Case Title: STATE v HATFIELD

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1973-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12468 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1973 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - ROBEY HATFIELD, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Sandall, Moses and Cavan, Billings, Montana K. D. Tolliver argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L . Woodahl , Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. C. Weingartner, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Diane G. Barz argued, Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana Submitted: October 2, 1973 Decided : DEC - 7 1973 Filed : DEc - 7 1 9 7 3 I Clerk Hon. Edward T. Dussault, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison, delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendant Robey N. Hatfield was convicted of murder i n the f i r s t degree by a jury i n the d i s t r i c t court of the t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Yellowstone. He was sentenced t o l i f e imprisonment. From t h i s conviction, he appeals. Hatfield, a 68 year old college graduate, i n the l a s t few years had a s s i s t e d h i s 53 year old wife, Eva, i n the operation of a cafe i n Billings. I n the l a t e afternoon of April 8, 1972, an acquaintance, Stanley McMillian, age 45, came t o the cafe f o r a cup of coffee, a s he had done many times previously. A t about 5:30 p.m. the cafe was closed and Hatfield, Eva, a male cook, and McMillian had coffee together a f t e r Eva had returned from a short shopping t r i p . Hatfield announced he was going home t o check on t h e i r son, Robey Hatfield, Jr., with whom the parents had had some trouble i n the l a s t year. Mrs. Hatfield said she was going with McMillian and a s s i s t him i n finding h i s g i r l friend, Caroline, and t h a t she would be home early. Hatfield did go t o t h e i r home but found the son absent. He stayed a t home, did some reading, watched TV, then f e l l asleep. A t about 10:OO p.m. he was awakened by a telephone c a l l from one of t h e i r waitresses, inquiring whether she should come t o 1 work the next day. Hatfield then dozed off again and l a t e r was awakened by a telephone c a l l , but by the time he answered i t the c a l l i n g party had hung up. He again awakened around 1 1 : O O p.m. and finding h i s wife was not home, he dressed, put on h i s overcoat and hat and put a .22 c a l i b e r revolver i n h i s overcoat pocket. I n search of h i s wife and McMillian, Hatfield went t o several bars, had one drink on the way, then went t o the Crystal Lounge, entering by the back entrance, a r r i v i n g there about mid- night. H i s wife was s i t t i n g with McMillian i n a booth. She noticed Hatfield and waved t o him t o come over. Hatfield went t o the booth and s a t next t o h i s wife, facing McMillian. Harsh words were had between Hatfikld and h i s wife about her not coming home and running around with Millian. There was t a l k of a divorce. McMillian asked Hatfield t o come s i t beside him, a s he wanted t o t a l k t o him a s a friend. He t r i e d t o explain what he and M r s . Hatfield were doing together, and t r i e d t o convince Hatfield t h a t they had attempted t o c a l l him several times t h a t evening. I n doing so, McMillian grabbed h at field's arm and said: "sit down, I want t o t a l k t o you a s a friend". To which Hatfield replied, "YOU a r e no friend of mine, you son-of-a-bitch, you a r e with m y wife." After several attempts t o get Hatfield t o remain seated and a f t e r tugging on h i s overcoat t o t h e extent it p a r t l y came off h i s l e f t shoulder, Hatfield stood up a t t h e end of t h e booth table, took the p i s t o l from h i s pocket and f i r e d f i v e shots, two h i t McMillian and k i l l e d him almost instantly. Hatfield then s a t down, put t h e gun on the t a b l e and awaited a r r i v a l of the police. Following h i s a r r e s t Hatfield gave a statement t o the police, s t a t i n g he "intended t o k i l l him and put him out of h i s misery. 'I A witness i n the booth next t o t h a t where the crime occurred t e s t i f i e d he heard Hatfield s t a t e he meant t o k i l l Mc- Millian. Defendant urges t h a t during the course of the t r i a l t e s t i - mony revealed c e r t a i n f a c t s which gave r i s e t o the possible presence of the defense of self-defense. He s t a t e s the possible existence of self-defense was not a t a l l apparent during the course of t h e p r e t r i a l investigation. Accordingly, a t t h e conclusion of the t r i a l defense counsel offered an instruction a s t o self-defense. The county attorney objected on the ground there was no evidence introduced and no notice of self-defense was given. The t r i a l court refused the offered instruction. Defendant predicates h i s appeal t o t h i s Court f o r a reversal of h i s conviction and the granting of a new t r i a l on the grounds t h a t the notice requirement of section 95-1803(d), R.C.M. 1947, although held constitutional, can be applied un- constitutionally i n c e r t a i n f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those i n t h i s case. Defendant contends the p r e t r i a l statements of several witnesses did not contain s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o show the alleged I I violence" and "altercation" between the deceased and himself, and f o r t h a t reason he could not r a i s e the affirmative defense. The statement of witness Charles Kuchera was i n part: "Wayne Hysjulien and1 met Wally Anderson a t t h e Crystal Lounge about 11:45 p.m. Saturday night t h e 8th of April, 1972. ? t * 9 : Roby was doing most of the talking. Eva didn't y e l l and the other man wasn' t saying anything. ; b Jx * there is trouble i n the next booth * * 9 : r i g h t behind us, they a r e fighting * * I heard him [Hatfield] say, 'Get your hands off of m e and l e t m e go'. * * * I could see t h a t something was going on, l i k e wrestling. * Jx * I a l s o heard him say [McMillian] t o Hatfield 1 why don't you shut up, s i t down and l e t m e t a l k t o you a s a friend' * * * . I ' A t t r i a l , M r . Kuchera t e s t i f i e d i n part: "Q. And when they were having t h i s conversation was the defendant, M r . Hatfield, s i t t i n g beside M r . McMillian7 A. Yes, ma'am. "Q. Did you see them wrestling? A. Never. "Q. Did you see M r . McMillian jerking the defendant? A. I don't think I could c l a s s i f y it a s a jerking motion. I I Q . Well, can you t e l l the Jury what you did see, how it happened? A. I-- A s I said, I d i d n ' t make myself a spectacle t o turn around and s t a r e a t the e n t i r e t y , but when I did turn around I was looking over m y shoulder and M r . Hatfield s t a r t e d t o , l i k e he was going t o g e t up, move away, and M r . McMillian grabbed hold of h i s shoulder and said, 'Come on, s i t down, I want t o t a l k t o you.' "Q. Did he a c t violent? A. M r . McMillian9 "Q. Yes. A. No. ' Q Was he speaking loudly? A. I don't ---Well, it was loud enough t h a t I could hear i t , but i t was no shout. It was nothing t h a t would have prob- a b l caught anyone's o r the e n t i r e b a r ' s a t t e n t i o n , no. x The statement given by witness Walter Anderson was, i n p a r t : I' W e s a t i n a booth next t o a man and woman and our booth was j u s t west of theirs. J : * * I was facing towards t h e w e s t and could see the back of the l a d i e s head who I have been t o l d was Eva Hatfield. I could not see the man t h a t was s i t t i n g across from Eva very well, but I could see t h a t he was wearing glasses and I could see h i s shoulder. * * * I saw * * * the man Roby, seated on the other side of the booth along side of the man with glasses and h i s overcoat was pulled off of one shoulder * * * I noticed t h e coat on Hatfield being pulled down. * * * there was going t o be trouble. l I Anderson's testimony a t t r i a l was, i n part: "Q. N o w what kind of trouble were you speaking about when you t o l d the barmaid t h a t there i s going t o be trouble? A. Well, I j u s t thought t h a t there was going t o be a f i g h t o r something, I j u s t didn't know what was going t o take place. "Q. When you say f i g h t , do you mean a f i s t f i g h t ? A. Well, some trouble, yes. "Q. So what you observed i n your own mind you were concerned because there might be physical violence i n the booth next t o you. A. Yes, sir. I I The statement given by witness Wayne Hysjulien was, i n p a r t : 1 1 When t h i s man f i r s t came i n , I could t e l l t h a t he was very angry by the tone of h i s voice. I heard t h i s man say t h a t he wanted a divorce the next day. J : J : 9 : Then t h i s man t h a t did the shooting stood up and s a i d I am getting out of here and then t h i s man t h a t was shot pulled him down i n the booth. Then t h i s other man s a i d you take your hands off of m e r i g h t now. J : * * Then I heard t h i s man t h a t did the shooting say, 'Take your hands off of me.' I looked over t o see what was going on and I saw t h i s . man shoot three times but I don't have any idea where the three shots went. I I ~ y s j u l i e n ' s testimony a t t r i a l was: "Q. Did you observe o r hear the defendant's tone of voice t h a t night? A. Yes, it was angry tone of voice. "Q. Was it loud? A. Not overly loud. Q . But you could hear? A. Yes. I'Q. What gig you hear the defendant say? A. I heard him say/%hat he was a gentleman and he kept h i s hands off of other women. Also, l e t ' s see. That he wanted a divorce the next day or was t o get one. I I Q. Was he s i t t i n g r i g h t beside Eva Hatfield a t t h a t time? A. Yes. "Q. Did the man t h a t got shot, Stanley McMillian, did he say anything t h a t you could hear? A,. Only the confirmation of her saying t h a t she had c a l l e d him. "Q. A t what point did the defendant stand up and s i t down beside the victim, did you see t h a t ? A . Y e s , when he said t h a t he wanted t o t a l k t o him a s a friend. "Q. Stanley McMillian said t h a t ? A. Yes. "Q. And did you see how he s a t down, was he pulled down'! A. He was pulled down. "Q. After he was pulled down beside Stanley Mc- Millian, could you hear any more conversation t h a t went on? A. He s a i d , 'Let go1. He asked him t o l e t go. "Q. M r . Hatfield said t h a t ? A.. Yes. " Q . Did you see the defendant g e t up and t r y and get away several times? A. Once. I 1 Q . You saw him g e t up only once? A. I saw him only t r y t o p u l l away once. "Q. And when he pulled away what did he do? A. He j u s t said t o s i t down and t r i e d t o p u l l him back down i n the booth. "Q. Was he pulling a t the defendant's coat a t t h a t time? A. Yes, on the arm of h i s coat. 11 Q. Was he being violent? A. No. "Q. Did it sound l i k e he was threatening the defendant? A. No. "Q. Did you see them wrestle? A. No. I I ~ e f e n d a n t ' s p r e t r i a l statement w a s , i n part: "About 10:OO p.m., I s t a r t e d g e t t i n g mad because Eva was not home and about 12:00 I took a .22 revolver and loaded i t with 8 rounds of high c a l i b e r magnum ammunition. After I loaded the gun, I put it i n my righthand overcoat pocket and went out looking f o r Eva. * * 9: I walked i n t o the Crystal, I saw Eva with McMillian and she waved a t me. I went over and s a t down beside her * * McMillian interrupted us while we were talking and said t h a t he wanted m e t o s i t on h i s side. I moved over and s a t down beside McMillian Jc * 9~ he grabbed me. I t o l d him t o l e t go, which he did * 2 k * McMillian grabbed m e again and released m e and the t h i r d time t h a t he jerked me; I told him i f you do t h a t again, y o u ' l l be sorry. I pulled the revolver out of m y pocket and shot him. I was not trying t o hurt him, and I shot him u n t i l he was dead. I intended t o k i l l him and put him out of h i s misery." A t t r i a l defendant t e s t i f i e d i n part: "A. * * I got up and s t a r t e d t o go and he s a i d , 'Why don't you s i t down over here with m e and t a l k ? ' * 7 k So I s a t down over there and he s t a r t e d t o grab ahold of m y arm and coat and jerked m e over toward him and not too roughly, but rough enough so he bothered up m y coat, and m y arm 9~ ik *. "Q. H o w did he j e r k you over there, M r . Hatfield? A. Well I would say t h a t t h e f i r s t time t h a t he j u s t took ahold of m y coat and sleeve and a r m and pulled it. * * * t h e f i r s t time wasn't too mild. The second time was q u i t e violent, and I would say much more than was necessary a t a l l * * * I said, 'I don't care f o r you. * * I d o i ' t want t o hear anything you have got t o say a t a l l . * 9: * There is nothing t h a t you could possibly t e l l m e t h a t would i n t e r e s t m e f o r f i v e minutes. * * 9~ I f you keep on bothering m e you a r e going t o be more than s o r r y ' , and the t h i r d time when he pulled m e over t o him why he got h i s arm around m y neck s o r t of i n a twisting ugly hold, you might c a l l it, and jerked m e over t o him violently and well, you might c a l l i t roughhouse * * * and pulled m e over t o him very violently and very crudely and I was q u i t e surprised. I said, 'Okay, t h a t ' s the way you f e e l about it,' so I got up, unlatched m y coat, took out m y gun and shot him. I' W e f a i l t o see where the testimony a t t r i a l made a b e t t e r case f o r self-defense than did the p r e t r i a l statements. Neither ' 1 revealed "violence" o r an altercation" t o the extent t h a t Hat- f i e l d acted under the influence of a reasonable f e a r t h a t someone was going t o be murdered o r seriously injured. There was no evidence from witnesses f o r the s t a t e t h a t Hatfield did the k i l l i n g i n f e a r , nor did he himself t e s t i f y t h a t he acted under any f e a r of harm. I n S t a t e v. Brooks, 150 Mont. 399, 410, 436 P.2d 91, t h i s Court had the same issue before it. There we said: "Under Montana law i f a homicide i s t o be j u s t i f i e d by self-defense there must be evidence t h a t the party k i l l i n g acted under the influence of a reason- able fear t h a t someone was going t o be murdered o r seriously injured. [Citing a u t h o r i t i e s ] I n t h i s case there i s no evidence whatever t h a t the defendant acted under a reasonable apprehension of death o r g r e a t bodily harm. The witnesses f o r the S t a t e gave no indi- cation t h a t the defendant did the k i l l i n g i n f e a r nor did the defendant himself claim t h a t he acted under any f e a r of harm. I I Instructions must have r e l a t i o n t o the f a c t s given i n a p a r t i c u l a r case. S t a t e v. Evans, 60 Mont. 367, 199 P. 440. Although instructions may s t a t e a correct principle of law, i f they a r e not based upon o r i n conformity with the issues o r f a c t s raised o r supported by the evidence they ought not t o be given. S t a t e v. Smith, 57 Mont. 563, 190 P. 107; S t a t e v. Mitten, 36 Mont. 376, 92 P. 969. I n t h i s case Judge McClernan was correct i n refusing t o i n s t r u c t on self-defense. 1 1 I n State v. Eisenman, 155 Mont. 370, 374, 472 P.2d 857, the defendant did give notice of intention t o r e l y on self-defense pursuant t o section 95-1803(d), R.C.M. 1947. Defendant there offered several instructions on self-defense. The t r i a l court refused them on the grounds t h a t there was no evidence presented t h a t supported such a theory. This Court affirmed the d i s t r i c t court, saying: I' According t o appellant's own version, she saw her husband waving a gun i n t h e i r home and looking 'goofy'. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she t r i e d t o disarm him and i n the ensuing s c u f f l e and wrestling match, he was shot f i v e times! A t b e s t she was claiming accidental shooting. She never claimed t h a t she shot i n defense of anything. There simply i s no evidence supporting a self-defense theory. 11 For the foregoing reasons we cannot agree with defendant's contention, After c a r e f u l reading of the t r a n s c r i p t and statements, we find the undisputed f a c t s prove t h a t defendant could not have availed himself of the defense of self-defense. Having found no i s s u e of self-defense, the claim of un- c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y a s t o section 95-1803, R.C.M. 1947, i s not before us. Ho~irever, f o r a discussion of t h i s matter see: S t a t e ex rel. Sikora v. D i s t r i c t Court, 154 Mont. 241, 462 P.2d 897; S t a t e v. Bentley, 155 Mont. 383, 472 P.2d 864; S t a t e ex r e l . Krutzfeldt, M o n t . 9 -- P. 2d , 30 St.Rep. 993; Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L ed 2d 446; Radford v. Stewart 320 F.Supp. 826 472 F.2d 161 Wardius v. Oregon, - U. S. - 9 93 S.Ct. , 37 2 ed 2d 82 tI-973). The judgment of conviction i s affirmed. Hon. Edward T. Dussault, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison. Justices.