Title: STATE v GEORGE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 92-346

IN THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OF MONTANA

1983

 

STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
AMES GEORGE,

Defendant and appellant.

 

Appeal from: District court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Missoula
Honorable John Henson, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:

For Appelian

 

Martha A. McClain, Missoula, Montana
Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula, Montana

 

For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, wontana

Robert L. Deschamps, III, County Attorney, Missoula,
Montana

Submitted on briefs: Pebruary 3, 1983

Decided: March 10, 1983

Pilea: WAR 10 1963
GAL ty, Forrveen’”

 

Clerk
Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the
coure,

This is an appeal from a judgnent against the defendant,
James George, for aggravated assault in the District Court of
the Fourth Judicial District, Missoule County. We affirm the
judgment of the District Court.

on the morning of October 2, 1981, Linda McQuiston, a
vocational-technical student, arose very early to clean her
apartment before going to school. After a visit to a nearby
market, she returned hone and saw James George moving his
belongings into the apartment building where she lived.
George invited Meguiston into his apartment to look at some
of his etchings. She accepted the invitation and remained in
George's apartment for about 15 minutes. During this time,
they discussed a mutual acquaintance, Mike Garvin. MeQuiston
told George that she did not like Garvin. George told her
that Garvin was probably going to stay with him on some
weekends. George then asked McQuiston if he could borrow
some clothes hangers. McQuiston testified she told George
that she would leave the hangers by his door on her way to
school and returned to her apartment.

Later, George knocked on MeQuiston's door and asked her
Af he could borrow a knife. McQuiston testified that George
was snoking @ joint, which he put out upon her request. she
offered him a soft drink, which he accepted. She gave hin a
knife and testified that it was "somewhere between a paring
knife and a butcher knife" in size. Prom this point their
recollection of events differs significantly.

Moguiston testified that she returned to sit on her bed,

which she used as a sofa, George walked around the one room
apartment and told her that he liked it. He then sat on the
other end of the bed and without warning, struck her in the
chest with the knife, After impact, the knife broke in
several pieces. After striking her George said, "I just want
you to know Mike Garvin does hire people to kill others."
She testified that when she saw the knife coming at her she
thought George was going to Kill or rape her. She fell back
against the bed and started screaming.

George testified that before the attack occurred, the
parties were standing in McQuiston's apartment. McQuiston
swung around and George thought she was going to strike him.
He then hit her in the chest to knock her back. He testified
that he hit her with his hand, the sane hand that was holding
the knife. The blade of the knife broke upon impact and cut
his hand, George denied saying that Garvin hired people to
kill others. When McQuiston started to scream, George warned
her never to “swing at him again" and asked her to “be
quiet." He then left the apartment and testified that he
remained in his own apartment until he went for coffee with
his ex-wife and his girlfriend and was arrested.

McQuiston testified that she locked the door after
George left the room and “fell apart." Her next door
neighbor Deborah Hayes heard sobbing and saw McQuiston leave
her apartment. Hayes called to McQuiston who then ran into
Hayes’ apartment and begged her to call the landlord.

NoQuiston was taken to St. Patrick's Hospital where she
vas examined, given a tranguilizer and released. she had a
contusion on her chest but the skin was not broken.
NcQuiston testified that she had trouble breathing deeply for

several weeks after the incident. She returned to school
where a teacher called her parents and requested they take
her hone.

‘The issue in this case is whether there is sufficient
evidence to convict George of the offense of aggravated
assault.

Section 45~5-202(1) (c), MCA, provides:

(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated

assault if he purposely or knowingly causes: (c)

reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury in

another by use of a weapon.”

Section 45-2-101(59), MCA, defines serious bodily injury

 

“bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of
death or which causes serious permanent
disfigurenent or protracted loss or impairment of
the function or process of any bodily member or
organ. It includes serious mental illness or
impairment."

Section 45-2-101(71), MCA, defines weapon as: ". . «
any instrument, article, or substance which, regardless of
its primary function, is readily capable of being used to
produce death or serious bodily injury."

George claims that McQuiston had no fear of him before
the attack and therefore the element of ‘reasonable
apprehension" could not have been proved at the trial.
George relies on this Court's statement that: "The
‘reasonable apprehension" may be a response that the victim
is not instantly aware of, but his actions may clearly show
that he apprehends the reality of the attack." State v.
LaMere (1980), Mont. + 621 P.24 462, 464, 37 St.Rep.
1936, 1939. George contends that in LeMere there were

supporting facts regarding the defendant's menacing behavior

 

and verbal threats that showed “reasonable apprehension."

George contends that these factors are not present here and,
therefore, McQuiston could not have apprehended the "reality
of the attack."

In LaMere, the defendant argued that the victim was not
in fear until after the attack and therefore could not have
been “reasonably apprehensive" as required under section
45-5-202, MCA. We upheld the conviction in that case
stating: "But this Court has never held that a showing of
immediate fear is the only vay to prove ‘reasonable
apprehension." We recognize that as in civil assault,
‘apprehension’ is not the same thing as fear, (cite omitted),
and we also recognize that a victim may be put in a position,
such as the victim testified to here, of being so startled,
or shocked, or afraid, that his reaction is a delayed one."
LaMere, 621 P.24 at 464, 37 St.Rep. at 1939,

Our decision in LaMlere does not preclude a showing of
immediate fear as 2 means of proving “reasonable
apprehension." In the present case, MeQuiston testified that
when she saw the blade coming toward her she thought George
was going to rape or kill her. George and Mcguiston
testified that she was afraid of George and noticeably upset
after the incident. Her next door neighbor testified that
NcQuiston ran into her apartment sobbing and beqged her to
call the landlord. Her discussions with the police and the
doctor in the emergency room indicated that she was
"reasonably apprehensive” of serious bodily injury. There

sufficient evidence to uphold the District

 

is, therefore
Court's determination that MeQuiston apprehended the reality
of the attack.

George asserts McQuiston's apprehension was unreasonable
because she was sensitive to encounters. He grounds this

assertion on the facts that she was attacked one year before
this incident by another man and that later in the day, after
the incident in question, she backed away from a teacher who
was trying to approach her. McQuiston's previous attack does
not preclude a finding that she was "reasonably apprehensive"
of serious bodily injury in the altercation with George. The
trier of fact had before him evidence of the prior attack as
well as evidence that McQuiston had recovered from that
attack. In addition, she allowed George into her apartment
and had not shown any sign of unreasonable behavior.

NcQuiston's behavior after the incident goes to show
that she was still recovering from being struck earlier in
the day. she may have been apprehensive of her teacher and
this apprehension may have been unreasonable but that is not
the question before us. We need only determine whether there
vas sufficient evidence presented at trial to show that
NcQuiston "reasonably apprehended" serious bodily injury with
a weapon.

George claims the contusion suffered by McQuiston did

not constitute serious bodily injury. Pursuant to section

 

45-5-202(1), MCA, there need only be "reasonable apprehension
of serious bodily injury," serious bodily injury need not be
sustained to convict a person of the offense of aggravated

assault. This Court has held that

 

"Tt is only necessary
that the evidence show that the weapon was used in such a
manner at the time and place and on that victim so that
serious bodily injury was capable of being inflicted." state

vy. Klemann (1981), Mont. 634 P.2a 632, 636, 38

 

St.Rep. 1627, 1631. There was sufficient evidence presented

to allow the trier of fact to determine whether serious

 

bodily injury was "capable of being inflicted.
George further claims that since McQuiston knew the
knife was dull and was wearing coat she could not have
reasonably apprehended serious bodily injury. In conjunction
with this argument, George asserts the knife could not have
constituted a weapon because it was dull and the blade broke
when he struck McQuiston. The knife, however, qualifies as a
weapon if it is "readily capable of being used to produce
serious bodily injury." Section 45-2-101(71), MCA. There
vas testimony that the knife was a “butcher knife."
McQuiston testified that it was "somewhere between a butcher
and paring knife" in size. A portion of the knife was
introduced at trial.

‘There was sufficient evidence presented to allow a trier
of fact to find that the knife was capable of being used to
produce serious bodily injury. Therefore, McQuiston could
have "reasonably apprehended" serious bodily injury with the
use of the knife. It is not a compelling argunent that the
coat could have prevented injury or that the knife was too
Gull to produce serious injury.

George admits the attack took place and that he had the
knige in his hand when he struck McQuiston:

"O. Where aid you hit her? A. Right there.

"0. You are pointing to the center of your chest?

A.’ the center of the chest. I hit her where T

would not do any damage, Tt would knock her back.

"Q. You said you had the knife in your hand at the
time that you hit her. A. Yes."

McQuiston testified that she was in fear of her life
when attacked and that George made a life threatening
statement after he hit her. George also testified that

MoQuiston was afraid.
 

A conviction cannot be overturned when the evidence,
viewed in the ight most favorable to the prosecution would
allow any rational trier of fact to find the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.
Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.

560, 573; State v. Godsey (1982), __ Mont. __ P28

 

__) 39. St.Rep. 2354, 2358. Tf the record shows any
substantial evidence to support the judgment, the presumption
is in favor of such judgment. State v. Shurtliff (198),
___ Mont. _, 635 P.24 1294, 1296, 38 St.Rep. 1798, 1800.

In the present case the evidence is clearly sufficient
to sustain the court's conviction of the offense of
aggravated assault.

Affirmed.

 

(

We Concurt