STATE v WARNICK

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-188 I N THE SUPRENE COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1982 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , VS . MILO WARNICK, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Sixth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e County o f P a r k Honorable J a c k Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: Moses Law F i r m , B i l l i n g s , 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 , Montana B r u c e E . B e c k e r , County A t t o r n e y , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : November 5 , 1982 Filed: DE$Z :? 1982 Decided: December 2 9 , 1982 Mr. C h i e f J u s t l 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 o f t h e Court. Defendant a p p e a l s f r o m h i s c o n v i c t i o n of aggravated a s s a u l t and s e n t e n c e i n t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n Park County. W affirm. e Initially, it i s a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t we aadress r e m a r k s on t h e s u b j e c t of d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p e a l . a few Appellant has " s h o t g u n n e d " s e v e n i s s u e s f o r o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n on a p p e a l , s e v e r a l of which a r e t o t a l l y d e v o i d o f m e r i t , a p p a r e n t l y i n hopes of finding one o r two that will hit c o n s t i t u t e s u f f i c i e n t grounds f o r r e v e r s a l . t h e mark and W w i l l confine e any b r e a d t h of d i s c u s s i o n t o t h o s e q u e s t i o n s r a i s i n g s u f f i - c i e n t l y m e r i t o r i o u s c l a i m s t o w a r r a n t our in-depth review. D e f e n d a n t p i c k e d up L i n d a , h i s f o r m e r w i f e ( w i t h whom he was s h a r i n g a h o u s e i n L i v i n g s t o n ) , f r o m h e r work a t t h e L i v i n g s t o n C o n v a l e s c e n t C e n t e r a t a b o u t 1 0 : 3 0 p.m. 2 3 , 1981. on J u l y They t r a v e l e d t o t h e i r home w h e r e s h e c h a n g e d h e r c l o t h e s and t h e n p r o c e e d e d t o h e r s i s t e r ' s house t o v i s i t a n o t h e r s i s t e r (Debby J e t t y ) who was i n town. Defendant d i d n o t accompany h e r b u t w e n t t o b e d . L i n d a r e t u r n e d home a b o u t f i f t e e n m i n u t e s a f t e r midnight and planning North defendant on Dakota. returning woke up to him She s a i d and asked after s h e was her her if upcoming planning to do she trip so, d e f e n d a n t g o t o u t o f bed and s t a r t e d a r g u i n g w i t h h e r . was to but The two a r g u e d a b o u t d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s f o r some t i m e a f t e r t h i s and d u r i n g t h e a r g u m e n t L i n d a a s k e d t o l e a v e s e v e r a l times but defendant refused t o l e t her. Defendant a l s o h e l d Linda on t h e k i t c h e n f l o o r and h i t h e r h e a d a g a i n s t t h e f l o o r . During t h e argument t h e phone r a n g . Defendant picked u p t h e r e c e i v e r and t h e p e r s o n making t h e c a l l t h e n hung up. A little later t h e phone r a n g a g a i n , and t h e p r o c e d u r e was The phone l a t e r r a n g a t h i r d t i m e , a n d t h i s t i m e repeated. the defendant recognized t h a t one of Linda's s i s t e r s was H e y e l l e d a n o b s c e n i t y i n t o t h e r e c e i v e r a n d hung calling. UP After bedroom the and testified third retrieved that he phone his had call .22 defendant caliber received went rifle. previous to the Defendant beatings at the h a n d s of L i n d a ' s r e l a t i v e s a n d was a f r a i d t h a t t h e y m i g h t be coming t o h i s h o u s e t o d o t h i s a g a i n . Defendant requested h i s w i f e t o c a l l h e r r e l a t i v e s a n d t e l l them n o t t o come, but she house. refused, s a y i n g t h e y would not be coming to the D e f e n d a n t t h e n f i r e d s e v e r a l r o u n d s which h i t t h e bathroom d o o r . According to his testimony, defendant did t h i s t o show L i n d a h e was s e r i o u s and what would h a p p e n i f her relatives argument, did Linda pay was a visit. sitting on one At the couch point and in the defendant p u l l e d h e r o f f t h e c o u c h and t h r e w a n e a s y c h a i r a t h e r . Unknown to defendant, Livingston police dispatcher defendant was beating his Debby Jetty and t o l d wife. had called the dispatcher Sgt. George Bryce the that and O f f i c e r R o b e r t S t a n l e y responded t o t h e d i s p a t c h e r ' s message and a p p r o a c h e d d e f e n d a n t ' s h o u s e . After e x i t i n g t h e i r auto- m o b i l e s t h e y walked t o d e f e n d a n t ' s f r o n t d o o r and s t o o d on each s i d e of t h e d o o r. S g t . B r y c e t h e n knocked o n t h e d o o r . D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d h e c o u l d s e e h e a d s a t the b o t t o m o f t h e g l a s s i n t h e door. Thinking t h e people o u t s i d e were L i n d a ' s defendant f i r e d s i x s h o t s a t t h e t o p of them away. relatives, t h e door t o s c a r e T h e l o w e s t b u l l e t h o l e was s e v e n f e e t a b o v e t h e g r o u n d a n d t h e h i g h e s t was s e v e n f e e t t h r e e i n c h e s a b o v e t h e ground. Sgt. of h i s face. B r y c e was s t r u c k by d e b r i s o n t h e r i g h t s i d e The o f f i c e r s t h e n r e t r e a t e d t o s a f e r p o s i t i o n s under cover. Meanwhile just defendant, not knowing the people he had f i r e d upon were p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e a n d r e q u e s t e d t h e d i s p a t c h e r t o s e n d some o f f i c e r s t o h i s h o u s e . The d i s p a t c h e r r e p l i e d t h a t someone had a l r e a d y c a l l e d a n d t h a t o f f i c e r s were on t h e i r way. Sgt. Bryce a l s o n o t i f i e d t h e d i s p a t c h e r t h a t t h e y had b e e n f i r e d upon and r e q u e s t e d assistance. The d i s p a t c h e r t h e n c a l l e d d e f e n d a n t and t o l d him t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s w e r e a l r e a d y t h e r e and were t h e o n e s who had been knocking defendant on the t h a t h e was door. The dispatcher informed t o l e a v e h i s g u n s i n t h e h o u s e and walk o u t s i d e w i t h h i s h a n d s i n t h e a i r w h i c h h e d i d . On A u g u s t filed an 11, 1 9 8 1 , information t h e Deputy P a r k County A t t o r n e y charging defendant with aggravated a s s a u l t with t h e following language: "On o r a b o u t J u l y 24, 1 9 8 1 , i n P a r k C o u n t y , Montana, t h e d e f e n d a n t , a t a p d i d purposely or p r o x i m a t e l y 1 2 : 4 2 A.M., knowingly f i r e a .22 c a l i b e r r i f l e through a door which had j u s t been knocked on by o f f i c e r s George B r y c e a n d Robert Stanley. S a i d a c t was d o n e by t h e defendant p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly and caused reasonable apprehension or s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y by u s e o f a weapon." Following a t r i a l beginning February d a n t was c o n v i c t e d a n d o n March 9 , ten years suspended. using in the Montana defen- 1 9 8 2 , was s e n t e n c e d t o Prison with eight years D e f e n d a n t was a l s o s e n t e n c e d t o two y e a r s f o r a d a n g e r o u s weapon (section State 1982, 4, 46-18-221, MCA), i n t h e commission to run of consecutively an offense with the f i r s t sentence. D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s and p r e s e n t s seven issues for our review: 1. Was e v i d e n c e o f other crimes erroneously admitted i n evidence? 2. Were c e r t a i n p i c t u r e s erroneously admitted in evidence? 3 . Were t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c h a r g e a n d i n s t r u c t i o n s e r r o - neous? 4. Is j u s t i f i a b l e f o r c e i n s e l f - d e f e n s e an a f f i r m a t i v e defense? 5. Did c e r t a i n i n s t r u c t i o n s b a r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the 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 ? 6 . Could r a t i o n a l t r i e r s o f f a c t f i n d beyond a r e a s o n - a b l e doubt t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s were j u s t i f i e d ? 7. Does t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e s e n t e n c e imposed? In the f i r s t issue, ~ u s t i979), ( Mont . d e f e n d a n t r e f e r s u s t o S t a t e v. , 602 P.2d 9 5 7 , 36 S t . R e p . 1649, w h e r e i n w e d i s c u s s e d how e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r crimes s h o u l d b e "We f e e l t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s s h o u l d b e s t a n d a r d i z e d i n c a s e s o f t h i s t y p e and t h e r e f o r e hold t h a t t h e following proced u r e s s h a l l be f o l l o w e d w i t h o u t r e t r o active application insofar a s they a r e new: " ( a ) E v i d e n c e o f o t h e r c r i m e s may n o t b e r e c e i v e d u n l e s s t h e r e h a s been n o t i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t t h a t s u c h e v i d e n c e i s t o be introduced. The p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n MCA s h o u l d s e r v e a s s e c t i o n 46-18-503 g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e form and c o n t e n t o f such n o t i c e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e n o t i c e t o the defendant s h a l l include a statement a s t o t h e p u r p o s e s f o r which s u c h e v i dence is t o be a d m i t t e d . t h e t i m e of t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f evidence, the t r i a l court s h a l l "(b)At such e x p l a i n t o t h e j u r y t h e p u r p o s e of s u c h e v i d e n c e and s h a l l admonish i t t o weigh t h e evidence only f o r such purposes. " ( c ) In its f i n a l charge, the c o u r t should i n s t r u c t the jury i n unequivocal terms t h a t s u c h e v i d e n c e was r e c e i v e d only for the limited purposes e a r l i e r s t a t e d and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t is n o t b e i n g t r i e d a n d may n o t b e c o n v i c t e d f o r any o f f e n s e e x c e p t t h a t c h a r g e d , warning them t h a t t o c o n v i c t f o r o t h e r o f f e n s e s may r e s u l t i n u n j u s t d o u b l e p u n i s h m e n t . " Mont. a t , 602 P.2d a t 963-964, 36 S t . R e p . a t 1657-1658. A p p e l l a n t c h a r g e s t h a t t h e J u s t s t a n d a r d was v i o l a t e d on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s a t t r i a l - - t h e testimony regarding t h e a s s a u l t on Linda, t h e S t a t e ' s o f f e r i n g a r e v o l v e r i n t o e v i d e n c e w h i c h was f o u n d o n d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e m i s e s , t h e t e s t i m o n y a b o u t damage o c c u r r i n g t o t h e h o u s e a n d t h e t e s t i m o n y a s t o a n a s s a u l t by d e f e n d a n t on h i s s t e p d a u g h t e r . We initially note that the testimony regarding the a s s a u l t on L i n d a and t h e damage o c c u r r i n g t o t h e h o u s e and t h e r e v o l v e r w e r e n o t o b j e c t e d t o a t t r i a l which f o r e c l o s e s our review , on a p p e a l . 600 P.2d S t a t e v. 1 9 4 , 36 S t . R e p . Patton 1731. (1979), Mont . Additionally, we f a i l t o see how p o s s e s s i o n of t h e r e v o l v e r o r d e f e n d a n t ' s c a u s i n g damage t o h i s own i ~ o u s e c o n s t i t u t e a c r i m e , and d e f e n d a n t f a i l s t o e n l i g h t e n u s on t h i s p o i n t i n h i s b r i e f . Appellant a r g u e s i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o o b j e c t was n o t f a t a l because t h i s c o n s t i t u t e s p l a i n e r r o r . However, there was n o e r r o r h e r e . R e g a r d i n g t h e a s s a u l t by d e f e n d a n t o n h i s s t e p d a u g h t e r t h e t r a n s c r i p t shows t h e f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y by t h e d e f e n d a n t u n d e r q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e p r o s e c u t o r : "A. Okay. T h a t day-L e t ' s see-We had g o n e home and I was s p a n k i n g t h e g i r l And I d i d u s e a b e l t . for lying t o me. And w h i l e I was s p a n k i n g h e r o v e r my l a p , w e l l , of c o u r s e s h e was f i g h t i n g m e . she d i d g e t a black eye. And "Q. Were t h e r e c h a r g e s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t you a s a r e s u l t o f t h a t ? I1IJ1R. DOUGLASS [ D e f e n d a n t ' s A t t o r n e y ] : Your Honor, O b j e c t t o q u e s t i o n s o f t h a t nature. "THE I w i l l COURT: charges. " Later, before settling sustain that as t o instructions, defendant's attorney moved f o r a m i s t r i a l on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e a b o v e t e s t i m o n y p l a n t e d t h e s e e d of d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i o r c r i m e s i n t h e j u r o r s ' m i n d s which c o u l d n o t be e l i m i n a t e d w i t h o u t a new t r i a l . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s m i s t r i a l motion. I t is e v i d e n t from t h e above p o r t i o n of t r a n s c r i p t t h a t defendant did not the t e s t i f y about any p r i o r crime because t h e q u e s t i o n regarding charges being brought a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t was n e v e r a n s w e r e d o r In Just, upon which testified regarding defendant heavily several previous m i t t e d a g a i n s t h e r by t h e d e f e n d a n t . alluded t o again. relies, the victim s e x u a l o f f e n s e s comHere, d e f e n d a n t never d i d t e s t i f y a b o u t a n y p r e v i o u s c r i m e s a l l e g e d l y c o m m i t t e d by him and t h u s t h e r e i s no p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n J u s t and t h i s c a s e which would make t h e J u s t h o l d i n g a p p r o p r i a t e h e r e . In the second issue defendant assigns a s e r r o r the a d m i s s i o n o f s e v e n p h o t o g r a p h s t a k e n by O f f i c e r S t a n l e y on the night of photographs the incident in question. show where t h e s p e n t .22 S e v e r a l of shells fell these and the l o c a t i o n of t h e b u l l e t h o l e s i n t h e b a t h r o o m d o o r and f r o n t door of t h e house. E x h i b i t No. 26 i s a v i e w of t h e e d g e o f t h e b a t h r o o m d o o r showing how o n e b u l l e t n i c k e d t h e e d g e o f the door. On all but one of these pictures, Officer Stanley c i r c l e d w i t h a black pen t h e l o c a t i o n of the bullet holes and s p e n t c a r t r i d g e s and made n o t a t i o n s on t h e b a c k s o f a l l o f them, these pictures scene at the because time, t h e y do n o t a c c u r a t e l y p o r t r a y t h e i.e., pictures a t a later time. No. Defsndant o b j e c t s t o i n d i c a t i n g w h a t e a c h showed. the circles were drawn on the Defendant's objection t o Exhibit 26, on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t d i d n o t show t h e d o o r i n t h e same c o n d i t i o n a s i t was a t t h e t i m e o f the incident, is a p p a r e n t l y b a s e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g p o r t i o n o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t : "MR. DOUGLASS: Officer Stanley, referis t h a t t h e r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t o 26, p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e d o o r was i n when you A. I f i r s t entered t h e residence? r e a l l y d o n ' t - - I d o n ' t t h i n k s o , b u t I am I can't r e c a l l now. not sure. "MR. DOUGLASS: Would y o u r r e c o l l e c t i o n b e t h a t i t was o p e n w i d e r t h a n t h a t ? A. I b e l i e v e i t was, y e s . I would o b j e c t t o 2 6 . I "MR. DOUGLASS: t h i n k t h e same o b j e c t i o n , f i r s t , i t ' s b e e n marked u p o n , t h a t I o b j e c t e d t o before. Secondly, it does n o t a c c u r a t e l y d e p i c t t h e s c e n e a s i t was f o u n d . " These contentions border on t h e ludicrous. Officer S t a n l e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t w r i t i n g n o t a t i o n s on t h e b a c k o f photographs is s t a n d a r d p o l i c e procedure. n o t l e a v e a v e r y l a r g e h o l e nor the A .22 b u l l e t d o e s is t h e c a r t r i d g e v e r y b i g , and i f t h e c i r c l e s had n o t b e e n made, i t would b e d i f f i c u l t i n d e e d t o d e t e r m i n e why t h e p i c t u r e s w e r e t a k e n . W e s e e no r e a s o n why t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e p i c t u r e s h o w i n g t h e b a t h r o o m d o o r c l o s e d more t h a n i t h a d b e e n a t t h e t i m e o f t h e p o l i c e e n t r y i n t o t h e h o u s e p r e j u d i c e d t h e d e f e n d a n t i n a n y way. M o r e o v e r , t h e l a w i n t h e Montana i s t h a t t r i a l c o u r t s have wide discretion N o r t h American Mfg. Co. See a l s o , S t a t e v. in admitting photographs, ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. Hoffman ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Brown 9 8 , 576 P.2d Mont . , v. 711. 639 P.2d 507, 39 St.Rep. admitted); P.2d 79 ( p a t h o l o g i s t ' s c o l o r s l i d e s w e r e p r o p e r l y Warrick and S t a t e v . ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 2 Mont. 446 94, 916 ( c o l o r p h o t o g r a p h s were p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d ) . I n S t a t e v. Lang ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 197 Neb. investigating officers liquor wall store cheting bullet, liquor store. took which a picture were 246 N.W.2d 47, of probably two caused 608, marks on by rico- a a a f t e r a melee i n a parking l o t n e x t t o t h e The o f f i c e r s c i r c l e d t h e m a r k s on t h e p h o t o - g r a p h and t h e Supreme C o u r t of N e b r a s k a were p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d a t t r i a l . found t h e p i c t u r e s W e s i m i l a r l y s o hold here. I n t h e t h i r d i s s u e d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s h e was d e n i e d a unanimous and j u r y by use jury verdict by t h e language of the information i n s t r u c t i o n s w h i c h w e r e worded i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e of the information word which knowingly" "or." Defendant states fired the that f i r s t points defendant rifle, that to the "purposely such act was or done " ~ u r p o s e l yo r k n o w i n g l y " and c a u s e d " r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n or serious according follows: bodily injury. detendant, to No. 12 which " The contain stated jury a in instructions similar part, fault which, are as "[plurposely or knowingly c a u s i n g r e a s o n a b l e apprehension of s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y is a n e l e m e n t of t h e o f f e n s e o f AGGRAVATED ASSAULT"; No. 1 3 which stated AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, MILO W A K N I C K , "[tlo sustain in part, t h e c h a r g e of t h e S t a t e must prove t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , purposely or knowingly caused reasonable a p p r e h e n s i o n of s e r i o u s injury i n a n o t h e r human b e i n g w i t h a weapon"; No. 1 4 which p r o v i d e d , AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, " [ t l o s u s t a i n t h e charge of t h e S t a t e must prove t h a t each element o f t h e o f f e n s e was d o n e p u r p o s e l y o r k n o w i n g l y " ; which p r o v i d e d i n p a r t , a n d No. 21 " [ a ] p e r s o n commits t h e o f f e n s e o f ~f ASSAULT he: (1) p u r p o s e l y I n j u r y t o another ; or to another with a or knowingly causes bodlly ( 2 ) negligently causes bodily injury weapon; or (3) purposely or knowinyly c a u s e s r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n of b o d i l y i n j u r y i n a n o t h e r . " For example, defendant states that Instruction No. 13 allowed t h e j u r y t o f i n d defendant g u i l t y i f only one-half of the jurors found that he acted "purposely" while the o t h e r h a l f found t h a t h e a c t e d "knowingly." W disagree. e object to I n i t i a l l y w e note t h a t defendant did not Instruction Nos. 14 a n d 21 t h u s p r e s e r v i n g b a s i s f o r a p p e l l a t e review of t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s . et al. Powers 3t.Rep. (1982), , Mont. no S t a t e v. 645 P.2d 1357, 39 989. W a l s o n o t e t h a t w e h a v e r e j e c t e d t h i s unanimous j u r y e verdict c o n t e n t i o n on two p r e v i o u s Osborne (1981), Mon t 1 7 4 5 , and F i t z p a t r i c k v . P.2d 1 0 0 2 , 38 S t . K e p . S t a t e v. Green . , occasions, 640 P.2d 368, 38 we ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 94 Wash.2d rejected 216, in McKenzie 616 P.2d and whose a p p l i c a t i o n w e s i m i l a r l y r e j e c t the reasoning Fitzpatrick the jury of Gipson and courts discussed had been unanimous v e r d i c t , Green, as (2) that to the each the 628, 638 and 453, whose Fitzpatrick here. two p i v o t a l instructed and , D e f e n d a n t h e r e c i t e s two c a s e s , U n i t e d S t a t e s v. G i p s o n ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) , 5 5 3 F.2d application St.Kep. - Mont. State (1981), 1448. McKenzie v . In rejecting - cKenzie M issues: and and (1) t h a t requirement of a a l t e r n a t i v e presented t o t h e j u r y was s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . W hold e t h a t t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s were met h e r e . In that a Instruction unanimous No. verdict 30 t h e C o u r t admonished was required with the the jury following words: ". . . a l l twelve ( 1 2 ) j u r o r s must a g r e e i n o r d e r t o r e t u r n e i t h e r a v e r d i c t of guilty or not guilty. To d o s o , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t h a t you c o n s i d e r t h e crime o f AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, f i r s t , and t h a t a l l t w e l v e of you f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t e i t h e r g u i l t y or not g u i l t y of t h a t charge. . ." Defendant p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e information h e r e i n s t a t e d t h a t defendant caused "reasonable apprehension - s e r i o u s b o d i l y or i n j u r y by u s e o f a weapon." cited in reads, the information, "reasonable ... different two The s t a t u t e section 45-5-202(1)(c), - serious of apprehension by u s e o f a weapon." I n s t r u c t i o n Nos. (Emphasis added. ) bodily (Emphasis added.) MCA, injury A s shown by 1 2 and 1 3 a b o v e , t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d on occasions that reasonable apprehension of s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y was t h e e l e m e n t o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t ( I n s t r u c t i o n No. o f f e n s e of 15 a l s o stated t h a t a person aggravated a s s a u l t i f commits t h e he p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly causes reasonable apprehension - s e r i o u s bodily i n j u r y of in a n o t h e r by u s e o f a w e a p o n ) . Here people the defendant (the tops of shot whose times six heads he had at a seen door through g l a s s windows i n t h e d o o r ) had j u s t p r e v i o u s l y k n o c k e d . defendant testified that h e wanted to scare where the The those people W f i n d t h a t t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support e away. t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s of p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly s e t f o r t h i n t h e instructions. it was defendant's apprehension of door There is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t conscious o b j e c t t o cause a reasonable serious bodily injury i n those outside t h e (thus f i t t i n g within s e c t i o n 45-2-101(58), MCA) t h e d e f i n i t i o n of "purposely"-- and d e f e n d a n t was a w a r e t h a t i t was h i g h l y p r o b a b l e t h a t t h i s r e s u l t would b e c a u s e d by h i s conduct ( t h u s f i t t i n g w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of "knowingly"-s e c t i o n 45-2-101(33), MCA). I n t h e f o u r t h i s s u e , d e f e n d a n t c i t e s s e c t i o n 45-3-115, which p r o v i d e s : MCA, A d e f e n s e of jus"Affirmative defense. t i f i a b l e u s e of f o r c e based on t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s p a r t is an a f f i r m a t i v e defense " . Defendant then argues section 45-3-115, defendant had rambling violates NCA, because in the commit t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d . fashion his burden of due that somehow process rights proving he did not W have p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d t h a t e because j u s t i f i a b l e use of f o r c e is an a f f i r m a t i v e defense, there i s no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t p l a c i n g t h e burden of proof Mont . on t h e defendant. , S t a t e v. 622 P.2d 2 0 3 , 38 S t . R e p . Graves (1981), 9. The j u r y h e r e was i n s t r u c t e d a s f o l l o w s : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t a d e f e n s e o f j u s t i f i a b l e u s e of f o r c e is a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s t h e burden of producing s u f f i c i e n t e v i dence on t h e i s s u e t o raise a r e a s o n a b l e doubt of h i s g u i l t . " T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n i s i n k e e p i n g w i t h s e c t i o n 45-3-115, a n d S t a t e v. G r a d y ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6 Mont. 1 6 8 , 5 3 1 P.2d D e f e n d a n t h a s had and i n h i s reply brief, standable, two chances, MCA, 681. in his i n i t i a l brief t o put f o r t h some k i n d of under- c o h e r e n t argument w i t h s u p p o r t i n g c a s e law as t o how d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s h e r e w e r e p r e j u d i c e d i n some m a n n e r . Defendant h a s f a i l e d t o do t h i s , and w e r e f u s e t h e r e f o r e t o consider t h i s matter further. Defendant f a r e s no b e t t e r i n h i s f i f t h i s s u e . Defen- d a n t c l a i m s t h a t c e r t a i n i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t were g i v e n f a i l e d t o p e r m i t t h e j u r y t o f u l l y and p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e o f j u s t i f i e d u s e o f f o r c e by t h e d e f e n d a n t . states t h a t when the jury Defendant then i n s t r u c t i o n s are c o n s i d e r e d the could w e 1 1 have found i n defendant's together favor as a f a c t u a l i s s u e a n d f o u n d t h a t h e was f a c t u a l l y j u s t i f i e d still, h i s action but in referring to these in instructions, f i n d him g u i l t y . Defendant does not supporting these claims or instructions set forth any reasoned effort i n c o r p o r a t e any language i n t h e i n t o an explanation of claims why d e f e n d a n t ' s W a r e n o t a b o u t t o waste j u d i c i a l r e s o u r c e s e are justified. i n a t t e m p t i n g t o determine w h a t d e f e n d a n t i s d r i v i n g a t h e r e when i t h a s n o t b e e n e x p r e s s e d c l e a r l y i n t h e b r i e f s . In the s i x t h issue defendant takes t h e position t h a t a r e v i e w of t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a u s e would show t h a t no r a t i o n a l t r i e r s o f f a c t c o u l d h e r e h a v e f o u n d beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s were n o t j u s t i f i e d as a matter o f self-defense. I n support of this s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w , d e f e n d a n t c i t e s J a c k s o n v. V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S . C t . 2781, 6 1 L.Ed.2d k i r c h e r ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 444 U.S. However, they deal neither with the 560, 1, 1 0 0 S . C t . of and P i l o n 7 , 62 L.Ed.2d these cases standard of v. Borden- 1. is on p o i n t because review that a federal d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i l l a p p l y when a p r i s o n e r a p p l i e s f o r h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f from a s t a t e c o u r t d e c i s i o n . That t h i s is t h e s c o p e o f t h e s e two c a s e s i s amply b o r n e o u t by t h e f o l l o w i n g statements: ". . . The q u e s t i o n i n t h i s case i s w h a t s t a n d a r d is t o be a p p l i e d i n a f e d e r a l h a b e a s c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n g when t h e c l a i m is made t h a t a p e r s o n h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d i n a s t a t e c o u r t upon i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence." J a c k s o n , 443 U.S. a t 3 0 9 , 99 S . C t . a t 2783, 6 1 L.Ed.2d a t 5 6 7 . "We h o l d t h a t i n a c h a l l e n g e t o a s t a t e c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n b r o u g h t u n d e r 28 U.S.C. 2254--if t h e s e t t l e d p r o c e d u r a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r s u c h a claim have o t h e r w i s e been s a t i s f i e d - - t h e applicant is e n t i t l e d t o habeas c o r p u s r e l i e f i f it i s f o u n d t h a t upon t h e r e c o r d e v i d e n c e adduced a t t h e t r i a l no r a t i o n a l t r i e r of f a c t could have found proof o f g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . " J a c k s o n , 443 U.S. a t 3 2 4 , 99 S . C t . a t 2791-2792, 61 L.Ed. 2d a t 576-577. ". . . An e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n h a d made c l e a r t h a t t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment p r o h i b i t s t h e c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n o f any p e r s o n e x c e p t upon p r o o f o f g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . I n r e W i n s h i p , 397 U.S. 358 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . The Court i n Jackson held t h a t t h i s constitut i o n a l requirement can be e f f e c t u a t e d only i f a f e d e r a l habeas corpus c o u r t , i n assessing t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence t o support a state-court conviction, i n q u i r e s 'whether, a f t e r viewing t h e evidence 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 t i o n , any r a t i o n a l t r i e r of f a c t could have found t h e e s s e n t i a l elements of 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 . ' 443 U.S., a t 319 ( e m p h a s i s o m i t t e d ) P i l o n , 444 U . S . a t 2 , 1 0 0 S . C t . a t 8 , 62 L.E.2d a t 3. ." Obviously t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t from t h e D i s t r i c t Court is n o t a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of federal court conviction. t o question the habeas corpus i n a validity of a state court The c a s e s c i t e d and c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e a r g u m e n t s m a r s h a l l e d by a p p e l l a n t a r e i n a p p o s i t e t o t h i s c a s e , g i v e n its p r e s e n t procedural s t a n c e . In Issue the with final tne assignment sentence of imposed error, by the defendant District takes Court. D e f e n d a n t h e r e was s e n t e n c e d t o t e n y e a r s w i t h e i g h t y e a r s s u s p e n d e d a n d t o two y e a r s f o r u s i n g a d a n g e r o u s weapon i n t h e commission o f a n o f f e n s e , t o r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y w i t h t h e first sentence. S e c t i o n 45-5-202(2), MCA, states t h a t a p e r s o n c o n v i c t e d of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t s h a l l be imprisoned f o r a minimum o f two y e a r s a n d a maximum o f t w e n t y y e a r s . S e c t i o n 46-18-221(1), MCA, mandates that a p e r s o n who h a s used a f i r e a r m d u r i n g t h e commission o f a n o f f e n s e s h a l l be s e n t e n c e d t o a t l e a s t two more y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n . Defendant sentence but does only not its question equity. the Such legality concerns of his should be a d d r e s s e d t o t h e S e n t e n c e Review D i v i s i o n , s e c t i o n 46-18-901 e t seq., , MCA. 649 P.2d kf f i r m e d . See, S t a t e v. 1 3 3 1 , 39 S t . R e p . Hubbard 1608. (1982), Mont.

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.