Title: STATE v TRANGSRUD

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 82-111 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 STATE OF PIIONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs . RONALD MARVIN TRANGSRUD, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District In and for the County of Daniels Honorable Leonard H. Langen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Allen Beck, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Honorable Mike Greelv, Attorney General, Helena, Montana M. J. Traynor, County Attorney, Scobey, Montana Submitted on briefs: August 12, 1982 Decided.: September 22, 1982 N t. Clerk 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 . Def e n d a n t / a p p e l l a n t was c o n v i c t e d of aggravated a s s a u I t , a f e l o n y , on J a n u a r y 20, 1982, i n t h e F i f t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District o f t h e S t a t e of Montana, D a n i e l s County, Montana. On February 1 8 , 1982, t h e c o u r t s e n t e n c e d d e f e n d a n t to t e n y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n f o r t h e aggravated a s s a u l t and t e n y e a r s , w i t h t h e l a s t e i g h t y e a r s suspended, under t h e enhancement sta- t u t e . The t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e terms run c o n s e c u t i v e l y . Defendant a p p e a l s from t h i s s e n t e n c e . Defendant was involved i n a d i s t u r b a n c e a t a b a r i n Scobey, Montana, on October 23, 1981. While p l a y i n g p o o l i n M - J ' s B a r w i t h h i s f i a n c e e and a group of f r i e n d s , d e f e n d a n t began arguing w i t h Trygve Magelssen and a group of s e i s m o g r a p h e r s . A f t e r exchanging s e v e r a l v u l g a r comments t h e two groups moved t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n o u t s i d e t h e b a r . From t h e r e each w i t n e s s has a d i f - f e r e n t e x p l a n a t i o n of what occurred n e x t . The g i s t of t h e testi- mony is t h a t a f t e r t h e t w o groups had gone o u t s i d e , d e f e n d a n t walked a c r o s s t h e street and o b t a i n e d a Smith and Wesson, Model 59, from h i s pickup t r u c k . Defendant t h e n r e t u r n e d t o t h e crowd w i t h t h e gun exposed. Magelssen, d e f e n d a n t ' s f i a n c e e and d e f e n d a n t ' s companions continued to exchange words on t h e street. A f t e r one p a r t i c u l a r l y s u g g e s t i v e exchange between Magelssen and d e f e n d a n t ' s f i n a n c e e , d e f e n d e n t f i r e d one s h o t i n t o t h e a i r . Defendant t e s t i f i e d he t h e n uncocked t h e p i s t o l and placed it i n t o h i s p o c k e t . Magelssen and o t h e r s t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t con- t i n u e d to p o i n t t h e gun a t Magelssen's head and upper body. F i n a l l y , Magelssen broke away from t h e crowd and walked to h i s m o t e l , where he stopped an approaching p o l i c e car and r e l a t e d t h e d e t a i l s of t h e i n c i d e n t to t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r . D e f e n d a n t ' s group r e t u r n e d to t h e b a r and d e f e n d a n t l e f t s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r . A f t e r a j u r y t r i a l on J a n u a r y 20, 1982, d e f e n d a n t was found g u i l t y of aggravated a s s a u l t . The t r i a l c o u r t set February 18 , 1982, as t h e d a t e f o r s e n t e n c i n g and o r d e r e d a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8: 30 a . m . on February 1 8 , 1982, t h e c o u r t provided a copy of t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n to c o u n s e l f o r t h e d e f e n s e . The s e n t e n c i n g hearing began a t 9: 18 a .m. The p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n contained a number of state- ments by w i t n e s s e s whose names were ordered w i t h h e l d from t h e d e f e n d a n t by t h e c o u r t . The i n f o r m a t i o n included s t a t e m e n t s to t h e e f f e c t t h a t : 1. The Scobey community is apprehensive of d e f e n d a n t and have voiced t h e i r concern. 2 . The d e f e n d a n t t h r e a t e n e d a b a r owner i n Scobey i n t h e summer of 1980. 3 . The d e f e n d a n t t h r e a t e n e d one of t h e w i t n e s s e s a f t e r t h e t r i a l . 4. The d e f e n d a n t p h y s i c a l l y abused h i s former w i f e and d a u g h t e r . 5. The d e f e n d a n t was i n p o s s e s s i o n of a concealed weapon d u r i n g t h e l a s t c o u r t s e s s i o n because t h e s h e r i f f had f a i l e d to s e a r c h him. 6. The d e f e n d a n t t h r e a t e n e d a Scobey P o l i c e O f f i c e r and h i s f a m i l y . Defendant o b j e c t e d to t h e c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s and f u r t h e r o b j e c t e d to t h e admission of a p o l i c e r e p o r t r e l a t i n g to an i n c i d e n t on October 17 , 1974, where defen- d a n t pled g u i l t y to misdemeanor a s s a u l t . The c o u r t o v e r r u l e d d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n s and a f t e r allowing d e f e n d a n t to t e s t i f y , e n t e r e d judgment and sentenced d e f e n d a n t to t e n y e a r s i n p r i s o n f o r aggravated a s s a u l t and t e n y e a r s , w i t h t h e l a s t e i g h t s y e a r s suspended, under s e c t i o n 46-18-221(1), MCA, t h e enhancement s t a t u t e . Defendant a p p e a l s . The i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r review is whether the D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by making f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law and imposing s e n t e n c e on t h e b a s i s of p r i v a t e out-of - c o u r t in£ or- mation g a t h e r e d by t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f f i c e r where t h e d e f e n d a n t had no o p p o r t u n i t y t o cross-examine t h e persons who s u p p l i e d t h e i n £ ormat i o n . Defendant a r g u e s the District Court e r r e d by w i t h h o l d i n g some of t h e names of w i t n e s s e s who s u p p l i e d i n f o r m a t i o n to t h e presen- t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f f i c e r . Defendant claims he h a s t h e r i g h t to con£ r o n t and cross-examine a l l w i t n e s s e s who provide n e g a t i v e i n £ ormation t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge. W e d i s a g r e e . Defendant cites a number of cases and s t a t u t e s which have s i n c e been o v e r t u r n e d o r r e p e a l e d . The cases of S t a t e v. Harney ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 55, 499 P.2d 802; S t a t e v. S i n t o b ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 4 Mont. 286, 462 P.2d 873; and Kuhl v. District Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 139 Mont. 536, 366 P.2d 347, a l l h e l d a d e f e n d a n t h a s a r i g h t t o a s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g i n open c o u r t . These c a s e s were decided under s e c t i o n 94-7814 R.C .M. 1947, which s t a t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n a g g r a v a t i o n o r m i t i g a t i o n of s e n t e n c e ". . . must be p r e s e n t e d by testimony of w i t n e s s e s examined i n open c o u r t . . ." However, t h i s s e c t i o n was r e p e a l e d by s e c t i o n 95-2205, R.C.M. 1947, now c o d i f i e d as s e c t i o n 46-18-113, MCA, which states : " A v a i l a b i l i t y - -- o f r e p o r t t o d e f e n d a n t and -- -- - - - - -- o t h e r s . . - - - (1) The judyg may, i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n , make t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t --07 p a r t s o f i t a v a i l a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s o r o t h e r s , w h i l e c o n c e a l i n g t h e i d e n t i t y of per- s o n s who provided con£ i d e n t i a l in£ ormat i o n . I f t h e c o u r t d i s c l o s e s t h e i d e n t i t y of per- s o n s who provided in£ ormat i o n , t h e judge may, i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n , allow t h e d e f e n d a n t to cross-examine t h o s e who rendered in£ ormat i o n . . ." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) Thus, t h e r i g h t of cross-examination a t a p r e s e n t e n c e h e a r i n g is a d i s c r e t i o n a r y matter of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and w i l l n o t be o v e r r u l e d w i t h o u t a showing of abuse of t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . I n S t a t e v. Orsborn ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 480, 555 P.2d 509, we s t a t e d : "Such a change of p o l i c y is r e f l e c t i v e of t h e t r e n d towards d i s t i n g u i s h i n g e v i d e n t i a l proce- d u r e a t t r i a l from t h a t a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g s t a g e . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n W i l l i a m s v . New York , 337 U.S. 241, 247, 69 - S.Ct. 107% 1 m 3 , - T ~ . ~ d . 1337, 1342, s t a t e d : ' I ' . . . a s e n t e n c i n g judge, however, is n o t c o n f i n e d to t h e narrow i s s u e of g u i l t . H i s t a s k w i t h i n f i x e d l i m i t s is to d e t e r m i n e t h e t y p e and e x t e n t of punishment a f t e r t h e i s s u e o f g u i l t h a s been determined. Highly r e l e v a n t - i f not e s s e n t i a l - to h i s s e l e c t i o n of an a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e is t h e p o s s e s s i o n of t h e f u l l e s t i n f o r m a t i o n p o s s i b l e concerning t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s l i f e and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . And -- modern c o n c e p t s i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g punishment - -- -- -- . - - - - - - - - . - . - - have made it a l l t h e more n e c e s s a r y t h a t a - - - - - -- - - -- -- - s e n t e n c i n q i u d q e n o t b e d e n i e d a n o ~ ~ o r t u n i t v - a a . -- - - - - - -- -- -- to o b t a i n p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n by a- r e q u i r e - - - - - - - . - . - - -- - - - ment - o f r i g i d -- adherence t o r e s t r i c t i v e r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e p r o p e r t y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e t r i a l -- - - - - - - - -- . . . I (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) "However, t h i s does not mean t h a t t h e s p i r i t o f Kuhl - is dead. A c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t still h a s a due p r o c e s s g u a r a n t e e a g a i n s t a s e n t e n c e p r e d i c a t e d on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n ." 170 Mont . a t 485, 555 P.2d a t 512. I n Orsborn w e found t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s g u a r a n t e e of due p r o c e s s - - - was p r o t e c t e d because t h e d e f e n d a n t was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l a t t h e t i m e t h e s e n t e n c i n g i n f o r m a t i o n w a s made known t o him, t h e d e f e n d a n t had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e b u t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e d e f e n d a n t chose t o a f f i r m t h e a c c u r a c y of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . Here t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d have counsel p r e s e n t and had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to r e b u t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a l t h o u g h he chose t o deny t h e a c c u r a c y of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . Thus, we f i n d d e f e n d a n t ' s g u a r a n t y of due pro- cess was p r o t e c t e d . I t is a g e n e r a l r u l e throughout t h i s c o u n t r y t h a t when m a t - t e r s c o n t a i n e d i n a p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t are c o n t e s t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s an a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y t o p r e s e n t evi- dence showing t h e i n a c c u r a c i e s contained i n t h e r e p o r t . S t a t e v. Radi ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . - , 604 P.2d 318, 36 St.Rep. 2345. Here t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d a l l o w d e f e n d a n t t o t a k e t h e s t a n d and r e p l y t o t h e s t a t e m e n t s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a - t i o n r e p o r t . I f d e f e n d a n t f e l t t h e r e was not enough time to a c q u i r e w i t n e s s e s t o a d e q u a t e l y r e b u t t h e in£ ormat i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e p o r t he should have r e q u e s t e d a c o n t i n u a n c e from t h e c o u r t . However, t h e record shows no such c o n t i n u a n c e w a s r e q u e s t e d . T h i s Court w i l l n o t review a matter r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . P e t e r s v. Newkirk ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . I - - - 633 P.2d 1210, 38 St.Rep. 1526. That d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t have t i m e to p r e p a r e t o r e b u t t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t was something which should have been p u t to t h e t r i a l c o u r t and d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o do so p r e v e n t s any r u l i n g by t h i s Court t o remedy the s i t u a t i o n . Judgment and s e n t e n c e of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is a f f i r m e d . W e concur: M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea d i s s e n t i n g . I d i s s e n t . A d e f e n d a n t is a s much e n t i t l e d to due p r o c e s s i n s e n t e n c i n g a s he is a t t r i a l , and he has been denied t h a t due p r o c e s s h e r e . Here, d e f e n d a n t , a s m a j o r i t y s t a t e s , denied t h e accuracy of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n which found its way i n t o t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a - t i o n r e p o r t . But, t h e f a c t t h a t he denied t h e i n f o r m a t i o n does n o t demonstrate t h a t he was given due p r o c e s s . H e could o n l y have been g i v e n due p r o c e s s by a p r o c e s s which gave him oppor- t u n i t y to t e s t t h e a c c u r a c y of the i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n . I f t h e District Court r e l i e d i n any way on t h i s information i n imposing t h e s e n t e n c e , d e f e n d a n t has been p r e j u d i c e d . That p r e j u d i c e can o n l y be cured by g i v i n g him an o p p o r t u n i t y to d i r e c t l y c o n f r o n t t h o s e whose names were s e c r e t e d from d e f e n d a n t by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Where names a r e not d i s c l o s e d i n a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a - t i o n r e p o r t , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t does not g i v e the d e f e n d a n t an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e b u t a l l t h e evidence d i s c l o s e d , a presumption of t h e p r e j u d i c e a r i s e s which can o n l y be cured by a n o t h e r sen- t e n c i n g hearing------wfih- adeq ua t-e proced u r a l s a f e g uad s . I d i s s e n t f o r y e t a n o t h e r reason -- a ground n o t r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t . Defendant has been s u b j e c t e d to double jeopardy by t h e imposition of t h e aggravated a s s a u l t "with a weapon" s e n t e n c e and t h e f u r t h e r imposition of a s e n t e n c e f o r use of a f i r e a r m o r dangerous instrument i n committing a crime. In e f f e c t , d e f e n d a n t h a s been twice punished f o r t h e same a c t -- t h e use of a weapon. Defendant w a s charged under s e c t i o n 45-5-202 (1) ( c ) of t h e aggravated a s s a u l t s t a t u t e which s t a t e s : "A person c o m m i t s t h e o f f e n s e of aggravated a s s a u l t i f he p u r p o s e l y or knowingly c a u s e s : ( c ) r e a s o n a b l e apprehension of s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j ury i n a n o t h e r by use of a weapon . . ." U s e of a weapon is t h e e s s e n c e - - - - - - - of t h i s s e c t i o n -- i f no weapon was used t h e r e can be no aggra- v a t e d a s s a u l t . I n s t e a d , t h e charge would be a misdemeanor. The misdemeanor a s s a u l t s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 45-5-201(1) ( d ) p r o v i d e s : A person c o m m i t s t h e o f f e n s e of a s s a u l t i f he: ( d ) p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly c a u s e s r e a s o n a b l e apprehension of b o d i l y i n j u r y i n a n o t h e r . . . " I t is clear, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e act to be p u n i s h e d , because of its p o t e n t i a l f o r harm, is t h e use of a weapon. Here t h e t r i a l c o u r t punished t h e d e f e n d a n t f o r t h e use of t h e weapon by s e n t e n c i n g him to t e n y e a r s i n p r i s o n . But t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e n invoked a n o t h e r s t a t u t e and gave t h e d e f e n d a n t a second ten-year s e n t e n c e t o r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y to t h e f i r s t ten-year s e n t e n c e . E i g h t y e a r s of t h e second s e n t e n c e were suspended, which r e s u l t e d i n a twelve-year p r i s o n s e n t e n c e . S e c t i o n 46-18-221(1) p r o v i d e s : "A p e r s o n who h a s been found g u i l t y of any o f f e n s e and who, w h i l e engaged i n t h e commission of t h e o f f e n s e , knowingly d i s p l a y e d , b r a n d i s h e d , o r o t h e r w i s e used a f i r e a r m , d e s t r u c t i v e d e v i c e , as d e f i n e d i n 45-8-332(1), o r o t h e r dangerous weapon, s h a l l , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e punishment provided f o r t h e c o m m i s s i o n -- - ----- o f such o f f e n s e , b e s e n t e n c e d to a term o f 7 -- imprisonment --- i n t h e state prisoii-of- --- n o t l e s s t h a n t w o y e a r s or more t h a n t e n y e a r s . . ." - - --- -- -- ( ~ m p h a x s a d d e d ) - I n f i l i n g t h e c h a r g e s t h e state p u t t h e d e f e n d a n t on n o t i c e t h a t it would invoke s e c t i o n 46-18-221 i n t h e e v e n t of a convic- t i o n . The i n f o r m a t i o n a l l e g e d i n p a r t : "The maximum s e n t e n c e f o r s a i d o f f e n s e is twenty ( 2 0 ) y e a r s p l u s an a d d i t i o n a l s e n t e n c e of two y e a r s minimum and n o t to exceed t e n y e a r s maximum f o r use o f a f i r e a r m . " ~ e f e n d a n t k c o u n s e l , however, a f t e r d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n , r a i s e d no i s s u e w i t h r e s p e c t to i m p o s i t i o n of an a d d i t i o n a l s e n t e n c e f o r use of a f i r e a r m or o t h e r dangerous i n s t r u m e n t . The e f f e c t is t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a s been sentenced under t h e aggravated a s s a u l t s t a t u t e f o r use of a f i r e a r m , and he h a s a g a i n been punished under s e c t i o n 46-18-221(1), MCA, for use o f a f i r e a r m . That -- is double jeopardy. The j u r y could n o t have c o n v i c t e d 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 u n l e s s it found t h a t he had used a weapon ( a f i r e a r m h e r e ) to p l a c e t h e v i c t i m i n r e a s o n a b l e apprehension of s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y . C o n v i c t i o n of t h a t c h a r g e came about because d e f e n d a n t used a weapon. The t r i a l c o u r t sentenced d e f e n d a n t to t e n y e a r s because he used a weapon. I f a i l to see, however, t h a t t h e c o u r t could impose a p e n a l t y on t o p of t h i s p e n a l t y -- f o r use of a weapon. The undeniable f a c t is t h a t i f d e f e n d a n t had n o t used a weapon ( a f i r e a r m h e r e ) he could n o t have been con- v i c t e d of aggravated a s s a u l t . Defendant h a s been s u b j e c t e d to a d o u b l e p e n a l t y f o r t h e same act -- p o i n t i n g a weapon ( a f i r e a r m ) a t a n o t h e r . T h i s double p e n a l t y f o r t h e same act, v i o l a t e s t h e double jeopardy p r o v i s i o n s of t h e United S t a t e s and Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s . I would s t r i k e t h e a d d i t o n a l p e n a l t y imposed under s e c t i o n 46-18-221. The a d d i t i o n a l p e n a l t y , as a p p l i e d to t h e f a c t s of t h i s case, is u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .