STATE v LOZEAU
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 82-132 IN THE SUPRE1,IECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . HERBERT RICHARD LOZEAU, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lake Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge re siding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: rid ens tine, Polson, Montana K. M. For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Richard P. Heinz, County Attorney, Polson, Montana Submitted on briefs: D!ecided: Filed: "P J @ * ! ; Y Clerk August 26, 1982 September 9, 1982 iqr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l delivered t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. D e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d and c o n v i c t e d of t h e crime of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l , and j u d g m e n t was entered thereon. Following d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s . Although defendant W affirm. e phrases the issues on appeal in t h r e e p a r t s , t h e b a s i c i s s u e p r e s e n t e d is t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e conviction--more t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of specifically, t h e evidence t o support a finding t h a t t n e d e f e n d a n t was t h e a s s a u l t e r . Defendant Herbert Richard t a v e r n i n Ronan, Montana, Several regular customers evening: Donna "Chicken" Lozeau was drinking on t h e e v e n i n g o f J u n e 5 , C o u t u r e , George M i t c h e l l , of the Houle, bar were Linda John Saloway, Gerald Cooper, Dance, a 1980. there Stewart, Jeff at that Ignace Dennis Webster, Vonnie W e b s t e r , and d e f e n d a n t R i c k Lozeau. D e f e n d a n t and Donna B o u l e , a l t h o u g h u n m a r r i e d , are t h e p a r e n t s of a d a u g h t e r . D u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of the e v e n i n g , Gerald Cooper, a s s a u l t v i c t i m , became i n t o x i c a t e d . the Cooper t o o k Donna H o u l e o u t t h e back d o o r o f t h e b a r i n t o t h e a l l e y a t t e m p t i n g t o g e t h e r t o g o o u t w i t h him, reentered the bar. At that b u t s h e r e f u s e d and t h e y b o t h time, the victim, Cooper, s a u l t e d t h e two women, Donna Houle a n d L i n d a S t e w a r t . l o s t c o n s c i o u s n e s s and f e l l t o t h e f l o o r , as- Donna and L i n d a b e n t down on t h e f l o o r a t t e n d i n g t o h e r . Immediately after Cooper struck the women, Ignace C o u t u r e g r a b b e d C o o p e r ' s s h o u l d e r and t o o k him o u t t h e f r o n t door of t h e b a r . The bartender Saloway and t h e b a r t e n d e r f o l l o w e d them. watched while Saloway and Cooper argued. C o u t u r e s t o o d i n f r o n t of Cooper t h e whole time w i t h h i s h a n d s on C o o p e r ' s s h o u l d e r s . J u s t before the stabbing, the bartender, S t e v e iiloon, saw t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p r o a c h i n g t h e g r o u p o u t s i d e . H e thought the d e f e n d a n t was u p s e t t h a t h i s g i r l f r i e n d had b e e n s t r u c k i n t h e b a r s o h e t o l d him t o t a k e i t e a s y . The b a r t e n d e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d h e t h o u g h t h e saw t h e d e f e n d a n t g o i n b e t w e e n J o h n S a l o w a y and G e r a l d Cooper who w e r e s t a n d i n g t h e r e a r g u ing. He t h o u g h t t h e d e f e n d a n t was g o i n g t o h i t Cooper and t h e n saw t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s arm move t o w a r d C o o p e r ' s s t o m a c h . J o h n S a l o w a y a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e saw a hand come i n just b e f o r e Cooper stabbed." a grabbed h i s stomach s a y i n g , "I've been The v i c t i m , C o o p e r , t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e e x p e r i e n c e d s h a r p p a i n w h i l e C o u t u r e was h o l d i n g h i s s h o u l d e r s and t a l k i n g t o him i n f r o n t of t h e b a r . Saloway and t h e b a r t e n d e r i n t o tne bar. George M i t c h e l l , saw t h e d e f e n d a n t g o b a c k who h a d remained inside, s a i d t h a t a f t e r R i c k went o u t t h e f r o n t d o o r t o where t h e g r o u p had g a t h e r e d , t h e n e x t t h i n g h e remembered was somebody c h a r g i n g i n s a y i n g Cooper g o t s t a b b e d . After hospital. Cooper was The b a r t e n d e r stabbed, Couture took closed the bar. him to the Defendant walked home s e v e n o r e i g h t b l o c k s and p a s s e d o u t . Cooper, the victim, testified i n t o x i c a t e d during t h e e v e n t s of that he was pretty t h a t e v e n i n g and d i d n o t remember a n y t h i n g t h a t h a p p e n e d i n s i d e t h e b a r w i t h r e s p e c t t o Donna Houle o r L i n d a S t e w a r t , n o r d i d h e remember a r g u i n g w i t h J o h n S a l o w a y o u t s i d e on t h e s i d e w a l k . experiencing a sharp pain in his H e d i d remember s i d e while h o l d i n g h i s s h o u l d e r s and t a l k i n g t o him. Couture was No e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s t a b b e d C o o p e r . The weapon was n e v e r f o u n d . Based on f a c t s g a t h e r e d d u r i n g t h e p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a tion, d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e o f f e n s e o f assault. He pled not guilty. Following aggravated trial, the r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . dant was years sentenced suspended to and eight years credited jury Defen- imprisonment six time with with prior to served conviction. D e f e n d a n t moved the ground that for a new t r i a l w h i c h was d e n i e d on reasonable p r o v e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of a b l e doubt. men might conclude the t h e i n f o r m a t i o n beyond State a reason- This appeal followed. W hold t h a t t h e evidence is s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e e conviction. A conviction cannot be overturned when the e v i d e n c e , viewed 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 p r o s e c u tion, would a l l o w any e s s e n t i a l elements of rational of fact t o find the t h e c r i m e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . S t a t e v . Doney ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 38 S t . R e p . trier Mont . , 636 P.2d 1377, 1383, 1 7 0 7 , 1 7 1 3 , and c a s e s t h e r e i n c i t e d . The S t a t e is a i d e d by a s t r o n g p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r o f t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of the , judgment. 635 P.2d State v. Shurtliff 1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 6 , 38 S t . R e p . (1981), 1 7 9 8 , 1800. Mont . On a p p e a l we v i e w a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e State to determine whether it constitutes e v i d e n c e a s a r e a s o n a b l e mind m i g h t support a Plont. conclusion" , of guilt. 6 3 1 P.2d 1273, "such relevant accept a s adequate S t a t e v. 1278, 38 Wilson St.Rep. to (1981), 1040, 1047. I n t h i s c a s e t h e S t a t e was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e beyond a reasonable doubt t h a t t h e defendant purposely or knowingly c a u s e d s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y t o G e r a l d Cooper o r n e g l i g e n t l y c a u s e d b o d i l y i n j u r y w i t h a weapon. and ( b ) , MCA. Section 45-5-202(1)(a) The e l e m e n t of " p u r p o s e l y and k n o w i n g l y " was established t h r o u g h t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e v o l u n t a r y m o t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t ' s arm t o t h e v i c t i m ' s abdomen a n d s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e o f m o t i v e i n t e s t i m o n y f u r n i s h e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s drinking buddies and his girlfriend, Donna Houle, about Cooper s t r i k i n g Donna u n c o n s c i o u s j u s t m i n u t e s b e f o r e b e i n g stabbed. The e l e m e n t o f " s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y " was s u p - plied Dr. testimony by McDonald's as to the gravity of C o o p e r ' s wound and t h a t t h e wound was c a u s e d by a k n i f e w i t h a b l a d e a t l e a s t o n e and o n e - h a l f Since defendant there were s t a b Cooper no in inches long. eyewitnesses the abdomen who and actually the weapon saw was n e v e r f o u n d , c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t d e f e n d a n t s t a b b e d Cooper. George M i t c h e l l , W i t n e s s e s S t e v e Moon, J o h n S a l o w a y and I g n a c e C o u t u r e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e a s s a u l t i n f r o n t of the bar. S t e v e Moon, t h e b a r t e n d e r , drm move t o w a r d C o o p e r ' s abdomen. saw t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s J o h n S a l o w a y saw a hand come i n q u i c k l y j u s t b e f o r e t h e v i c t i m g r a b b e d h i s s t o m a c h saying he had been stabbed. George Mitchell said that s h o r t l y a f t e r d e f e n d a n t l e f t t h e b a r someone r a n b a c k i n t o the bar saying Cooper had been stabbed. Dr. McDonald t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of C o o p e r ' s i n j u r y a n d g a v e his e x p e r t m e d i c a l o p i n i o n t h a t t h e wound was c a u s e d by a knife. From t h i s t e s t i m o n y , c o n s i d e r e d c o l l e c t i v e l y , t h e j u r y c o n c l u d e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s t a b b e d Cooper w i t h a k n i f e . Sec- tion 26-1-501, MCA, permits the jury to make such inferences based on the facts proved. "The jury is not bound to blindly accept defendant's version of the facts. It is free to pick and choose the evidence it wishes to believe." Sorenson (1980), Mont . , 619 P.2d State v. 1185, 1194, 37 St.Rep. 1834, 1845. Defendant's contention that his conviction was based on speculation, conjecture or probability because no witness testified that he saw him stab Cooper is without merit. As , 635 we stated in State v. Shurtliff (1981), - Mont. P.2d 1294, 1297, 38 St.Rep. 1798, 1801, a case involving the assault of a prison guard with a dart in the back where no one saw the defendant throw the dart but motive and opportunity were established and his fingerprint was found on the dart, we said: "Defendant's contention that an eyewitness is necessary to uphold a conviction is without merit. Indeed, the criminal justice system would be hard pressed to have an eyewitness present at the scene of every crime." Defendant also argues that the circumstances of the case demonstrate a number of credible theories other than the guilt of the defendant. He states that the circumstan- tial equal force against Couture, evidence applies with Saloway, Moon, Houle and Stewart. This is not correct. The evidence shows the motion of defendant's arm to the victim's abdomen and shows motive insofar as defendant is concerned, all of which is not true as to these other individuals. The issue of the sufficiency of the evidence boils down to the credibility of the State's circumstantial evidence versus the defendant's testimony. The jury by its verdict resolved this conflict in favor of the State. See, S t a t e v. Johnson 39 St.Rep. knife tional 6 4 1 P.2d 462, 466, 419, 423, q u o t i n g S t a t e v. C o r s ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 3 2 3 , 396 P.2d a . -, ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - Mont 86. The j u r y ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t h e l d i n h i s hand when h e moved f i n a i n g of fact, is a t o w a r d Cooper ra- b a s e d on t h e d i r e c t e v i d e n c e t h a t d e f e n d a n t a p p r o a c h e d Cooper e x t e n d i n g h i s arm q u i c k l y t o w a r d Cooper's defendant assault; abdomen; Cooper immediately and that said, turned Cooper's "I've and bodily left been the injury p e n e t r a t i n g k n i f e wound i n t h e abdomen. stabbed"; scene was a of that the serious, When a l l t h e f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e examined c o l l e c t i v e l y , there i s sub- s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , viewed i n t h e 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 , p r o v i n g d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . Defendant's arguments t h a t h i s motion f o r d i s m i s s a l o r acquittal at the close of the State's case and that the t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e g r a n t e d h i s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l o r f o r judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t k e v e r d i c t a r e a n s w e r e d by the foregoing discussion and our finding of sufficient evidence t o support the conviction. Af f i r m e d . Chief ~ 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.
