STATE v COOK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-374 I N T E SUPREME COURT O TI-IE STATE O MONTANA H F F 1982 T E STATE O MONTANA, H F P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -VS- KENNETH E . COOK, SR. , 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 Seventh 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 Dawson, The H o n o r a b l e L. C. G u l b r a n d s o n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: J e r r y D. Cook, G l e n d i v e , 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 R i c h a r d A. Simonton, County A t t o r n e y , G l e n d i v e , Montana - - Submitted on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: Jufi 10 1982 A p r i l 1 5 , 1982 J u n e 1 0 , 1982 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Kenneth D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . Cook, E. negligent homicide Court the of Sr., following Seventh appeals a jury Judicial his trial conviction of in District in District, the and for the C o u n t y o f Dawson. On August 25, 1 9 8 0 , d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d by i n f o r m a t i o n with n e g l i g e n t homicide i n v i o l a t i o n of The d e f e n d a n t p l e a d n o t g u i l t y , 1 8 4 , MCA. was h e l d on December verdict, and t h e c o u r t imprisonment at 8, 1980. The j u r y s e c t i o n 45-5- and a j u r y t r i a l returned a guilty sentenced defendant t o seven y e a r s ' t h e Montana State Prison. The c o u r t sus- pended two y e a r s o f t h e s e n t e n c e on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s u b m i t t o a l c o h o l c o u n s e l i n g w h i l e on p a r o l e . T h i s appeal followed. On August 1 9 , 1 9 8 0 , b e t w e e n 8: 30 and 9:00 p.m., Dufner was s t r u c k and k i l l e d by a v e h i c l e w h i l e w a l k i n g o r jogging tana. Susan with her dog on Anderson Avenue i n Glendive, Mon- An a u t o p s y r e v e a l e d t h a t s h e d i e d a l m o s t i n s t a n e o u s l y from m a s s i v e s k u l l f r a c t u r e s e x t e n d i n g from t h e t o p and back of t h e head the ear were down t h r o u g h t h e b a s e o f canals. caused by The a evidence severe blunt t h e s k u l l and a c r o s s revealed force. that the injuries Also, the injuries w e r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h b e i n g s t r u c k by t h e f r o n t g r i l l a r e a o f a 1 9 6 7 Ford p i c k u p t r u c k . The a p p e l l a n t was d r i v i n g a 1 9 6 7 Ford p i c k u p on t h e n i g h t o f Susan D u f n e r ' s d e a t h . E x p e r t t e s t i m o n y and r e a l e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e trial struck revealed and that killed it had Susan been Dufner. appellant's Shattered pickup that fragments of h e a d l i g h t g l a s s found a t t h e a c c i d e n t s c e n e matched b r o k e n pieces of headlight glass from a p p e l l a n t ' s pickup. Paint p a r t i c l e s t a k e n from t h e c l o t h i n g worn by t h e v i c t i m on t h e n i g h t of t h e a c c i d e n t matched t h e p a i n t s a m p l e s froro a p p e l - l a n t ' s pickup. used to wipe H a i r , r e c o v e r e d from a s p o n g e t h a t a p p e l l a n t off his pickup, matched hair victim. The s p o n g e a l s o c o n t a i n e d dog t h o s e of the victim's to one expected to dog. be Finally, made when samples of h a i r s t h a t matched a large dent, a the body slams similar against a v e h i c l e , was found on a p p e l l a n t ' s p i c k u p , Appellant a.m. testified he had begun drinking at 10:00 on t h e morning of A u g u s t 1 9 , 1 9 8 0 , and t h a t he had con- t i n u e d t o d r i n k u n t i l he l e f t t h e S o u t h s i d e T a v e r n t o r e t u r n home a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8:30 p.m. consumed twelve beers. and one h a l f more admission, than about two He t e s t i f i e d This t h a t he had was, by his own t i m e s what he normally would d r i n k . Witnesses at the bar consumed b e e r a l l day long. observed the appellant appeared t o be d r u n k . testified that appellant had One w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d s h e had staggering Another to the bathroom witness t e s t i f i e d and that he she had l e f t t h e b a r a t t h e same t i m e a s t h e a p p e l l a n t and t h a t he was " w o b b l i n g . " She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e saw a p p e l - lant get into his vehicle, swing a U-turn the t h e wrong street, drive away in s w e r v e t o a v o i d oncoming t r a f f i c . i n the middle of l a n e of traffic, and These o b s e r v a t i o n s t o o k p l a c e w i t h i n a s h o r t d i s t a n c e of t h e a c c i d e n t s c e n e . The a p p e l l a n t ' s nephew, who l i v e d w i t h him, t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t a r r i v e d home a t a b o u t 8 : 5 0 of the accident. was d r u n k , slurred. that The nephew t e s t i f i e d he was p.m. that on t h e n i g h t the appellant s t a g g e r i n g and t h a t h i s s p e e c h was The o n l y i s s u e on a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e j ury' s v e r d i c t t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t committed t h e o f f e n s e of s e c t i o n 45-5-104, negligent homicide a s defined by MCA. A p p e l l a n t ' s b a s i c c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was not risk sufficient that his pedestrian argues that section to f i n d t h a t he c o n s c i o u s l y d i s r e g a r d e d drunk walking his driving could along Anderson a c t i o n s do not 45-5-1634, because MCA, cause the death Avenue after constitute a the of result the of a dark. He violation of his actions was n o t f o r e s e e a b l e and t h a t h i s i n t o x i c a t i o n a l o n e i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o "obviate a necessary conscious disregard." T h i s Court h a s r e i t e r a t e d t h e standard f o r reviewing t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of numerous cases. S t a t e v. Rumley St.Rep. t h e evidence t o support a conviction i n In the (1981), recent n e g l i g e n t homicide Mont . , 1351A, we a d d r e s s e d t h e s t a n d a r d 634 P.2d for c a s e of 446, reviewing 38 the e v i d e n c e and s t a t e d : " I t is t h e p r e r o g a t i v e of t h e j u r y t o d e c i d e t h e f a c t s , and t h i s C o u r t m u s t u p h o l d s u c h f i n d i n g s when t h e y a r e s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. A s we s t a t e d i n S t a t e v . K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 283, 587 P.2d 1 2 9 8 , 1 3 0 5 , 35 St.Rep. 1532, 1539, ' [ t l h e j u r y i s t h e f a c t - f i n d i n g body and i t s d e c i Given t h e r e q u i r e d s i o n is c o n t r o l l i n g l e g a l minimum o f e v i d e n c e , we w i l l n o t subs t i t u t e o u r d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e f a c t s f o r t h a t of t h e j u r y If s u b s t a n t i a l evid e n c e i s found t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , i t w i l l stand (Citations omitted.)" 634 P.2d a t 449. ... . . . ... A p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h i s a c t i o n s do n o t show a "conscious disregard" is without m e r i t . 591 P.2d a s d e f i n e d by s e c t i o n 45-5-104, I n S t a t e v. Bier 1 1 1 5 , 36 S t . R e p . (1979), lvlont 466, we h e l d : "Defendant contends t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o prove . MCA, I t h e r e q u i r e d m e n t a l s t a t e and c a u s a t i o n e l e ments f o r a prima f a c i e c a s e of n e g l i g e n t homicide. Concerning t h e mental element, defendant argues t h a t h i s conduct d i d not evidence a conscious disregard f o r h i s wife's life. N e g l i g e n t homicide is d e f i n e d by s t a t u t e a s follows: " (1) C r i m i n a l h o m i c i d e c o n s t i t u t e s n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e when i t is c o m m i t t e d n e g l i g e n t l y . " I ( 2 ) A p e r s o n c o n v i c t e d o f n e g l i g e n t homic i d e s h a l l be imprisoned i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n f o r a n y term n o t t o e x c e e d t e n ( 1 0 ) y e a r s . ' S e c t i o n 95-6-104, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 45-5-184, MCA. "Negligence is d e f i n e d a s f o l l o w s : . . . [A] p e r s o n a c t s n e g l i g e n t l y w i t h respect t o a r e s u l t or t o a circumstance d e s c r i b e d by a s t a t u t e d e f i n i n g an o f f e n s e when h e c o n s c i o u s l y d i s r e g a r d s a r i s k t h a t t h e r e s u l t w i l l occur o r t h a t t h e circums t a n c e e x i s t s o r i f he d i s r e g a r d s a r i s k of which h e s h o u l d be aware t h a t t h e r e s u l t w i l l occur or t h a t the circumstance e x i s t s . The r i s k must be of s u c h a n a t u r e and d e g r e e t h a t Lo d i s r e g a r d i t i n v o l v e s a g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from t h e s t a n d a r d of c o n d u c t t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n would o b s e r v e i n t h e a c t o r ' s situation. G r o s s d e v i a t i o n means a d e v i a t i o n t h a t is c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r t h a n l a c k o f ordinary care. Relevant terms such a s "neglig e n t " a n d " w i t h n e g l i g e n c e " h a v e t h e same meaning.' (Emphasis added.) S e c t i o n 94-21 0 1 ( 3 1 ) , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 45-21 0 1 ( 3 1 ) , MCA. II I "In S t a t e v . K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , [ I 7 9 Mont. 587 P.2d 1 2 9 8 , 1 3 0 4 , 3 5 S t . R e p . 1 5 3 2 , 1538, t h i s Court explained t h a t ' [ u l n l i k e d e l i b e r a t e homicide, which r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e o f f e n s e be committed p u r p o s e l y o r Itnowingly, n e g l i g e n t homicide d o e s n o t r e q u i r e such purpose o r knowledge. Negligent homicide o n l y r e q u i r e s a g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from a r e a s o n a b l e A g r o s s d e v i a t i o n under standard of care.' t h e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n is analogous t o g r o s s negligence i n t h e law of t o r t s . Alt h o u g h somewhat n e b u l o u s i n c o n c e p t , g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e is g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t o f a l l s h o r t o f a r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o r conseq u e n c e s and is s a i d t o d i f f e r from o r d i n a r y n e g l i g e n c e o n l y i n d e g r e e , n o t i n kind 5 9 1 P.2d a t 1 1 1 7 - 1 1 1 8 . (Emphasis added.) 2831, . . ." Finally, appellant's contention t h a t h i s intoxication alone cannot be the basis for a conviction of negligent h o m i c i d e is n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e l a w o r t h e e v i d e n c e . Court held in the negligent K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. homicide case 283, 587 P.2d of This State v. 1298, t h a t : " C r i m i n a l n e g l i g e n c e can a r i s e a s a r e s u l t of i n t o x i c a t i o n . Defendant's mental s t a t e a t t h e t i m e he was d r i v i n g h i s c a r was n o t i n i s s u e . I s s u e was w h e t h e r t h e d r i v i n g o f a c a r w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d was a g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from t h e standard of reasonable c a r e ... ". . . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t d e f e n d a n t was d r i v i n g h i s c a r w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d and i t was b e c a u s e o f h i s i n t o x i c a t i o n t h a t the accident occurred resulting in t h e This constitutes d e a t h of Douglas Schaf f e r s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supporting d e f e n d a n t ' s conviction.'' 587 P.2d a t 1304-1305. . See a l s o , S t a t e v . Engstrom ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 79 Wash.2d The e v i d e n c e i n t h e p r e s e n t case constitutes suffi- c i e n t evidence t o support t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s evidence i l l u s t r a t e d 469, 487 P.2d conviction. t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was The intoxicated to s u c h a d e g r e e t h a t i t was c l e a r l y i n " g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the a c t o r ' s situation." Appellant admitted consuming in excess of twelve b e e r s , o v e r t w i c e h i s normal l i m i t ; he was o b s e r v e d s t a g g e r i n g i n t h e b a r ; h e was o b s e r v e d w o b b l i n g t o h i s v e h i c l e ; was observed traffic swerviny minutes staggering and before in and driving the accident; slurring his the and speech wrong he was shortly lane of observed after accident. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . Justice he / the We c o n c u r : 3 4d 4.Pgw4 Chief Justice -
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.
