Case Title: STATE v SMITH

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-09-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 84-199 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1985 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- R O N A L D ALLEN SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL F R O M : District Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Flathead, The Honorable Michael Keedy, Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O F RECORD: For Appellant: Gary G. Doran argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana James Scheier argued, A s s t . Atty. General, Helena Ted 0. Lympus, County Attorney, K a l i s p e l l , Montana Submitted: June 25, 1985 Decided: September 10, 1985 Filed: Skp i o 1985 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 Court. The d e f e n d a n t , Ronald Allen Smith, was c o n v i c t e d o f a g g r a v a t e d kidnapping, two c o u n t s , and d e l i b e r a t e homicide, two c o u n t s . The d e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d of each c o u n t p u r s u a n t t o p l e a s o f g u i l t y e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f F l a t h e a d County, S t a t e o f Montana. The d e f e n d a n t was sentenced t o d e a t h . The judgment and s e n t e n c e w e r e a f f i r m e d by t h i s Court i n S t a t e v. Ronald A l l e n Smith (Mont. 1 9 8 5 ) , P.2d. , 42 St.Rep. 463. T h i s Court i s a g a i n asked t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e r e c o r d and remand t h e m a t t e r f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t and a r e h e a r i n g o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e , based upon a United S t a t e s Supreme Court c a s e o f Ake v. Oklahoma (19851, U.S. , 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53, which came down a f t e r argument i n t h i s c a s e . On August 4 , 1982, d e f e n d a n t kidnapped and k i l l e d Harvey Mad Man, Jr., and Thomas Running Rabbit, Jr., a t a remote l o c a t i o n n e a r U.S. Highway 2 , w e s t o f t h e e a s t e r n b o r d e r o f F l a t h e a d County. On August 3 , 1982, t h e d e f e n d a n t and two companions, Andre F o n t a i n e and Rodney Munro, had d e p a r t e d from A l b e r t a , Canada. The t h r e e encountered t h e two v i c t i m s , Mad Man and Running R a b b i t , a t a b a r i n E a s t G l a c i e r , Montana. While a t t h e b a r , t h e t h r e e s h o t pool and drank b e e r w i t h Mad Man and Running Rabbit. The t h r e e l e f t t h e b a r i n E a s t G l a c i e r and h i t c h h i k e d w e s t a l o n g Highway 2. There had been d i s c u s s i o n between t h e d e f e n d a n t and Andre F o n t a i n e a b o u t s t e a l i n g a c a r and t h e need t o e l i m i n a t e any w i t n e s s e s t o t h e t h e f t . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , t h e t h r e e men w e r e picked up by Mad Man and Running Rabbit. The men d r o v e f o r approximately twenty minutes and stopped t o a l l o w Mad Man and Running Rabbit t o r e l i e v e themselves. When t h e two men g o t back i n t o t h e c a r , t h e defendant p u l l e d a sawed-off s i n g l e - s h o t b o l t a c t i o n . 2 2 r i f l e , brought i l l e g a l l y i n t o t h i s country, and pointed it a t t h e d r i v e r . Munro displayed h i s k n i f e t o t h e passenger. The defendant and Munro marched t h e two v i c t i m s i n t o t h e trees. The defendant s h o t Harvey Mad Man i n t h e back o f t h e head a t point-blank range. H e reloaded t h e r i f l e , walked s e v e r a l f e e t t o where Thomas Running Rabbit had f a l l e n t o t h e ground upon being stabbed by Munro, and s h o t him i n t h e temple a t point-blank range. Both men w e r e k i l l e d i n s t a n t l y . The defendant and t h e o t h e r two then s t o l e t h e v i c t i m s ' c a r and proceeded t o C a l i f o r n i a . The c a r was l a t e r r ~ c o v e r e d when Fontaine and Munro w e r e a r r e s t e d f o r armed robbery i n C a l i f o r n i a . The defendant was a r r e s t e d i n Wyoming. An information was f i l e d charging t h e defendant w i t h two counts o f aggravated kidnapping and two counts o f d e l i b e r a t e homicide. An arraignment h e a r i n g was held on November 1, 1982, a t which t i m e t h e defendant e n t e r e d a p l e a o f "not g u i l t y " t o a l l charges. O n February 24, 1983, t h e defendant e n t e r e d a change o f p l e a . The defendant admitted shooting b o t h v i c t i m s i n t h e head. The c o u r t was apprised o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e n t i o n t o seek t h e d e a t h penalty. A t t h e sentencing h e a r i n g on March 21, 1983, t h e c o u r t and p a r t i e s reviewed t h e presentence r e p o r t and, a f t e r one minor c o r r e c t i o n , t h e c o u r t admitted it without o b j e c t i o n . A t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had been i n p r i s o n f o r e i g h t o f t h e l a s t t e n y e a r s , and t h a t he had l i v e d by p e t t y t h e f t and s e l l i n g drugs when he was not i n p r i s o n . H e t e s t i f i e d i n d e t a i l about t h e s i x t e e n p r i o r o f f e n s e s l i s t e d i n t h e presentence r e p o r t . H e t e s t i f i e d t o t h e f a c t s o f t h e k i l l i n g . H e s t a t e d t h a t Munro was aware o f h i s i n t e n t t o k i l l t h e v i c t i m s because he i n t e n d e d t o s t e a l t h e i r c a r and wished t o l e a v e no w i t n e s s e s . H e s t a t e d t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s d e s i r e t o e l i m i n a t e t h e w i t n e s s e s t o t h e c a r t h e f t , he had had a "morbid f a s c i n a t i o n t o f i n d o u t what it would be l i k e t o k i l l somebody." H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e had consumed two o r t h r e e b e e r s on t h e n i g h t o f t h e crime b u t t h a t h i s a b i l i t y t o understand h i s a c t i o n s w e r e n o t impaired. H e t e s t i f i e d he sought t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y because a prolonged p e r i o d o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n would be o f no b e n e f i t t o h i m s e l f o r s o c i e t y and because he foresaw problems w i t h t h e I n d i a n p o p u l a t i o n a t t h e p r i s o n . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e f e l t no remorse f o r t h e k i l l i n g s , t h a t h e c o n s i d e r e d h i m s e l f a v i o l e n t p e r s o n , and t h a t h e f e l t he could k i l l a g a i n . H e s t a t e d t h a t he had no d e s i r e t o change h i s l i f e s t y l e . Following e x t e n s i v e q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e c o u r t , t h e d e f e n d a n t denied b e i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e o f d r u g s , i n t o x i c a n t s o r extreme stress and s t a t e d t h a t h e knew o f no m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . O n March 2 1 , 1 9 8 3 a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e x i s t e n c e and n a t u r e o f any a g g r a v a t i n g o r m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e c o u r t imposed a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h upon t h e defendant. Subsequently, t h e d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion t o seek a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y and a motion f o r a p s y c h i a t r i c examination. The c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e motions on May 3 , 1983. A t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s f a m i l y had induced him t o change h i s mind and s e e k a lesser p e n a l t y t h a n d e a t h . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s e a r l i e r d e s i r e f o r t h e d ~ a t h p e n a l t y was t h e p r o d u c t o f d e p r e s s i o n which had r e s u l t e d from t h e long p e r i o d o f s o l i t a r y confinement i n t h e Flathead County J a i l following h i s a r r e s t . H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had designed h i s e a r l i e r testimony t o induce t h e c o u r t t o sentence him t o d e a t h , and t h a t he had concealed a p o t e n t i a l m i t i g a t i n g factor--his u s e o f drugs and alcohol. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he and Munrn had u s ~ d t h r e e o r f o u r hundred " h i t s " of LSD d u r i n g t h e period o f t i m e immediately p r i o r t o t h e i r e n t r y t o t h e United S t a t e s , ending t h e day b e f o r e t h e murders. H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t on t h e day o f t h e c r i m e he had consumed approximately twelve b e e r s . O n June 10, 1983 t h e c o u r t granted t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n . The c o u r t appointed a p s y c h i a t r i s t , D r . William S t r a t f o r d , t o examine t h e defendant and r e p o r t t o t h e c o u r t a s t o : (1) whether he could determine which o f t h e v e r s i o n s given by t h e defendant was c r e d i b l e ; and ( 2 ) what was t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s mental c o n d i t i o n on August 4 , 1982. The defendant requested t h e c o u r t t o amend its o r d e r d e l e t i n g t h e i n v e s t i g a t i v e function o f D r . S t r a t f o r d . The c o u r t amended i t s o r d e r and d i r e c t e d D r . S t r a t f o r d t o assume t h e t r u t h o f d e f e n d a n t ' s second v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s i n performing h i s examination. The c o u r t held a h e a r i n g on d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e sentence on December 1, 1983. A t t h e h e a r i n g , D r . S t r a t f o r d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he found no evidence t h a t t h e use o f drugs o r a l c o h o l a f f e c t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c a p a c i t y t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e c r i m i n a l i t y o f h i s conduct, conform h i s conduct t o t h e requirements o f law, o r form a c r i m i n a l i n t e n t . H e based h i s conclusions on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s testimony and s t a t e m e n t s regarding h i s e x t e n s i v e use o f LSD and h i s conduct on t h e day o f t h e crime. According t o D r . S t r a t f o r d , a f t e r t h r e e o r f o u r consecutive days o f heavy LSD usage t h e u s e r develops a t o l e r a n c e f o r t h e drug. A s a r e s u l t , l a r g e doses have l i t t l e o r no e f f e c t . Given t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s h i s t o r y o f heavy LSD usage f o r a period o f one month o r more p r i o r t o t h e crime, D r . S t r a t f o r d concluded t h a t t h e use o f e i g h t o r n i n e , o r even a s many a s f i f t y doses o f LSD would n o t have a f f e c t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s mental s t a t e when he committed t h e homicides. Rodney Munro, t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s accomplice a l s o testi- f i e d a t t h e hearing. Munro s t a t e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e crime, he was experiencing confusion, f l a s h e s of l i g h t and h a l l u c i n a t i o n s , having i n g e s t e d approximately t h e same amount o f drugs and a l c o h o l a s t h e defendant. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had stabbed Running Rabbit once b e f o r e t h e defendant s h o t him, and t h a t it was p o s s i b l e Running Rabbit was a l r e a d y dead b e f o r e he was s h o t . O n December 1 2 , 1983, t h e defendant f i l e d h i s motion f o r an a d d i t i o n a 1 p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n . The defendant ' s motion was denied. I n reviewing defendant ' s motion f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions o f law t o support i t s o r i g i n a l sentence. The c o u r t found t h a t beyond a reasonable doubt t h e aggravated kidnappings committed by t h e defendant r e s u l t e d i n t h e d e a t h of h i s v i c t i m s , s a t i s f y i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y aggravating circumstance s t a t e d i n s e c t i o n 46-18-303, MCA. u - 4 L - v W e - t h e a n - L C U C a -.- -.. A . > A Y . - A * . . ' , - t - . t n ",.,-,t. "L. " I - l '3 -'I M3k The c o u r t found beyond a reasonable doubt t h a t no m i t i g a t i n g circumstances w e r e p r e s e n t . The c o u r t found t h a t without exception, t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s consumption o f alcohol and drugs was v o l u n t a r y , and d i d not impair o r otherwise a f f e c t h i s s t a t e o f mind, h i s c a p a c i t y t o recognize and a p p r e c i a t e t h ~ c r i m i n a l i t y o f h i s conduct o r h i s a b i l i t y t o c o n t r o l h i s a c t i o n s and t o conform h i s conduct t o t h e requirements o f law. The c o u r t concluded t h a t t h e defendant made a cr>nscious and v o l u n t a r y choice t o k i l l t h e v i c t i m s notwithstanding h i s use o f drugs and a l c o h o l , and t h a t i n t o x i c a t i o n was n o t a s u f f i c i e n t m i t i g a t i n g circumstance t o c a l l f o r leniency. The defendant appealed from t h e sentence imposed. W e affirmed. S t a t e v. Ronald Allen Smith, supra. Defendant's p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i s based on Ake v. Oklahoma (1985), U.S. , 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53. Our province on t h e appeal i s t o determine whether t h e defendant i s e n t i t l e d t o an a d d i t i o n a l p s y c h i a t r i c exam under Ake, supra. The defendant argues t h a t t h e Ake d e c i s i o n - - e s t a b l i s h e d a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s a c c e s s t o competent p s y c h i a t r i c a s s i s t a n c e where such a s s i s t a n c e is e s s e n t i a l t o t h e e f f e c t i v e defense o f t h e case. The defendant argues t h a t i n l i g h t o f t h e - Ake d e c i s i o n , he is e n t i t l e d t o an a d d i t i o n a l p s y c h i a t r i c examination. W e d i s a g r e e . W e f i n d t h e - Ake d e c i s i o n l a c k s d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n t o Montana's c a p i t a l sentencing proceeding and t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . I n Ake v. Oklahoma, s u p r a , an i n d i g e n t defendant was charged w i t h f i r s t - d e g r e e murder. A t h i s arraignment t h e t r i a l judge ordered him t o be examined by a p s y c h i a t r i s t due t o h i s b i z a r r e behavior. The defendant was i n i t i a l l y found incompetent t o s t a n d t r i a l , b u t s i x weeks l a t e r he was found c o m p ~ t e n t s o long a s he continued t o be sedated w i t h a n t i - p s y c h o t i c drugs. The defendant r a i s e d t h e i n s a n i t y defense and requested a p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n t o determine h i s mental s t a t e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e . The t r i a l c o u r t denied d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r such an e v a l u a t i o n . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court reversed and held t h a t when a defendant has made a preliminary showing t h a t h i s s a n i t y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e i s l i k e l y t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a t t r i a l . , t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e s t a t e provide a c c e s s t o a p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s a s s i s t a n c e on t h i s i s s u e , i f t h e defendant cannot otherwise a f f o r d one. W e f i n d t h e - Ake d e c i s i o n r e a d i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e c a s e a t b a r . F i r s t , t h e p s y c h i a t r i c testimony i n - Ake r a i s e d t h e i s s u e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f u t u r e dangerousness, which i n Oklahoma is a s t a t u t o r y a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o r i n a c a p i t a l sentencing proceeding. Oklahoma S t a t . , T i t l e 2 1 , S152 (1981). I n Montana, f u t u r e dangerousness is n o t a s t a t u t o r y aggravating circumstance under t h e s t a t e ' s c a p i t a l sentencing scheme. S e c t i o n 46-18-303, MCA. Unlike t h e s i t u a t i o n t h a t e x i s t e d i n - Ake, t h e s t a t e d i d n o t r e l y upon o r p r e s e n t p s y c h i a t r i c evidence t o e s t a b l i s h any a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o r s a t sentencing. F u r t h e r , i n t h i s c a s e , a t no t i m e d i d t h e S t a t e attempt t o e l i c i t from D r . S t r a t f o r d an opinion concerning f u t u r e dangerousness o f t h e dependant. Second, i n Ake t h e r e was a t r i a l . The d e f e n d a n t ' s - s a n i t y was a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n h i s defense. In t h e p r e s e n t m a t t e r , t h e defendant plead g u i l t y t o t h e homicide and aggravated kidnapping o f f e n s e s . Third, i n t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court d e c i s i o n , t h e r e was no e x p e r t testimony f o r e i t h e r s i d e on Ake's s a n i t y a t t h e t i m e of t h e o f f e n s e . Ake, 105 S.Ct. a t 1091. - However, i n Smith, s u p r a , D r . S t r a t f o r d , t h e p s y c h i a t r i s t , gave e x t e n s i v e testimony a s t o t h e defendant' s s t a t e of mind a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e including: ( a ) t h e e f f e c t o f a l c o h o l and drugs on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e o f mind; (b) whether t h e defendant a c t e d under extreme mental o r emotional stress; (c) whether t h e defendant ' s c a p a c i t y t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e c r i m i n a l i t y o f h i s conduct t o t h e requirements o f law was s u b s t a n t i a l l y impaired; and (d) a d i a g n o s i s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s mental c o n d i t i o n . S t a t e v. Smith, 42 St.Rep. a t 479. Fourth, i n - Ake, t h e t r i a l c o u r t denied defense counsel ' s r e q u e s t f o r a p s y c h i a t r i c examination o f defendant w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s mental c o n d i t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t granted defendant ' s i n i t i a 1 r e q u e s t f o r t h e p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n . Following t h e examination and t h e p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s conclusion regarding t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e o f mind, t h e defendant f i l e d a motion f o r an a d d i t i o n a l p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n . The second motion was denied. Based on t h e foregoing, we f i n d t h e - Ake d e c i s i o n r e a d i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e and without p r e c e d e n t i a l m e r i t t o t h i s case. The defendant a l s o argues t h a t he was n o t provided w i t h a competent p s y c h i a t r i s t . The defendant r e p e a t s h i s contention r a i s e d i n t h e i n i t i a l appeal t h a t D r . S t r a t f o r d ' s r o l e was contaminated by t h e i n v e s t i g a t i v e f u n c t i o n imposed by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. This contention r a i s e d by t h e defendant i n h i s b r i e f s and argument is i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t i n t h e f i r s t appeal, S t a t e v. Ronald Allen Smith, supra. W e have considered t h e argument n o t only i n l i g h t o f t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l a p p e a l , b u t a l s o on t h e - Ake d e c i s i o n . The United S t a t e Supreme Court i n - Ake, noted: T h i s is n o t t o s a y , o f c o u r s e , t h a t t h e -- i n d i g e n t defendant has a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i a h t t o choose a ~ s v c h i a t r i s t o f h i s - personal l i k i n g o r i o L receive f u a s - E i ; h i r e h i s own. Our concern is t h a t t h e i n d i g e n t defendant have access t o a competent p s y c h i a t r i s t f o r t h e - - purpose w e have d i s c u s s e d , and a s i n t h e c a s e o f t h e p r o v i s i o n o f counsel w e leave t o t h e S t a t e t h e d e c i s i o n on how t o implement t h i s r i g h t . (Emphasis added.) Ake, s u p r a , 105 S.Ct. a t 1097. - The b a s i c t e n e n t o f t h e - Ake d e c i s i o n was t o a s s u r e an i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t ' s a c c e s s t o a competent p s y c h i a t r i s t f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f a defense based on h i s mental c o n d i t i o n . W e f i n d t h e defendant was afforded t h i s r i g h t . The record c l e a r l y r e f l e c t s D r . S t r a t f o r d ' s educationa 1 and professiona 1 q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . D r . S t r a t f o r d interviewed t h e defendant on two occasions a t t h e Plontana S t a t e Prison and considered t h e t r a n s c r i p t s o f t h e p r i o r proceedings, t h e presentence r e p o r t and w i t n e s s s t a t e m e n t s provided by t h e defendant. D r . S t r a t f o r d a l s o interviewed Rodney Munro and Andre Fontaine and secured a psychological p r o f i l e o f t h e defendant from D r . Herman W a lters. D r . S t r a t f o r d ' s conclusion was t h a t Smith had t h e c a p a c i t y t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e c r i m i n a l i t y o f h i s conduct and t h a t t h e drugs and a l c o h o l d i d n o t have a s u b s t a n t i a l e f f e c t on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e o f mind. The r e c o r d demonstrates t h a t D r . S t r a t f o r d was a n e u t r a l p s y c h i a t r i s t who examined Smith a s t o h i s s a n i t y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e s . D r . S t r a t f o r d t e s t i f i e d t o t h e foregoing a t t h e h e a r i n g and it was on t h a t b a s i s t h a t t h i s Court found no a d d i t i o n a l p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n was necessary. Accordingly, w e f i n d t h a t Ronald Allen Smith i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a second p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s e v a l u a t i o n . We concur: ,.-.f Justices