Title: STATE v POPESCU

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 88-546 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1989 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- GEORGE R. POPESCU, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t h 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 o f Chouteau, The Honorable Chan ~ t t i e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: F o r A p p e l l a n t : Moses Law Firm; C h a r l e s F. Moses, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Marc ~ a c i c o t , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana George Schunk, A s s t . A t t y . G e n e r a l , Helena Thomas J. Sheehy, County A t t o r n e y , F o r t Benton, Montana P Filed: .- <.' ,) Submitted on B r i e f s : May 11, 1989 Decided: June 6 , 1989 ! C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Popescu was convicted o f two counts o f felony a s s a u l t , one count o f i n t i m i d a t i o n , and one count o f c r i m i n a l endanqerment i n a i u r y t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Chouteau County. H e a p p e a l s . W e r e v e r s e . The d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e is whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n requsing t o g i v e any o f t h e j u s t i f i a b l e use o f f o r c e i n s t r u c t i o n s o f f e r e d by defendant and by t h e S t a t e . The defendant, who was 37 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l , l i v e s a l o n e on a farm near F o r t Benton, Montana. Tn 1986 and again i n 1987, defendant h i r e d a crew o f custom combiners l e d by J i m Rarker o f Yazoo C i t y , Mi.ssissippi, t o c u t h i s g r a i n . I n J u l y and August 1987, Rarker and h i s c r e w c u t about 600 a c r e s o f g r a i n on d e f e n d a n t ' s farm, l e a v i n g about 400 a c r e s uncut. They then went t o another job. Their view was t h a t t h e remaining 400 a c r e s o f g r a i n were n o t y e t ready t o be c u t . Defendant's view was t h a t they l e f t him i n t h e l u r c h . H e h i r e d a n o t h e r combiner t o c u t t h e remaining g r a i n . The following Saturday, Rarker and a member o f h i s c r e w , Hastings, went t o d e f e n d a n t ' s farm t o c o l - l e c t t h e i r pay f o r t h e work they had done. Defendant and t h e combiners had a heated argument d u r i n g which Hastings swore a t defendant and defendant drew a handgun. Barker and Hastings then l e f t . The next morning, Barker and two o f h i s crewmembers a g a i n drove o u t t o d e f e n d a n t ' s farm. More heated words were exchanged. Defendant f i r e d h i s gun e i t h e r i n t o t h e a i r ( h i s v e r s i o n ) o r a t t h e t h r e e men ( t h e i r v e r s i o n ) . Barker and defendant then came t o t h e agreement t h a t i f Barker would o b t a i n a w r i t t e n apology from Hastings and r e t u r n t o defendant some wooden blocks and a c r e s c e n t wrench, defendant would pay f o r t h e work done. L a t e r t h a t a f t e r n o o n , Barker and a crewmember r e t u r n e d t o d e f e n d a n t ' s farm w i t h t h e requested i t e m s and defendant wrote them a check. That evening defendant went t o t h e C i r c l e K s t o r e i n F o r t Benton t o g e t a take-out sandwich. While he was s t i l l t h e r e , Barker and two o t h e r s drove up and parked n e x t t o d e f e n d a n t ' s t r u c k . Then another pickup drove up and parked behind d e f e n d a n t ' s t r u c k . The occupants of t h a t t r u c k t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h i s was t h e only a v a i l a b l e s p o t f o r them t o park. Defendant m e t Barker a s defendant was walking o u t of t h e s t o r e . Defendant a l s o saw t h e o t h e r custom combiners o u t s i d e . H e d i s p l a y e d h i s gun when Barker s a i d , " W e w i l l - settle t h i s r i g h t h e r e and now." Defendant r e t u r n e d t o h i s pickup, y e l l e d a t t h o s e i n t h e t r u c k behind h i s t o move, then rammed t h a t t r u c k o u t o f t h e way s o t h a t he could leave. One o f t h a t t r u c k ' s passengers was j u s t g e t t i n g o u t when defendant rammed it and i n j u r e d h i s knee. Defendant went home. Defendant was charged w i t h felony a s s a u l t f o r t h e Saturday evening i n c i d e n t , i n t i m i d a t i o n and felony a s s a u l t f o r t h e Sunday morning i n c i d e n t , felony a s s a u l t f o r use o f t h e gun i n t h e C i r c l e K i n c i d e n t , and c r i m i n a l endangerment f o r ramming t h e pickup i n t h e C i r c l e K i n c i d e n t . A f t e r h e a r i n g t h e evidence, t h e c o u r t dismissed t h e count a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e Saturday evening i n c i d e n t . Defendant was convicted o f t h e remaining charges. A t t r i a l , defendant o f f e r e d s e v e r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s concerning t h e defense o f j u s t i f i a b l e u s e o f f o r c e . The c o u r t r e f u s e d them a l l , s t a t i n g , "There i s no evidence a t a l l from which a t h r e a t can be aimed a t t h e defendant and a u t h o r i z i n g him t o a c t t h e way he d i d . " The S t a t e d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h i s s u b j e c t and o f f e r e d i t s own proposed j-nstructions on s e l f - d e f e n s e . The c o u r t refused them, t o o . T t i s t h e d u t y o f t h e District Court t o i n s t r u c t t h e i u r y on every i s s u e or theory which has support i n t h e evidence. S t a t e v. S t a r r (19831, 204 Mont. 2 1 0 , 2 1 7 , 664 P.2d 893, 897. The elements of proof necessary t o e s t a b l i s h j u s t i f i a b l e use of force were described by t h i s Court i n S t a t e v. DeMers (Mont. 1988), 762 P.2d 860, 45 St.Rep. 1901.. They a r e (1) t h a t t h e defendant was not t h e aggressor, ( 2 ) t h a t t h e defendant reasonably believed t h a t he was i n imminent danger of unlawful harm, and (3) t h a t t h e defendant used reasonable force necessary t o defend himself. DeMers , 763 P.2d a t 865. In DeMers, t h e Court reviewed t h e defendant's testimony t o determine whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o submit t o t h e jury t h e i s s u e of j u s t i f i a b l e use of force. I n t h e p r e s e n t case, defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t during h i s Saturday evening argument with t h e combiners, when Hastings swore and began running toward defendant, "I thought he f u l l y intended t o a t t a c k me." H e s t a t e d t h a t he had been t o l d t h a t Hastings was " r e a l crazy . . . wild, i r r e s p o n s i b l e . " He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he then grabbed h i s handgun and turned t o face Hastings, saying "keep away from me. I' A s t o t h e Sunday morning i n c i d e n t , defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t when Barker and t h e two o t h e r crewmembers came t o t h e Popescu farm, they pulled up r a p i d l y r i g h t i n f r o n t of h i s truck. " I t was very h o s t i l e and aggressive when he pulled i n . " He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he feared a 3-against-l f i g h t and a gun i n t o t h e a i r . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he looked o u t t h e window of t-he C i r c l e K on Sunday evening, he saw Barker p u l l i n across t h e parking l o t r i g h t diagonally a t m y pickup, t h e d r i v e r ' s door, and p u l l up r i g h t next t o it j u s t a s c l o s e a s he thought he could g e t a t t h e time. And r i g h t behind t h a t came another pickup, a red and white pickup. Parked behind m y pickup. I was blockaded i n a t t h a t point. He stated that when he walked out of the store and met Barker, he had his gun in his hand, pointing at the ground. After Barker said, "We will settle this, right here and now," Barker noticed the gun and asked, "Are you going to fire that here in front of everybody?" Defendant testified that he replied, "I will do what is necessary." Defendant testified that when he got into his pickup he "thought I better get out of here. I am going to have to get out of here." He stated that he called out to the occupants of the pickup behind his to move their vehicle, but that they ignored him. He then "lightly tapped" the pickup behind him with his truck, hut the occupants continued to ignore him so he "backed out and moved the pickup out of my w a 1 7 . " b 7 e conclude that under the circumstances presented in this case, the defendant's testimony was sufficient to warrant submitting to the jury the issue of whether defendant exercised justifiable use of force. Defendant's counsel properly entered his obfection to the District Court's refusal to give such instructions. We hold that it was error to fail to instruct on this issue. Because of this error, we reverse. The defendant raised several other issues in his appeal. The first of these is whether the District Court erred in refusing to permit a licensed clinical psychologist to testify in defendant's behalf. The defense offered this testimony under 46-14-102, MCA, which relates to evidence that defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect. However, the defense did not give pretrial notice of relying on mental disease or defect, as required bv S 46-14-201, MCA. We conclude that under these circumstances the court did not err in refusing to allow the testimony. Defendant also raised three issues relating to whether certain witnesses should have been allowed to testify or not. These issues concern failure of the State to provide previous notice of witnesses who testified on rebuttal, failure of the court to grant a continuance to allow the defense to pursue possible exculpatory testimony, and failure of the court to issue certificates for subpoenas for out-of-state witnesses desired by the defense. These issues may or may not re-arise on retrial. We will not consider them now. Finally, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of intimidation for the Sunday morning incident. Since the evidence may not be identical on retrial, we decline to address the issue at this time. Reversed and remanded for retrial. We concur: M 9 hief /*ywA~- Justice