STATE v CARTWRIGHT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 81-220 I N THE SUPREME C U T O F T E STATE O M N A A O R H F OTN 1982 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . JOSEPH RAYMOND CARTWRIGHT, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal f r o m : D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Nineteenth 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 L i n c o l n Honorable R o b e r t H o l t e r , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appeilant: David W. Harman a r g u e d , L i b b y , Montana For 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 Mike McGrath a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana b 7 i l l i a m A. Douglas, County A t t o r n e y , Libby, Montana ~ h & n Thompson a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana Submitted: Oecided : Fiied:, , i d 3 ; ,J t98L 3 June 2 2 , 1982 August 25, 1982 M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d Court. Joseph attempted deliberate homicide the d e l i b e r a t e homicide C a r t w r i g h t was c o n v i c t e d o f t h e O p i n i o n of and following 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 , S t a t e of jury a Montana, trial i n and in for the C a r t w r i g h t was s e n t e n c e d t o t h i r t y - f i v e County of L i n c o l n . imprisonment on each c o u n t ; the years the sentences t o run concurrently. From t h e f o r e g o i n g c o n v i c t i o n he a p p e a l s . to Prior this unfortunate incident the defendant, Joseph C a r t w r i g h t , and t h e d e c e a s e d , Pamela McCully, l i v e d t o g e t h e r f o r almost four years. T h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e g a n to d e t e r i o r a t e , and o n A p r i l 11, 1 9 8 0 , a n i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d which d e a t h of Pam M c C u l l y and That day, the s e r i o u s wounding resulted of i n the P a t McCully. C a r t w r i g h t r e t u r n e d home t o f i n d t h a t s e v e r a l o f g u n s were m i s s i n g . his H e l e a r n e d from a h o u s e g u e s t t h a t Pam M c C u l l y h a d b e e n t h e r e e a r l i e r and had g a i n e d access t h r o u g h a l i v i n g room window. shotgun, Missing were a ,308, a .30-30, and a . 3 5 7 magnum p i s t o l w i t h h o l s t e r . a .14, a ,410 Cartwright was a n g r y , and i n h i s a n g e r he " s l u g g e d t h e w a l l " and c r e a t e d a h o l e . The h o u s e g u e s t t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e s t a t e d h i s i n t e n t i o n s , " t o go up t h e r e and see i f I c a n g e t my g u n s b a c k and I a m g o i n g t o s h o o t her." Pamela McCully and s e v e r a l o t h e r members of h e r f a m i l y were f i f t y m i l e s away n e a r T r e g o a t t h e r e s i d e n c e o f Pamela's mother. He R e t h a McCully, C a r t w r i g h t g o t i n h i s car and d r o v e to T r e g o . t o o k w i t h him a l o a d e d . 2 2 c a l i b e r s e m i - a u t o m a t i c o n l y gun t h a t had n o t b e e n t a k e n by P a m e l a McCully. to Trego, Cartwright approximately 6:00 stopped, and left consumed three beers. pulled his t h e motor running. He p.m. He car He into remained rifle, the On t h e way arrived the at yard, i n h i s car. P a m e l a McCully came o u t o f t h e h o u s e and t h e two b e g a n t o a r g u e . A f t e r a few m i n u t e s McCully w e n t b a c k i n t h e h o u s e to g e t some cigarettes. She t o l d h e r m o t h e r t h a t " J o e had a gun o u t t h e r e . " N o n e t h e l e s s s h e w e n t b a c k o u t s i d e and on t h e way to C a r t w r i g h t l s c a r s h e p i c k e d up a b r o k e n c u e s t i c k t h a t had b e e n l a y i n g i n t h e yard. two The continued argue. to about At this Bud time McCully, h i s w i f e D e b b i e , and t h e i r t w o c h i l d r e n came o u t of t h e h o u s e and w e r e p r e p a r i n g t o l e a v e . C a r t w r i g h t c a l l e d Bud McCully "make h e r g i v e m e my s t u f f o v e r t o t h e c a r and s t a t e d , back." Bud McCully d i d n o t r e s p o n d b u t was i r r i t a t e d b y t h e manner i n w h i c h h i s s i s t e r Pamela was t a p p i n g t h e b r o k e n c u e s t i c k on t h e H e t o l d h e r t o s t o p and walked away. car. A t t h i s point the facts are conflicting. t o move rapidly. threatened hours to Pamela live." Several witnesses McCully; stating McCully Pat chastised Cartwright f o r testified "you then talking The s i t u a t i o n b e g a n that have got approached to h i s Cartwright twenty-four the car and s i s t e r t h a t way. Pat McCully t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t h e n h i t C a r t w r i g h t i n t h e j a w w i t h h i s C a r t w r i g h t r e p o r t e d l y s a i d , " d o n ' t h i t me P a t . " right fist. .22 c a l i b e r r i f l e t h a t had p r e v i o u s l y b e e n p o i n t i n g toward A s t r u g g l e ensued. f l o o r b o a r d was p o i n t i n g o u t t h e window. P a t and Pam McCully were h o l d i n g on t o t h e b a r r e l . shot he scrambled into the house. Then, the Both The b a r r e l was " t i p p e d up" and P a t McCully was s h o t i n t h e s t o m a c h . being The After according to t e s t i m o n y o f R e t h a McCully, " h e [ C a r t w r i g h t ] j u s t t u r n e d t h e gun o n Pam and s h o t h e r . " s h e was s h o t . S h e was n o t h o l d i n g o n t o t h e b a r r e l when R e t h a McCully f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t when Pamela was s h o t " h e r n e c k went b a c k and s h e k i n d o f s t a g g e r e d forward a n d t h e n he s h o t a g a i n and s h e slumped down on h i s arm b e c a u s e he had h i s arm o u t t h e window." Blood s t a i n s were found o n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s l e f t s h i r t s l e e v e , o n a b l a n k e t used t o c o v e r t h e c a r s e a t , and o n t h e s i d e of the defendant's c a r door. A forensic s c i e n t i s t t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l t h r e e b l o o d s a m p l e s were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Pamela M c C u l l y ' s b l o o d t y p e . Pamela ' s d e a t h was i n s t a n t a n e o u s . upper p o r t i o n of the loaded caliber with According to .22 spinal testimony "a cord. hollow The b u l l e t t r a n s e c t e d t h e The point hollow p o i n t defendant's or rifle was "dum dum" bullets. bullet, when striking bone, t e n d s to mushroom and f r a g m e n t . an was extensive A p p r o x i m a t e l y 30 fragmentation f r a g m e n t s of . of .and the i n t h i s case t h e r e bullet l e a d were removed structure from t h e ." neck area. An i n s t a n t l a t e r , Mike McCully came o u t of .308 c a l i b e r r i f l e . H e aimed t h e r i f l e b u t R e t h a McCully pushed h i s a i m i n t o t h e a i r as h e fired. A neighbor t e s t i f i e d a f t e r h e a r i n g o n e l o u d s h o t from a h e a v y - c a l i b e r a n o t h e r v o l l e y of t h e house w i t h a small c a l i b e r f i r e ; that r i f l e , he h e a r d t h i s b e i n g C a r t w r i g h t who s t o p p e d a t t h e c a t t l e g u a r d on h i s way o u t t o f i r e b a c k a t t h e house. Investigators found caliber .22 shell c a s i n g s on the ground n e a r t h e cattle guard. The d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n of dant testified statement that the incident varies. The d e f e n - t h a t h e d i d n o t t h r e a t e n P a m e l a McCully w i t h t h e she had twenty-four hours to live; rather he s t a t e d " s h e had t w e n t y - f o u r h o u r s t o g e t my r i f l e s b a c k and I was going to t h e s h e r i f f ." Cartwright f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t when P a t McCully a p p r o a c h e d t h e car h e had a p i s t o l i n h i s l e f t h a n d . H e also s a i d shooting. t h a t h e saw Mike McCully w i t h a r i f l e p r i o r to t h e C a r t w r i g h t became " s c a r e d " and h e t o l d P a m e l a t h a t h e "was g e t t i n g t h e h e l l o u t of t h e r e you a r e . " Then t h e struggle for h i s The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d c a r was s p i n n i n g ." Pamela responded, " t h e h e l l .22 c a l i b e r r i f l e ensued. t h a t h e a t t e m p t e d t o d r i v e away b u t t h e i n t h e mud. firing any s h o t s b u t h e r e c a l l s empty c a s i n g s h i t t i n g him i n t h e f a c e . He further testified that the He did not s t o c k of remember t h e gun w a s stuck in the s t e e r i n g w h e e l as h e was d r i v i n g n e a r t h e c a t t l e g u a r d and t w o s h o t s went o f f . After leaving t h e McCully r e s i d e n c e C a r t w r i g h t s t o p p e d h i s c a r n e a r a g r a v e l p i t l o c a t e d 3/4 o f a m i l e from t h e T r e g o s t o r e . C a r t w r i g h t t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e s t o p p e d b e c a u s e he had t o "go to t h e bathroom real bad." The S t a t e o f f e r e d a n o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the stop a t the gravel p i t ; t h a t the defendant stopped t o shoot h i s own car i n a n a t t e m p t t o c o n f u s e t h e i s s u e s . The d e f e n d a n t ' s car s u s t a i n e d a s h a t t e r e d the left rear section of f r o n t p a s s e n g e r window and a h o l e the roof. Two ballistics in experts t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e h o l e i n t h e r o o f was c a u s e d by a .22 c a l i b e r bullet. F u r t h e r m o r e , two s p e n t .22 c a l i b e r c a r t r i d g e s were f o u n d by t h e g r a v e l p i t . T e s t i n g showed t h a t t h e s e had b e e n f i r e d from Cartwrightls rifle. A small p i l e o f gravel pit. from the samples I t was a n a l y z e d and compared t o g l a s s s a m p l e s t a k e n window had g l a s s was f o u n d a b o u t 3/4 o f a m i l e from t h e and interior identical of chemical Cartwrightls and physical car. The properties. two The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t C a r t w r i g h t l e f t t h e g r a v e l p i t , went f u r t h e r down t h e r o a d and s h o t h i s own window o u t . N o g l a s s was f o u n d a t t h e McCully r e s i d e n c e . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t t h e defendant turned himself over t o t h e Eureka p o l i c e ; he was w o u l d be coming a f t e r him. " s c a r e d " and t h o u g h t t h e M c C u l l y s A t the police s t a t i o n the defendant made a t a p e d s t a t e m e n t t o D e p u t y C o u n t y A t t o r n e y Shaun Thompson and Detective Rodney Deboer. Prior t o making the statement, C a r t w r i g h t was i n f o r m e d o f h i s "Miranda r i g h t s , " s i g n e d a w a i v e r , and answered q u e s t i o n s f o r t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s The d e f e n d a n t r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s : . (1) w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o s u p p r e s s s t a t e m e n t s made t o i n v e s t i g a - tors s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t ; ( 2 ) whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by r e f u s i n g the defendant's offered self-defense; ( 3 ) whether was and it jury proper i n s t r u c t i o n s on for the District C o u r t t o r e f u s e o f f e r e d c h a r a c t e r e v i d e n c e of t h e v i c t i m and h e r f arnily. The defendant claims that certain portions of the tape- r e c o r d e d s t a t e m e n t made by him s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n a l l o w e d t o impeach h i s t e s t i m o n y . Apparently the S t a t e was c o n c e r n e d o f p o s s i b l e M i r a n d a v i o l a t i o n s . v. A r i z o n a ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. 436, 8 6 S.Ct. I n Miranda 1 6 0 2 , 1 6 L.Ed.2d 694, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t r u l e d t h a t i f a n a c c u s e d a s k s to c o n s u l t w i t h an a t t o r n e y , p o l i c e q u e s t i o n i n g must s t o p . In this case it is u n c l e a r w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t e f f e c t i v e l y a s s e r t e d h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l d u r i n g t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n ; and i f h e d i d , equally unclear whether or not he waived that it is right. At a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g o n t h i s matter, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r u l e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t e f f e c t i v e l y assert h i s r i g h t and "assuming arguendo t h a t to c o u n s e l , the defendant e f f e c t i v e l y asserted h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l , he w a i v e d h i s r i g h t to c o u n s e l by d e s i r i n g to proceed these with the i s s u e s because interview." the we need n o t a d d r e s s However, s t a t e m e n t was n o t taped used f o r the V a r i o u s p o r t i o n s were u s e d b u t o n l y prosecution's case-in-chief. T h i s is a c r i t i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n which f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s . w i l l become e v i d e n t s h o r t l y . it is n e c e s s a r y t o show how First, t h e t a p e d s t a t e m e n t was u s e d . The defendant passenger played window the testified of his £01-lowing that car he was portion did not shattered. of the recall when the The prosecution taped statement: "A. I w a s t a k i n g o f f a s it h a p p e n e d and I had my .22 a u t o m a t i c l i k e t h i s , and I g r a b b e d l i k e t h a t , and I t u r n e d and t h a t ' s when my window went out." Testiinony of o u t of t h e house w i t h a r i f l e d u r i n g caliber rifle. which the defendant indicated the struggle for his .22 t h e t a p e d s t a t e m e n t were p l a y e d Two p o r t i o n s o f showed t h a t h e was f i r s t aware o f r i f l e when he w a s l e a v i n g , t h a t Mike McCully came Mike McCully w i t h t h e a f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g had taken place. "A. I t h i n k Pam was h a n g i n g o n t o t h e window p a r t -- y e a h , my window p a r t ; my window was r o l l e d down and s h e was h a n g i n g o n t h e r e . I f i r e d o n c e or twice t h e n when I was l e a v i n g , a n d I w e n t down and I s e e n t h e o t h e r b r o t h e r come o u t w i t h a r i f l e w i t h a s c o p e on and I f i r e d o n c e o r t w i c e a g a i n t h a t way. "Q. H i s name is P a t ? A. Pat. "Q. And -- A. B l o n d - h a i r e d g u y , and t h e o t h e r b r o t h e r ' s name is Mike, and Mike, h e r a n b a c k t o t h e h o u s e and h e -- a s I was g o i n g down t h e h i l l f r o m t h e h o u s e , h e come o u t w i t h a r i f l e w i t h a scope o n i t c a u s e I l o o k e d l i k e t h a t and h e ' s g o i n g l i k e t h i s . " The d e f e n d a n t a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he heard a loud s h o t j u s t a f t e r h e s a w Mike McCully w i t h t h e r i f l e . The f o l l o w i n g p o r t i o n was u s e d i n r e b u t t a l . Which b r o t h e r ? "Q. Mike. A. O t h e r t h a n y o u r r i f l e b e i n g f i r e d , d o you r e c a l l a n y o t h e r weapons b e i n g f i r e d ? A. "Q. NO. 'I Finally, the defendant testified honk his The f o l l o w i n g p o r t i o n of h o r n when h e d r o v e i n t o t h e y a r d . t h a t he d i d not the taped statement indicates otherwise. "Q. When you p u l l e d h o r n o r s o m e t h i n g ? A. up, d i d you Right. You b e e p e d y o u r h o r n ? "Q. "Q. horn? beep y o u r Yes. A. About how many t i m e s d i d you b e e p y o u r A. T h r e e -- a b o u t t w o t i m e s . " After t h e p r e c e d i n g p o r t i o n s o f t h e s t a t e m e n t were a d m i t t e d t h e e n t i r e s t a t e m e n t was p l a y e d t o t h e j u r y a t t h e r e q u e s t of t h e The r e c o r d makes c l e a r t h a t t h e o b j e c t i o n of t h e d e f e n - defense. d a n t was l i m i t e d t o o n l y t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s e t o u t above. T h i s C o u r t h a s f o l l o w e d t h e r u l e of t w o U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t cases. 9 1 S.Ct. First, i n H a r r i s v. New York ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 4 0 1 U.S. 28 L.Ed.2d 643, 1, t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t although evi- d e n c e is i n a d m i s s i b l e i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f of Miranda purposes. police violations, being evidence is not barred because for all t h e d e f e n d a n t had made s t a t e m e n t s to t h e I n Harris, after such 222, taken into custody. A transcript of the s t a t e m e n t shows t h a t h e w a s n o t i n f o r m e d o f h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l . The p r o s e c u t i o n conceded t h e Miranda t h e s t a t e m e n t f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s . violation but s t i l l used The C o u r t i n u p h o l d i n g the conviction stated : " M i r a n d a b a r r e d t h e p r o s e c u t i o n from making i t s case w i t h s t a t e m e n t s of a n a c c u s e d made w h i l e i n c u s t o d y p r i o r to having o r e f f e c t i v e l y waiving counsel. I t does not f o l l o w from Miranda that evidence inadmissible a g a i n s t a n a c c u s e d i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s casei n - c h i e f is b a r r e d f o r a l l p u r p o s e s , p r o v i d e d o f c o u r s e t h a t t h e t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of t h e e v i dence s a t i s f i e s l e g a l standards." Harris, 401 U.S. a t 224. There is a v e r y good reason f o r such a r u l e . The M i r a n d a shield should not allow a n a c c u s e d t o commit perjury. i n h i s own d e f e n s e , o r r e f u s e t o do so. be construed H a r r i s , 4 0 1 U.S. to include the B u t t h a t p r i v i l e g e can- right to perjury." commit a t 225. T h u s Harris a l l o w s t h e u s e o f s t a t e m e n t s made by a n a c c u s e d f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g M i r a n d a v i o l a t i o n s . course the " [elv e r y c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t is p r i v i l e g e d t o t e s t i f y Court noted: not As is there a danger here. What to is prevent Of police i n v e s t i g a t o r s from w i l l f u l l y v i o l a t i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e s of Miranda, knowing t h a t e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d c a n s t i l l be used f o r i m p e a c h m e n t ? Harris t o u c h e d o n t h i s p r o b l e m w i t h c o u r s e t h a t t h e t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of standards." H a r r i s , 4 0 1 U.S. the language: t h e e v i d e n c e s a t i s £ ies l e g a l a t 224. The Supreme C o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e i n t h e l a t e r case of Oregon v. 714, 95 S.Ct. 1215, " p r o v i d e d of 4 3 L.Ed.2d 570. Hass ( 1 9 7 5 ) r 4 2 0 U.S. There the Court r e s t a t e d t h e r u l e o f H a r r i s and w e n t on t o s a y " [ i l f , i n a g i v e n c a s e , t h e officer's conduct amounts to abuse, case, that like those i n v o l v i n g c o e r c i o n o r d u r e s s , may be t a k e n care o f when i t a r i s e s measured by the traditional tariness and standards trustworthiness." for evaluating 420 U.S. Hass, Hass r e f i n e d Harris by e m p h a s i z i n g t h e volun- a t 723. safeguard. Thus, The r u l e of H a r r i s w i l l n o t allow c o e r c i o n o r d u r e s s on t h e p a r t of police investigators. As noted above, this Court has adopted the rationale H a r r i s and Hass and is n o t p e r s u a d e d t o c h a n g e a sound r u l e . S t a t e v. the P.2d l a t e r case of 283, S t a t e v. where we suppression hearing to We reaffirmed our position i n B u c k l e y ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. upheld the use of impeach In 3 5 1 , we c i t e d and S m i t h ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 8 Mont. 9 3 , 5 4 1 P.2d a g r e e d w i t h b o t h Harris and Hass. of the 238, 557 testimony a t a p r e t r i a l defendant at trial. The d e f e n d a n t claims t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n s h o r t l y a f t e r the shooting several McCullys. did reasons; not "the meet standards defendant had He had b l o o d o n h i s s h i r t . of just trustworthiness arrived H e had from for the glass splattered o v e r h i m s e l f and h i s car and h e t h o u g h t t h a t t h e McCullys would be coming him." "greater pressure after However, than that these facts on a n y p e r s o n in u n d e r i n q u i r y by a n y i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r . " 723. do not like suggest custody o r Hass, 4 2 0 U.S. at F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e a r e no f a c t s i n t h i s case t o s u g g e s t any The d e f e n d a n t came w i l l i n g l y to t h e E u r e k a coercion o r duress. police station. waiver. He read was He agreed t o make c o u l d s t o p a t any t i m e . careful to The make defendant h i s Miranda investigating that seems to he be and H e was a statement. The sure rights a t o l d t h a t he o f f i c e r s were v e r y understood placing signed his primary rights. emphasis on a r e c e n t case w h i c h h o l d s t h a t o n c e a s u s p e c t i n v o k e s h i s r i g h t to counsel , questioning Arizona (1981), In Edwards the must stop. , U.S. d e f e n d a n t was This 1 0 1 S.Ct. arrested, case 1 8 8 0 , 6 8 L.Ed.2d taken to questioning implicated him. involvement. He and learned then gave that a taped to police H e agreed q u a r t e r s , and i n f o r m e d o f h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s . mit Edwards is another 378. head- t o sub- suspect had s t a t e m e n t denying Then h e s o u g h t t o make a d e a l . v. any N e g o t i a t i o n s broke down and Edwards r e q u e s t e d a n a t t o r n e y b e f o r e a n y d e a l was made. The n e x t m o r n i n g , s u s p e c t who had t h e crime. a f t e r l i s t e n i n g t o t h e t a p e d s t a t e m e n t of i m p l i c a t e d him, involvement i n The t r i a l c o u r t a d m i t t e d t h e c o n f e s s i o n as e v i d e n c e a n d Edwards was c o n v i c t e d . conviction tarily Edwards a d m i t t e d the finding and that knowingly The A r i z o n a Supreme C o u r t u p h e l d t h e the waiver made. The and United c o n f e s s i o n were v o l u n States Supreme Court reversed. The d e f e n d a n t ' s r e l i a n c e on Edwards is i l l - f o u n d e d . does not c r e a t e a new H a r r i s and Hass. rule to c a s t d o u b t on the h o l d i n g s of Edwards r e s t a t e s t h e r u l e of M i r a n d a ; an individual requests an attorney, The case that if q u e s t i o n i n g must s t o p . The case g o e s on t o a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n of w a i v e r , h o l d i n g t h a t " a v a l i d w a i v e r o f t h a t r i g h t c a n n o t be e s t a b l i s h e d by showing o n l y t h a t he responded t o f u r t h e r c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n even i f he h a s been advised of Thus the his rights." i n t e r r o g a t i o n must Edwards, cease "unless 1 0 1 S.Ct. the a t 1884. accused himself i n i t i a t e s f u r t h e r communication, exchanges o r c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h the police." E d w a r d s , 1 0 1 S.Ct. is c l e a r It that a t 1885. t h e United States Supreme C o u r t d i d not i n t e n d t o c h a n g e t h e r u l e of H a r r i s or Hass, r a t h e r t h e y i n t e n d e d t o d e v i s e and d e f i n e a t e s t c o n c e r n i n g w a i v e r of counsel. the right The q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t is n o t a w a i v e r q u e s t i o n and w e do n o t i n t i m a t e a n answer to any such q u e s t i o n . is of to Edwards Harris and H a s s and o u r own c a s e s of S m i t h and no h e l p . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t err by a l l o w i n g B u c k l e y a r e on p o i n t . p o r t i o n s o f t h e s t a t e m e n t f o r impeachment. N e x t t h e d e f e n d a n t claims h e was e n t i t l e d t i o n s on s e l f - d e f e n s e . rule found to jury instruc- Defendant c o r r e c t l y cites t h e fundamental i n Buckley, t h a t "the d i s t r i c t court s instructions must cover e v e r y i s s u e or t h e o r y having s u p p o r t i n t h e e v i d e n c e , and t h e i n q u i r y o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t m u s t o n l y be w h e t h e r o r n o t any e v i d e n c e e x i s t s i n t h e r e c o r d t o w a r r a n t an i n s t r u c t i o n . Buckley, 1 7 1 Mont. (1981) , Sorenson Mont . at 242, , 557 P.2d at 285; S t a t e v. 6 3 3 P.2d 1 1 9 5 , 38 S t . R e p . ( 1 9 8 0 ) , ---- Mont . ---- , 619 P.2d . .I1 Gopher 1 5 2 1 ; S t a t e v. 1 1 8 5 , 37 S t . R e p . 1 8 3 4 ; S t a t e v. B o u s l a u g h ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 7 8 , 5 7 6 P.2d 2 6 1 . The Montana l e g i s l a t u r e h a s s t a t u t o r i l y a d o p t e d r u l e s f o r t h e d e f e n s e of s e l f d e f e n s e or more a c c u r a t e l y , j u s t i f i a b l e u s e of f o r c e . As a general rule, "A p e r s o n is j u s t i f i e d i n t h e u s e of f o r c e or t h r e a t t o u s e f o r c e a g a i n s t a n o t h e r when and t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t he r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h a t s u c h c o n d u c t i s n e c e s s a r y to d e f e n d h i m s e l f or a n o t h e r a g a i n s t s u c h o t h e r ' s i m m i n e n t u s e of unlawful force. However, h e is j u s t i f i e d i n t h e use of f o r c e l i k e l y t o c a u s e d e a t h or s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm o n l y i f h e r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h a t s u c h f o r c e is n e c e s s a r y to p r e v e n t i m m i n e n t d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm t o h i m s e l f o r a n o t h e r o r to p r e v e n t t h e comm i s s i o n of a forcible felony." Section 45-3-102, MCA. However t h e u s e o f f o r c e d e s c r i b e d a b o v e is n o t a v a i l a b l e t o an aggressor. If an individual is a n a g g r e s s o r the following rule applies. "The justification described in 45-3-102 t h r o u g h 45-3-104 is n o t a v a i l a b l e t o a p e r s o n who : " ( 1 ) is a t t e m p t i n g to commit, c o m m i t t i n g , or e s c a p i n g a f t e r t h e c o m m i s s i o n of a f o r c i b l e f e l o n y ; or " ( 2 ) p u r p o s e l y or k n o w i n g l y p r o v o k e s t h e u s e of force a g a i n s t himself, unless; "(a) s u c h f o r c e is s o g r e a t t h a t he r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h a t h e is i n i m m i n e n t d a n g e r o f d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm and t h a t h e h a s e x h a u s t e d e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e means t o e s c a p e s u c h d a n g e r o t h e r t h a n t h e u s e of f o r c e w h i c h is l i k e l y t o c a u s e d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm to t h e a s s a i l a n t ; o r " ( b ) i n good f a i t h , he w i t h d r a w s from p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t w i t h t h e a s s a i l a n t and i n d i c a t e s c l e a r l y t o t h e a s s a i l a n t t h a t h e d e s i r e s to w i t h d r a w and t e r m i n a t e t h e u s e o f f o r c e b u t t h e a s s a i l a n t c o n t i n u e s or r e s u m e s t h e u s e of force." S e c t i o n 45-3-1051 MCA. The C o m m i s s i o n ' s comments to 45-3-105 p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s of using force. . make it c l e a r t h a t " t h e t h i s c h a p t e r h a s assumed t h a t t h e p e r s o n .has n o t o t h e r w i s e provoked such f o r c e . T h i s sec- t i o n c o n c e r n s t h e much more l i m i t e d r i g h t which a p e r s o n h a s to when h e h a s c o m m i t t e d a n u n l a w f u l a c t or o t h e r - defend himself, w i s e p r o v o k e d t h e u s e of f o r c e ." The f a c t s i n t h i s case c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a n a g g r e s s o r . A f t e r f i n d i n g h i s g u n s had b e e n t a k e n h e d r o v e f i f t y m i l e s w i t h a l o a d e d .22 c a l i b e r r i f l e . B e f o r e l e a v i n g he t o l d a h o u s e g u e s t t h a t " h e w a s g o i n g t o go up t h e r e and g e t h i s guns and shoot her." While the at McCully residence he t h r e a t e n e d Pamela McCully by s t a t i n g "you h a v e 24 h o u r s to l i v e . " These f a c t s c e r t a i n l y e s t a b l i s h t h e d e f e n d a n t as a n a g g r e s s o r , c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e a £ f i r m a t i v e 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 would a p p l y o n l y i n t w o s i t u a t i o n s . First, i f s u c h f o r c e w a s so g r e a t t h a t h e r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e d h e w a s i n d a n g e r of s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm and h e e x h a u s t e d e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e means of escape. Here running. H e was p a r k e d f o r a n e a s y e x i t . d e f e n d a n t was the defendant stayed i n f e a r of his life death o r i n h i s c a r with t h e motor Even i f w e assume t h e o r being seriously injured, which seems d o u b t f u l i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t when Pamela McCully was s h o t , a t m o s t s h e was armed w i t h a b r o k e n c u e s t i c k , c l e a r t h a t he d i d n o t e x h a u s t h i s means of e s c a p e . it is P r i o r to t h e a c t u a l s h o o t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t had ample o p p o r t u n i t y to l e a v e . his own words he was "scared" even before arriving In at the M c C u l l y s , y e t d u r i n g t h e t e n t o f i f t e e n m i n u t e s he w a s t h e r e he made n o a t t e m p t t o l e a v e . Second, the defense would have been available if i n good f a i t h he w i t h d r a w s from p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t and c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s a d e s i r e t o t e r m i n a t e t h e u s e of f o r c e . support the defendant's withdrawal. he could have devoted all of C l e a r l y the f a c t s w i l l not A f t e r P a t McCully was s h o t , his to energies escape and w i t h d r a w a l from t h e f i g h t , r a t h e r h e t u r n e d t h e gun on Pamela and fired. Furthermore, when h e r e a c h e d Such a c t i o n s a r e c e r t a i n l y n o t s e v e r a l more s h o t s a t t h e h o u s e . indicative of court's trial an intent refusal t h e c a t t l e guard he f i r e d to withdraw. We find no error i n the t o a l l o w a n i n s t r u c t i o n on s e l f - d e f e n s e . F i n a l l y the defendant appeals the trial court's refusal to a l l o w e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h r e a t s made by t h e v i c t i m s and t h e i r family. The d e f e n d a n t ' s o f f e r of shows t h e i n t e n t i o n to proof introduce the following : 1. T h a t Pamela McCully made t h r e a t s toward the defendant, s t a t i n g t h a t s h e was g o i n g t o k i l l him; 2. T h a t h e had s e e n Mike and P a t McCully f i g h t i n g , t h a t P a t was k i c k i n g Mike i n t h e head and P a t had f u r t h e r a c t s of violence; and that at to be r e s t r a i n e d that time Pat from actually s t e p p e d on P a m ' s f o o t and t w i s t e d h e r f o o t t o t h e p o i n t w h e r e you could h e a r a snap i n t h e f o o t a r e a ; 3. T h a t a n i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d i n a b a r and b o t h P a t and Mike were p r e s e n t , and made 4. t h a t Mike made p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t the comment "some day Joe, some day;" T h a t t h e d a y b e f o r e t h e s h o o t i n g i n c i d e n t , Pamela McCully had f o l l o w e d him w i t h a g u n , s h e was i n h e r c a r and s h e was b r a n d i s h i n g a gun a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ; and 5. T h a t r e c e n t l y R e t h a McCully had t h r e a t e n e d t h e d e f e n d a n t , saying t h a t if she would s h e e v e r c a u g h t t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h Pamela a g a i n blow h i s head off o r have o n e of the boys do it. I n S t a t e v. B r e i t e n s t e i n A r e c e n t c a s e is d i r e c t l y on p o i n t . ( 1 9 7 9 ) r 1 8 0 Mont. 5 0 3 , 5 9 1 P.2d 233, w e had a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n . The d e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d o f aggravated a s s a u l t f o r drawing a . 2 2 c a l i b e r p i s t o l and holes l i k e a sieve." and victim had t o b l o w t h e v i c t i m " f u l l of Long b e f o r e t h i s i n c i d e n t , been on i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e of poor past terms. The t h r e a t s made the defendant defendant wanted to by t h e v i c t i m and h i s The t r i a l c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h e e v i d e n c e f o r l a c k of mother-in-law. foundation. threatening affirmed. We The a p p l i c a b l e r u l e o f R u l e 4 0 4 ( a ) (2), Mont.R.Evid., evidence is which s t a t e s : "(a) Character evidence generally. Evidence or t r a i t o f h i s of a person's character c h a r a c t e r is n o t a d m i s s i b l e f o r t h e p u r p o s e of p r o v i n g t h a t he a c t e d i n c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h on a p a r t i c u l a r occasion, except: " ( 2 ) C h a r a c t e r o f V i c t i m . E v i d e n c e of a p e r t i n e n t t r a i t of c h a r a c t e r of t h e v i c t i m of t h e crime o f f e r e d by a n a c c u s e d , o r by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o r e b u t t h e same, or e v i d e n c e of a c h a r a c t e r t r a i t o f p e a c e f u l n e s s of t h e v i c t i m o f f e r e d b y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i n a h o m i c i d e case o r i n a n a s s a u l t c a s e where t h e v i c t i m is i n c a p a b l e of t e s t i f y i n g to r e b u t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e v i c t i m was t h e f i r s t a g g r e s s o r ." The comments to the are rules more succinct: " [ u ]n d e r Montana case l a w t h e a c c u s e d m u s t f i r s t l a y a f o u n d a t i o n t h a t h e acted in self defense v i o l e n t c h a r a c t e r of the foundation of b e f o r e he c a n the victim." self-defense i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e of An i n d i s p e n s i b l e component to was stated ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 5 6 Mont. 4 8 , 6 5 , 4 7 3 P.2d 8 3 3 , 8 4 2 : in State o f s e l f d e f e n s e was n o t j o i n e d a t t h e t r i a l . e x i s t e d f o r t h e a d m i s s i o n of t h e t e s t i m o n y . " t h e p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n was a b s e n t . v. Logan " [ u l n t i l such t i m e a s d e f e n d a n t t o o k t h e s t a n d and a d m i t t e d t h e k i l l i n g , the killing, the the issue Thus, no f o u n d a t i o n I n t h i s case t o o , The d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t a d m i t r a t h e r h e s t a t e s t h a t h e d o e s n o t remember f i r i n g a n y s h o t s , o n l y empty c a s i n g s h i t t i n g him i n t h e f a c e . The t r i a l court did For the not err reasons i n refusing t h e offered c h a r a c t e r evidence. stated herein, we a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment. W e concur: u Justice 8 d 8 . ~4 Chief J u s t i c e / Justices Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., specially concurring: I concur in the result but not with the entire rationale of the majority opinion. With respect to Issue No. 2, concerning whether it was error to deny defendant's offered instruction on selfdefense, I would reach the same result, but for a different reason. The defendant here did not rely upon self-defense. Defendant's version of the incident was that the gun accidently discharged. Under these circumstances, it was not error for the District Court to refuse the self-defense instruction. I take issue with the majority's position that the defendent was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because defendant was shown to be the aggressor. Under defendent's version of the facts, he was not the aggressor and would be entitled to an instruction on his theory. However, because he did not rely upon self-defense it was not error for the trial court to refuse to give such an instruction. I would affirm. I join in the specially concurring opinion of Justice Morrison:

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.