Case Title: STATE v LAVALLEY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-466

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-04-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
N O . 81-466 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 3 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f a n d R e s p o n d e n t , V S . DONOVAN LaVALLEY, D e f e n d a n t a n d A p p e l l a n t . A p p e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y o f M i s s o u l a H o n o r a b l e D o u g l a s H a r k i n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f ~ e c o r d : F o r A p p e l l a n t : I a n C h r i s t o p h e r s o n a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r R e s p o n d e n t : 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 Mark Murphy, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana R o b e r t L . Deschamps 111, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana S u b m i t t e d : February 2 8 , 1 9 8 3 , D e c i d e d : A p r i l 1 4 , 1 9 8 3 F i l e d : &* P . ; c - / , ; ,'7( <, 2 - M C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Defendant a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n s of d e l i b e r a t e homicide and a g g r a v a t e d kidnapping e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l District, i n and for t h e County of Missoula. Defendant s h o t and k i l l e d W i l l i a m H o m e r Rock, 111, on A p r i l 1 0 , 1980, a t t h e N a u d i t t r e s i d e n c e , s o u t h of L o l o , Montana. The e v e n t s l e a d i n g up t o t h e s h o o t i n g a r e as f o l l o w s . Defendant m a r r i e d Penny N a u d i t t i n t h e summer of 1979. Defendant and Penny N a u d i t t had a stormy m a r r i a g e which p r e c i p i t a t e d numerous f i g h t s and s e p a r a t i o n s . I n December 1979, Penny o b t a i n e d a d i v o r c e from d e f e n d a n t i n a Missoula D i s t r i c t C o u r t . I n J a n u a r y 1980, defen- d a n t and Penny began l i v i n g t o g e t h e r a g a i n . However, t h e r e u n i o n was s h o r t - l i v e d and t h e y soon s e p a r a t e d . A f t e r being away f o r a few weeks, d e f e n d a n t r e t u r n e d to Lolo on o r a b o u t A p r i l 8 , 1980. On t h a t day d e f e n d a n t s a w Penny a t t h e Lolo p o s t o f f i c e . They t a l k e d w i t h o u t i n c i d e n t . On A p r i l 9, d e f e n d a n t and Penny had lunch t o g e t h e r a t t h e Country K i t c h e n i n Missoula. Penny t e s t i f i e d t h e meeting was o n l y to set t h i n g s s t r a i g h t s o t h e y could have a c l e a n break. She claims s h e d i d n o t i n t e n d to see d e f e n d a n t a g a i n . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h e y had l u n c h and agreed t o meet l a t e r t h a t evening when Penny g o t o f f work. Penny t h e n went t o work a t h e r f a t h e r ' s b a r , t h e Golden Goose i n Lolo. When Penny f i n i s h e d working, she s t a y e d a t t h e Golden Goose t o d r i n k w i t h some f r i e n d s . Defendant c a l l e d t h e Golden Goose when Penny d i d n o t come t o meet him b u t s h e would n o t t a k e h i s calls. A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 9:30 p.m., Penny c a l l e d W i l l i a m Homer Rock, 111, from t h e Golden Goose and asked him if he would l i k e to b a b y s i t h e r . Rock came to t h e Golden Goose and drank w i t h Penny u n t i l a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1:00 a . m . A t t h a t t i m e Penny and Rock l e f t t h e b a r i n s e p a r a t e v e h i c l e s , and drove to t h e N a u d i t t r e s i d e n c e where Penny was s t a y i n g . Penny's p a r e n t s , t h e N a u d i t t s , were o u t o f town and Penny claims s h e asked Rock to s t a y w i t h h e r f o r pro- t e c t i o n . When t h e y a r r i v e d a t t h e N a u d i t t ' s r e s i d e n c e , Penny and Rock smoked m a r i j u a n a , t h e n went to bed t o g e t h e r . A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2:00 a.m. , d e f e n d a n t decided to d r i v e to t h e N a u d i t t r e s i d e n c e t o check on Penny. When he a r r i v e d a t t h e r e s i d e n c e , he found Rock's p i c k u p t r u c k , which he d i d n o t r e c o g n i z e , parked i n t h e driveway. Defendant opened t h e hood on Rock's p i c k u p t r u c k and removed t h e d i s t r i b u t o r cap. He t e s t i f i e d he was concerned a b o u t P e n n y ' s s a f e t y and wanted t o p r e v e n t a p o s s i b l e i n t r u d e r ' s e s c a p e w h i l e d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d t h e house through a d o w n s t a i r s window. When Penny and Rock heard d e f e n d a n t open t h e d o w n s t a i r s window, t h e y g o t o u t of bed to i n v e s t i g a t e . Penny o b t a i n e d h e r f a t h e r ' s .22 c a l i b e r p i s t o l which was s i t t i n g on t h e headboard bookcase. A s d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d t h e house through t h e window and came up t h e s t a i r w a y , he d i s c o n n e c t e d a phone which was r i n g i n g . When he reached t h e bedroom d o o r he found Penny and Rock s t a n d i n g t o g e t h e r . Both were naked. Defendant t e s t i f i e d Rock p o i n t e d t h e gun a t him and d e f e n d a n t r e a c t e d by s t r i k i n g Rock. Defendant and Rock had a b r i e f s t r u g g l e i n t h e bedroom, and d e f e n d a n t took t h e gun from Rock. Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h e gun f i r e d d u r i n g t h e s t r u g g l e but a d m i t t e d he had o b t a i n e d p o s s e s s i o n of it. Penny t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t had t a k e n t h e gun from Rock and f i r e d it as s h e and Rock backed away. The b u l l e t s t r u c k Rock i n t h e abdomen and e x i t e d j u s t below t h e main hipbone. The b u l l e t d i d n o t s t r i k e a n y major o r g a n s b u t d i d s e v e r t h e r i g h t i l i a c v e i n and c r e a t e d a l a r g e h o l e i n t h e r i g h t i l i a c a r t e r y . A t t r i a l , D r . John P f a f f t e s t i f i e d Rock d i e d from loss of blood b u t p r o b a b l y l i v e d a t l e a s t t e n to f i f t e e n minutes a f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g . A f t e r Rock w a s s h o t , d e f e n d a n t kicked Rock i n t h e head to keep him from g e t t i n g a n o t h e r gun. Defendant t h e n unplugged t h e u p s t a i r s phone and l e f t w i t h Penny. Defendant t e s t i f i e d Penny came w i l l i n g l y , Penny claims d e f e n d a n t forced h e r to go w i t h him. Penny t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t forced h e r to l a y on t h e f l o o r of h i s p i c k u p t r u c k w h i l e t h e y drove toward Hamilton. She t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t p u l l e d o f f t h e highway and stopped on t h e Trapper Creek Road where he proceeded to b e a t and r a p e h e r . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h e y stopped a t Trapper Creek to t a l k and t h a t Penny wanted to make l o v e b u t he r e f u s e d . While t h e y were a t Trapper Creek, t h e pickup became s t u c k i n mud on t w o s e p a r a t e o c c a s i o n s . Each t i m e d e f e n d a n t g o t o u t of t h e t r u c k to push and Penny d r o v e . Penny d i d n o t a t t e m p t to escape on e i t h e r o c c a s i o n , b u t s h e does n o t recall why. A f t e r t h e y g o t t h e p i c k u p unstuck, d e f e n d a n t and Penny d r o v e t o Salmon, Idaho, and g o t a motel room. Defendant t e s t i f i e d he knew he was i n t r o u b l e b u t d e f e n d a n t wanted t o w a i t f o r a few d a y s u n t i l he could t a l k t o h i s lawyer. Defendant r e g i s t e r e d a t t h e motel under a f a l s e name. A f t e r r e g i s t e r i n g , Defendant and Penny went to t h e motel room to rest. A t approximately 2:00 p.m. on A p r i l 1 0 , Penny requested d e f e n d a n t t o r e t r i e v e some a s p i r i n from h i s pickup which he d i d . L a t e r t h e y proceeded to go downtown. Defendant went i n t o a c l o t h i n g s t o r e and bought c l o t h e s f o r Penny while she waited i n t h e pickup. Defendant then went to a d r u g s t o r e t o by i n s u l i n a s he is a d i a b e t i c . Again, Penny waited i n t h e pickup. A f t e r defen- d a n t f i n i s h e d shopping, t h e y purchased food a t an A & W d r i v e - i n and r e t u r n e d t o t h e motel. E a r l y i n t h e evening t h e motel manager c a l l e d and t o l d defen- d a n t someone had c o l l i d e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s pickup. When defen- d a n t went o u t s i d e , he was surrounded by Salmon p o l i c e o f f i c e r s and a r r e s t e d . The Salmon p o l i c e had been a l e r t e d by t h e Missoula S h e r i f f I s o f f ice. The p o l i c e found t h e .22 p i s t o l i n t h e back of d e f e n d a n t ' s pickup i n a box of c l o t h i n g . The p o l i c e found Penny i n t h e motel room. From h e r c o n d i t i o n , it appeared she had been b e a t e n about t h e mouth and head. She a l s o had clumps of h a i r t o r n from h e r head. They sought medical t r e a t m e n t f o r both Penny and d e f e n d a n t and placed them i n t o t h e c u s t o d y of t h e Missoula County S h e r i f f s o f f ice. When d e f e n d a n t was r e t u r n e d to Missoula, t h e Missoula County A t t o r n e y ' s o f f ice f i l e d an I n f o r m a t i o n charging d e f e n d a n t w i t h d e l i b e r a t e homicide and aggravated kidnapping. A j u r y t r i a l com- menced i n District Court on A p r i l 20, 1981. During t h e pro- c e e d i n g , d e f e n d a n t f s c o u n s e l , among o t h e r t h i n g s : s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e admission of a c o l o r photograph of t h e v i c t i m ; c a l l e d s i x w i t n e s s e s which he had n o t spoken w i t h to t e s t i f y about P e n n y ' s r e p u t a t i o n , none of which had any o p i n i o n or p e r s o n a l knowledge o f P e n n y ' s r e p u t a t i o n ; d i d n o t p r e s e n t an i n s t r u c t i o n on s e l f - d e f e n s e , and o b j e c t e d t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of a s e l f - d e f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n by t h e S t a t e ; and s t a t e d to t h e j u r y d u r i n g c l o s i n g arguments t h a t t h i s was n o t a case of m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e o r n e g l i g e n t homicide and r e q u e s t e d t h e j u r y to f i n d d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of d e l i b e r a t e homicide or a c q u i t . On A p r i l 24, 1981, t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y to t h e c h a r g e s of d e l i b e r a t e homicide and aggravated kidnapping. Defendant a p p e a l s . Defendant raises s e v e r a l i s s u e s f o r review. W e f i n d one i s s u e to be d i s p o s i t i v e ; whether t h e omissions and d e f i c i e n c i e s o f d e f e n s e c o u n s e l amount to a d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l r i g h t t o e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel as guaranteed by t h e S i x t h Amendment to t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and by Sec- t i o n 24, A r t i c l e I1 o f t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . W e n o t e o t h e r i n s t a n c e s of i n e p t n e s s i n t h e r e c o r d which, a l t h o u g h have less s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e t h a n t h e i s s u e s above, i n d i c a t e a g e n e r a l l a c k of s k i l l and p r e p a r a t i o n from t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . I n e v a l u a t i n g d e f e n s e counsel 's represen- t a t i o n , it is n o t o u r f u n c t i o n to second-guess t r i a l tactics and t h e s t r a t e g y . S e e , United S t a t e s v. DeCoster (D.C. C i r c u i t ) , 487 F.2d 1197. They noted t h a t : "We . . . presume t h a t t h e trial c o u n s e l , appointed or r e t a i n e d , c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y s e e k , w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s of p r e p a r a t i o n , a b i l i t y , and knowledge of t h e l a w , and s k i l l a t t r i a l , t o accomplish a s u c c e s s f u l r e s u l t f o r h i s c l i e n t . " W e n o t e t h a t r e a s o n a b l y e f f e c t i v e counsel does n o t mean t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t is c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y guaranteed such a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l as w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y r e s u l t i n h i s a c q u i t t a l . S e e , StewarQ v. People ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 179 Colo. 31, 498 P.2d 933. H i s t o r i c a l l y , i n Montana and e l s e w h e r e , t h e burden h a s been heavy on one who s e e k s to r e v e r s e a judgment on t h e grounds of incompetency of c o u n s e l . I n S t a t e v. Rose ( 1 9 8 0 ) f - - . - . .- Mont . - , 608 P.2d 1074, 37 S t .Rep. 642, t h i s Court adopted t h e " r e a s o n a b l y e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e t e s t " as s t a t e d by t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t Court of Appeals i n Cooper v. F i t z h a r r i s ( N i n t h C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) , 586 F.2d 1325: " P e r s o n s accused of crime are e n t i t l e d to t h e e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e range of competence demanded of a t t o r n e y s i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s . " S t a t e v. R o s e , 608 P.2d a t 1081. U n t i l t h a t case, t h e test i n t h i s S t a t e had been one which e s t a b l i s h e d t h e s t a n d a r d a s being t h a t of "bad f a i t h , sham, o r f a r c i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . " T h i s s t a n d a r d h a s s i n c e been a p p l i e d i n S t a t e v. Kubas (1982) I --- .- Mon t . - -- , 642 P.2d 147, 39 St.Rep. 456, and F i t z p a t r i c k v. S t a t e ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -- - Mont . - ---- , 638 P.2d 1002, 38 St.Rep. 1448. Here, d e f e n d a n t b a s e s h i s claim of i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l upon s p e c i f i c acts and o m i s s i o n s a t t r i a l . Again, c i t i n g -- Cooper, s u p r a , t h i s Court s t a t e d i n Rose, s u p r a : "Where t h e claim of i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l rests upon s p e c i f i c acts and omissions of c o u n s e l a t t r i a l , as it does i n t h i s c a s e , r e l i e f w i l l be g r a n t e d o n l y i f it appears t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was p r e j u d i c e d by c o u n s e l 's conduct." S t a t e v. Rose, 608 P.2d 1081. G e n e r a l l y , t h e r a t i o n a l e of t h e s e e a r l y i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of c o u n s e l cases was based s o l e l y on due p r o c e s s motions. S e e , Bazelon The D e f e c t i v e A s s i s t a n c e o f Counsel, 42 U n i v e r s i t y of - -- - - . - - - - - - - .- C i n c i n n a t i Law Review, p. 1. With t h e landmark c a s e of Gideon #Pldweqfff v . a n e w r l g h t ( 1 9 6 2 ) . 372 U.S. 335, #83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, however, t h e r i g h t to c o u n s e l was recognized a s s t a n d i n g on its own as one of t h e fundamental human r i g h t s e s s e n t i a l to a f a i r t r i a l . See McMann v. Richardson ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763, wherein t h e c o u r t e l u c i d a t e d on and gave a renewed emphasis to t h i s r i g h t when it s t a t e d t h a t : " i f t h e r i g h t to counsel g u a r a n t e e d by t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n is to s e r v e its p u r p o s e , d e f e n d a n t s cannot be l e f t to t h e i r mercies of i n c m - p e t e n t counsel . . .'I I n a similar v e i n , M r . J u s t i c e Schaf f e r of t h e I l l i n o i s Supreme Court noted: "of a l l t h e r i g h t s t h a t an accused person h a s , t h e r i g h t to be r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l , is by f a r t h e most p e r v a s i v e , f o r it a f f e c t s h i s a b i l i t y to a s s e r t any o t h e r r i g h t s he may have." See, S c h a f f e r , -- - Federalism and S t a t e - - - - C r i m i n a l Procedure, 70 Har .Law .Rev. 1. - - -- - - Recognizing t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e of a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l is a g u a r a n t e e w i t h a purpose -- t h a t purpose being t o a s s u r e t h a t o u r a d v e r s a r y system of j u s t i c e is r e a l l y a d v e r s a r y and r e a l l y does j u s t i c e -- w e w i l l not paper over t h e c r a c k s i n t h e house t h a t Gideon b u i l t by h e s i t a t i n g to provide a n ample, meaningful s t a n d a r d i n c a s e s of an a l l e g e d incompetency of c r i m i n a l d e f e n s e c o u n s e l s . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , w e f i n d d e f e n d a n t was p r e j u d i c e d by c o u n s e l ' s conduct. Numerous examples of p r e j u d i c i a l conduct a r e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d . The f i r s t example i n v o l v e s c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o i n t e r v i e w s i x c h a r a c t e r w i t n e s s e s which he c a l l e d t o t e s t i f y a t t h e t r i a l . Counsel had n o t spoken w i t h any of t h e w i t n e s s e s p r i o r t o t r i a l . Although c o u n s e l was a t t e m p t i n g t o a t t a c k t h e c h a r a c t e r of Penny N a u d i t t , none of t h e w i t n e s s e s had a n y o p i n i o n a s t o Penny N a u d i t t ' s c h a r a c t e r . Had t h e s e w i t n e s s e s been a b l e to a t t a c k Penny N a u d i t t ' s c h a r a c t e r , they might have damaged t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e . I n s t e a d , t h e i r t e s t i m o n y merely demonstrated c o u n s e l ' s l a c k of i n v e s t i g a t i o n and p r e p a r a t i o n p r i o r t o t r i a l . The n e x t example i n v o l v e s c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e to p r e s e n t com- p e t e n t j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s to t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Again, t h i s d e m o n s t r a t e s a complete l a c k of p r e p a r a t i o n . A s a r e s u l t , coun- sel d i d n o t p r e s e n t to t h e j u r y any l o g i c a l d e f e n s e s to t h e c h a r g e s . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e S t a t e , i n an a t t e m p t to p r o t e c t t h e r e c o r d , introduced t h e i n s t r u c t i o n on s e l f -defense and counsel argued a g a i n s t t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , he f a i l e d to argue t h e r e were any m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . During c l o s i n g argu- m e n t s , c o u n s e l argued d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t a c t i n s e l f - d e f e n s e : "So, implying t h a t he had the gun, he probably p u l l e d t h e t r i g g e r i n s e l f - d e f e n s e , i f you w i l l b e l i e v e t h a t garbage you w i l l b e l i e v e a n y t h i n g . You might a s w e l l c o n v i c t him." And, counsel s t a t e d t h e following about n e g l i g e n t homicide : " t h e n , i f you d o n ' t l i k e t h a t , t h e n you can go on down t o n e g l i g e n t homicide and what t h a t means, I have no i d e a . There was nobody t h a t was n e g l i g e n t t h a t n i g h t . There was no a c c i - d e n t a t a l l . There was no a c c i d e n t . " These s t a t e m e n t s by counsel l e f t t h e j u r y w i t h o n l y one o p t i o n -- c o n v i c t i o n of d e l i b e r a t e homicide. A r e a s o n a b l y com- p e t e n t a t t o r n e y a c t i n g a s a d i l i g e n t c o n s c i e n t i o u s advocate would n o t have made such errors. A s such, we f i n d d e f e n d a n t was denied h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l . T h e r e f o r e , w e hold t h e c o n v i c t i o n s of d e l i b e r a t e homicide and aggravated kidnapping must be r e v e r s e d and o r d e r t h i s cause be remanded to t h e District Court f o r a new t r i a l . Reversed and remanded. 4 W e concur: ?h-e&Q&@ Chief Justice