STATE v FUHRMANN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 95-210 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff APPEAL FROM: and Respondent, District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Maurice R. Colberg, Judge District, presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: William Montana For F. Hooks, Appellate Defender Helena, Respondent: Joseph Collins, Montana; Attorney, Attorney, P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Pamela P. Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Dennis Paxinos, Yellowstone County Daniel Schwarz, Deputy Yellowstone County Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: Office, July 11, October 1996 18, 1996' Justice William E. Appellant filed in county, Fuhrmann term Frank the with Hunt, at the (Fuhrmann) Judicial one count years delivered Fuhrmann Thirteenth was found of Sr. the of was charged Court, After crime State the charged Prison. Court. by information homicide. the Montana of District of deliberate guilty Opinion Yellowstone a jury trial, and sentenced Fuhrmann to a appeals. We affirm. Fuhrmann 1. of Did raises the statements 2. for two issues on appeal: Court err District made by the Did a change the of in admitting hearsay testimony victim? District Court err in denying Fuhrmann's motion venue? FACTS This case Billings, arose Montana out on the morning hours Charlie Turner (Turner) parlor operated by relationship in tattoo parlor Turner Fuhrmann the Rimrocks investigate. 8. area 7:30 was given with and that north of to marijuana They was a 15 year adult. 2 old do odd boy, the to Turner window parlor Billings. occurred 7, the the gave jobs early tattoo begun a Turner around washing a the business. that evening, plants were decided to Fuhrmann in victim, had Fuhrmann Fuhrmann's rumor on July by a friend promise the Turner p.m. when tattoo that 7, 1993 and into a ride earlier help the events Fuhrmann Turner's at of of July At about for arrived discussed evening months exchange and a series Fuhrmann. three tattoo When of July of he and growing on drive up to a 32 year old On the to way to gather the Rimrocks, a flashlight, Kershaw knife. blades can blade, inside pocket stated that Fuhrmann a plastic A Kershaw inserted be inserted into the black he did inform Fuhrmann drove Park. The two Alkali Creek. There, marijuana began plants to Fuhrmann other walk then the back few steps next to knife in his day knife that that fell outstretched they with they would hand to plunge into his car near overlooking on a boulder, search Turner in other for the They hours. had not his forward, plants. ~the knife. sat the an Fuhrmann cliffs daylight car, in marijuana of they during a fillet knife and parked an area a style chose the the in one hand, contends Fuhrmann cut Fuhrmann, Fuhrmann's the Fuhrmann when decided and different he was carrying to to that placed the Rimrocks walked apartment he was wearing. to that according was carrying hand. Turner and cigarettes, jacket his a blanket, Fuhrmann and knife them up to Swords smoked the in handle. handle, at bag, unique leather brought not is the the stopped garbage knife into it of Fuhrmann then the lead. items in more than gone momentum causing Turner's upper his a the right buttock. According to Fuhrmann, have a knife?" then main thoroughfare on top flag down passing vehicles. edge of Airport knife, that handle Turner ran Road, first, grabbed Turner off of the the the a gesture caught contends of slashed 3 and exclaimed of Airport Turner Rimrocks. Fuhrmann knife, around direction Fuhrmann where as in turned Road, began up with Fuhrmann the trying to Turner he offered peace. "you Fuhrmann across at Turner the the maintains the face, and would have inflicted more struggle. Turner during an ensuing passed by the scene to complete the on Airport story of Dorothy the Semmann, following p.m. her scene. Ms. light stop to from the victim help ended side of shift to driver's but in side to blood the area road, the point, her after what of the blood, profusely. Two other and were Kenyon was having was side his of the hands. saw another she on road Her into urge to man approaching was the home and intended called 911. men. Creek were that also night whom approached became a couple driving frightened on when two Ms. men Kenyon's and drove of minutes Ms. happening. Kenyon so she had on, drove not seen men. returned, she saw the younger motorists, Clark Allard attending to younger observed difficulty on Airport Amy Vicars of overcame determine Ms. younger 11:30 Creek the the Alkali Kenyon When Ms. Kenyon stopped friend at witness thought of Ms. on either road. of she Hospital first Semmann drove window. curiosity back and her the from she on either Kenyon Road on and Ms. blood information Alkali waving when road that was the near headlights, the seen Chelsea ran of disarmed vehicles provide Deaconess as a nurse, abruptly of night left man appear a car-jacking. She had not Airport by her not events. Semmann was driving cast Fuhrmann The drivers who had just work had Road that these Road when she saw a young the damage the that Turner breathing, and Terrill man, was lying man lying in Bracken, Turner. in and was continuing At a pool the had this of to bleed Mr. the had return. Kenyon's Allard Mr. road, with one arrived slowed on the lying testified, man's ground, prone man, Allard the As Mr. stopped say his hesitated after his Mr. car, got Fuhrmann Allard man's after before standing leg and the left motion above other over side the Help me. walking flagged men, him down a passing prone he heard the with car the me." to approach toward him hand, the He stabbed and began MS. he saw two men in other slashing me. began moments along out, then car the pulled "Help scene his a backhand Allard Turner, hand. prone making body. the Allard one hand holding Allard at Mr. men, but a knife driven in by Mr. Bracken. Mr. pressure Bracken to Turner's Allard, Ms. stopped at stabbed Kenyon, were the cause of him of Turner raises were Turner's massive 9:00 Attending most serious to upon arrival. doctors still a.m., doctors of July Turner the statements Bracken, made by Turner stated the who had motorist stabbing is applied time, this to statements injuries: Deaconess loss 8. to that was Fuhrmann "no accident." subject were Hospital, more than stop caused of the first and was unconscious three Turner's him Turner had discovered which At Allard another witness After unable blood Mr. on appeal. was rushed and in shock wounds. and that these while Pfieffer, all his "on purpose," Fuhrmann stab and Tisha scene, The admissibility about Fuhrmann numerous the concerning issue disarmed to a deep wound suffer 5 dead Turner's stab surgery, bleeding. cardiac separate in of vigorous was pronounced a dozen hours arrest at at 9:37 a.m. wounds, the right buttock and a longer which slash severed testimony inches at his had Many of the the were Fuhrmann and subsequently raised force. Prior Fuhrmann limine. Most testimony effect to importantly concerning that began Court for 7, were the 1993, to guilty of was his the testimony, found crime use of motions motion to or not in exclude Turner, to the an accident. and after was the of victim, in with justifiable on purpose Fuhrmann 1994, 13, County, a number review by attack. not filed that received on July defense made by actions admitted March our remarks Fuhrmann's The District that trial, the 5 motions. Yellowstone pleaded charged, separate a knife filed Court, expert wound suggested two from arm was nearly of wounds by information District homicide. in right offered buttock of the himself upper State characteristic defend Judicial his Turner's and withdrawn was charged Thirteenth deliberate to of The configuration wounds attempting part wound to inserted other inner artery. the been Fuhrmann the that and that a knife the brachial trial deep, a person across a jury trial guilty of crime trial, Chief the charged. About County a week after Attorney foreman, who the Daniel Schwartz wanted to Schwartz conversation, conducted notified hearing, the court discuss during the granted court of the received discovered an experiment immediately conclusion the a call case. that the and Fuhrmann's from one course of defense motion Deputy the their During of the the trial. counsel, for jury jurors had Schwartz and after a new trial. a Before of his venue due community to of received the motions Again, the concerning court denied Fuhrmann again motion, and deliberate after the statements This ruling 262 Mont. the court he had had all motion. prior District first first motion trial to exclude testimony Fuhrmann's actions. regarding on to was 18, of 1994) denied found a term renewed trial. October The court Fuhrmann sentenced Court his his of venue. Fuhrmann to to a change and was that the prior filed Fuhrmann's jury a change also retrial a for Fuhrmann Fuhrmann's Prison. his guilty years of at the appealed. err ONE in admitting made by the Court will not overturn an abuse of discretion. hearsay testimony of victim? absent 271 Mont. in threats, ISSUE Did receiving for moved State was of homicide Montana case made by Turner commencement court informed Fuhrmann's he statements the death limine moved the his Fuhrmann denied in Fuhrmann publicity separate The court the trial, Billings. three trial. At second 367, 374, 293, 897 P.2d 301, 864 a 1063, P.2d whether the 1067; District admitting hearsay testimony of in briefs court's State 1257, determine trial Court v. 1263. Stringer (1995), v. State Gollehon (1993), Therefore, abused statements evidentiary its we must discretion made by the to us that in victim, Turner. Fuhrmann regarding District argues Turner's Court his statements because Turner's submitted should have statements 7 been related testimony excluded by the to Fuhrmann's state of limine mind and thus before argument be testimony went to 704, it was issue responded denied to the in the The State rule that Court argument is correct 458, 454, before this hearsay federal in Turner's and thus that, under addressed mens rea. the State and the bases, The court District that Fuhrmann's cases to interpreting the hearsay Rule below did referred not to (l), the that (1994), 265 argument inadmissible of mind, District Fuhrmann rule. 103(a) are state at the to Fuhrmann's statements level. from Henderson However, raised clearly adheres on appeal by basis Court v. Fuhrmann's argument it to 1016. a different Court theory State raised District this the change argument issue has at the that Fuhrmann specifically, exception he did Turner's relate this Fuhrmann Court." that they that 1013, a procedural review asserting may not Court, two arguments of mind" his inadmissible which two for own, was these not than 077 P.2d because M.R.Evid., his testimony in statements argued presents should on appeal on the While of initially contends "a party advanced Mont. this State The State Fuhrmann. his on each bases that not Fuhrmann's motion motion. why for motion argued testimony i.e. two Fuhrmann the opinion dispute,. the On appeal, to M.R.Evid., his Turner's of mind, Second, layperson ultimate concerning state hearsay. In had Fuhrmann Fuhrmann's and hearsay. Fuhrmann First, 701 because the hearsay inadmissible Rules as Court, excluded. statements inadmissible District why the should were the are is Court one of level. cite Rule 803 (3), that Rule's "state points Fed.R.Evid., us to identical two in substance to Rule objection is clear required from 1980), the use of 497. State v. Brown provided in (1984), to 63, party court. Motion in v. 891 P.Zd (4th has dated Cir. (2d approved appeal, 490 (citing P.2d for at be for 477, basis not Musacchia 680 891 P.2d Limine, Inc. an objection the specific would Court 506-07, makes Weeks -I Co., this 85, 502, that ground States preserve 209 Mont. objecting Fifth United Moreover, 270 Mont. district his limine (1995), the the In Upjohn Werner 493, Weeks to v. hold specific see also a motion which the 853; v. clear where 848, State 85), "only M.R.Evid., 900 F.2d 1990), the (l), context." 628 F.2d Cir. 103(a) 582, his 584- objection 490. March 4, 1994, Fuhrmann states: The statements attributed to Turner relate to the alleged state of mind and intent of Fuhrmann. While a witness can testify about his/her state of mind, that witness cannot testify about the state of mind of another. The court has to ask itself the question, 'If a witness were asked, "Did he do it on purpose?", would the court allow the witness to answer the question?' The District Court Fuhrmann's motions Court did first in trial. limine prior denied Fuhrmann's objection him of to his conclude that the limine theory as was his and it His for to Fuhrmann's appropriate before renewed in of the object us is that it. his District but at grounded we review of the in properly to noted statements again argument prior all Limine, Fuhrmann 9 motion time, Motion below. this At that admission argument argument is the upon Fuhrmann retrial. obligation basis was clear. rule Fifth to any formally However, Fuhrmann's relieved objection not trial. his We motion in and the preserved in same his Fuhrmann state that was "not contends Fuhrmann that stabbed an accident" excluded by the testimony is him by those "on purpose" inadmissible District who witnessed Court. and that hearsay Hearsay Turner the stabbing and should have been is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Rule 801(c), rules M.R.Evid. of Generally, evidence M.R.Evid. provide provides hearsay certain an exception is inadmissible, exceptions. but Rule the 803(3), for [al statement of the declarant's then-existing state of sensation, or physical condition (such as mind, emotion, intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed. Fuhrmann argues Fuhrmann's intent do not fall that because address within any testimony hearsay. Fuhrmann state exception provided also him stabbed the believed, precisely in the text of The State state use argues that mind, and thus The of force, defense with Fuhrmann Turner's the statements by Rule 803 (3) statements is inadmissible Turner's are what statements is and statements of belief that to disallowed by the last statements do address prove clause 803(3). 803(3). of by Rule Rule mind, that argues purposely of regarding these concerning Fuhrmann fact statements Fuhrmann's the therefore Turner's fit State Turner's within the contends opened the hearsay that by exception claiming 10 for which statements, door the indicated State his own provided justifiable to Turner's rebut fear his of Fuhrmann and provoked the Mont. 342, that Turner stabbing. 348, 492, 496, The State also fit within decline to State P.2d discuss at the the both Fuhrmann Both the analysis and the State respective 719, to Losson initiated time or (1993), Magruder its arguments, 262 (1988), contention. that Turner's to the hearsay rule. record reveals that as the first v. support exceptions in on appeal. We the Henderson, 877 of daughter testimony that he'd be at avoided 717. hearsay determined that at 718-19. that proposed entirely and to the by correct. Losson discuss in their important points be the bar "seemed the defendant1 because their that because by they Rule 803(3), statements fit of had raised and the the defendant. the her that would Magruder, the be 765 statements "state The M.R.Evid. defense told Magruder the of victim's after victim's within evidence the The later." were court's worried Mr. home] concluded he was afraid Defendant [at district statements. victim a piece' and would provided mind, not affirmed [with 'packing exception of but a victim's The majority the arguments Magruder failed the conversation a piece cite Court of [telephone] packing the creative, both this testified better is in cases. Magruder, admission logic Fuhrmann and those and State and briefs, In P.2d v. and State arguments, for he State alternative two other that 1016. Some of raised 258, 716, raises them believe cites 255, 765 P.2d these has raised not The State 865 P.2d 234 Mont. statements did victim's of mind" majority state Maqruder, of 765 P.2d justifiable use of force, and the majority feared the defendant (citing United 767). The for their was majority offered concluded mind. In given States v. Brown truth, a limiting (D.C. Cir. that only to majority to the 1973), the that the 490 719 758, were not state district the at F.2d victim's that victim P.2d statements the jury, the 765 show noted instruction that Maqruder, out but the evidence relevant. pointed support, that of court had testimony was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show the victim's then existing state of mind. You are to consider the statements only in regard to the victim's state of mind and for no other purpose. Masruder, 765 P.2d The F.2d dissent 758, problem skims 718. Macruder, that too lightly rule, were under was in by the P.2d (Sheehy, at point was not we note victim's that raised while concluded to show the the at 720 concerned "state limiting dissent, statements P.2d at were not state of 12 the dissenting). if it exception to the defendant as to our "state the Macruder, the review of of Maqruder that mind" on the offered for their Maoruder, 765 following concluded it mind. of testimony, one hand 718, hearsay mind" of the 490 the after within J., Although on the the nature instruction. the 765 victim's that dissenting). fit of (Sheehy, so prejudicial majority Macruder, that very J.,' in on Brown, problematic the court's the statements exception, only 720-21 the any event to be incurable heavily handling 765 P.2d justices relied majority's over was admissible hearsay which "the Masruder, dissenting indeed in stated testimony." The at the hearsay other hand truth, 765 P.2d but at 719. In Losson, a later case, this court cleared up this discrepancy. In Losson, justifiable use admission of statements, fear where the relevant, the the victim's under raised affirmed victim's the at hearsay defense district The in Maqruder, indicated victim's that rule. the then his statements and 258, of court's statements. statements P.2d the the We concluded 865 Losson, 762-63, we of defendant. admissibility defendant force, testimony like of of the analyzed Citing Brown, were their 490 F.2d at we stated: That court delineated the distinction between hearsay and non-hearsay as it related to state of mind evidence. The distinction turns on whether the statement is evidence which directly proves the declarant's state of mind or whether the statement is evidence which circumstantially proves the declarant's state of mind. Losson, 865 P.2d The made testimony by the him statements toward 259. 259 at to kill if he (emphasis issue in The victim. "threatened kill at victim him in ever had past," moved out." defendant]; We explained Losson the circumstantially [the added). indicated that he feared involved stated and that three that the the her." defendant defendant We concluded [the statements victim's1 Losson, that state "would "these of 865 P.2d further: The jury was instructed not to consider whether [the threatened to kill or would kill defendant], in fact, Instead, the jury was instructed to [the victim]. consider [the victim's] state of mind; whether he was We hold that the first two afraid of [the defendant]. statements were not hearsay. 13 mind at Losson, 865 P.2d at We concluded Losson was third that direct statement thought 259. the evidence was that she was going direct evidence the State that the of Based the our statements that Under was "not However, such showing truth court's that an the the feared explaining the of such court purpose 765 P.2d at would of for 718; Turner's that the construed as we have a limiting which it Losson, 14 could Turner's for P.2d the fear. 259. purpose of for a district the to the 259. nonat considered consider at be be offered instruction 865 P.2d only CEKl Where we have upheld statements, issued 865 and may not mind, the be considered Losson, only at 259. 259. and Fuhrmann, of and we reach be evidence asserted. matters district can be offered state the they statements must at purpose" if declarant's of "on that provided First, him admissible. statements admission Magruder, be 865 P.2d case. circumstantial the exception and Losson, Turner and truth, 865 P.2d instant the wife contained its Magruder accident," that would in for the Losson, The we determined Losson, into his statement mind, in mind. of statement fit stabbed construction, and the Fuhrmann as providing hearsay the statement in evidence that of the victim of afraid was hearsay. analyses conclusions construed state the state Since and was admissible. upon providing "was him." therefore following stabbing victim the made by victim's victim's that 803(3) the was offering statement we held by Rule the statement of to kill necessarily However, third fact the jury statements. After reviewing indication that exclude for is Court the nothing issue the limiting testimony to was being jury of keep testimony We hold limiting the of least wound the to his Airport buttock given District the at any time why the was to consider due to could the base times; buttock, Road; by his it is type Court must effect its also we consider evidence the.description physicians in Turner most the offered this the wound and by a State and upon stabbed wounds, to a error record had been serious in giving he and Fuhrmann of such discretion without before of given. abused verdict: 15 this and this prejudicial Rule the may consider court Turner's and instruct However, a guilty attending must was being independent of rule testimony was received and, hearsay statements it. one on a defendant, court Court as to why the twelve matter, explaining the trial possible Turner's a jury not effect which District jury did jury instruction that to be harmless, at the a limiting instruction how the that the importantly, a trial the testimony admitting which if both for both eye toward even the of purpose However, a vigilant For More Court exception, limited testimony. to why the prejudicial integrity of mind" the motion explain all. to no limited be offered. District potential the "state as to the we find Fuhrmann's statements, would at case, offered. any uphold 803(3)'s which instructions To prevent and record that instant in denying could testimony reveal the Turner's testimony in the admitted in Court, regarding which transcripts record the District testimony purpose there the the reached Turner's crime lab expert was inconsistent stabbed Turner with when he tripped outstretched consistent harmless to error beyond the a district noted that error the rule overwhelming district P.2d court's at 74. applied the Supreme Court 87 S.Ct. 824, States 18, to 24, be harmless, the error did it not must be contribute (19951, 272 Mont. 303, v. McKenzie (1980), 186 Mont. 481, considering the evidentiary ruling, that a reasonable to llq, 261, 268, 115, of error. We conclude a defendant's there 16 of the rule and guilt 71, state is inadmissible Brodniak 74; 1266. State that in was overwhelming v. Gray has harmless either can render 458; v. Court This and Montana's at of question conviction." 608 P.2d McKenzie, effect a matter that 1262, same, prejudicial essential 779 P.2d error the that the 673 P.2d harmless essentially "[tlhe possibility contributed evidence such Rothacre stated federal are error, v. In 239 Mont. 207 Mont. the State 458. have (1989), error that regarding we have United is State has is might for erroneous Court evidence (196X), in his was harmless holdings 386 U.S. doubt 88; 82, 428, there State a knife constitutional by the 710-11: error involved, (1967), obtained. court's this is a reasonable 608 P.2d whether he accidentally with Court's federal established 705, 901 P.2d law, that forward previous Where California verdict 312-13, 532, rule v. District instruction, 17 L.Ed.Zd shown and fell Court's doctrine. jury Chapman the this error improper 8.28, that with harmless in claim hand. Our conclusion as Fuhrmann's harmless Brodniak, evidence case a 779 of Fuhrmann's guilt, and contribute to his that the conviction. District We hold Court's that ISSUE Did change the of District not was harmless. in Fuhrmann's motion for a court's denial of a venue? This Court motion for Moore (1994), other will grounds, change determine denying denying error did TWO err Court the error not of venue 268 Mont. a district absent an abuse 20, Gollehon, whether Fuhrmann's Section disturb 51, 906 the 885 P.2d P.2d Court for a change 46-13-203(l), 457, 697). District motion of discretion. MCA, states 477 State (overruled Therefore, abused of v. its we on must discretion in venue. that a defendant is entitled to move for a change of place of trial on the ground that there exists in the county in which the charge is pending such prejudice that a fair trial cannot be had in the county. Further, a motion for change of venue must when it appears there are reasonable that the prejudice alleged actually reason of the prejudice there apprehension that the accused cannot impartial trial. State v. (citing Link (1981), People v. Fuhrmann court the could Billings points to 194 Mont. Berry argues (Ill. that 1967), there reasonably believe community at the three separate 556, death time 559-60, three 640 of his retrial. that P.2d 591, grounds prejudice threats 17 grounds to believe exists and that by is a reasonable receive a fair and 226 N.E.2d are that be granted 366, 368 592-93). upon actually First, he received which existed a in Fuhrmann prior to his first trial community. jurors as Second, excused who had were move inflamed that the large and the the case in the large prior to the in publicity passions number number community. reports of in of the potential potential retrial Third, the jurors reflected Fuhrmann Billings to the contends constituted Gazette contributed and of Fuhrmann's received of any additional reviewing change of address the venue this As to the community- is that jurors1 number with 55, 647 the court jurors second of trial, of his that where does prior denial not to of the did that retrial. Fuhrmann's retrial, death Fuhrmann allege his he As we motion we see P.Zd of the warrant jurors 830, a for no need v. see State and instructed of v. it careful that the they potential to (1982), from some prior and the fact of his held more, it is cannot 220 Mont. question jurors 18 since appears to had without (1986), Ritchson the We have venue. venue Smith Moreover, 832. of that knowledge and publicity, change was particularly indicated case agree had prior a change State 1309; we do not ground, potential prejudice. 1301, who threats and warrants to P.2d by noting Fuhrmann context knowledge insufficient 715 first Court's the prejudicial equated his venue. District in ground ground. a large case to death Fuhrmann's that first prior a change for received case, the prejudice. threats are of pretrial We dispose not cause newspaper prejudicial wide for prejudice certain of he claims knowledge widespread that indicative be 364, 378, 199 Mont. 51, the record that individually those knowledge jurors of ultimately the chosen of their duty evidence presented District Court's presented at articles in the seeking pretrial based no in solely reason relation to change on question to this the community publicity that 832. The while at the the ground State the he may not second defendant Second, inflamed that a fair focuses focuses the actually receive a Ritchson, on the 438, nature effect. 225 Mont. the reasonable trial. on the A prejudicial was inflammatory. extent element of First, publication to pretrial prejudice. ground elements. the first prejudicial the issue newspaper of Ritchson, the 647 832. In the on at show that certain community-wide two publication exists at a venue prove must possibility P.2d of that constituted to the of Fuhrmann Gazette must show that defendant with contributed publicity prejudice agree Billings defendant P.2d We see of discretion we cannot and 647 a verdict trial. exercise publicity the render by Fuhrmann. Finally, must to described v. Nichols inflammatory (1987), publicity 734 P.2d 170, we as editorializing on the part of the media or any calculated attempt to prejudice public opinion against [defendant] from which or to destroy the fairness of the pool [defendant's] prospective jurors would be drawn. Nichols, Mont. 734 P.2d 407, copies of eleven Fuhrmann's did not 423, motion discover at 173-74 616 P.2d (quoting 341, news reports for any changk instances State of the venue, of 19 Armstrong The District 350). from v. Billings dated 1'editorializing'1 (1980), Court 19, or read the attached Gazette August 189 to 1994, and "calculated attempts to that prejudice public reports the opinion." merely contained factual background of case as well notes some reports contain references initial theory that and to the prosecution's assaulted that of the The District Turner. these However, bare court "devoid of and prejudice of received jury the contention pool his first prior State community's explained received prior prejudice surrounding also with prior our to disposed the of District Court, news accounts accounts that were inflamed the a Finally, survey, case; thoroughly knowledge chosen, only would the instructed on that evidence the have 20 Montana to threats of alleged later. We have potential jurors record case, agree We have death shows questioned of the reviewing we months regarding the established indicators some six and based after as a survey case. the he jurors and Fuhrmann's consider threats potential which of argument of prior case, the professor trial retrial carefully verdict of to first death of knowledge Fuhrmann's to the number University the ultimately news reports points awareness the to having panel professor's history had sexually "standard news the unwillingness knowledge Court render of criminal the the Fuhrmann Fuhrmann as did trial,,the with already admitted that Fuhrmann community, to Billings District to his that a part of proceedings. 'information," by a Montana conducted the filed his prior the were accounts found editorializing.1' To support in trial we conclude, statements events as the Court who satisfied of its produced at State with the jurors and, group that with duty trial. University the District to Court's characterization 450 persons questioned Fuhrmann's of case. Fuhrmann's have guilt or or Fuhrmann would be very information in of whether prejudice 204 Mont. a survey's change 194, survey against the In of his and affirmed a fair publicity, by court this Court. by the Billings and trial by the at (1983), acknowledged a motion the to results of local newspaper submitted that justice defendant's was granted against the court prior to likelihood upon the trial by the district Fuhrmann. of received for that of extent motion Here ( we conclude 21 not 324. depended Gazette were of between concluded The especially we have survey trial pretrial Paisley grant 663 P.2d trial that v. Where connection criminologist's the means of determining a court's the From 478. State 324. Paisley, publicity. district 322, it reports at are appropriate editorializing court receiving trial editorializing a justice "editorialized" venue extensive Paisley, defendant noted news not claimed community, P.2d a community. did an opinion half conclude the 885 supporting defendant. defendant's further as we have and in 663 P.2d results venue, that of had an opinion opinion. Billings nearly had heard who had their in the either about we cannot the they all survey surveys they remainder only change See Moore -I exists 191, but determination that that Nearly guilty, prejudice aware stated and the to 81% of 49% said know. be inflammatory. We are survey percentage, in the our "inconclusive." innocence, to inflamed facially the didn't elicited light it: difficult publicity the in Of that an opinion believed of change there of court was no There can be no connection indicating connection we contemplated'in University survey prejudicial P.2d at venue, the Paislev--between Gazette news type the Montana reports. of State See Moore, 885 478. A passage claim and publicity--the that from Moore, prejudicial summarizes where we disagreed pretrial conclusions our publicity with mandated defendant's a change of here: Living, as we do, in a society which is continuously inundated with news coverage by the print and broadcast media, it is doubtful that most members of the community will not share some knowledge of, or about, a locally high-profile crime, and the various persons allegedly Given involved in ,its commission or its investigation. the inevitable conflict with the media's constitutional right to free speech, the public's constitutional right to know, and the accused right to a fair trial, it remains the task of the district court, in such cases, to scrupulously examine the evidence supporting a motion for change of venue to insure that the jurors who will ultimately decide the guilt or innocence of the accused are fair minded and uninfluenced by what they may have That conclusion must necessarily seen, heard, or read. responses in voir be based upon not only the jurors' dire, but also on a careful analysis of the quantity and Each case is unique content of the pretrial publicity. Bousquet, 808 and must be decided on its own merits. P.2d at 508. While this was a difficult case, we are nonetheless satisfied that the trial judge conscientiously considered this issue, and that despite the pervasiveness of the media coverage, it was generally balanced and fair. We conclude that the jurors who decided [defendant's] fate were not disposed to guilt or innocence by what they may have seen, heard, or read in the media. Moore, a 885 change P.2d of at venue "reasonable grounds exists that and apprehension 479. that The standard motion to to believe by reason the of accused be the be met is prejudice prejudice cannot 22 must granted that the that receive the in a fair for existence alleged there order is actually a reasonable and impartial of trial.ll the Link -I record, 640 P.2d at 368 (citation we hold discretion when it impliedly concluding that denied that the omitted). District Fuhrmann's Court motion such reasonable Affirmed. Justices 23 After did for grounds not reviewing abuse its change of venue, did not exist.
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.
