STATE v DAY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-401 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . HAZEL LEE DAY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth ~udicial~istrict, In and for the County of Missoula Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge.presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hirst, Dostal & Withrow, Missoula, Montana John Dostal argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Mary Troland argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Ed McLean argued, Deputy County Attorney, Missoula, Montana - - Submitted: Decided: Filed: OCT 2 2 598t Clerk p p September 14, 1981 October 22, 1981 J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. his i s an a p p e a l by t h e d e f e n d a n t , Hazel Lee Day, from an order of the D i s t r i c t Court, f o r t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l ~ i s t r i c t ,denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o withdraw h e r p l e a of guilty. W e affirm. On December 1 7 , 1979, d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d i n Missoula County w i t h having committed a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t by s h o o t i n g h e r former husband i n t h e c h e s t , s h o u l d e r and f a c e w i t h a C o l t . 3 2 c a l i b e r weapon. Counsel was a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e d e f e n d a n t and on J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1980, a f t e r c o n s u l t i n g w i t h c o u n s e l , t h e d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a p l e a of g u i l t y t o t h e o f f e n s e charged. Defendant was s e n t e n c e d t o a t e r m of two y e a r s i n p r i s o n w i t h t h e recommendation t h a t s h e b e t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e L i f e S k i l l s Training Center i n B i l l i n g s ; she i s c u r r e n t l y on p a r o l e . I n May 1980, d e f e n d a n t moved t o withdraw h e r p l e a based upon t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t , a t t h e t i m e of e n t e r i n g h e r g u i l t y p l e a , t h e d e f e n d a n t was i g n o r a n t of t h e p o t e n t i a l d e f e n s e of j u s t i f i a b l e u s e of f o r c e . The t r i a l c o u r t a d m i t t e d l y d i d n o t advise defendant with r e s p e c t t o the defense. The a t t o r n e y who r e p r e s e n t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e t i m e of t h e e n t r y of p l e a , f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t s t a t i n g t h a t he had d i s c u s s e d t h e d e f e n s e w i t h d e f e n d a n t and t h a t s h e u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e d e f e n s e was a v a i l a b l e t o h e r b u t c h o s e t o p l e a d g u i l t y . Hazel Day i s a 64-year-old t o a c o a l mining f a m i l y . woman, b o r n i n W e s t V i r g i n i a , She was t h e o l d e s t of s e v e n c h i l d r e n and q u i t s c h o o l i n t h i r d g r a d e t o h e l p c a r e f o r t h e r e s t of h e r f a m i l y . When s h e was f o u r t e e n , h e r mother d i e d of t u b e r c u l o s i s and a t f i f t e e n h e r f a t h e r d i e d i n a c o a l mining accident. A t sixteen, t h e defendant married, adopted f o u r o f h e r b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s , and u l t i m a t e l y r e a r e d f i v e of h e r own c h i l d r e n . I n 1959, d e f e n d a n t d i v o r c e d h e r f i r s t husband and r e m a r r i e d . H e r second husband d i e d i n 1966, when s t r u c k by a c a r a l l e g e d l y d r i v e n by t h e d e f e n d a n t . Defendant p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o m a n s l a u g h t e r and was s e n t e n c e d t o s i x y e a r s i n t h e Maryland S t a t e P r i s o n . H e r c r i m i n a l r e c o r d from 1954 t o 1970, a l s o c o n t a i n s f o u r s e p a r a t e misdemeanor e v e n t s of minor t h e f t s and d i s o r d e r l y c o n d u c t . I n March of 1976, d e f e n d a n t m a r r i e d A t h o l "Ted" Day; t h e y w e r e s e p a r a t e d a month l a t e r and d i v o r c e d i n March 1979. During t h e t h r e e y e a r s of m a r r i a g e , f o r a b o u t t h r e e months. abuse. they cohabitated Ted had problems w i t h a l c o h o l Defendant d e s c r i b e d him as seldom s o b e r and when d r u n k , a v e r i t a b l e w i l d man. defendant. H e was p h y s i c a l l y a b u s i v e t o I n 1977, Ted Day s t r u c k t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h e back w i t h a t e l e p h o n e w i t h s u f f i c i e n t f o r c e t o c a u s e n e r v e damage i n h e r r i g h t hand n e c e s s i t a t i n g s u r g e r y . I n t h e same y e a r he a t t e m p t e d t o p u l l d e f e n d a n t ' s tongue from h e r mouth requiring surgery. On a n o t h e r o c c a s i o n he threw a k n i f e a t t h e defendant. A f t e r t h e d i v o r c e Ted Day c o n t i n u e d t o c o n t a c t t h e def e n d a n t , h a r a s s i n g h e r and t h r e a t e n i n g h e r . On Monday, November 27, 1979, d e f e n d a n t came home from work a t a b o u t 4:00 p.m. and found h e r former husband a t h e r t r a i l e r home. H e p e r s u a d e d d e f e n d a n t t o d r i v e him t o L o l o , Montana, f o r t h e p u r p o s e of t r a n s a c t i n g some b u s i n e s s . On t h e r e t u r n t r i p from Lolo, he p u r c h a s e d some b e e r a n d , a f t e r p u s h i n g d e f e n d a n t from t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t , motored t o t h e R a t t l e s n a k e a r e a n o r t h of M i s s o u l a , Montana. p.m. approximately 1 1 ~ 3 0 They remained t h e r e u n t i l Ted drank a l l of t h e b e e r and t h e n d r o v e t o a Missoula m o t e l where he o b t a i n e d a room. H e was drunk and t h e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e asked t o go home. Ted pushed h e r up t h e s t a i r s t o t h e m o t e l room. frightened. She was I n t h e m o t e l room he became v e r y a b u s i v e and t o l d h e r t o remove h e r c l o t h e s . According t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n , Ted t o r e o f f most of h e r c l o t h e s . When h e saw d e f e n d a n t was n o t d r i n k i n g w i t h him, he began throwing food and b e e r c a n s a l l o v e r t h e room. Ted t h e n took a p i s t o l from d e f e n d a n t ' s p u r s e and, a c c o r d i n g t o d e f e n d a n t , r e q u e s t e d h e r t o s h o o t him. H e t h e n l a i d t h e p i s t o l down on t h e n i g h t t a b l e and began throwing d e f e n d a n t up a g a i n s t t h e w a l l . She s t a t e d t h a t a f t e r s h e was h u r t s h e r e a c h e d f o r t h e p i s t o l and p o i n t e d i t a t Ted t e l l i n g him n o t t o come c l o s e r . Defendant s t a t e d t h a t he grabbed f o r h e r a g a i n and s h e s h o t him s e v e r a l t i m e s . Ted was t a k e n t o t h e h o s p i t a l and u l t i m a t e l y recovered. A p u b l i c d e f e n d e r was a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e d e f e n d a n t . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e t a l k e d t o h e r a t t o r n e y a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e t i m e s and t h a t he a d v i s e d h e r t o p l e a d g u i l t y . She s t a t e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t remember h e r a t t o r n e y t a l k i n g t o h e r about self-defense, b u t t h i s was d i s p u t e d by a n a f f i d a v i t f i l e d by h e r a t t o r n e y . The a t t o r n e y s t a t e d he a d v i s e d t h e d e f e n d a n t more t h a n once of h e r r i g h t t o s e l f - d e f e n s e and t h a t s h e u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e d e f e n s e was a v a i l a b l e t o h e r . The a t t o r n e y s t a t e d t h a t s h e wished t o e n t e r a g u i l t y p l e a . The d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a g u i l t y p l e a on J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1980, b e f o r e Judge J a c k L. Green. On t h a t d a y , Judge Green a d v i s e d d e f e n d a n t of t h e c h a r g e and t h e s t a t u t o r i l y mandated punishment. He a d v i s e d h e r of h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , i n c l u d i n g r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y . A f t e r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was r e a d t o h e r , t h e c o u r t a s k e d d e f e n d a n t i f s h e was p r e p a r e d t o plead. She s t a t e d t h a t s h e was and s h e t h e n e n t e r e d h e r p l e a of g u i l t y . The t r i a l c o u r t t h e n a s k e d d e f e n d a n t t o r e l a t e i n h e r own words what had happened j u s t p r i o r t o t h e i n c i d e n t i n q u e s t i o n and d e f e n d a n t summarized t h e f a c t s which a r e s e t f o r t h i n t h i s o p i n i o n . The p l e a was a c c e p t e d and d e f e n d a n t was t h e r e a f t e r sent e n c e d on F e b r u a r y 25, 1980, b e f o r e Judge John S. Henson. The s e n t e n c i n g judge had t h e b e n e f i t of a p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t c o n t a i n i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e shooting incident. A f t e r reviewing t h e presentence r e p o r t , Judge Henson s e n t e n c e d d e f e n d a n t t o two y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n w i t h t h e recommendation t h a t s h e be t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e L i f e S k i l l s T r a i n i n g C e n t e r i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a was v o l u n t a r y . The t r i a l c o u r t found i t was. W e find no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . A g u i l t y p l e a must be e n t e r e d v o l u n t a r i l y and w i t h an understanding of t h e charge. Defendant must u n d e r s t a n d t h e consequences of t h e p l e a and t h e maximum p e n a l t y p r o v i d e d by t h e law f o r t h e o f f e n s e . S t a t e v. Doty ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 233, 237, 566 P.2d 1388, 1391. I n Yother v . S t a t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 14ont. - 597 P.2d 79, 83, 36 St.Rep. , - 1192, 1197, t h i s Court said: "The s t a n d a r d by which t h e v a l i d i t y of a g u i l t y p l e a i s judged i s whether t h e p l e a r e p r e s e n t s a v o l u n t a r y and i n t e l l i g e n t c h o i c e among t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s of a c t i o n open t o t h e d e f e n d a n t a s a f f i r m a t i v e l y d i s c l o s e d by t h e r e c o r d . " The g r a n t i n g o r d e n i a l of a motion t o withdraw a p l e a of g u i l t y l i e s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l judge and w i l l b e r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l o n l y upon a showing of a b u s e of t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . S t a t e v. Nelson 603 P.2d 1050, 1053, 36 St.Rep. 2228, 2232. Mont. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , -I Defendant c o n t e n d s t h a t d i s c r e t i o n was abused i n t h a t (1) t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have r e c o g n i z e d d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s a s b e i n g i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p l e a of g u i l t y and ( 2 ) t h e t r i a l c o u r t , under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , had a d u t y t o advise the defendant regarding self-defense. W do n o t f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s t o e be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p l e a of g u i l t y . The t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have found, a f t e r l i s t e n i n g t o t h e f a c t s r e c i t e d , t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t used e x c e s s i v e f o r c e under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n o t h e r words t h e j u r y c o u l d f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t , having a l o a d e d weapon, c o u l d have removed h e r s e l f from t h e danger of t h e m o t e l room. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t had e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t which tended t o c a s t d o u b t upon d e f e n d a n t ' s c r e d i bility. The t r i a l c o u r t found, and t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e finding, t h a t defendant, a f t e r c o n s u l t i n g w i t h c o u n s e l , c h o s e t o e n t e r a p l e a of g u i l t y r a t h e r t h a n s u b j e c t h e r s e l f t o t h e u n c e r t a i n t y of a t r i a l . The f a c t s i n t h i s r e c o r d do n o t make i t incumbent upon t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o advise t h e defendant regarding s t a t u t o r y defenses p o t e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e t o t h e defendant. Defendant was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l and c o u n s e l , a c c o r d i n g t o h i s a f f i d a v i t , p r o p e r l y d i s c h a r g e d h i s d u t y by d i s c u s s i n g t h e s e defenses with h i s c l i e n t . A d i s c u s s i o n of d e f e n s e s t r a t e g y g o e s beyond t h e r e a l m of t r i a l c o u r t d u t y . I f t r i a l courts had t o d i s c u s s p o t e n t i a l d e f e n s e s w i t h a n a c c u s e d , t h e judge would have t o a d v i s e t h e accused r e g a r d i n g p o t e n t i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenges, a s w e l l a s affirmative defenses e x i s t i n g under s t a t u t e s . These r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s p r o p e r l y a r e v e s t e d i n d e f e n s e c o u n s e l and n o t i n t h e t r i a l judge. W e f i n d t h a t t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support the t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o set a s i d e defendant's p l e a of g u i l t y . ~ e f e n d a n t ' sf a c t u a l r e c i t a t i o n was g i v e n i n m i t i g a t i o n of s e n t e n c e and d i d n o t c o n f l i c t w i t h h e r p l e a of guilty. According t o d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s a f f i d a v i t , d e f e n d a n t was fully informed regarding the defense of "self-defense", and with a full understanding entered a plea of guilty. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to set aside defendant's plea under these circumstances. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We Concur: Chief Justice 1. . Justices Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea will file a dissent later.
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.
