STATE v BEACHMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 80-.45 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1980 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t - i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vs-WILLIAM L. B A H A I E C M N Defendant a c d A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Nineteenth J u d i c i a l District:, I n and f o r t h e County o f L i n c o l n , t h e H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t C. H o l t e r , 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: Donald L. S h a f f e r , L i b b y , Montana F o r 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 , Monta.na Wi1liar.i D o u g l a s , County A t t o r n e y , L i b b y , Montanc? S u b m i t t e d on ~ r i e f s : J u l y 1 0 , 1980 oecided: Filed: 3- Clerk 1, . - 1%~' Mr. 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 C o u r t . his a p p e a l a r i s e s from a c o n v i c t i o n of d e f e n d a n t of o b s t r u c t i o n of j u s t i c e , a f e l o n y , under s e c t i o n 45-7-303, MCA, i n t h e N i n e t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , L i n c o l n County, t h e Honorable R o b e r t M. Holter presiding. On o r a b o u t June 23, 1975, a t t h e Pack R a t mining c l a i m n e a r Libby, Montana, David I o c c a was s h o t t w i c e i n t h e back of t h e head, k i l l e d and b u r i e d . P r i o r t o t h a t d a t e Iocca, R a n d a l l C r a i g Baugh, and d e f e n d a n t had l i v e d t o g e t h e r a t t h e Pack R a t c a b i n . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e d e c e d e n t was s h o t , Baugh and d e f e n d a n t f l e d t h e s t a t e . Baugh s u r r e n d e r e d h i m s e l f t o a u t h o r i t i e s i n l a t e 1975. He was s u b s e q u e n t l y c o n v i c t e d of d e l i b e r a t e homicide and sentenced t o seventy-five years i n prison. Defendant w a s apprehended i n Arizona i n A p r i l 1979. He w a s c h a r g e d under a n amended i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h d e l i b e r a t e homicide, o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , o b s t r u c t i n g j u s t i c e by a s s i s t i n g Baugh i n t h e b u r i a l of I o c c a . The j u r y a c q u i t t e d d e f e n d a n t o f d e l i b e r a t e homicide and c o n v i c t e d him of obstructing justice. P r i o r t o d e f e n d a n t ' s t r i a l , Baugh c o n f e s s e d t o i n v e s t i g a t o r s t h a t he a l o n e had murdered and b u r i e d I o c c a . ~augh t h e n s u b m i t t e d t o a p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e r e s u l t s of which tended t o s u p p o r t h i s s t a t e m e n t t h a t he a l o n e had k i l l e d I o c c a b u t showed i n d i c a t i o n s of d e c e p t i o n a s t o Baugh's s t a t e m e n t t h a t d e f e n d a n t was n o t i n v o l v e d i n t h e burial. The p r o s e c u t i o n f i l e d a p r e t r i a l motion i n l i m i n e s e e k i n g e x c l u s i o n of t h e p o l y g r a p h and i t s r e s u l t s . t r i a l c o u r t ruled t h e evidence inadmissible. t e s t i f i e d during t h e S t a t e ' s case-in-chief The Baugh t h e n relating his v e r s i o n of t h e e v e n t s s u r r o u n d i n g I o c c a l s d e a t h . H i s testi- mony was s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same a s h i s p r i o r c o n f e s s i o n e x c e p t i t i n d i c a t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t h e l p e d i n t h e b u r i a l of Iocca. The S t a t e a l s o f i l e d a motion i n l i m i n e t o p r o h i b i t t h e d e f e n s e from making any r e f e r e n c e t o t h e L i n c o l n County A t t o r n e y having o f f e r e d m a r i j u a n a t o d e f e n d a n t on t h e n i g h t b e f o r e t h e murder. The t r i a l c o u r t e x c l u d e d a l l s u c h e v i - dence, r u l i n g i t i r r e l e v a n t . A f t e r t r i a l defendant w a s sentenced t o t e n years i n p r i s o n , d e s i g n a t e d a dangerous o f f e n d e r and d e c l a r e d i n e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e under s e c t i o n 46-18-202, MCA. On a p p e a l d e f e n d a n t f i r s t r a i s e s t h e i s s u e of whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by g r a n t i n g t h e S t a t e ' s motion i n l i m i n e t o e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e o f Baugh's p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n . The r u l e i n Montana i s t h a t t h e r e s u l t s of p o l y g r a p h examinations a r e n o t admissible a s evidence i n a c r i m i n a l trial. S t a t e v . Hollywood ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 138 Mont. 561, 358 P.2d 437; S t a t e v. Cor ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 323, 396 P.2d 86; S t a t e v . Campbell ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 323, 579 P.2d 1231, 35 St.Rep. 1080; S t a t e v . Bashor ( 1 9 8 0 ) , , 37 St.Rep. Mont. 1 - P. 2d 1098. Defendant, r e l y i n g o n S t a t e v . Dorsey ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 87 N.M. 323, 532 P.2d 912, a r g u e s t h a t p o l y g r a p h t e s t i m o n y , which i s exculpatory, i s admissible notwithstanding a s t a t e r s r u l e s p r o h i b i t i n g i t s admission. Without r u l i n g on whether t h e polygraph testimony i n t h i s i n s t a n c e i s exculpatory, t h i s C o u r t merely needs t o n o t e we have d e c l i n e d t o f o l l o w ~ ~ o r s e y and t h e r a t i o n a l e e x p r e s s e d by t h e N e w Mexico c o u r t i n t h a t case. See Bashor, 37 St.Rep. a t 1108. ~ e f e n d a n ta l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e p o l y g r a p h t e s t i m o n y s h o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e under a s t a n d a r d g e n e r a l l y a p p l i e d t o e x p e r t testimony. R e l y i n g on t h e r a t i o n a l e e x p r e s s e d i n Bashor and u n i t e d S t a t e s v . Alexander ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) , 526 F.2d 161, we d i s a g r e e . Rule 702, Mont.R.Evid., allows e x p e r t opinion t o be i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l i f s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge w i l l a s s i s t t h e t r i e r of f a c t t o understand t h e evidence o r determine a f a c t i n issue. The o n l y t h i n g t h e p o l y g r a p h r e s u l t c a n a c c o m p l i s h i n t h i s i n s t a n c e i s t o s u p p o r t t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of Baugh a s t o h i s testimony. Baugh's c r e d i b i l i t y i s n o t a f a c t i n i s s u e i n t h i s a c t i o n ; t h u s , t h e o p i n i o n of t h e p o l y g r a p h o p e r a t o r a s t o t h e t r u t h f u l n e s s of t h e s t a t e m e n t s made, d o e s n o t f a l l w i t h i n t h e scope of Rule 702, Mont.R.Evid. I t i s d i s t i n c t l y t h e j u r y ' s province t o determine whether a w i t n e s s i s b e i n g t r u t h f u l . Baugh t e s t i f i e d f u l l y a t t r i a l t o every i t e m t h a t he t e s t i f i e d t o during t h e polygraph examination. The j u r y w a s a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h i s t e s t i m o n y was c r e d i b l e . The p o l y g r a p h e x p e r t i n t h i s c a s e would be d i r e c t l y i n v a d i n g t h e p r o v i n c e of t h e j u r y i f h e had been a l l o w e d t o o f f e r h i s o p i n i o n a s t o whether Baugh had been t e l l i n g t h e t r u t h . St.Rep. See Bashor, 37 a t 1109. For t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d , we f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n e x c l u d i n g t h e e v i d e n c e of t h e p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n . The second i s s u e r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t on t h i s a p p e a l i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e S t a t e ' s motion t o e x c l u d e d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t h e had smoked marijuana w i t h t h e p r o s e c u t o r t h e n i g h t b e f o r e t h e o f f e n s e . he t r i a l c o u r t i n excluding t h e o f f e r e d evidence reasoned t h a t i t was n o t r e l e v a n t , o r i f r e l e v a n t , t h a t i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e was outweighed by i t s p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t . Rule 401, Mont.R.Evid., d e f i n e s r e l e v a n t evidence a s " e v i d e n c e h a v i n g any tendency t o make t h e e x i s t e n c e of a f a c t t h a t i s of consequence t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e a c t i o n more p r o b a b l e t h a n i t would be w i t h o u t t h e e v i d e n c e . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The b a s i s of t h e S t a t e ' s c h a r g e of o b s t r u c t i o n of j u s t i c e a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t a s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n w a s t h a t h e a s s i s t e d Baugh i n t h e b u r i a l of I o c c a , t h e r e b y a i d i n g i n t h e s u p p r e s s i o n and concealment of t h e homicide committed by Baugh. The e v i d e n c e s o u g h t t o be a d m i t t e d was o f f e r e d t o show d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t encouraged by t h e law o f f i c e r s i n L i n c o l n County a t t h e t i m e I o c c a w a s k i l l e d and t h u s had r e a s o n t o f e a r he would n o t g e t a j u s t , f a i r t r i a l ; c o n s e q u e n t l y , i n s t e a d of g o i n g t o t h e a u t h o r i t i e s he f l e d t h e s t a t e . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t d e f e n d a n t e n t e r t a i n e d t h e b e l i e f he c o u l d n o t r e c e i v e a f a i r t r i a l i n L i n c o l n County. Thus, t h e testimony a s t o h i s encounter with t h e prosecutor t h e n i g h t b e f o r e t h e murder was r e l e v a n t a s t o show d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e n t f o r leaving the area. However, t h e f a c t t h a t d e f e n d a n t f l e d t h e a r e a i s n o t o f major consequence t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h i s action. The gravamen of t h e o b s t r u c t i o n of j u s t i c e c h a r g e i s d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e of mind a t t h e t i m e h e was a s s i s t i n g Baugh i n t h e b u r i a l of I o c c a ' s body. The e v i d e n c e s o u g h t t o be a d m i t t e d had l i t t l e , i f any, p r o b a t i v e v a l u e a s t o t h i s question. Rule 403, Mont.R.Evid., allows t h e t r i a l court, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t o b a l a n c e t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of e v i d e n c e a s a g a i n s t i t s tendency t o p r e j u d i c e o r c o n f u s e and m i s l e a d t h e jury. S t a t e v. R o l l i n s ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 149 Mont. 481, 428 P.2d 462; S t a t e v. Breitenstein (1979), Mont. , 591 P.2d 233, 36 St.Rep. 403; S t a t e v . Azure ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 591 P.2d 1125, 36 St.Rep. Mont. I 514. The e v i d e n c e i n t h i s i n s t a n c e i s p r e j u d i c i a l i n t h a t i t tends t o c a s t t h e prosecutor i n a less than favorable l i g h t and would r e s u l t i n a t r i a l w i t h i n a t r i a l a s t o h i s a l l e g e d More i m p o r t a n t , s i n c e t h e e v i d e n c e i s n o t proba- behavior. t i v e t o d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e of mind a s he was a s s i s t i n g i n t h e b u r i a l , t h e t e s t i m o n y would o n l y have d i r e c t e d t h e j u r y ' s a t t e n t i o n from t h e p r i n c i p a l i s s u e and t h e r e b y c r e a t e a c o n f u s e d and m i s l e d j u r y a s t o d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t o r innocence. Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e e v i dence outweighs any u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e o r c o n f u s i o n of t h e issues. W e disagree. The e v i d e n c e s o u g h t t o be a d m i t t e d i s c o l l a t e r a l , f o c u s i n g o n l y on d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e n t o r m o t i v e i n f a i l i n g t o go t o t h e a u t h o r i t i e s i n L i n c o l n County and n o t on d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e n t o r motive i n a s s i s t i n g Baugh. The e v i d e n c e having l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e main f a c t i n i s s u e , i t c a n n o t be s a i d t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e c l e a r l y o v e r r i d e s t h e e v i d e n c e ' s p r e j u d i c i a l and c o n f u s i n g n a t u r e . Consequently, w e cannot f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n i t s exclusion. The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d on a p p e a l i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n s e n t e n c i n g d e f e n d a n t under a s t a t u t e n o t i n e f f e c t when t h e o f f e n s e w a s committed. The o f f e n s e i n t h i s c a s e o c c u r r e d i n l a t e J u n e 1975. Defendant was apprehended, t r i e d and c o n v i c t e d i n 1979. In s e n t e n c i n g d e f e n d a n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e c l a r e d him a dangero u s o f f e n d e r under s e c t i o n 46-18-404, MCA, and d e c l a r e d him i n e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e under s e c t i o n 46-18-202, MCA. Both s t a t u t e s w e r e e n a c t e d i n t h e 1977 l e g i s l a t i v e s e s s i o n and became e f f e c t i v e on J u l y 1 of t h a t y e a r . A p p l i c a t i o n o f a law which e l i m i n a t e s o r d e l a y s a defendant's parole e l i g i b i l i t y a f t e r the criminal offense ex h a s been committed i s - p o s t f a c t o a s a p p l i e d t o t h a t defendant and, t h e r e f o r e , u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . - Mont. (1978) I , 587 P.2d 1291, 35 St.Rep. v. Azure ( 1 9 7 8 ) , - Mont. 1559. S t a t e v . Gone , 1540; S t a t e 587 P.2d 1297, 35 St.Rep. W o r d e r such r e s t r i c t i o n s t r i c k e n from t h e judgment e and s e n t e n c e . 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 a s modified. k l";' , d ZL / Justice W e concur: ?h+d! Chief j u s t i c e
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.
