Case Title: STATE v PERRY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1973-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12213 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE OF MONTANA 1972 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - F R E D L E E PERRY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Truman G. Bradford, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Ralph Randono argued, Great F a l l s , Montana. For Respondent: Hon. Robert L, Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. J. C. Weingartner, Deputy Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana. J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, argued, Great F a l l s , Montana. Arthur G. Matteucci, Deputy County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana, Submitted: November 28, 1972 Decided: JISN 1 (J 1973 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of the Court. Defendant Fred Lee Perry appeals from a judgment of conviction of second degree murder and l i f e sentence i n the s t a t e prison. He was t r i e d by a jury i n the eighth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Cascade, the Hon. Truman Bradford, judge presiding. The body of Vicki R.enville, a teenager, was discovered by a motorcyclist on a county road near Great F a l l s , Montana on February 24, 1971. Immediate investigation i n s t i t u t e d by the s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e of Cascade County lead t o the a r r e s t and con- v i c t i o n i n separate proceedings of two men, defendant and Michael S t i l l i n g s . After making an on-the-spot investigation of the murder s i t e , the s h e r i f f had t h e body examined by D r . Jack Henneford, a resident pathologi-st. A s a r e s u l t of h i s examination D r , Henne- ford t e s t i f i e d t h a t she died from multiple blows t o the l e f t side of her head, fractures of the s k u l l , and from extensive bleeding within the c r a n i a l cavity, He a l s o t e s t i f i e d the body showed two small recent t e a r s of the hymen; t h a t in h i s opinion the g i r l had been dead a t l e a s t eight hours; and, t h a t she had lived an hour o r more a f t e r the blows had been i n f l i c t e d . During the investigation a deputy s h e r i f f interviewed defendant the day a f t e r the body was found, a s t o h i s whereabouts on the night of the murder. Defendant informed the deputy he was a t h i s t r a i l e r a l l evening, watched TV and went t o bed. This s t a t e - ment was given i n the presence of two other deputies, O n March 6, 1971, some two weeks a f t e r the murder, the s h e r i f f received word from defendant, then confined i n the Missoula County j a i l on an unrelated charge, t h a t he wanted t o t a l k t o the s h e r i f f and give him information concerning the death of Vicki Renville. H e told the investigating o f f i c e r s he wanted t o help them and they obtained h i s r e l e a s e from the Missoula County j a i l in the custody of the Cascade Collnty s h e r i f f . Although it i s not c l e a r i n the record, it appears defendant implicated Michael S t i l l i n g s . S t i l l i n g s was arrested i n S e a t t l e , Washington, where he gave three deputy s h e r i f f s a statement t h a t he had k i l l e d Vicki Ren- v i l l e . Arrangements were made t o return him t o Great F a l l s , where he made another statement. S t i l l i n g s told the o f f i c e r s t h a t defendant had k i l l e d the g i r l . He t o l d them the story of what happened the night of the k i l l i n g , where he and defendant were, who they were with both before and a f t e r the k i l l i n g . Accompanied by h i s attorney, the county attorney and three deputy s h e r i f f s , he took them t o the scene of the k i l l i n g . The story r e l a t i n g t o the k i l l i n g , a s t o l d t o the jury by S t i l l i n g s , was t h a t he and defendant picked Vicki up l a t e i n the evening of February 23, 1971, and a f t e r riding around town they took Vicki t o an area known a s the Wadsworth Park. There S t i l l i n g s suggested t h a t Vicki have intercourse with him and when she refused he put a knife t o her throat and forced her t o have intercourse with him i n the back s e a t of the c a r . Then, according t o S t i l l i n g s , defendant had intercourse with her. After these two a c t s Vicki got out of the c a r and h i s story of what happened then i s : "Q. What happened then? A. Vicki s a i d she was going t o r a t . Q Vicki said she was going t o r a t ? A. Yes. "Q. And do you know what she meant by t h a t ? A. Yes. "Q. What did she mean? A. She was going t o squeal. "Q. And what happened then, i f anything? A. Fred ducked back i n t o the c a r and he grabbed the t i r e iron, and he s t a r t e d h i t t i n g her. 11 Q, What kind of t i r e iron was i t ? A, It was a --just a single tire iron. It was a bar t i r e iron. . Did i t have a lug wrench end on it? A. Yes. Q . Did it have a pointed end on it? A. Yes. "Q. And could you see him s t r i k i n g h e r ? A. Not a t f i r s t . Q Did you ever see him s t r i k i n g h e r ? A, Yes. ' Q ' W h e n d i d you see him s t r i k i n g her'? A, When she was laying on the ground. . And i n whac position was she i n when she was lying Jn the ground? A. She was lying on her back. "Q. And i n what position was M r . Perry? A. He was standing over her. . H o w many times did you see him s t r i k e h e r , do you r e c a l l ? A. Maybe h a l f a dozen times. "Q, And what did you do then, i f anything? A. I jumped out of the c a r and grabbed h i s arm. 'iQ. tJhat happened a f t e r you grabbed h i s arm? A , . He dropped the t i r e iron and backed o f f . I 1 S t i l l i n g s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he picked Vicki up and thought she was dead. Then the two fled from the area returning t o town where they picked up friends, so t h a t they could e s t a b l i s h an a l i b i , The next day S t i l l i n g s changed the r e a r t i r e s on h i s c a r , cleaned off the bloody t i r e i r o n , and soon t h e r e a f t e r l e f t f o r i e a t t l e . S t i l l i n g s told the deputies where he threw the t i r e i-ron i n the s t a t e of Washington, but a f t e r a thorough search iio t i r e iron was found. k t the Lime he t e s t i f i e d S t i l l i n g s had entered a plea t o second degree murder, but sentence had not been imposed. The defense attorney thoroughly cross-examined him about making a deal with the s t a t e , but he said he "expected no leniency". D r . Henneford i n h i s expert testimony described the kind ~i weapon t h a t could have i n f l i c t e d the blows on Vicki, and when shown a t i r e iron l i k e t h a t described by S t i l l i n g s , he t e s t i f i e d ;hat such a weapon could have i n f l i c t e d the i n j u r i e s described by him which resulted i n her death. Defendant was defended by two able counsel of the Bar of Cascade County. John F. Lynch, Esq. before entering private practice served a s a c l e r k t o t h i s Court and worked f o r over a year on the revision of Montana's criminal code. John D. Stephen- ;on, Jr, has been i n a c t i v e practice f o r over ten years and i s a s k i l l e d , competent,qualified t r i a l lawyer. On appeal, due co allegations made about h i s t r i a l counsel, the t r i a l court ap- pointed Ralph T , Randono, a former deputy county attorney, t o handle the appeal. H e was a s s i s t e d i n h i s preparation of the appellate b r i e f by the t r i a l counsel. Defendant sets f o r t h seven issues on appeal f o r t h i s Court's consideration : 1. Defendant was not provided counsel a s required. 2. Defendant was questioned and harassed by s h e r i f f ' s deputies a f t e r h i s counsel was appointed. 3. Defendant when provided counsel, was given counsel without experience i n criminal law. 4. Both defendant and counsel asked f o r new counsel. 5. There was a f a i l u r e of corroboration. 6 , The court erred i n accepting a verdict of second degree murder. 7. The court erred i n not granting defendant's post t r i a l motion t o modify the verdict i n accordance with section 95-2101(c), R.C.M. 1947. Issues 1, 3 and 4, concern t r i a l counsel and a s such the issue of competency of counsel w i l l be discussed covering the three issues. F i r s t , defendant a l l e g e s that between the time of h i s a r r e s t and the appointment of counsel, he was subjected t o examination by members of the s h e r i f f ' s and county attorney's o f f i c e s without counsel. The f a c t s a s s e t forth i n our statement of f a c t s f a i l t o substantiate t h i s charge. To the contrary, defendant volunteered t o a s s i s t the Cascade County o f f i c i a l s i n clearing up the k i l l i n g of Vicki Renville. He obtained r e l e a s e from the Missoula County j a i l and was allowed t o return t o Great F a l l s t o a s s i s t i n the investigation. It was not u n t i l a f t e r he implicated S t i l l i n g s and S t i l l i n g s had made the accusation involving defendant, t h a t any focus was directed t o defendant. The record reveals t h a t a f t e r returning t o Great F a l l s he again got i n t o trouble and was put i n t o the Cascade j a i l t o serve out the Missoula County sentence. He was released, l e f t t h e s t a t e , and i t was not u n t i l August 17, 1972, t h a t a warrant f o r h i s a r r e s t was issued. The record and t r a n s c r i p t f a i l t o show any statements made by defendant during the investigative period, and defendant d i d not take the stand t o explain anything t h a t happened during t h a t period. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S,Ct. 1602, 16 L ed 2d 694, has no application t o t h i s f a c t situation. Defendant was served by not one, but two, court appointed attorneys who were f a i t h f u l t o t h e i r professional ~ b l ~ g a t i o n s i n h i s defense. Their thanks i s now t o be charged with being "in- e f f e c t i v e counsel". These days t h i s i s not an unusual charge by convicted defendants and a s t h i s Court said i n State v. Forsness, Mont . , 495 P.2d 176, 179, 29 St.Rep. 232, 236: I I Success i s not the t e s t of e f f i c i e n t counsel, frequently n e i t h e r vigor, zeal, nor s k i l l can overcome t r u t h , " See also: Petition of Heiser, 148 Mont. 149, 418 P.2d 202. Here, the two t r i a l counsel adequately represented defendant. W e have scrutinized the record with care and find defendant was a.dequately, e f f e c t i v e l y , f a i r l y , and competently represented. W e next consider i s s u e 5 directed t o an alleged f a i l u r e of corroboration. The record supplies corroborative evidence, over and above the testimony of accomplice S t i l l i n g s , a s i s required by section 94-7220, R.C.M. 1947, There was medical evidence given by D r . Henneford t h a t Vicki had been raped. Two young gi-rls, Chris Shatto and Joan Icimbell, t e s t i f i e d t h a t they were a t defendant's t r a i l e r with defendant and S t i l l i n g s from about 9 p.m. u n t i l a f t e r 11:30 p.m., when defendant and S t i l l i n g s took them t o the home of Don Shingle- decker. Both g i r l s i d e n t i f i e d the coat defendant wore t h a t night. The coat i n question wa$ introduced i n evidence and an FBI agent t e s t i f i e d t h a t it had human blood spots. Mike Baldwin t e s t i f i e d t h a t defendant and S t i l l i n g s had picked him up about 12:30 a.m. and took him t o a Mona ~ r o w n ' s residence where they stayed u n t i l a f t e r 1:30 a.m. Baldwin a l s o i d e n t i f i e d the coat defendant wore t h a t night. Joan Wittke, a friend of defendant, t e s t i f i e d t h a t defendant t o l d her i n the presence of one Randy Braden t h a t a big guy and a small guy had k i l l e d Vicki, and "that they threw the t i r e s i n the river." I n addition, a l l witnesses who t e s t i f i e d cc~rroborated she 3 t i i l i n g s ' restinlony concerning 'ihe events of : : h e night of February 23-24, 1971. It i s well established i n Montana that the sufficiency of t h e corroboration necessary t o sustain a conviction based on the ~estimony of an accomplice i s a matter of law. S t a t e v. Dess, 1.54 Mont. 231, 462 P.2d 186; State v. Barick, 143 Hont. 273, 389 P.2d 170; S t a t e v. Moran, 142 Mont. 423, 384 P.2d 777, When the t r i a l judge i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t th.e evidence i s corroborative, he must submit the case t o the jury t o determine what e f f e c t the corroboration has and whether it i s s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant a con- viction. The weight given an accomplice's testimony i s f o r the jury t o decide, Here, the jury was properly instructed a s t o the weight t o be given an accomplice's testimony. W e find no merit t o issue 5. Defendant next argues the court erred i n accepting a second degree murder verdict. He contends i n an instruction offered I ~ u r refused, t h a t it was e i t h e r f i r s t degree or a c q u i t t a l and ,:ites i n support of the refused i n s t r u c t i o n S t a t e v. Miller, 9 1 Nont. 596, 595, 9 P. 2d 474, a s establishing the law on the felony-murder rule. There, the murder was committed during a rubbery and t h i s Court said: I I The t r i a l court i s required t o i n s t r u c t the jury on l e s s e r degrees of a crime charged, or included crimes, .mly when the evidence would warrant a conviction of such other crimes + ; * ; k consequently where, a s here, 3 defendant i s e i t h e r shown t o have participated i n a robbery, o r attempted robbery, during which a homicide i s committed, o r the evidence f a i l s t o show t h a t f a c t Seyond a reasonable doubt, the only permissible verdict i s e i t h e r murder of the f i r s t degree or a c q u i t t a l , and the t r i a l court i s not required t o i n s t r u c t on murder i n the second degree. I t fn M i l l e r the court held t h a t the t r i a l court did not err i-n f a i l i n g t o i n s t r u c t the jury i t could find the defendant g u i l t y of murder i n the second degree, because the evidence could not support t h a t verdict. Here, the t r i a l court correctly found, i n giving the instruc- t i o n on second degree, t h a t the Miller f a c t s i t u a t i o n was not comparable t o the i n s t a n t case. The homicide occurred a f t e r the alleged rape had been committed, it was not done during the perpetration of the rape. According t o S t i l l i n g s ' testimony, Vi-cki was k i l l e d a f t e r she had been raped because she said she was going t o r a t (squeal). The t r i a l court properly instructed an second degree, and the jury so found. The court a l s o carefully instructed on a l l the elements of murder. It would appear from i t s verdict t h a t the jury did not find a l l the elements of f i r s t degree murder, but did find second degree and there were s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o warrant i t s verdict. ~ e f e n d a n t ' s f i n a l issue i s directed t o the c o u r t ' s denial of defendant's motion f o r a new t r i a l and modification of the judgment, and again c i t e s Miller. Having heretofore ruled on Miller, we find no merit t o t h i s issue. A s previously noted, there was suhstantial evidence t o support the verdict and we find the t r i a l court properly denied the motion f o r a new t r i a l . Where there i s substantial evidence i n the record t o support the v e r d i c t , the action of the t r i a l court w i l l not be disturbed on appeal. S t a t e v. Walker, 148 Mont. 216, 419 P.2d 300. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. & d v- - . . . - - . . - - - -czm-- - - o c i a t e J u s t i c e ~ s s o c i u t e Justices.