Title: STATE v COOK

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-374 I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F TI-IE STATE O F MONTANA 1982 T H E STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS- K E N N E T H E . COOK, SR. , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventh 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 Dawson, The Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: J e r r y D. Cook, Glendive, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Richard A. Simonton, County Attorney, Glendive, Montana - - Submitted on B r i e f s : A p r i l 1 5 , 1982 Decided: June 1 0 , 1982 F i l e d : Jufi 1 0 1982 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Kenneth E. Cook, S r . , a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n of n e g l i g e n t homicide following a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventh 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 Dawson. O n August 25, 1980, d e f e n d a n t was charged by informa- t i o n with n e g l i g e n t homicide i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 45-5- 184, MCA. The defendant plead n o t g u i l t y , and a j u r y t r i a l was held on December 8 , 1980. The j u r y r e t u r n e d a g u i l t y v e r d i c t , and t h e c o u r t sentenced defendant t o seven y e a r s ' imprisonment a t t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . The c o u r t sus- pended two y e a r s of t h e s e n t e n c e on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t t h e defendant submit t o a l c o h o l counseling w h i l e on p a r o l e . T h i s appeal followed. O n August 19, 1980, between 8: 30 and 9:00 p.m., Susan Dufner was s t r u c k and k i l l e d by a v e h i c l e while walking o r jogging w i t h her dog on Anderson Avenue i n Glendive, Mon- t a n a . A n autopsy revealed t h a t s h e d i e d almost i n s t a n e o u s l y from massive s k u l l f r a c t u r e s extending from t h e t o p and back of t h e head down through t h e base of t h e s k u l l and a c r o s s t h e e a r c a n a l s . The evidence r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s were caused by a s e v e r e b l u n t f o r c e . Also, t h e i n j u r i e s were c o n s i s t e n t with being s t r u c k by t h e f r o n t g r i l l a r e a of a 1967 Ford pickup t r u c k . The a p p e l l a n t was d r i v i n g a 1967 Ford pickup on t h e n i g h t of Susan D u f n e r ' s d e a t h . Expert testimony and r e a l evidence introduced a t t h e t r i a l revealed t h a t it had been a p p e l l a n t ' s pickup t h a t s t r u c k and k i l l e d Susan Dufner. S h a t t e r e d fragments of h e a d l i g h t g l a s s found a t t h e a c c i d e n t scene matched broken p i e c e s of h e a d l i g h t g l a s s from a p p e l l a n t ' s pickup. P a i n t p a r t i c l e s taken from t h e c l o t h i n g worn by t h e v i c t i m on t h e n i g h t of t h e a c c i d e n t matched t h e p a i n t samples froro appel- l a n t ' s pickup. H a i r , recovered from a sponge t h a t a p p e l l a n t used t o wipe o f f h i s pickup, matched h a i r samples of t h e v i c t i m . The sponge a l s o c o n t a i n e d dog h a i r s t h a t matched t h o s e of t h e v i c t i m ' s dog. F i n a l l y , a l a r g e d e n t , s i m i l a r t o one expected t o be made when a body slams a g a i n s t a v e h i c l e , was found on a p p e l l a n t ' s pickup, Appellant t e s t i f i e d he had begun d r i n k i n g a t 10:00 a.m. on t h e morning of August 19, 1980, and t h a t he had con- t i n u e d t o d r i n k u n t i l he l e f t t h e S o u t h s i d e Tavern t o r e t u r n home a t approximately 8:30 p.m. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had consumed more than twelve b e e r s . T h i s was, by h i s own admission, about two and one h a l f t i m e s what he normally would d r i n k . Witnesses a t t h e bar t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t had consumed beer a l l day long. One w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d s h e had observed t h e a p p e l l a n t s t a g g e r i n g t o t h e bathroom and he appeared t o be drunk. Another w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e had l e f t t h e bar a t t h e same time a s t h e a p p e l l a n t and t h a t he was "wobbling." She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she saw appel- l a n t g e t i n t o h i s v e h i c l e , swing a U-turn i n t h e middle of t h e s t r e e t , d r i v e away i n t h e wrong l a n e of t r a f f i c , and swerve t o avoid oncoming t r a f f i c . These o b s e r v a t i o n s took p l a c e w i t h i n a s h o r t d i s t a n c e of t h e a c c i d e n t scene. The a p p e l l a n t ' s nephew, who l i v e d with him, t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t a r r i v e d home a t about 8:50 p.m. on t h e n i g h t of t h e a c c i d e n t . The nephew t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was drunk, t h a t he was s t a g g e r i n g and t h a t h i s speech was s l u r r e d . The o n l y i s s u e on appeal is whether t h e evidence was s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e j ury' s v e r d i c t t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t committed t h e o f f e n s e of n e g l i g e n t homicide a s d e f i n e d by s e c t i o n 45-5-104, MCA. A p p e l l a n t ' s b a s i c c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t t h e evidence was n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o f i n d t h a t he c o n s c i o u s l y d i s r e g a r d e d t h e r i s k t h a t h i s drunk d r i v i n g could cause t h e d e a t h of a p e d e s t r i a n walking along Anderson Avenue a f t e r dark. He a r g u e s t h a t h i s a c t i o n s do n o t c o n s t i t u t e a v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 45-5-1634, MCA, because t h e r e s u l t of h i s a c t i o n s was n o t f o r e s e e a b l e and t h a t h i s i n t o x i c a t i o n a l o n e is n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o " o b v i a t e a n e c e s s a r y c o n s c i o u s d i s r e g a r d . " T h i s Court h a s r e i t e r a t e d t h e s t a n d a r d f o r reviewing t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence t o s u p p o r t a c o n v i c t i o n i n numerous c a s e s . I n t h e r e c e n t n e g l i g e n t homicide c a s e of S t a t e v. Rumley ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 634 P.2d 446, 38 St.Rep. 1351A, we addressed t h e s t a n d a r d f o r reviewing t h e evidence and s t a t e d : "It is t h e p r e r o g a t i v e of t h e j u r y t o d e c i d e t h e f a c t s , and t h i s Court must uphold such f i n d i n g s when t h e y a r e supported by substan- t i a l evidence. A s we s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 283, 587 P.2d 1298, 1305, 35 St.Rep. 1532, 1539, ' [ t l h e j u r y is t h e f a c t - f i n d i n g body and its deci- s i o n is c o n t r o l l i n g . . . Given t h e r e q u i r e d l e g a l minimum of evidence, we w i l l n o t sub- s t i t u t e our d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e f a c t s f o r t h a t of t h e j u r y . . . I f s u b s t a n t i a l evi- dence is found t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , i t w i l l s t a n d . . . ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) " 634 P.2d a t 449. A p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h i s a c t i o n s do n o t show a "conscious d i s r e g a r d " a s d e f i n e d by s e c t i o n 45-5-104, MCA, is without m e r i t . I n S t a t e v. Bier ( 1 9 7 9 ) , lvlont . I 591 P.2d 1115, 36 St.Rep. 466, we h e l d : "Defendant contends t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o prove t h e r e q u i r e d m e n t a l s t a t e and c a u s a t i o n e l e - m e n t s f o r a prima f a c i e c a s e o f n e g l i g e n t homicide. C o n c e r n i n g t h e m e n t a l e l e m e n t , d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t h i s c o n d u c t d i d n o t e v i d e n c e a c o n s c i o u s d i s r e g a r d f o r h i s w i f e ' s l i f e . N e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e is d e f i n e d b y s t a t u t e a s f o l l o w s : " (1) C r i m i n a l h o m i c i d e c o n s t i t u t e s n e g l i g e n t homicide when i t is committed n e g l i g e n t l y . " I ( 2 ) A p e r s o n c o n v i c t e d o f n e g l i g e n t homi- c i d e s h a l l be i m p r i s o n e d i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n f o r any term n o t t o exceed t e n ( 1 0 ) y e a r s . ' S e c t i o n 95-6-104, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 45-5-184, MCA. " N e g l i g e n c e is d e f i n e d a s f o l l o w s : II I . . . [A] p e r s o n a c t s n e g l i g e n t l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o a r e s u l t o r t o a c i r c u m s t a n c e d e s c r i b e d by a s t a t u t e d e f i n i n g an o f f e n s e when he c o n s c i o u s l y d i s r e g a r d s a r i s k t h a t t h e r e s u l t w i l l o c c u r o r t h a t t h e circum- s t a n c e e x i s t s o r i f h e d i s r e g a r d s a r i s k o f which h e s h o u l d b e aware t h a t t h e r e s u l t w i l l o c c u r o r t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e e x i s t s . The r i s k must be of s u c h a n a t u r e and d e g r e e t h a t Lo d i s r e g a r d it i n v o l v e s a g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from t h e s t a n d a r d of c o n d u c t t h a t a r e a s o n - a b l e p e r s o n would o b s e r v e i n t h e a c t o r ' s s i t u a t i o n . G r o s s d e v i a t i o n means a d e v i a t i o n t h a t is c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r t h a n l a c k o f o r d i n a r y c a r e . R e l e v a n t t e r m s s u c h a s " n e g l i - g e n t " and " w i t h n e g l i g e n c e " h a v e t h e same meaning.' (Emphasis added.) S e c t i o n 94-2- 1 0 1 ( 3 1 ) , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 45-2- 1 0 1 ( 3 1 ) , MCA. " I n S t a t e v. K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , [ I 7 9 Mont. 2831, 587 P.2d 1298, 1304, 35 St.Rep. 1 5 3 2 , 1538, t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t ' [ u l n l i k e d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e , which r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e o f f e n s e be committed p u r p o s e l y o r Itnowingly, n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e d o e s n o t r e q u i r e s u c h pur- p o s e o r knowledge. N e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e o n l y r e q u i r e s a g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from a r e a s o n a b l e s t a n d a r d o f c a r e . ' A g r o s s d e v i a t i o n under t h e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n i s a n a l o g o u s t o g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e i n t h e l a w o f t o r t s . A l - though somewhat n e b u l o u s i n c o n c e p t , g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e is g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t o f a l l s h o r t o f a r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o r conse- q u e n c e s and is s a i d t o d i f f e r from o r d i n a r y n e g l i g e n c e o n l y i n d e g r e e , n o t i n kind . . ." 591 P.2d a t 1117-1118. (Emphasis added.) F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h i s i n t o x i c a t i o n a l o n e c a n n o t be t h e b a s i s f o r a c o n v i c t i o n o f n e g l i g e n t homicide is n o t supported by t h e law o r t h e evidence. T h i s Court held i n t h e n e g l i g e n t homicide c a s e of S t a t e v. K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 283, 587 P.2d 1298, t h a t : "Criminal n e g l i g e n c e can a r i s e a s a r e s u l t of i n t o x i c a t i o n . Defendant's mental s t a t e a t t h e time he was d r i v i n g h i s c a r was n o t i n i s s u e . I s s u e was whether t h e d r i v i n g of a c a r while i n t o x i c a t e d was a g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from t h e s t a n d a r d of r e a s o n a b l e c a r e . . . ". . . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e evidence shows t h a t defendant was d r i v i n g h i s c a r while i n t o x i - c a t e d and it was because of h i s i n t o x i c a t i o n t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t occurred r e s u l t i n g i n t h e d e a t h of Douglas Schaf f e r . T h i s c o n s t i t u t e s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence s u p p o r t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s conviction.'' 587 P.2d a t 1304-1305. See a l s o , S t a t e v. Engstrom ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 79 Wash.2d 469, 487 P.2d The evidence i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e c o n s t i t u t e s s u f f i - c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n . The evidence i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was i n t o x i c a t e d t o such a degree t h a t it was c l e a r l y i n " g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from t h e s t a n d a r d of conduct t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e person would observe i n t h e a c t o r ' s s i t u a t i o n . " Appellant admitted consuming i n e x c e s s of twelve b e e r s , over twice h i s normal l i m i t ; he was observed s t a g g e r - ing i n t h e b a r ; he was observed wobbling t o h i s v e h i c l e ; he was observed swerviny and d r i v i n g i n t h e wrong l a n e of t r a f f i c minutes b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t ; and he was observed s t a g g e r i n g and s l u r r i n g h i s s p e e c h s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is a f f i r m e d . J u s t i c e / We concur: 3 4 d 4 . P g w 4 Chief Justice -