Title: STATE v LONGNECK

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 82-154 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1982 THE STATE OF MONTAKA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . EMIL LONGNECK, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Twelfth 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 H i l l Honorable Bernard W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For P l a i n t i f f : Mike Greeiy, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Ronald Smith, County Attorney, Havre, Montana For Defendant: Morrison, E t t i e n , Barron & Young; J. Chan E t t i e n , Havre, Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : August 12, 1982 Decided : - 8 Filed: [ikC < - 1982 , @ . Clerk M r . 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 C o u r t . T h i s c a s e was b e f o r e t h i s Court on a p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n , S t a t e v. Longneck, 38 St.Rep. 2160, 640 P.2d 436. A t t h a t t i m e we r e v e r s e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court which a c q u i t t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t d e s p i t e t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t of g u i l t y on t h a t c h a r g e . On remand, t h e District Court of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , H i l l County, sentenced t h e d e f e n d a n t t o t w o ( 2 ) y e a r s imprisonment, d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e . W e w i l l now b r i e f l y summarize t h e f a c t s f o r a more complete r e c i t a t i o n , see S t a t e v. Longneck, s u p r a . The c h a r g e s i n t h i s case stem from i n c i d e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d e a r l y i n t h e morning of August 7 , 1980. The v i c t i m , C u r t i s Alexander, h i s sister, Karen, and a f r i e n d , Daryl K i r k a l d i e were i n L e e I s Tavern i n Havre . S h o r t l y b e f o r e c l o s i n g t i m e K i r k a l d i e and t h e d e f e n d a n t g o t i n t o a s h o r t s c u f f l e o u t s i d e of Lee's. I n t h e c o u r s e of t h i s s c u f f l e t h e d e f e n d a n t was knocked to t h e ground. Immediately af ter t h e a l t e r c a t i o n , K i r k a l d i e , Karen Alexander and t h e v i c t i m l e f t Lee's on f o o t . The d e f e n d a n t g o t up and pro- ceeded down an a l l e y , where he found a s t i c k l y i n g i n t h e road- way and d e c i d e d to g e t even w i t h K i r k a l d i e . He picked up t h e s t i c k and proceeded i n t h e d i r e c t i o n t h a t t h e v i c t i m and his com- p a n i o n s had gone. H e approached t h e t h r e e from t h e rear and s t r u c k C u r t i s a s i n g l e blow to t h e back of t h e head w i t h the s t i c k a p p a r e n t l y t h i n k i n g him to be K i r k a l d i e . Karen and K i r k a l d i e pursued t h e d e f e n d a n t b u t were unable to c a t c h him. Upon r e t u r n i n g t o t h e s i t e of the a s s a u l t t h e y found C u r t i s still on t h e ground. H e w a s l y i n g f l a t on h i s back. They a s s i s t e d him to h i s f e e t . H e appeared u n i n j u r e d and a t t h a t t i m e s t a t e d h e was a l l r i g h t . A s h o r t time later though, he expressed a d e s i r e t o go t o t h e h o s p i t a l . A t t h a t p o i n t he l e f t h i s corn- p a n i o n s and proceeded i n t h e g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n of t h e h o s p i t a l . Less t h a n an hour later he w a s found dead a s h o r t d i s t a n c e from where he l e f t h i s companions. I t is clear t h a t C u r t i s was t h e v i c t i m of two s e p a r a t e a s s a u l t s t h a t morning. S t a t e v. Longneck, s u p r a . The f i r s t o c c u r r e d w h i l e he was w i t h h i s sister and f r i e n d and was not t h e c a u s e of d e a t h . The o t h e r must have occurred w h i l e he w a s a l o n e and caused h i s d e a t h . The S t a t e never connected Longneck w i t h t h e homicide or second a s s a u l t b u t proved t h e f i r s t a s s a u l t a t t r i a l , S t a t e v. Longneck, s u p r a . T h i s is t h e charge on which he was c o n v i c t e d . S t a t e v. Longneck, s u p r a . Longneck raises s e v e r a l i s s u e s on appeal: 1. Whether t h e j u r y c o n v i c t e d Longneck on a charge of aggra- v a t e d a s s a u l t n o t included i n t h e in£ ormat i o n ? 2. Whether Longneck's f i f t h and s i x t h amendment r i g h t s , under t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n were v i o l a t e d by c o n v i c t i n g him of an uncharged o f f e n s e ? 3 . Whether Longneck's r i g h t s under Article 11, S e c t i o n 1 7 , 20, 24 and 25 o f t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n were v i o l a t e d ? 4 . Whether t h i s Court h a s t h e power to change a j u r y ' s ver- d i c t and c o n v i c t i o n on a lesser included charge t o t h a t of g u i l t y on t h e unincluded s e p a r a t e and u n r e l a t e d c h a r g e ? 5. Whether t h e d e f e n d a n t was p r o p e r l y a r r a i g n e d under sec- t i o n 46-12-202, M C A ? 6. Whether a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t should have been g r a n t e d a t t h e c l o s e of t h e s t a t e ' s case-in-chief o r a t t h e close of t h e t e s t i m o n y ? 7. Whether t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d on t h e s e p a r a t e aggra- v a t e d a s s a u l t ? 8 . Whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to c o n v i c t Longneck of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t ? The f i r s t f o u r of t h e above i s s u e s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e claim t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was found g u i l t y of an uncharged o f f e n s e a r e e a s i l y d i s p o s e d o f . Our d e c i s i o n i n S t a t e v. Longneck, s u p r a , where w e found t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n coupled w i t h t h e f a c t s set o u t i n t h e motion f o r l e a v e to f i l e it were s u f f i c i e n t to charge t h e d e f e n d a n t with t h e n o n f a t a l f i r s t a s s a u l t , is t h e l a w of t h e case. W e have p r e v i o u s l y set down t h e r u l e to be followed when d e a l i n g w i t h l a w of t h e case i n Englund v. Englund (1979) , .- Mont . -- - - - - - . - , 603 P.2d 1048, 36 St.Rep. 2211, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n where we s t a t e d : " 'The r u l e is w e l l e s t a b i s h e d and long adhered t o i n t h i s state t h a t where, upon an a p p e a l , t h e Supreme C o u r t , i n d e c i d i n g a c a s e pre- s e n t e d states i n its o p i n i o n a p r i n c i p l e or r u l e of l a w n e c e s s a r y t o t h e d e c i s i o n , such pronouncement becomes t h e law of t h e case , and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent p r o g r e s s , b o t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t and upon s u b s e q u e n t a p p e a l ; . . . C a r l s o n v. Northern Pac. R. Co. 86 Mont. 78, 281 P. 913, 914." 603 P.2d a t 1049. Thus, t h e s e f i r s t f o u r i s s u e s are t a k e n care of by o u r h o l d i n g i n t h e p r e v i o u s case, which is t h e l a w of t h e case and must be followed. Eng 1 und v . Eng 1 und , s u p r a . A p p e l l a n t a l s o raises t h e q u e s t i o n of whether Longneck was i m p r o p e r l y a r r a i g n e d under s e c t i o n 46-12-202, MCA. T h a t s e c t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t be a d v i s e d by t h e c o u r t "of t h e n a t u r e of t h e crime charged a g a i n s t him" and " t h e punishment set f o r t h by s t a t u t e f o r t h e crime charged." I t a p p e a r s t h a t a t t h e t i m e of h i s a r r a i g n m e n t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s o n l y informed of t h e d e l i b e r a t e homicide charge and t h e punishment f o r it. However, it is c l e a r from t h e d e f e n s e p u t on t h a t he was aware t h a t he was charged w i t h t h e f i r s t aggravated a s s a u l t . I n t h e examination of w i t n e s s e s by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y , he t r i e d t o show t h a t t h e s t i c k used i n t h e f i r s t a s s a u l t was n o t a weapon, and t h a t t h e r e w a s no s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y as a r e u s l t of t h e f i r s t a s s a u l t . These f a c t o r s , coupled w i t h o u r p r i o r d e c i s i o n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n viewed i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e motion f o r l e a v e to f i l e it were s u f f i c i e n t t o c h a r g e t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h aggravated a s s a u l t , show t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n to know what he w a s charged w i t h , and t h a t he indeed knew he was charged w i t h t h e f i r s t a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . The purposes of a r r a i g n m e n t , set o u t i n s e c t i o n s 46-12-101 and 46-12-202, MCA, t o call t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t o c o u r t to answer t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him and to inform him of c e r t a i n r i g h t s , were waived by t h e d e f e n d a n t when he proceeded to t r i a l and defended a g a i n s t t h e aggravated a s s a u l t c h a r g e . Arraignment may be so waived w i t h o u t any v i o l a t i o n of t h e due p r o c e s s c l a u s e " s o long a s t h e accused had s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e of t h e a c c u s a t i o n and an a d e q u a t e o p p o r t u n i t y t o defend himself ." Garland v. Washington ( 1 9 1 4 ) , 232 U.S. 642, 645, 34 S.Ct. 456, 58 772. L.Ed. %. The d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s c a s e waived h i s a r r a i g n m e n t by p r o c e e d i n g to t r i a l and defending a g a i n s t t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . A l s o , i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f a p p e l l a n t claims t h a t t h e f a i l u r e to a r r a i g n him c o n s t i t u t e s double jeopardy. H e contends t h a t a con- v i c t i o n on e i t h e r t h e d e l i b e r a t e homicide charge or one of its lesser included o f f e n s e s would not have prevented a second prose- c u t i o n on t h e f i r s t a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t charge because he w a s n e v e r a r r a i g n e d . However, t h i s would n o t be t h e case. The d e f e n d a n t was charged w i t h t h e f i r s t a s s a u l t , S t a t e v. Longneck, s u p r a , and went t o t r i a l and defended a g a i n s t t h a t c h a r g e , as p o i n t e d o u t above, t h e r e b y waiving h i s a r r a i g n m e n t . A f t e r such a t r i a l t h e S t a t e would n o t a g a i n be allowed to charge t h e defen- d a n t w i t h t h e same crime, m e r e l y because of a t e c h n i c a l d e f e c t , s u c h as improper a r r a i g n m e n t , which as - - - Garland p o i n t s o u t , may be waived. Any such a t t e m p t to r e - t r y t h e d e f e n d a n t would c o n s t i - t u t e double jeopardy and is s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o h i b i t e d by A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 25 of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . A p p e l l a n t also c o n t e n d s t h a t a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t should have been g r a n t e d a t t h e c l o s e of t h e S t a t e s c a s e - i n - c h i e f , or a t least a t t h e c l o s e of a l l of t h e e v i d e n c e . However, as p o i n t e d o u t by s e c t i o n 46-16-403, MCA, it is w i t h i n t h e District C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n whether to d i s m i s s an a c t i o n a t t h e close of t h e S t a t e s case or a l l t h e e v i d e n c e . " F u r t h e r , a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s h o u l d o n l y be g i v e n where t h e r e is no e v i d e n c e on which t h e j u r y c o u l d b a s e a c o n v i c t i o n . P a u l s o n , s u p r a , S t a t e v. Thompson ( 1 9 7 8 ) r 576 P.2d 1105, 35 St.Rep. 343." S t a t e v. White ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 605 P.2d 191, 1 9 4 , 37 St.Rep. 84. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e r e is evidence on which a j u r y could b a s e a c o n v i c t i o n . There was testimony from t h e v i c t i m s com- p a n i o n s t h a t he was s t r u c k from behind, f e l l t o t h e ground, was slow t o g e t up and a s h o r t t i m e l a t e r s a i d he was going to t h e h o s p i t a l . They a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t they heard a loud "thump" or " t h u d " and saw t h e d e f e n d a n t with an e i g h t e e n t o twenty-four inch l o n g , round o b j e c t i n h i s hand. Testimony of o t h e r w i t n e s s e s c o r r o b o r a t e s t h e i r t e s t i m o n y a s t o t h e sound, its l o u d n e s s and t h e approximate s i z e and shape of t h e o b j e c t which t h e d e f e n d a n t h e l d . A l s o , t h e d e f e n d a n t himself c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e weapon as a " l i g h t s t i c k . " A p p e l l a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e j u r y was not i n s t r u c t e d on t h e s e p a r a t e charge of aggravated a s s a u l t stemming from t h e f i r s t a s s a u l t . H e p r e d i c a t e s error on t h e r u l e e n u n c i a t e d by t h i s C o u r t t h a t " [ i l t is a b a s i c r u l e i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s must cover e v e r y i s s u e o r t h e o r y having sup- p o r t i n t h e evidence." S t a t e v. Gopher ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 633 P.2d 1195, 38 St.Rep. 1521; S t a t e v. Buckley ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 238, 557 P.2d 283; S t a t e v. Taylor ( 1 9 7 3 ) r 163 Mont. 106, 515 P.2d 695; S t a t e v . Thomas (19661, 147 Mont . 325, 413 P.2d 315. However, t h e above c i t e d cases a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e p r e s e n t one. In t h o s e c a s e s i n s t r u c t i o n s were e i t h e r g i v e n and t h e n withdrawn o r r e f u s e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , while i n t h e pre- s e n t case, no i n s t r u c t i o n was o f f e r e d by e i t h e r s i d e drawing a clear d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e t o t a l l y s e p a r a t e f i r s t a s s a u l t of which t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d , S t a t e v. Longneck, s u p r a , and t h e l e s s e r included o f f e n s e of aggravated a s s a u l t i n connect i o n w i t h t h e d e l i b e r a t e homicide c h a r g e . T h i s Court h a s set o u t t h e g e n e r a l r u l e c o v e r i n g such a s i t u a t i o n i n t h e c a s e s of S t a t e v. Bashor ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 614 P.2d 470, 37 St.Rep. 1098; and S t a t e v. Harvey ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 603 P.2d 661, 36 St.Rep. 2035. I n t h o s e two cases it was h e l d " t h a t e r r o r may n o t be p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e f a i l u r e to g i v e a n i n s t r u c t i o n when t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was n o t o f f e r e d . S t a t e v. Harvey ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 36 St.Rep. 2035, 2038. F a i l u r e to o f f e r t h e i n s t r u c t i o n removes t h e cause of error. . . " S t a t e v. Bashor, 614 P.2d a t 487. T h i s Court h a s p r e v i o u s l y placed t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of pro- v i d i n g any s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e p a r t y d e s i r i n g them, based on s e c t i o n 46-16-401, MCA, S t a t e v. Harvey, s u p r a . T h i s s t a t u t e h a s been c o n s t r u e d as mandatory i n t h e Harvey d e c i s i o n , and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n , t h u s , i f t h e d e f e n d a n t d e s i r e d a d i s t i n c t i o n made between t h e s e p a r a t e a s s a u l t and t h a t of t h e lesser included o f f e n s e he should have o f f e r e d an i n s t r u c t i o n to t h a t e f f e c t . The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t is whether t h e e v i d e n c e w a s s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n v i c t him of aggravated a s s a u l t . H e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d to prove use of a weapon c a p a b l e of i n f l i c t i n g d e a t h or s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y as r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n s 45-2-lOl(71) and 45-5-202(1), MCA. I n s u p p o r t of t h i s c o n t e n t i o n he cites t h e case of S t a t e v. Deshner ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 5 Elont. 175, 573 P.2d 172. I n t h a t case we h e l d t h a t t h e evidence was i n s u f f i c i e n t to s u p p o r t a c o n v i c t i o n on a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t c h a r g e s as it was n o t proven t h a t t h e s l i n g s h o t and p r o j e c t i l e were a weapon. The d e f e n s e t h e n a r g u e s t h a t s i n c e t h e r e w a s no a p p a r e n t mark l e f t on t h e v i c t i m a f t e r t h e a s s a u l t , t h e r e is n o t evidence as to t h e composition of t h e s t i c k and s i n c e t h e v i c t i m i n i t i a l l y s t a t e d t h a t he w a s a l l r i g h t , t h e r e is no proof t h a t a weapon w a s used. However, it should be noted t h a t t h e t r i e r of f a c t need n o t have t h e weapon b e f o r e it i n o r d e r t o c o n v i c t of aggravated a s s a u l t when t h e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s a weapon w a s used by t h e a s s a i l a n t , S t a t e v. Lozeau, 39 St.Rep. 1729. T h i s is p r e c i s e l y t h e case w e are faced w i t h h e r e , because d e s p i t e t h e weapon never being found t h e r e is evidence i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t would allow t h e trier of f a c t t o conclude a weapon was used. F i r s t , it s h o u l d be noted t h a t a l l t h e w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h e o b j e c t , which t h e d e f e n d a n t used t o s t r i k e C u r t i s was e i g h t e e n to twenty-four i n c h e s i n l e n g t h and round i n shape. K i r k a l d i e s t a t e d t h a t when he saw t h e d e f e n d a n t a f t e r C u r t i s was h i t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n a b e n t o v e r p o s i t i o n w i t h both hands on t h e o b j e c t . The v i c t i m was knocked t o t h e ground and remained t h e r e f o r a p e r i o d of t i m e . The thud from t h e blow was a u d i b l e f o r some d i s t a n c e away. A l s o , d e s p i t e C u r t i s ' i n i t i a l s t a t e m e n t s t h a t he w a s a l l r i g h t , he s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t e x p r e s s e d h i s wish t o go to t h e h o s p i t a l and l e f t h i s companions t o do so. F i n a l l y , it should be noted t h e d e f e n d a n t himself c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e o b j e c t as a s t i c k . H i s e x a c t words were a " l i g h t s t i c k . " When a l l t h e evidence is viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e , t h e c o n v i c t i o n cannot be o v e r t u r n e d where such e v i - dence would a l l o w a r a t i o n a l trier of f a c t to f i n d a l l t h e ele- ments of t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. S t a t e v. Lozeau, 39 St.Rep. a t 1731, and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . I n t h i s case, t h e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e d e s c r i b e d above p r o v i d e s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i - dence t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t rendered by t h e j u r y and t h e r e f o r e it must s t a n d ; S t a t e v. White, 605 P.2d a t 195. The judgment of t h e District Court i 'iJe concur: /' C h l e f Justice 1 ,