e d by t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v. H o l l i d a y (19791, 1132, 1135, 36 St.Rep. Mont. - 598 , P. 2d 1535, 1539, where t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : ". . . defendant i s presenting i n essence t h e same i s s u e w e have p r e v i o u s l y d e c i d e d . The d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e two arguments i s s u p e r f i c i a l , It i s well established, t h a t not substantive. where a d e c i s i o n h a s been r e a c h e d by t h i s C o u r t on a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e between t h e same p a r t i e s i n t h e s a m e c a s e such d e c i s i o n i s b i n d i n g on t h e p a r t i e s and c o u r t s , and c a n n o t be r e l i t i g a t e d i n a subsequent appeal, s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n exceptions n o t p e r t i n e n t here. [Citat i o n s omitted.] The d e f e n d a n t i s bound by o u r previous determination t h a t defendant i s not e n t i t l e d t o a d i s m i s s a l of a l l c h a r g e s . " Here, a s i n H o l l i d a y , a p p e l l a n t i s bound by t h e p r e v i o u s r u l i n g and i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o reassert h i s p o s i t i o n on t h i s appeal. 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 . W e concur: < , P C ief Justice /? --- -. .' - I Mr. , - Justices 8 Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g : I concur i n t h e r e s u l t of t h e c a s e . On t h e f i r s t i s s u e I concur on t h e grounds t h a t t h e defendant cannot a t t a c k t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e presentence r e p o r t b e c a u s e he d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e any r e b u t t i n g e v i d e n c e a t t h e t i m e of sentencing. I do n o t a g r e e w i t h a l l t h e d i s c u s s i o n of t h a t i s s u e however. I a g r e e w i t h t h e second i s s u e on t h e grounds s t a t e d i n t h e majority opinion. ................................. Chief J u s t i c e Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea w i l l f i l e a n o p i n i o n l a t e r .

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.