Title: STATE v JOHNS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-456 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . RORY RAYMOND JOHNS, 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 Appellant: Anthony F. Keast, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Filed: Submitted on briefs: September 21, 1982 Decided: Povember 9, 1982 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 C o u r t . Defendant-appellant was a r r e s t e d and charged w i t h d e l i b e r a t e homicide a f t e r s h o o t i n g h i s b r o t h e r on December 2, 1980. On March 1 0 , 1981, d e f e n d a n t was found g u i l t y of d e l i b e r a t e homicide by j u r y v e r d i c t i n t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l District, County of Missoula . Defendant a p p e a l s . Defendant was a r r e s t e d and charged w i t h attempted d e l i b e r a t e homicide a f t e r s h o o t i n g h i s b r o t h e r , L a r r y P e t e r J o h n s , on December 2, 1980. Defendant s h o t L a r r y a t t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e i n t h e p r e s e n c e of Myrsta J o h n s , t h e sister, and S a r a J o h n s , t h e mother. L a r r y d i e d a f t e r t h e attempted charge had been f i l e d . Defendant and L a r r y had a h i s t o r y of c o n s t a n t f i g h t i n g and b i c k e r i n g . The two made t h r e a t s upon each o t h e r ' s l i v e s o v e r a p e r i o d of y e a r s . The Missoula c i t y p o l i c e had been c a l l e d to b r e a k up domestic d i s p u t e s between d e f e n d a n t , L a r r y and Myrsta on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t L a r r y had attempted to k i l l him i n t h e p a s t a l t h o u g h t h e a t t e m p t s were u n s u c c e s s f u l . Most of t h e d i s p u t e s arose o u t of t h e need f o r d r u g s or money. Defendant and L a r r y owned an ample s u p p l y of weaponry which was con£ i s c a t e d by t h e p o l i c e department f o r a p e r i o d of t i m e . A t t h e t i m e of t h e s h o o t i n g , t h e bedroom of t h e b r o t h e r s could have armed a s t r i k e f o r c e of t h e local p o l i c e . Defendant, L a r r y , Myrsta and S a r a J o h n s a l l have a h i s t o r y of d r u g abuse and p s y c h o l o g i c a l problems. Defendant a d m i t s to having been a d d i c t e d t o d r u g s s i n c e he was e l e v e n o r twelve y e a r s of age. L a r r y and Myrsta have had a similar h i s t o r y w i t h d r u g s . On t h e S a t u r d a y b e f o r e t h e s h o o t i n g d e f e n d a n t and Myrsta, ( t h e sister), v i s i t e d t h e r e s i d e n c e of t h e i r b r o t h e r and sister- in-law i n Missoula. The d e f e n d a n t t o l d h i s s i s t e r - i n - l a w , Marlynn J o h n s , t h a t something had t o be done because he c o u l d n ' t l i v e w i t h L a r r y anymore. Marlynn Johns t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t t o l d h e r he w a s going to k i l l L a r r y and s t a t e d , "AR, L a r r y AR. I a m going to g e t you t h i s time ." Marlynn d i d n o t know what "AR" meant b u t d i d n o t g e t concerned a t t h e t i m e because she was accustomed t o t h e u s u a l rambunctions of t h e t w o b r o t h e r s . On December 21 1980, d e f e n d a n t s h o t L a r r y w i t h an AR-15, semi- a u t o m a t i c r i f l e . The e v e n t s l e a d i n g up to t h e s h o o t i n g were d e s c r i b e d o n l y by d e f e n d a n t . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t L a r r y , himself and t h r e e o t h e r s had been working a t odd jobs i n Lewiston, Idaho. On December 2, 1980, t h e group decided t o l e a v e Lewiston and r e t u r n to Missoula. Apparently, L a r r y d i d n o t want t o l e a v e Lewiston, b u t r a t h e r , wanted to s t a y and make some more money. T h i s p r e c i p i t a t e d a n o t h e r d i s p u t e between t h e b r o t h e r s and d e f e n d a n t tes t i £ ied L a r r y s t a t e d he was going to k i l l him when they r e t u r n e d to Missoula . Defendant c l a i m s a l t h o u g h t h e t w o r e t u r n e d t o Missoula i n d i f f e r e n t v e h i c l e s , L a r r y continued to make t h r e a t s to defen- d a n t o v e r a CB r a d i o . When one v e h i c l e r a n o u t of g a s on Lolo P a s s , d e f e n d a n t went i n t o a b a r t o w a i t and consumed approxi- m a t e l y two s i x packs of b e e r and took s e v e r a l d r u g s i n c l u d i n g Demerol, Nebutol, P a r e s t , Soma, Valium and Traxsene . Defendant t e s t i f i e d he took t h e a l c o h o l and d r u g s because he was i n a v e r y e x i c t e d s t a t e af t e r L a r r y ' s t h r e a t s . Concerning t h e e v e n t s a f t e r t h e b r o t h e r ' s a r r i v e d a t t h e i r home i n Missoula, t w o d i f f e r e n t stories develop--that of defen- d a n t and t h o s e of t h e mother and sister. Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t L a r r y and he f i r s t e n t e r e d t h e house c a r r y i n g some of t h e i r luggage. Defendant t h e n r e t u r n e d to g e t t h e rest of h i s luggage and when he r e t u r n e d to t h e house L a r r y confronted him w i t h a k n i f e i n one hand and a .357 magnum p i s t o l i n t h e o t h e r . Defendant attempted to run b u t L a r r y blocked h i s escape. A f t e r a b r i e f s c u f f l e i n t h e k i t c h e n , d e f e n d a n t r a n t o t h e bedroom and r e t r i e v e d t h e AR-15 r i f l e from t h e w a l l . Defendant c l a i m s they s t r u g g l e d i n t h e bedroom and o u t i n t o t h e k i t c h e n . Then L a r r y r a n i n t o t h e m o t h e r ' s bedroom and d e f e n d a n t followed. A f t e r a n o t h e r s t r u g g l e , d e f e n d a n t turned and saw Larry p o i n t i n g t h e .357 p i s t o l a t him. Defendant c l a i m s L a r r y s t a t e d , " T h i s time I a m blowing you away." Defendant r a n to t h e l i v i n g room and s h o t L a r r y who w a s s t i l l s t a n d i n g i n t h e bedroom. Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t Myrsta t h e n s h e a t h e d L a r r y ' s k n i f e and r e t u r n e d t h e ,357 p i s t o l to its h o l s t e r i n t h e k i t c h e n . N o f i n g e r p r i n t s were e v e r t a k e n from t h e ,357 p i s t o l . Myrsta and S a r a J o h n s have a d i f f e r e n t e x p l a n a t i o n of what t r a n s p i r e d when t h e b r o t h e r s a r r i v e d home. They t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e b r o t h e r s came i n t o g e t h e r and L a r r y s t a t e d he was hungry. L a r r y took a doughnut from a breadbox and s a t down to eat it i n t h e l i v i n g room. Defendant went i n t o t h e bedroom and r e t u r n e d w i t h t h e .357 p i s t o l s t a t i n g , " t h i s is f o r s e l f - d e f e n s e . " Defendant t h e n placed t h e p i s t o l on a t a b l e n e a r t h e k i t c h e n and r e t u r n e d to t h e bedroom and took t h e AR-15 r i f l e from t h e w a l l . When L a r r y saw d e f e n d a n t w i t h the r i f l e he f l e d to t h e m o t h e r ' s bedroom. Defendant followed to t h e doorway of t h e l i v i n g room and s h o t him. Myrsta and S a r a Johns admit t h e i r r e c o l l e c t i o n of t h e s h o o t i n g is n o t competely clear. S a r a was i n poor p h y s i c a l and mental h e a l t h a t t h e t i m e of t h e s h o o t i n g and went i n t o shock t h e r e a f t e r . Myrsta a d m i t s to having been under t h e in£ l u e n c e of d r u g s a t t h e t i m e of t h e s h o o t i n g and had been undergoing treat- ment f o r h e r drug problem a t W a r m S p r i n g s a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l . A f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g , Myrsta c a l l e d t h e 9-1-1 emergency number f o r an ambulance. T h i s call was recorded and d e p i c t s an unsavory s c e n e a t t h e Johns' house. Myrsta is y e l l i n g h y s t e r i c a l l y i n t o t h e phone and d e f e n d a n t can be heard i n t h e background s h o u t i n g p r o f a n i t i e s and f i r i n g t h e r i f l e . An o f f -duty ambulance d r i v e r , Thomas Z i e g l e r , heard t h e ambulance c a l l on h i s s c a n n e r and drove to t h e scene to assist. When he a r r i v e d , S a r a w a s i n f r o n t of t h e house screaming f o r h e l p . A s Z i e g l e r s t e p p e d o u t of h i s car he saw d e f e n d a n t s t e p i n t o t h e doorway of t h e house and p o i n t a r i f l e a t him. Z i e g l e r t h e n r a n to a n e i g h b o r ' s home to warn t h e ambulance d r i v e r n o t to s t o p a t t h e Johns' r e s i d e n c e u n t i l t h e house was s e c u r e d . The ambulance d i d n o t s t o p a t t h e house, b u t parked about one and one-half b l o c k s f u r t h e r down t h e street. When deputy s h e r i f f L a r r y Jackson a r r i v e d , Myrsta was s h o u t i n g from t h e doorway and Jackson could see d e f e n d a n t i n t h e background h o l d i n g t h e AR-15 r i f l e . Jackson c a u t i o u s l y approached d e f e n d a n t and asked him to p u t t h e gun down. By t h a t t i m e a second o f f i c e r , S c o t t Graham, had a r r i v e d and was approaching behind Jackson. E v e n t u a l l y d e f e n d a n t unloaded t h e gun and turned it o v e r t o t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s . L a r r y was a t t e n d e d t o a t t h e scene and l a t e r died a t S t . P a t r i c k ' s H o s p i t a l a s a r e s u l t of t h e gunshot wounds. The c o r o n e r ' s r e p o r t showed L a r r y r e c e i v e d s i x gunshot wounds. The AR-15 r i f l e was f i r e d approximately f o u r t e e n times. Some of t h e b u l l e t s were found lodged i n t h e w a l l s and c e i l i n g s . A f t e r L a r r y ' s d e a t h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was amended charging d e f e n d a n t w i t h d e l i b e r a t e homicide. During t h e t r i a l , t h e c o u r t admitted t h e 9-1-1 t a p e i n t o e v i d e n c e and allowed it to be played to t h e j u r y on f o u r s e p a r a t e o c c a s i o n s . On March 1 0 , 1981, t h e j u r y found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of d e l i b e r a t e homicide. Defendant a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n . The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e a s f o l l o w s : 1. Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g t h e 9-1-1 t a p e i n t o evidence? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n allowing t h e prosecu- t i o n t o make comments concerning t h e t r a j e c t o r y of t h e f a t a l b u l l e t s d u r i n g c l o s i n g s t a t e m e n t s ? 3 . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n allowing t h e testi- mony of t h e mother and t h e sister when it was revealed they suf- f e r e d from mental, emotional and d r u g - r e l a t e d i l l n e s s e s . Defendant argues t h e admission of t h e 9-1-1 t a p e was i n error i n t h a t t h e t a p e was inflammatory and t h a t its admission was pre- j u d i c i a l . Rule 403, M.R.Evid., states, " [ a ] l t h o u g h r e l e v a n t , e v i d e n c e may be excluded i f its p r o b a t i v e v a l u e is s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed by t h e danger of u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e , c o n f u s i o n of t h e i s s u e s , or m i s l e a d i n g t h e j u r y , o r by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of undue d e l a y , waste of time, or n e e d l e s s p r e s e n t a t i o n of c u m u l a t i v e e v i d e n c e . " Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d t h a t t h e t a p e was a d m i s s i b l e because its p r o b a t i v e v a l u e outweighed t h e danger of u n f a i r pre- j u d i c e . Under o u r r u l e s of evidence t h e t r i a l judge h a s a l a t i - t u d e of d i s c r e t i o n i n p a s s i n g on t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of such e v i d e n c e . S t a t e v. P e n d e r g r a s s ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 106, 586 P.2d 691; S t a t e v. Bain ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 23, 575 P.2d 919. The f o u n d a t i o n f o r admission of evidence is a showing by t h e S t a t e to e s t a b l i s h its s u b s t a n t i a l n e c e s s i t y or i n s t r u c t i v e v a l u e . S t a t e v. P e n d e r g r a s s , s u p r a ; S t a t e v. Newman (1973) 162 Mont. 450, 513 P.2d 258. I n t h e p r e s e n t case t h e t r i a l c o u r t denied d e f e n d a n t ' s motion to e x c l u d e t h e t a p e s t a t i n g , "I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e i r [Myrsta and S a r a Johns] c r e d i b i l i t y concerning t h e e v e n t s t h a t occurred af t e r t h e s h o o t i n g h a s , i n e f f e c t , been used t o q u e s t i o n t h e i r c r e d i b i - l i t y as t o t h e a c t u a l e v e n t s of t h e shooting." Defendant argued a t t h e t r i a l t h a t he s h o t h i s b r o t h e r i n s e l f - d e f e n s e . The t e s t i m o n y of Mystra and S a r a Johns showed t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t act i n s e l f - d e f e n s e , b u t r a t h e r , was t h e a g g r e s s o r i n t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n . Defendant's a c t i o n s af t e r t h e s h o o t i n g which were r e c o r d e d i n t h e 9-1-1 c a l l were q u i t e v i o l e n t . Defendant con- t i n u e d t o f i r e t h e r i f l e and he can be heard commanding E.lyrsta, "do n o t move!" as s h e was c a l l i n g f o r an ambulance. A t t h e t r i a l t h e S t a t e argued t h a t t h e s e a c t i o n s were n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s claim of s e l f - d e f e n s e . For t h a t reason t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e t a p e outweighed t h e chance of p r e j u d i c e to t h e d e f e n d a n t . Defendant a r g u e s P e n d e r g r a s s , s u p r a , is c o n t r o l l i n g . However, - - P e n d e r g r a s s is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e case a t hand. I n -- P e n d e r g r a s s -- t h e t r i a l c o u r t admitted a rape v i c t i m ' s call f o r a s s i s t a n c e . There t h e t a p e was a d m i t t e d f o r t h e purpose of showing t h a t a rape had been committed. However, t h e d e f e n d a n t had n e v e r d i s p u t e d t h a t a rape had o c c u r r e d . Defendant claimed he was e l s e w h e r e a t t h e t i m e of t h e crime and t h u s h i s d e f e n s e was a l i b i . T h e r e f o r e , t h e admission of t h e t a p e had no p r o b a t i v e v a l u e and was h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . The S t a t e had overwhelming e v i d e n c e t o prove t h a t a rape had occurred and t h e admission of t h e t a p e o n l y induced a f e e l i n g of o u t r a g e a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t . Here, as s t a t e d above, t h e t a p e was admitted to g i v e c r e d i b i l i t y to t h e s i s t e r and m o t h e r ' s testimony and t h u s was a d m i s s i b l e . Defendant claims t h e S t a t e ' s comment d u r i n g c l o s i n g arguments t h a t one p a r t i c u l a r wound had t o have been i n f l i c t e d w h i l e L a r r y was l y i n g on h i s back c o n s t i t u t e s r e v e r s i b l e error. Defendant a r g u e s s i n c e t h e r e was no e x p e r t testimony d u r i n g t r i a l as to t h e n a t u r e of t h e wound t h e comment was p r e j u d i c i a l . Defendant d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e s t a t e m e n t d u r i n g c l o s i n g arguments. It is w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t o b j e c t i o n s t o c l o s i n g arguments, made f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l , come t o o l a t e . Hawkins v. C r i s t ( 1 9 7 8 ) r 178 Mont. 206, 583 P.2d 396. D e f e n d a n t ' s l a s t claim is t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by a l l o w i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e mother and t h e sister when it was r e v e a l e d t h e y s u f f e r e d from m e n t a l , emotional and d r u g - r e l a t e d i l l n e s s e s . Defendant a r g u e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have d i s q u a l i f i e d t h e w i t n e s s e s upon its own motion. Defendant d i d n o t move t o d i s q u a l i f y t h e w i t n e s s e s a t t r i a l . T h i s Court h a s r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t w e w i l l not c o n s i d e r q u e s t i o n s of claimed e r r o r n o t p r e v i o u s l y r a i s e d o r p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Northern P l a i n s Resource Council v. Board of N a t u r a l Resources ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 1 Mont. 500, 521, 594 P.2d 297, 309; Hayes v. J.M.S. Const. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 513, 579 P.2d 1225. Judgment is a£ f irmed. f We concur: