STATE v SHURTLIFF

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 81-82 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1981 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , MIKE SHURTLIFF, D e f e n d a n t 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 T h i r d 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 o f P o w e l l . H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t Boyd, 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: C. F. Mackay, Anaconda, Montana F o r 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 Ted L. M i z n e r , County A t t o r n e y , D e e r Lodge, Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : Decided: Clerk J u l y 1 6 , 1981 $ Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B . D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s is an a p p e a l from a c o n v i c t i o n of s i m p l e a s s a u l t in the Third Judicial District of the State of Montana, P o w e l l C o u n t y , t h e H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t J . Boyd p r e s i d i n g . The defendant two others, had previously been along with aggravated a s s a u l t . After the c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e two o t h e r s w e r e d i s m i s s e d , t h e defen- dant, with t h e o f f e n s e of charged, after waiver of a jury a s s a u l t u n d e r s e c t i o n 45-5-201, trial, was found g u i l t y of MCA. During t h e evening of A p r i l 8, 1980, a guard a t t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n was s t r u c k i n t h e b a c k by two handmade darts. The i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d w h i l e he was c o n d u c t i n g t h e 9:00 p.m. c o u n t i n Lower B U n i t i n C l o s e U n i t No. One o f t h e prison. The g u a r d was treated P o w e l l C o u n t y Memorial H o s p i t a l , e x t r a c t e d from h i s back, in the emergency and a f t e r room of t h e d a r t s were h e was i n o c u l a t e d f o r t e t n u s and given a n t i b i o t i c s . Lower B U n i t c o n s i s t s o f two f a c i n g rows o f s i x c e l l s each. When h i t , t h e g u a r d was f a c i n g t h e row c o n t a i n i n g c e l l s o n e t h r o u g h s i x , w i t h h i s back t o c e l l s s e v e n t h r o u g h twelve. The d e f e n d a n t o c c u p i e d c e l l t w e l v e a t t h e t i m e o f the attack. An No o n e saw f r o m which c e l l t h e d a r t s came. investigation incident resulted of the unit immediately a f t e r i n t h e d i s c o v e r y of three plastic u s e d t o hang c l o t h e s i n s i d e t h e c e l l s . cated t h a t the tubes in three c e l l s , the tubes The e v i d e n c e i n d i - i n c l u d i n g t h a t of the d e f e n d a n t , were l o o s e and c a p a b l e o f b e i n g removed f r o m t h e walls. guard, Also, a the t u b e had evidence illustrated that t o be aimed t h r o u g h a h o l e to hit the in the c e l l d o o r t h a t was u s e d f o r p a s s i n g m e a l s i n t o t h e c e l l . Defendant inmates, none o f handmade darts testified that whom he c o u l d into a box, that the handmade darts and remember, set minutes before the incident. he up in be other were f i r i n g some one At trial, could several of the cells, i t was d e m o n s t r a t e d propelled for at least f o r t y f e e t by b l o w i n g them t h r o u g h one o f t h e p l a s t i c t u b e s . The d e f e n d a n t ' s c e l l was a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o r t y f e e t f r o m where t h e g u a r d was s t a n d i n g when h i t . E v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t had made two s e p a r a t e t h r e a t s a g a i n s t t h e guard approximately t e n hours before the incident. , Further defendant t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t he d i d n o t l i k e t h e g u a r d . D e f e n d a n t ' s f i n g e r p r i n t s w e r e f o u n d o n o n e o f t h e two d a r t s which s t r u c k t h e g u a r d . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f i n g e r p r i n t s were on t h e d a r t b e c a u s e he out the writing inmates. paper used He a l s o t e s t i f i e d for the sometimes handed dart fins to other t h a t t h e f i n g e r p r i n t s may h a v e been p l a c e d on t h e d a r t when he and t h e o t h e r i n m a t e s were s h o o t i n g t h e d a r t s i n t o t h e box moments b e f o r e t h e i n c i d e n t . Defendant, guilty of assault after waiving under section a jury trial, 45-5-201, was He MCA. s e n t e n c e d t o s i x months i n t h e P o w e l l C o u n t y j a i l , l a s t two months s u s p e n d e d . found was with the The s e n t e n c e was t o be s e r v e d consecutively with h i s present sentence. H e now a p p e a l s h i s conviction. The o n l y i s s u e on a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e pre- sented s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t . D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i dence f o r a c o n v i c t i o n . H e c i t e s e n c y c l o p e d i a law and c a s e law t h a t i s n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d . This Court i n S t a t e v. Duncan 1 0 2 9 , 36 S t . R e p . (1979), 1 8 1 Mont. 382, 593 P.2d 1026, 748, 751, h e l d t h a t : "We s e t f o r t h t h e p r o p e r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i n c r i m i n a l bench t r i a l s i n S t a t e v. Longacre ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 8 Mont. 3 1 1 , 3 1 3 , 542 P . 2 d 1 2 2 1 , 1222: " ' I t is t h e function of t h e t r i e r of t h e facts, i n t h i s c a s e t h e t r i a l judge, to determine t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e witnesses and t h e w e i g h t t o b e g i v e n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y a n d h e may p i c k a n d c h o o s e w h i c h o f t h e w i t n e s s e s a r e t o be b e l i e v e d f r o m a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l of t h e e v i d e n c e . g f i ~ t a t ev . M e d i c i n e B u l l , J r . , 1 5 2 Mont. 34#, 445 P.2d 916. On a p p e a l we s i m p l y d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e def e n d a n t ' s g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . S t a t e v . S t o d d a r d , 1 4 7 Mont. 4 0 2 , 412 P.2d 8 2 7 , S t a t e v . W h i t e , 1 4 6 Mont. 226, 405 P . 2 d 761. ' "Thus, the 'substantial evidence' test a p p l i e s t o a p p e a l s f r o m b o t h j u d g e and j u r y convictions. Therefore, i n determining whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h i s C o u r t w i l l examine t h e e v i d e n c e -ri$ i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e . S t a t e v . P a s c g o ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. 1 2 1 , -596Sbk P . 2 d 8 0 2 , 805; S t a t e v . S t o d d a r d ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 4 7 Mont. 402, 408, 412 P . 2 d 8 2 7 , 8 3 1 . " F u r t h e r , t h i s C o u r t h e l d i n S t a t e v. S t o d d a r d ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 4 7 Mont. 402, 408, 412 P . 2 d 827, 831, that ". . . if the r e c o r d shows a n y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e j u d g ment t h e p r e s u m p t i o n i s i n f a v o r o f s u c h j u d g m e n t . S t a t e v. Robinson, Cor, Mont. 1 0 9 Mont. 322, 96 P.2d 265; S t a t e v. 144 3 2 3 , 396 P.2d 8 6 . " S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e means s u c h r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e a s a reasonable conclusion. 538 P.2d man might S t a t e v. accept Merseal 1 3 6 4 , 1 3 6 8 ; 24A C . J . S . With t h e s e rules i n mind, as adequate to ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 7 Mont. support 409, a 416, C r i m i n a l Law, § I 8 8 0 a t 7 9 3 . a review of defendant's conten- t i o n s concerning the evidence s h a l l follow. D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t s i n c e t h e r e was no e y e w i t n e s s to identify the assailant, b u r d e n of p r o o f . the State failed to meet its However, d e f e n d a n t o f f e r s no o t h e r e x p l a - n a t i o n t h a n t h e o n e p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e and s u p p o r t e d by the evidence . The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e , stantial, was sufficient to uphold a though circum- conviction. For e x a m p l e , d e f e n d a n t ' s f i n g e r p r i n t s w e r e on o n e o f t h e d a r t s removed from t h e g u a r d ' s b a c k . The C a l i f o r n i a Supreme C o u r t i n P e o p l e v . G a r d n e r ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 79 C a l . R p t r . 575, 579, e v i d e n c e of held, 7 4 3 , 747, 457 P.2d " [ f l i n g e r p r i n t e v i d e n c e is t h e s t r o n g e s t i d e n t i t y and i s o r d i n a r i l y s u f f i c i e n t a l o n e t o identify the defendant." D e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t an e y e w i t n e s s is neces- s a r y t o uphold a c o n v i c t i o n is w i t h o u t m e r i t . Indeed, criminal justice t o have s y s t e m would be h a r d p r e s s e d e y e w i t n e s s p r e s e n t a t t h e s c e n e of e v e r y c r i m e . the an Further, it i s up t o t h e t r i e r o f f a c t , n o t t h i s C o u r t , t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e p r e s e n c e of h i s f i n g e r prints held: i s t o be believed. Again, i n Gardner, the court "The j u r y i s e n t i t l e d t o draw i t s own i n f e r e n c e s a s t o how t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i n t s came t o be on t h e bag and when ( s e e P e o p l e v . Wise, 1 9 9 Cal.App.2d 5 7 , 59-60, 3 4 3 ) and t o w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e and o p i n i o n o f print experts." The State 18 Cal.Rptr. the finger- 457 P.2d a t 579. introduced d e f e n d a n t had a m o t i v e other evidence showing: the ( . e l h e t e s t i f i e d he d i s l i k e d t h e g u a r d a n d had t h r e a t e n e d him a t l e a s t t w i c e t h e d a y o f t h e i n c i d e n t ) ; t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c e l l was l o c a t e d b e h i n d t h e p l a c e w h e r e t h e g u a r d was s t a n d i n g ; t h e p l a s t i c t u b e i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c e l l was n o t s e c u r e d t o t h e w a l l ; and t h e d e f e n d a n t knew how t o u s e t h e a p p a r a t u s . circumstantial, When t h i s e v i d e n c e , though i s viewed i n a l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e , t h e r e i s no d o u b t t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n r e a c h e d by t h e t r i e r of f a c t was a r e a s o n a b l e o n e . I n S t a t e v. Fitzpatrick ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 220, 226, 516 P.2d 6 0 5 , 6 0 9 , we h e l d : ~eihert "To f i n d a p e r s o n g u i l t y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , e a c h f a c t i n a c h a i n of c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t w i l l e s t a b l i s h g u i l t need n o t be p r o v e n beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . What m u s t be proved is t h a t t h e r e i s n o t r e a s o n a b l e doubt a r i s i n g from c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l t h e e v i dence i n t h e case. S t a t e v. Medicine B u l l , Jr., ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 152 Mont. 3 4 , 445 P.2d 916; P e o p l e v . Eddy ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 1 2 3 Cal.App.2d 8 2 6 , 268 P.2d 47, 52; P e o p l e v . K r o s s ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 1 2 Cal.App.2d 6 0 2 , 247 P.2d 4 4 , 51; P e o p l e v . ( 1 9 5 3 ) . 1 1 7 Cal.App.2d 410, 256 P.2d 3 5 5 , 362." F i n a l l y , defendant argues t h a t t h e only evidence t h e State used S t a t e v. Cor to convict was circumstantial ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 144 Mont. 323, in 326-327, nature. 396 P.2d In 86, 88, t h i s Court held: "Circumstantial evidence is not always i n f e r i o r i n q u a l i t y n o r is i t n e c e s s a r i l y r e l e g a t e d t o a 'second c l a s s s t a t u s ' i n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o be g i v e n i t . The v e r y f a c t i t is c i r c u m s t a n t i a l is n o t a s u f f i c i e n t a l l e g a t i o n t o j u s t i f y a r e v e r s a l of t h e judgment f o r s u c h e v i d e n c e may be and f r e q u e n t l y i s , m o s t c o n v i n c i n g and s a t i s f a c t o r y . I n any c r i m i n a l c a s e , e v i d e n c e t h a t is m a t e r i a l , r e l e v a n t and c o m p e t e n t w i l l be a d m i t t e d , ' n o t h i n g more and n o t h i n g l e s s . ' The test is whether the facts and c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e of such a q u a l i t y and quantity as t o legally justify a jury in d e t e r m i n i n g g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . I f s u c h be t h e c a s e , t h e n t h e c o u r t s h o u l d not, indeed c a n n o t , s e t a s i d e t h e solemn f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i ' e r of t h e f a c t s . " I t i s c l e a r t h a t a c o n v i c t i o n may r e s t on c i r c u m s t a n - t i a l e v i d e n c e a s e a s i l y a s i t r e s t s on d i r e c t e v i d e n c e . The S t a t e met i t s burden of p r o o f , of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W concur: e c-4 Chief J u s t i e and t h e judgment

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.