Case Title: STATE v MERSEAL

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-08-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12706 I N THE 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 1975 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - BILL R O S C O E MERSEAL, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Edward T. Dussault, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Daniel J. Shea argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John F. North, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps, County Attorney, argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: June 23, 1975 Decided: AUG 8 1 , 9 : 5 --, Filed: A,(T, ? ': 4 M r . J u s t i c e John C. Harrison delivered the Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant B i l l Roscoe Merseal appeals from a judgment rendered November 14, 1973, i n Missoula County, finding him g u i l t y of attempted second degree a s s a u l t , a felony. The chain of events leading t o defendant's a r r e s t began with a domestic disturbance. Missoula police department o f f i c e r s Meltzer and Doxtater were dispatched i n response t o a c a l l from defendant's wife. She informed them defendant had assaulted her and then l e f t i n h i s car. She a l s o t o l d them an automatic weapon could be found on the floorboard of the car. Defendant was located and arrested l a t e r t h a t evening and was informed the charge would be t h i r d degree assault. A t t h a t point defendant was asked t o drive t o the county courthouse. Officer Meltzer accompanied defendant i n h i s vehicle, while three other p a t r o l c a r s , one i n front and two i n back, escorted them. N o search of defendant's vehicle was conducted a t the scene of t h e a r r e s t . The alleged second degree a s s a u l t on Officer Meltzer apparently took place during t h i s drive t o the courthouse, while the vehicle was s t i l l i n motion. Defendant and Officer Meltzer became involved i n a heated argument, and several times during the discussion, defendant expressed a desire t o get out of the car. The record is not c l e a r a s t o whether defendant's purpose was t o escape or merely t o avoid further a l t e r c a t i o n s with Officer Meltzer by r i d i n g i n one of the other cars. There i s testimony t o support both propositions. The specific a c t s constituting the crime alleged were described by Officer Meltzer on d i r e c t examination: "Q. Did anything unusual happen a s you were pro- ceeding down Orange S t r e e t ? A. Yes, when we got on the Orange Street Bridge, approximately dead center M r . Merseal had slowed h i s vehicle down t o approximately 5 miles per hour. W e were about a half block behind t h e lead police c a r and he again stated he was going t o jump out. H e reached f o r , grabbed the tilt e j e c t o r on the wheel and t i l t e d it forward and s t a r t e d f o r the door and approximately a t t h e same time he reached down o r lunged f o r the floorboard with h i s r i g h t hand, driving with h i s l e f t . I reached over with m y l e f t hand, grabbed h i s arm and drew m y weapon and pointed it a t him and said i f he came t h a t I ' d have t o shoot him." ~ e f e n d a n t ' s version i s substantially the same except he denied t h a t he reached down o r lunged f o r the floorboard. A search of t h e vehicle i n the courthouse parking l o t did i n f a c t reveal t h e existence of a loaded .25 c a l i b e r weapon under the floormat on the d r i v e r ' s side. Defendant was then booked and j a i l e d on the charge of t h i r d degree a s s a u l t on h i s wife and released on bond. Approximately f i v e months l a t e r , the county attorney f i l e d an Information which provided i n pertinent part: I1 The f a c t s constituting the offense a r e : Said Defendant did w i l f u l l y , wrongfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attempt t o a s s a u l t a human being, t o w i t : G. Lee Meltzer, with a loaded .25 c a l i b e r automatic p i s t o l , with the i n t e n t i n him, the said B i l l Roscoe Merseal t o prevent o r r e s i s t the lawful detention of himself, a t approximately 2:00 A.M., on December 27, 1972, i n a moving vehicle on o r near the Orange Street Bridge, i n Missoula, Montana. I 1 Myriad specifications of e r r o r a r e presented but only one issue merits consideration i n disposition of t h i s appeal--- i s t h e evidence l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o support the verdict and judgment ? This Court remains evermindful of one fundamental rule-- t h a t questions of f a c t must be determined solely by the jury, and t h a t given a c e r t a i n legal minimum of evidence, t h i s Court on review w i l l not s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of the jury. S t a t e v. Gunn, 89 Mont. 453, 300 P. 212; S t a t e v. Barick, 143 Mont. 273, 389 P.2d 170. The policy i s firmly grounded on t h e recognition t h a t , unlike an appellate court, the jury has, a s s t a t e d i n State v. Gustin, 85 Mont. 581, 584, 281 P. 351: "* * * the advantage of seeing the witnesses on the witness-stand, of observing t h e i r de- meanor, t h e i r apparent candor o r lack of it, of examining the * * * exhibits offered i n evidence. * * *". However, the r u l e has no application where the standard of l e g a l sufficiency has not been met. That standard, established by a long l i n e of decisions, i s the r u l e of substantial evi- dence. Where substantial evidence i s found t o support the verdict, i t must stand. State v. Fitzpatrick, 163 Mont. 220, 516 P.2d 605; State v. Hoskins, 163 Mont. 36, 514 P.2d 1331; S t a t e v. Bouldin, 153 Mont. 276, 456 P.2d 830; State v. Olsen, 152 Mont. 1, 445 P.2d 926; S t a t e v. Peschon, 131 Mont. 330, 310 P.2d 591. But where there i s no substantial evidence t o support the judgment, it becomes our duty t o s e t it aside. S t a t e v. Konon, 84 Mont. 255, 274 P. 1060; S t a t e v. McCarthy, 36 Mont. 226, 92 P. 521. On appeal we examine the evidence t o determine whether the verdict i s supported by substantial evidence. In so doing, we view the evidence i n the l i g h t most favorable t o the State. S t a t e v. Noble, 142 Mont. 284, 384 P.2d 504; State v. Steward, 151 Mont. 551, 445 P.2d 741. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence a s a reasonable mind might accept a s adequate t o support a conclusion. Hurley v. Northern Pacific Ky. Co., 153 Mont. 199, 455 P.2d 321; Graham v. Rolandson, 150 Mont.270, 435 P.2d 263; 24A C.J.S. Criminal Law 91880, p. 793. To obtain a conviction f o r attempted a s s a u l t , the S t a t e c a r r i e s the burden t o prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) The attempt o r intentional and ineffectual overt a c t , S t a t e v. Stone, 40 Mont. 88, 105 P. 89; (2) t h e present apparent a b i l i t y t o do harm; and (3) a reasonable apprehension o r f e a r i n the mind of the person assaulted. State v. Barry, 45 Mont. 598, 124 P. 775. Too, under section 94-602(5), R.C.M. 1947, the i n t e n t t o prevent o r r e s i s t lawful apprehension o r detention must be established. The record i s deficient i n t h a t it f a i l s t o provide any credible evidence i n support of the conclusion t h a t defendant's conduct placed Officer Meltzer i n reasonable apprehension o r fear. Since the question was never put t o him d i r e c t l y , the jury deci- sion could only have been based on inferences drawn from c i r - cumstantial testimony. Officer Meltzer t e s t i f i e d he believed defendant had a gun, although he never saw one, This i s inconsistent with h i s t e s t i - mony t o the e f f e c t t h a t - i f defendant came up with a gun, he would have t o shoot him. H e was well aware of the p o s s i b i l i t y t h e gun was under the floormat, but he unhesitatingly entered defendant's c a r f o r the r i d e t o the courthouse without f i r s t searching the vehicle. While defendant repeatedly argued withhim and expressed an i n t e n t t o leave the vehicle, t h e o f f i c e r never found it necessary t o place him under r e s t r a i n t and allowed him t o con- tinue t o drive the car. Additional confusion surrounds h i s I' testimony concerning defendant's alleged lunge" f o r the weapon, which seemed t o take place a t approximately the same time a s defendant moved toward t h e door i n an opposite direction. While these circumstances might well have j u s t i f i e d the o f f i c e r i n drawing h i s weapon o r placing the defendant under physical r e s t r a i n t , they d o n o t j u s t i f y a conviction f o r attempted assault. The record simply lacks substantial credible evidence upon which a proper inference a s t o the o f f i c e r ' s s t a t e of mind might have been drawn. The f a c t s here a r e of such a conjectural nature a s t o be i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support the conviction. Accordingly, judgment i s reversed. . ' - ' , - - * - - - ' - * - - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J u s t i c e W e Concur: /--- -i Chief h s t i c e