STATE v TRANGSRUD

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-111 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 STATE OF PIIONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs . RONALD MARVIN TRANGSRUD, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District In and for the County of Daniels Honorable Leonard H. Langen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Allen Beck, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Honorable Mike Greelv, Attorney General, Helena, Montana M. J. Traynor, County Attorney, Scobey, Montana Submitted on briefs: August 12, 1982 Decided.: September 22, 1982 N t. Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John Court. Conway H a r r i s o n was Def e n d a n t / a p p e l l a n t felony, of on J a n u a r y 2 0 , t h e S t a t e of 18, 1982, the court convicted 1982, Montana, of aggravated D a n i e l s County, for t h e Opinion of the assau It, a i n the Fifteenth J u d i c i a l District sentenced Montana S t a t e P r i s o n delivered Montana. to defendant the aggravated On F e b r u a r y ten years a s s a u l t and in the ten years, under t h e enhancement sta- with the l a s t e i g h t y e a r s suspended, The t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e terms r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y . tute. Defendant a p p e a l s from t h i s s e n t e n c e . D e f e n d a n t was Montana, i n a d i s t u r b a n c e a t a b a r i n Scobey, involved on O c t o b e r 23, 1981. While p l a y i n g p o o l in M-J's Bar w i t h h i s f i a n c e e and a g r o u p o f f r i e n d s , d e f e n d a n t b e g a n a r g u i n g with Trygve exchanging Magelssen several and a vulgar group comments of seismographers. two g r o u p s moved the After their From t h e r e e a c h w i t n e s s h a s a d i f - discussion outside the bar. The g i s t of t h e t e s t i - f e r e n t e x p l a n a t i o n o f what o c c u r r e d n e x t . is mony that after t w o g r o u p s had the gone o u t s i d e , defendant w a l k e d a c r o s s t h e s t r e e t and o b t a i n e d a S m i t h and W e s s o n , Model 59, from h i s p i c k u p t r u c k . with the gun Defendant then returned exposed. Magelssen, t o t h e crowd defendant's fiancée and d e f e n d a n t ' s companions c o n t i n u e d to exchange words on t h e s t r e e t . A f t e r one p a r t i c u l a r l y s u g g e s t i v e exchange between defendant's Defendant financee, testified i n t o h i s pocket. to tinued Finally, defendent he then fired one uncocked the shot pistol M a g e l s s e n and air. into the and placed it M a g e l s s e n and o t h e r s t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t con- point the gun at Magelssen's M a g e l s s e n b r o k e away from t h e head and upper crowd and w a l k e d body. to h i s m o t e l , where he s t o p p e d a n a p p r o a c h i n g p o l i c e car and r e l a t e d t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e i n c i d e n t to t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r . returned to the After a jury bar aggravated 1982, the investigation. defendant left shortly thereafter. t r i a l o n J a n u a r y 2 0 , 1 9 8 2 , d e f e n d a n t was found g u i l t y of as and Defendant's group date assault. for The t r i a l c o u r t set February 18, sentencing and A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8 : 30 a . m . ordered a presentence on February 1 8 , 1982, the court provided a copy of counsel f o r the defense. the presentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n to The s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g b e g a n a t 9 : 18 a .m. The p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n t a i n e d a number of s t a t e - ments by w i t n e s s e s names were o r d e r e d w i t h h e l d whose from the The i n f o r m a t i o n i n c l u d e d s t a t e m e n t s to d e f e n d a n t by t h e c o u r t . the effect that: The 1. Scobey community is apprehensive of d e f e n d a n t and threatened a b a r owner i n Scobey have voiced t h e i r concern. The d e f e n d a n t 2. in the summer o f 1 9 8 0 . The d e f e n d a n t t h r e a t e n e d o n e of 3. the witnesses a f t e r the trial. 4. The defendant physically abused his former wife and daughter. The d e f e n d a n t was 5. in possession of a concealed weapon d u r i n g t h e l a s t c o u r t s e s s i o n b e c a u s e t h e s h e r i f f had f a i l e d to s e a r c h him. The d e f e n d a n t t h r e a t e n e d a S c o b e y P o l i c e O f f i c e r and h i s 6. family. Defendant statements objected and to the court's f u r t h e r objected to consideration of these a d m i s s i o n of a police the r e p o r t r e l a t i n g t o a n i n c i d e n t on O c t o b e r 1 7 , 1 9 7 4 , where d e f e n d a n t pled guilty defendant's t o misdemeanor assault. The c o u r t o v e r r u l e d o b j e c t i o n s and a f t e r a l l o w i n g d e f e n d a n t t o t e s t i f y , e n t e r e d judgment and s e n t e n c e d d e f e n d a n t to t e n y e a r s i n p r i s o n f o r a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t and t e n y e a r s , w i t h t h e l a s t e i g h t s y e a r s suspended, statute. under 46-18-221(1), section MCA, the enhancement Defendant a p p e a l s . The i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w is w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t erred by imposing mation making sentence findings on the of fact b a s i s of gathered by t h e presentence and conclusions private of out-of - c o u r t investigation law and i n £ or- o f f i c e r where t h e d e f e n d a n t had no o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e t h e p e r s o n s who s u p p l i e d t h e i n £o r m a t i o n . D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by w i t h h o l d i n g some o f t h e names o f w i t n e s s e s who s u p p l i e d i n f o r m a t i o n to t h e p r e s e n tence D e f e n d a n t claims he h a s t h e r i g h t investigation officer. t o con£ r o n t and c r o s s - e x a m i n e a l l w i t n e s s e s who p r o v i d e n e g a t i v e i n £o r m a t i o n t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e . Defendant cites a number We disagree. cases and of The cases o f S t a t e v. s i n c e been o v e r t u r n e d o r r e p e a l e d . ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 6 0 Mont. 5 5 , 499 P.2d Mont. 2 8 6 , 462 P.2d Judicial District s t a t u t e s which 802; S t a t e v. 8 7 3 ; and Kuhl v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t o a sentencing hearing T h e s e c a s e s were d e c i d e d u n d e r s e c t i o n 94-7814 stated circumstances in aggravation or Harney Sintob (1969), 154 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 1 3 9 Mont. 5 3 6 , 3 6 6 P.2d a defendant has a r i g h t have the F i r s t 347, a l l held i n open c o u r t . R.C . M . mitigation 1 9 4 7 , which of sentence ". . . m u s t be p r e s e n t e d b y t e s t i m o n y o f w i t n e s s e s examined i n o p e n c o u r t . . ." However, t h i s s e c t i o n was r e p e a l e d by s e c t i o n 95-2205, R.C.M. 1947, now c o d i f i e d a s s e c t i o n 46-18-113, MCA, which states : " --- i l a b i l i t y -- f Ava o r t o -e f e n d a n t -dand -- eport o--h e r s . t (1) The judyg may, in his . d i s c r e t i o n , make t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t --07 p a r t s o f i t available t o the defendants o r o t h e r s , w h i l e c o n c e a l i n g t h e i d e n t i t y of p e r s o n s who p r o v i d e d c o n £ i d e n t i a l i n £ o r m a t i o n . I f t h e c o u r t d i s c l o s e s t h e i d e n t i t y of p e r s o n s who p r o v i d e d i n £ o r m a t i o n , t h e j u d g e may, i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n , allow t h e d e f e n d a n t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e t h o s e who r e n d e r e d i n £ o r m a t i o n (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) . . ." a t a presentence hearing Thus, the r i g h t of cross-examination is a discretionary overruled without matter of a showing of the trial abuse of court that and will not discretion. be In S t a t e v. O r s b o r n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 4 8 0 , 5 5 5 P.2d 5 0 9 , w e s t a t e d : " S u c h a c h a n g e of p o l i c y is r e f l e c t i v e of t h e t r e n d towards d i s t i n g u i s h i n g e v i d e n t i a l proced u r e a t t r i a l from t h a t a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g stage. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n W i l l i a m s v . N e w York , 337 U.S. 2 4 1 , 247, 6 9 S . C t . 107% 1 m 3 , - T ~ . ~ 1 3.3 7 , 1 3 4 2 , s t a t e d : d . . . 'I' a s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e , h o w e v e r , is n o t His c o n f i n e d to t h e narrow i s s u e of g u i l t . t a s k w i t h i n f i x e d l i m i t s is to d e t e r m i n e t h e t y p e and e x t e n t o f p u n i s h m e n t a f t e r t h e i s s u e o f g u i l t h a s been determined. Highly r e l e v a n t - i f n o t e s s e n t i a l - t o h i s s e l e c t i o n of a n a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e is t h e p o s s e s s i o n of t h e f u l l e s t information possible concerning the d e f e n d a n t ' s l i f e and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . And -modern c- n c e p - --i v i d u a l i-- -.p u n i s h m e n t o- -t s ind zing --- -- -. . have made i t a l l -t -- e -- n e c e s s a r y - a h more that --s e n t e n c i n-- i u d q e - -- - n i e d -- -- ~ ~ o r t u n i t v q n o t be de an o . -t- -t a i n- -. e r t i n e n t .i n f o r m a t i o n --y - - r e q u i r e o o bp b m e n t - r i g i d --d h e r e n c e t o r e s t r i c t i v e r u l e s of a to t t r io f e v i d e n c e -p r o p e- t y a p p l i c a b l e - -- h e - a l --r . I (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) - a a- a . . "However, t h i s d o e s n o t mean t h a t t h e s p i r i t A convicted defendant still o f Kuhl is d e a d . h a s a due p r o c e s s g u a r a n t e e a g a i n s t a s e n t e n c e 170 Mont at p r e d i c a t e d on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n 4 8 5 , 555 P.2d a t 512. ." . I n -r s- r n w e found t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s g u a r a n t e e of d u e p r o c e s s O-b o was p r o t e c t e d b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l a t t i m e the the i n f o r m a t i o n w a s made known t o him, sentencing d e f e n d a n t had the opportunity to rebut the d e f e n d a n t c h o s e t o a f f i r m t h e a c c u r a c y of information the the and the i n f o r m a t i o n . Here t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d h a v e c o u n s e l p r e s e n t and had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to rebut the i n f o r m a t i o n a l t h o u g h he c h o s e t o d e n y t h e a c c u r a c y o f the information. T h u s , we f i n d d e f e n d a n t ' s g u a r a n t y of d u e p r o - c e s s was p r o t e c t e d . It ters is a g e n e r a l r u l e t h r o u g h o u t t h i s c o u n t r y t h a t when m a t - contained defendant, in a presentence are report contested the t h e defendant has an a f f i r m a t i v e duty t o p r e s e n t evi- d e n c e showing t h e i n a c c u r a c i e s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e p o r t . Radi by (1979), Mont . - , 6 0 4 P.2d 318, S t a t e v. 36 S t . R e p . 2345. Here t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d a l l o w d e f e n d a n t t o t a k e t h e s t a n d and r e p l y t o the statements contained i n the presentence tion t h e r e was report. If defendant felt acquire witnesses t o adequately rebut in should have the record the report court. requested. he However, no time such from continuance P e t e r s v . Newkirk ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 1 2 1 0 , 38 S t . R e p . 1526. to in£ormat i o n c o n t a i n e d a continuance requested shows enough T h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t r e v i e w a matter r a i s e d f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . 6 3 3 P.2d the not investiga- was f o r the Mont That defendant did the . - not - I have t i m e t o p r e p a r e t o r e b u t t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t was something which should have been put to the trial court and d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o do so p r e v e n t s a n y r u l i n g by t h i s C o u r t t o remedy t h e s i t u a t i o n . Judgment W e concur: and sentence of the District Court is affirmed. Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea d i s s e n t i n g . I dissent. A defendant is a s much e n t i t l e d to due p r o c e s s i n s e n t e n c i n g a s he is a t t r i a l , and he h a s been d e n i e d t h a t due p r o c e s s h e r e . Here, d e f e n d a n t , a s majority s t a t e s , denied t h e a c c u r a c y of the i n f o r m a t i o n which found i t s way i n t o t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a tion report. But, t h e f a c t t h a t he d e n i e d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n d o e s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t he was g i v e n due p r o c e s s . could o n l y He h a v e b e e n g i v e n d u e p r o c e s s by a p r o c e s s which g a v e him o p p o r to t e s t tunity t h e a c c u r a c y of the information given. If the D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e l i e d i n any way on t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n imposing . t h e s e n t e n c e , d e f e n d a n t h a s been p r e j u d i c e d That p r e j u d i c e can o n l y be c u r e d by g i v i n g him a n o p p o r t u n i t y to d i r e c t l y c o n f r o n t those whose court. names were secreted from defendant by the trial Where names a r e n o t d i s c l o s e d i n a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a - tion report, and t h e t r i a l c o u r t d o e s n o t g i v e t h e d e f e n d a n t a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e b u t a l l t h e e v i d e n c e d i s c l o s e d , a p r e s u m p t i o n of the prejudice a r i s e s which c a n o n l y be hearing------wfih- a d e q ua t-e tencing I dissent defendant. f o r y e t another reason cured by another proced u r a l -- sen- s a f e g uad s . a ground n o t r a i s e d by Defendant has been s u b j e c t e d to d o u b l e j e o p a r d y by t h e i m p o s i t i o n of t h e a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t " w i t h a weapon" s e n t e n c e and t h e f u r t h e r i m p o s i t i o n of a s e n t e n c e f o r u s e of a f i r e a r m o r , d a n g e r o u s i n s t r u m e n t i n c o m m i t t i n g a crime. I n e f f e c t -- h a s b e e n twice p u n i s h e d f o r t h e same a c t was Defendant charged under section causes : of aggravated assault if "A p e r s o n purposely the c o m m i t s the or knowingly ( c ) r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n of s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y i n . . ." a n o t h e r - -u s e o f a weapon - - by - of he t h e u s e of a weapon. 45-5-202 (1) c ) of ( a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t s t a t u t e which s t a t e s : offense defendant this section vated assault. -- U s e of a weapon i s t h e e s s e n c e i f no weapon was used t h e r e c a n be no a g g r a - I n s t e a d , t h e c h a r g e would be a m i s d e m e a n o r . The misdemeanor a s s a u l t s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 45-5-201(1) ( d ) p r o v i d e s : p e r s o n c o m m i t s t h e o f f e n s e of assault if he: A ( d ) purposely o r knowingly causes . . ." another punished, weapon. of the reasonable apprehension It of because is c l e a r , its p o t e n t i a l of therefore, bodily that f o r harm, i n jury act the in be is t h e to use of a Here t h e t r i a l c o u r t p u n i s h e d t h e d e f e n d a n t f o r t h e u s e weapon by sentencing to him ten years in prison. B u t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e n i n v o k e d a n o t h e r s t a t u t e and g a v e t h e d e f e n d a n t a second ten-year f i r s t ten-year suspended, E i g h t y e a r s o f t h e s e c o n d s e n t e n c e were sentence. which s e n t e n c e t o r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y to t h e resulted S e c t i o n 46-18-221(1) in a twelve-year prison sentence. provides: " A p e r s o n who h a s b e e n f o u n d g u i l t y of a n y offense and who, while engaged in the commission of t h e o f f e n s e , knowingly d i s p l a y e d , brandished, o r o t h e r w i s e used a f i r e a r m , d e s t r u c t i v e d e v i c e , as d e f i n e d i n 4 5 - 8 - 3 3 2 ( 1 ) , o r o t h e r d a n g e r o u s weapon, s h a l l , i n a d d i t i o n t punish provided f o r theco -- o t h e - m e n t -----m m i s s i o n o f - c h o f f e n s e , b e s e n t e n c e d t o a term o f s uimprisonment - - - t a t e prisoii-of- - - -e s s in t h es notl t h a n t w o y e a r s o r - - -e n y e a r s -- -more t h a n t -( ~ m p h a x a d d e d )s 7 . . ." I n f i l i n g t h e c h a r g e s t h e s t a t e p u t t h e d e f e n d a n t on n o t i c e t h a t it would i n v o k e s e c t i o n 46-18-221 tion. The information alleged i n t h e e v e n t of a c o n v i c - in part: "The maximum s e n t e n c e f o r s a i d o f f e n s e is t w e n t y ( 2 0 ) y e a r s p l u s a n a d d i t i o n a l s e n t e n c e o f two y e a r s minimum and n o t to e x c e e d t e n y e a r s maximum f o r u s e of a firearm." ~ e f e n d a n t k ounsel, c conviction, raised no additional sentence instrument. The issue with for use of effect is however, respect that a firearm a f t e r defendant's to i m p o s i t i o n of or an other dangerous been sentenced defendant has u n d e r t h e a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t s t a t u t e f o r u s e of a f i r e a r m , and h e h a s a g a i n been punished under s e c t i o n 46-18-221(1), of a firearm. The assault jury That could unless it -- MCA, is d o u b l e j e o p a r d y . not found have that convicted he had d e f e n d a n t of used a weapon aggravated (a firearm h e r e ) t o p l a c e t h e v i c t i m i n r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n of bodily injury. for u s e Conviction d e f e n d a n t u s e d a weapon. of that charge came about serious because The t r i a l c o u r t s e n t e n c e d d e f e n d a n t to t e n y e a r s b e c a u s e h e u s e d a weapon. I f a i l t o see, h o w e v e r , that t h e c o u r t c o u l d impose a p e n a l t y on t o p of u s e of a weapon. The u n d e n i a b l e f a c t i s t h a t i f d e f e n d a n t had n o t u s e d a weapon ( a f i r e a r m h e r e ) h e c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n conDefendant h a s been s u b j e c t e d to a v i c t e d of aggravated a s s a u l t . d o u b l e p e n a l t y f o r t h e same a c t -- p o i n t i n g a weapon ( a f i r e a r m ) T h i s d o u b l e p e n a l t y f o r t h e same a c t , v i o l a t e s t h e a t another. double t h i s p e n a l t y -- f o r jeopardy provisions of the United States and Montana Constitutions. I would 46-18-221. s t r i k e the additonal penalty The a d d i t i o n a l p e n a l t y , t h i s case, is u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . imposed under s e c t i o n as a p p l i e d to t h e f a c t s of

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.