Case Title: STATE v HERRON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-01-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12948 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, JERRY ALLEN HERRON, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert Keller, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Daniel J. Shea argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps, 111 argued, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted : November 12, 1975 Filed: ' ' 6 ' , M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendant appeals from h i s conviction of attempted second degree murder and t h e 25 year sentence imposed i n the d i s t r i c t court, Missoula County. O n October 20, 1972, a teen-age g i r l was r i d i n g her bicycle on the highway near Clearwater Junction. She was shot by a shotgun f i r e d from a passing vehicle. Defendant J e r r y Allen Herron was arrested the same day and was ultimately t r i e d f o r four a l t e r n a t i v e crimes: 1) Attempted second degree murder. 2) F i r s t degree a s s a u l t with i n t e n t t o k i l l . 3) F i r s t degree a s s a u l t with attempt t o commit a felony. 4) Second degree a s s a u l t . The f i r s t t r i a l on these charges was held i n June 1973. The jury was given these two instructions, among others: 11 Instruction No. 20, The crimes charged against the Defendant a r e a l l felony offenses. Therefore, a l l twelve of your number must agree i n order t o r e t u r n a verdict of g u i l t y o r not g u i l t y , and a l l twelve of your number must agree i n order t o decide any ques- t i o n necessary t o be decided i n a r r i v i n g a t a verdict on a crime. 11 It i s necessary t h a t you consider the crime of attempted murder f i r s t , and find the defendant e i t h e r g u i l t y o r not g u i l t y of t h a t charge. "1n the event you find the defendant g u i l t y of attempted murder you need go no further a s you w i l l have reached a verdict i n t h i s case. "In the event you find the defendant not g u i l t y of attempted murder, then you must consider the crime of Assault i n the F i r s t Degree with i n t e n t t o k i l l a s embodied i n a l t e r n a t i v e Count I1 of the Information. You must find the defendant e i t h e r g u i l t y o r not g u i l t y of Assault i n t h e F i r s t Degree with i n t e n t t o k i l l . I n t h e event you find the defendant g u i l t y of t h a t charge, you have reached a verdict and need go no further. "In the event you find t h e defendant not g u i l t y of Assault i n the F i r s t Degree with i n t e n t t o k i l l , you must consider t h e a l t e r n a t i v e Count Number I11 of the Information which is Assault i n the F i r s t Degree with i n t e n t t o commit a felony. In the event you find t h e defendant g u i l t y of t h a t charge, you have reached a verdict and need go no further. "1n the event you find the defendant not g u i l t y of Assault i n the F i r s t Degree under both Counts I1 and 111, you must then consider the l e s s e r included offense of Assault i n the Second Degree. You must find the Defendant g u i l t y o r not g u i l t y of t h i s charge, and when you do so, ou have reached a verdict and need not proceed further. x I t Instruction No. 24 When you r e t i r e t o the jury room, you s h a l l s e l e c t one of your number t o a c t a s foreman, who w i l l preside over your deliberations. I n order t o reach a v e r d i c t , a l l twelve jurors must agree t o the decision. As soon a s you have agreed upon a verdict, you s h a l l have i t dated and signed by your foreman and then s h a l l return with it t o t h i s room." The jury was provided with eight forms of verdict. The jury deliberated one e n t i r e night, returned t o court a t 5:40 a.m. and announced i t s f a i l u r e t o reach a verdict, and was discharged. Three days l a t e r a member of the jury telephoned defendant's attorney f o r the s t a t e d purpose of informing him what had a c t u a l l y occurred during the night of jury deliberations. According t o the a f f i d a v i t of t h i s juror, which was f i l e d by defendant's attorney, the jury had a c t u a l l y voted unani- mously t o acquit defendant of attempted second degree murder, f i r s t degree a s s a u l t with i n t e n t t o k i l l , and f i r s t degree a s s a u l t with i n t e n t t o commit a felony. The jury was deadlocked only on defendant's g u i l t o r innocence of second degree a s s a u l t . ~ e f e n d a n t ' s counsel contacted the jury foreman by phone who substantially corroborated these events and further explained t h e reason why no verdict forms had been signed t o r e f l e c t t h e verdict. According t o the foreman's a f f i d a v i t , the jury was con- fused by two instructions, No. 20 and No. 24, heretofore quoted. The jurors asked the b d i f f t o convey a question t o the presiding judge a s t o whether they should sign the f i r s t verdict form before proceeding t o the next charge. N o record e x i s t s concerning what the b a i l i f f asked the judge o r what the judge replied t o the b a i l i f f , a s no court reporter was i n attendance and no attempt was made t o n o t i f y e i t h e r counsel of t h e jurors' confusion. The a f f i d a v i t indicated t h e b a i l i f f t o l d the jury foreman t h a t t h e jury was t o a r r i v e a t only one verdict i n the case and therefore should sign only one form. These events were corroborated by the a f f i d a v i t s of the other jurors. Their version of events was never questioned by the s t a t e i n i t s b r i e f o r o r a l argument on appeal. The second t r i a l of defendant was held i n December 1973. Defendant was t r i e d on the same charges, with one exception; t h e charge of f i r s t degree a s s a u l t with i n t e n t t o k i l l was dismissed. The jury was unable t o reach a verdict on t h e remaining t h r e e charges a t the second t r i a l . A t h i r d t r i a l was held i n June 1974, on the same charges a s i n the second t r i a l . Defendant was convicted of attempted second degree murder and sentenced t o 25 years imprisonment i n the s t a t e prison, where he i s presently incarcerated. A t the second and t h i r d t r i a l s defendant maintained the d i s t r i c t court had no jurisdiction t o t r y him again on charges of attempted second degree murder o r f i r s t degree a s s a u l t with i n t e n t t o commit a felony, because he had been acquitted of both charges a t t h e f i r s t t r i a l . His claim i s based on the double jeopardy provision of the Federal and S t a t e Constitutions. They provide : Amendment 5 , United States Constitution: 'I* * * nor s h a l l any person be subject f o r t h e same offense t o be twice put i n jeopardy of l i f e o r limb * $ < Y<. I' A r t i c l e 11, Section 25, 1972 Montana Constitution: "* * * N o person s h a l l be again put i n jeopardy f o r the same offense previously t r i e d i n any jurisdiction, 1 1 The double jeopardy provision of the United States Consti- t u t i o n prohibits being twice placed on t r i a l , a s well a s twice punished f o r the same offense. It does not prohibit r e t r i a l f o r the same offense i f t h e f i r s t t r i a l r e s u l t s i . n a hung jury. W e find no reason t o construe t h e double jeopardy provision of Monta~a's Constitution otherwise. The ultimate question on appeal i s whether t h e record i n t h i s case discloses an a c q u i t t a l o r a hung jury a t the f i r s t t r i a l on the charge of attempted murder. This i s s u e must stand o r f a l l on t h e answer t o these questions: 1. The , e f f e c t of t h e o r a l communication between t h e jury and t h e court i n t h e absence of counsel? 2. Whether juror a f f i d a v i t s can be used t o supply proof of a c t u a l events t h a t occurred during jury deliberation? In view of t h e f a c t t h i s defendant was t r i e d t h r e e times before conviction and defense counsel raised the issues we are about t o discuss a t the second and t h i r d t r i a l s , t h i s Court is a t a l o s s t o understand why, upon discovering the f a c t s a f t e r t h e f i r s t t r i a l , he did not apply t o t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of supervisory control. H i s f a i l u r e t o do so caused t h e expense of two needless t r i a l s , along with unnecessary trauma t o h i s c l i e n t . The o r a l communication between the jury and the court v i a the b a i l i f f c l e a r l y v i o l a t e s section 95-1913(d), R.C.M. 1947: "(d) After Retirement, May Return i n t o Court f o r Information. After the jury has r e t i r e d f o r deliber- a t i o n i f there be any disagreement among them a s t o the testimony, o r i f they desire t o be informed on any point of law a r i s i n g i n t h e cause, they must require the o f f i c c t o conduct them i n t o court. Upon being brought i n t o court, the information requested may be given i n the discretion of the court; i f such information is given it must be given i n the presence of the county attorney and t h e defendant and h i s counsel." It a l s o v i o l a t e s t h e proscription against o r a l jury instruction. S t a t e v. Beesskove, 34 Mont. 41, 85 P. 376; State v. Wakely, 43 Mont. 427,437, 117 P. 95; S t a t e v. Asher, 63 Mont. 302,306, 206 P. 1091; S t a t e v. Gies, 77 Mont. 62,64, 249 P. 573. A s a general r u l e additional instructions t o the jury must comply with the law and f a i l u r e t o follow the law c o n s t i t u t e s reversible error. The vice of the s i t u a t i o n here i s t h a t defendant's attorney was not n o t i f i e d nor present and had no way t o protect h i s c l i e n t from the jury's confusion. This i s patently prejudicial. Had t h e jury convicted defendant of the charge of attempted murder a t t h e f i r s t t r i a l , the verdict would have had t o be s e t aside because of reversible e r r o r , chargeable t o the s t a t e . Can juror a f f i d a v i t s be used t o prove what occurred during jury deliberations? The d i s t r i c t court, prior t o the second t r i a l , held t h a t they could not on t h e ground t h a t juror a f f i d a v i t s cannot be used t o impeach jury verdicts i n Montana. This holding i s error. I n t h e i n s t a n t case the juror a f f i d a v i t s were not used t o impeach t h e jury verdict, because t h e jury did not return a verdict of any kind. The a f f i d a v i t was used t o show t h a t because of outside influences on the jury during its deliberations, a verdict of a c q u i t t a l on three of t h e charges was a c t u a l l y rendered by the jury but was not returned t o the court due t o the confusion over jury instructions. The s t a t e does not deny t h i s . J u s t i c e compels the use of juror a f f i d a v i t s t o prove what a c t u a l l y occurred. For t h e foregoing reasons, the judgment of conviction of attempted second degree murder is vacated. The cause i s remanded t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r r e t r i a l on the remaining charge of second degree a s s a u l t . M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison and M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles dissenting : t W e dissent. The order declaring a m i s t r i a l a s a r e s u l t of a deadlocked jury was made on June 29, 1973. It was not u n t i l December 2, 1973, t h a t t h e e f f o r t t o , i n e f f e c t , impeach a jury verdict was made. I n the t r a n s c r i p t of proceedings taken before Judge Keller on December 3, 1973, Judge Keller inquired s p e c i f i c a l l y a s t o Judge ~ u s s a u l t ' s recollections; counsel had n o t even inquired. Nor was the b a i l i f f questioned. Judge Keller c a r e f u l l y inquired and f i n a l l y ruled. Judge Keller s t a t e d i n part: "MR. SHEA: For the record, Your Honor could the Court s t a t e t h e grounds f o r denying t h e motion? "THE COURT: Yes. This i s an e f f o r t t o i n essence impeach a verdict of a jury o r v i r t u a l l y t o bring out what a t r u e verdict was, one i n open Court before the jury announced t h a t they cannot agree upon a verdict and the jury was discharged a t t h a t time f o r the reason t h a t they could not agree upon a verdict and nothing f u r t h e r was done a t t h a t time. * ; k * The motion i s denied f o r t h e reason t h a t t h i s jury has been discharged and t h i s e f f o r t t o find out what t h a t jury did comes i n the f i r s t instance some days after---the f i r s t Motion f o r Acquittal was f i l e d some days a f t e r t h e jury had been discharged and with respect t o t h e part t h a t the inference t h a t the Court had misinstructed t h e jury, t h a t comes months a f t e r the jury had been discharged and i n both cases well a f t e r the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r the jury t o be contacted by other persons could have occurred. * * "The f i r s t motion is t o i n s t r u c t the Defendant and h i s counsel and a s f a r a s t h e Court is concerned, it means a l l p a r t i e s t o the Defendant and h i s counsel, not t o indicate i n any way t h a t t h e jury previously impaneled i n t h i s case was a t one point i n the delibera- t i o n s 1 1 t o 1 f o r complete a c q u i t t a l . + : * * I n a s f a r a s voir d i r i n g t h i s jury panel i s concerned, they cannot go i n t o what the alleged vote was of t h a t jury. 9 : * *" Then l a t e r the following exchange appears: "MR. SHEA: For t h e record, Your Honor, I would request so t h a t a l l t h e f a c t s may be brought out before the Court and I have no objection. In f a c t , I make the request t h a t the Court inquire of both bailiffs--they a r e both here today a s I understand it --- as t o what t h e communications were made from the jury t o them t o the judge and back t o them and back t o the jury again. And a l s o I would be willing t o go i n t o ask the Court t h a t presided a t t h a t time a s t o any recollections he may have of t h e circumstances. "THE COURT: D o you want m e t o inquire? "MR. SHEA: Yes s i r , so a record can be made. "THE COURT: N o w a r e you done with your motion and ready t o go? "I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t what you a r e doing i n t h i s case, the main reason, a s f a r a s I am concerned, i s t h a t your Motion f o r Acquittal i s denied, t h a t t h e s a l i e n t point, i f it i s s a l i e n t , t h a t comes up, comes up i n December and t h i s case was t r i e d i n June. Is t h a t correct? "MR. DESCHAMPS: Yes, t h a t i s correct. "MR.SHEA: The l a s t of June, yes sir, Your Honor. "THE COURT: And frankly I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h a t is something t h a t you should have ascertained r i g h t a f t e r t h i s case was over and i f there was any v a l i d i t y t o your motion t h a t i t would have been a s a r e s u l t of d i l i g e n t work on your part. The only reason t h a t I say t h a t i s because I want you t o be aware of what m y feelings a r e , M r . Herron. I want you t o be s a t i s - f i e d now when I ask you, a r e you s a t i s f i e d with the services rendered by your counsel, your counsel t h a t i s going t o represent you i n t h i s case. I I The majority opinion s t a t e s t h a t the a f f i d a v i t s were not used t o impeach a jury verdict. But c l e a r l y the Court i s allowing, by a f f i d a v i t of one juror of recollections f i v e months l a t e r , the impeachment of t h e jury's deadlock o r f a i l u r e t o reach a verdict. To do t h a t the majority is disregarding t h e hearing t r a n s c r i p t where Judge Keller noted t h a t there was no record of any communication between the Judge, the b a i l i f f , and the jury. Now, f i v e months l a t e r , t h i s i s attempted t o be shown by recollec- tions of the jury foreman. W e would affirm the judgment i n a l l particulars. ' . , C '- 2 . - : / p ; l '-.,// $Y 9 # , % ' 1 sv~tdL.:db* +>. -",***s/ -;.,t*~-+#-.As*~~* : / Chief J u s t i c e ./' i % - - - 'g - J u s t i c e - 8 F . r v: