Title: STATE v WARNICK

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 82-188 I N T H E SUPRENE C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1982 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . MILO WARNICK, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x 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 Park Honorable Jack Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Moses Law Firm, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Bruce E. Becker, County Attorney, Livingston, Montana DE$Z :? 1982 F i l e d : Submitted on b r i e f s : November 5, 1982 Decided: December 29, 1982 Mr. Chief J u s t l c e Frank I. Haswell delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t and s e n t e n c e i n t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t Court i n Park County. W e a f f i r m . I n i t i a l l y , it is a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t we a a d r e s s a few remarks on t h e s u b j e c t of d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p e a l . A p p e l l a n t h a s "shotgunned" seven i s s u e s f o r our c o n s i d e r a t i o n on a p p e a l , s e v e r a l of which a r e t o t a l l y devoid of m e r i t , a p p a r e n t l y i n hopes of f i n d i n g one o r two t h a t w i l l h i t t h e mark and c o n s t i t u t e s u f f i c i e n t grounds f o r r e v e r s a l . W e w i l l c o n f i n e any b r e a d t h of d i s c u s s i o n t o t h o s e q u e s t i o n s r a i s i n g s u f f i - c i e n t l y m e r i t o r i o u s c l a i m s t o w a r r a n t our in-depth review. Defendant picked up Linda, h i s former w i f e ( w i t h whom he was s h a r i n g a house i n L i v i n g s t o n ) , from her work a t t h e L i v i n g s t o n Convalescent Center a t a b o u t 10:30 p.m. on J u l y 2 3 , 1981. They t r a v e l e d t o t h e i r home where s h e changed h e r c l o t h e s and t h e n proceeded t o h e r s i s t e r ' s house t o v i s i t a n o t h e r s i s t e r (Debby J e t t y ) who was i n town. Defendant d i d n o t accompany h e r b u t went t o bed. Linda r e t u r n e d home about f i f t e e n minutes a f t e r mid- n i g h t and d e f e n d a n t woke up and asked h e r i f s h e was p l a n n i n g on r e t u r n i n g t o him a f t e r h e r upcoming t r i p t o North Dakota. She s a i d s h e was p l a n n i n g t o do s o , b u t d e f e n d a n t g o t o u t of bed and s t a r t e d a r g u i n g w i t h h e r . The two argued about d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s f o r some t i m e a f t e r t h i s and d u r i n g t h e argument Linda asked t o l e a v e s e v e r a l times b u t d e f e n d a n t r e f u s e d t o l e t h e r . Defendant a l s o h e l d Linda on t h e k i t c h e n f l o o r and h i t her head a g a i n s t t h e f l o o r . During t h e argument t h e phone rang. Defendant p i c k e d up t h e r e c e i v e r and t h e p e r s o n making t h e c a l l t h e n hung up. A l i t t l e l a t e r t h e phone rang a g a i n , and t h e procedure was r e p e a t e d . The phone l a t e r rang a t h i r d t i m e , and t h i s t i m e t h e d e f e n d a n t recognized t h a t one of L i n d a ' s s i s t e r s was c a l l i n g . H e y e l l e d an o b s c e n i t y i n t o t h e r e c e i v e r and hung U P A f t e r t h e t h i r d phone c a l l d e f e n d a n t went t o t h e bedroom and r e t r i e v e d h i s .22 c a l i b e r r i f l e . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had r e c e i v e d p r e v i o u s b e a t i n g s a t t h e hands of L i n d a ' s r e l a t i v e s and was a f r a i d t h a t t h e y might be coming t o h i s house t o do t h i s a g a i n . Defendant r e q u e s t e d h i s w i f e t o c a l l h e r r e l a t i v e s and t e l l them n o t t o come, b u t s h e r e f u s e d , s a y i n g t h e y would n o t be coming t o t h e house. Defendant t h e n f i r e d s e v e r a l rounds which h i t t h e bathroom door. According t o h i s testimony, d e f e n d a n t d i d t h i s t o show Linda he was s e r i o u s and what would happen i f h e r r e l a t i v e s d i d pay a v i s i t . A t one p o i n t i n t h e argument, Linda was s i t t i n g on t h e couch and d e f e n d a n t p u l l e d her o f f t h e couch and threw an e a s y c h a i r a t h e r . Unknown t o d e f e n d a n t , Debby J e t t y had c a l l e d t h e L i v i n g s t o n p o l i c e d i s p a t c h e r and t o l d t h e d i s p a t c h e r t h a t d e f e n d a n t was b e a t i n g h i s wife. Sgt. George Bryce and O f f i c e r Robert S t a n l e y responded t o t h e d i s p a t c h e r ' s message and approached d e f e n d a n t ' s house. A f t e r e x i t i n g t h e i r auto- mobiles t h e y walked t o d e f e n d a n t ' s f r o n t door and s t o o d on each s i d e of t h e door. S g t . Bryce t h e n knocked on t h e door. Defendant t e s t i f i e d he could s e e h e a d s a t the bottom of t h e g l a s s i n t h e door. Thinking t h e people o u t s i d e were L i n d a ' s r e l a t i v e s , d e f e n d a n t f i r e d s i x s h o t s a t t h e t o p of t h e door t o s c a r e them away. The l o w e s t b u l l e t h o l e was seven f e e t above t h e ground and t h e h i g h e s t was seven f e e t t h r e e i n c h e s above t h e ground. S g t . Bryce was s t r u c k by d e b r i s on t h e r i g h t s i d e of h i s f a c e . The o f f i c e r s t h e n r e t r e a t e d t o s a f e r p o s i t i o n s under cover. Meanwhile d e f e n d a n t , n o t knowing t h e people he had j u s t f i r e d upon were p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e and r e q u e s t e d t h e d i s p a t c h e r t o send some o f f i c e r s t o h i s house. The d i s p a t c h e r r e p l i e d t h a t someone had a l r e a d y c a l l e d and t h a t o f f i c e r s were on t h e i r way. S g t . Bryce a l s o n o t i f i e d t h e d i s p a t c h e r t h a t t h e y had been f i r e d upon and r e q u e s t e d a s s i s t a n c e . The d i s p a t c h e r then c a l l e d d e f e n d a n t and t o l d him t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s were a l r e a d y t h e r e and were t h e ones who had b e e n k n o c k i n g on t h e d o o r . The d i s p a t c h e r i n f o r m e d d e f e n d a n t t h a t he was t o l e a v e h i s guns i n t h e house and walk o u t s i d e w i t h h i s hands i n t h e a i r which he d i d . On August 11, 1981, t h e Deputy Park County A t t o r n e y f i l e d an i n f o r m a t i o n charging d e f e n d a n t w i t h aggravated a s s a u l t w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g language: "On o r about J u l y 24, 1981, i n Park County, Montana, t h e d e f e n d a n t , a t ap- p r o x i m a t e l y 12:42 A.M., d i d p u r p o s e l y o r k n o w i n g l y f i r e a . 2 2 c a l i b e r r i f l e t h r o u g h a d o o r which h a d j u s t b e e n knocked on by o f f i c e r s George Bryce and Robert S t a n l e y . Said a c t was done by t h e d e f e n d a n t p u r p o s e l y o r k n o w i n g l y a n d caused r e a s o n a b l e apprehension o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y by use of a weapon." Following a t r i a l beginning February 4 , 1982, defen- d a n t was c o n v i c t e d and on March 9, 1982, was s e n t e n c e d t o 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 w i t h e i g h t y e a r s suspended. Defendant was a l s o s e n t e n c e d t o two y e a r s f o r u s i n g a dangerous weapon i n t h e commission of an o f f e n s e ( s e c t i o n 46-18-221, MCA), t o run c o n s e c u t i v e l y w i t h t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e . Defendant a p p e a l s and p r e s e n t s s e v e n i s s u e s f o r our review: 1. Was e v i d e n c e of o t h e r c r i m e s e r r o n e o u s l y a d m i t t e d i n evidence? 2. Were c e r t a i n p i c t u r e s e r r o n e o u s l y a d m i t t e d i n evidence? 3 . Were t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c h a r g e and i n s t r u c t i o n s e r r o - neous? 4. Is j u s t i f i a b l e f o r c e i n s e l f - d e f e n s e an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e ? 5. Did c e r t a i n i n s t r u c t i o n s b a r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e d e f e n s e of j u s t i f i a b l e u s e of f o r c e ? 6 . Could r a t i o n a l t r i e r s of f a c t f i n d beyond a reason- a b l e doubt t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s were j u s t i f i e d ? 7. Does t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e s e n t e n c e imposed? I n t h e f i r s t i s s u e , d e f e n d a n t r e f e r s u s t o S t a t e v. ~ u s t ( i 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 602 P.2d 957, 36 St.Rep. 1649, wherein w e d i s c u s s e d how e v i d e n c e of o t h e r crimes s h o u l d be "We f e e l t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s s h o u l d b e s t a n d a r d i z e d i n c a s e s of t h i s t y p e and t h e r e f o r e h o l d t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g proce- d u r e s s h a l l be followed w i t h o u t r e t r o - a c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n i n s o f a r a s t h e y a r e new: " ( a ) Evidence of o t h e r c r i m e s may n o t be r e c e i v e d u n l e s s t h e r e h a s been n o t i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t t h a t such e v i d e n c e is t o be i n t r o d u c e d . The p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 46-18-503 MCA should s e r v e a s g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e form and c o n t e n t o f such n o t i c e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e n o t i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a l l i n c l u d e a s t a t e m e n t a s t o t h e p u r p o s e s f o r which such e v i - dence is t o be a d m i t t e d . " ( b ) A t t h e t i m e of t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f s u c h e v i d e n c e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l e x p l a i n t o t h e j u r y t h e purpose of such evidence and s h a l l admonish it t o weigh t h e e v i d e n c e o n l y f o r such purposes. " ( c ) I n i t s f i n a l c h a r g e , t h e c o u r t should i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y i n unequivocal terms t h a t such e v i d e n c e was r e c e i v e d o n l y f o r t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e s e a r l i e r s t a t e d and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t is n o t being t r i e d and may n o t be c o n v i c t e d f o r any o f f e n s e e x c e p t t h a t charged, warning them t h a t t o c o n v i c t f o r o t h e r o f f e n s e s may r e s u l t i n u n j u s t d o u b l e punishment. " Mont. a t , 602 P.2d a t 963-964, 36 St.Rep. a t 1657-1658. A p p e l l a n t c h a r g e s t h a t t h e J u s t s t a n d a r d was v i o l a t e d on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s a t t r i a l - - t h e t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e a s s a u l t on Linda, t h e S t a t e ' s o f f e r i n g a r e v o l v e r i n t o e v i - dence which was found on d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e m i s e s , t h e t e s t i m o n y a b o u t damage o c c u r r i n g t o t h e house and t h e t e s t i m o n y a s t o an a s s a u l t by d e f e n d a n t on h i s s t e p d a u g h t e r . W e i n i t i a l l y n o t e t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e a s s a u l t on Linda and t h e damage o c c u r r i n g t o t h e house and t h e r e v o l v e r were n o t o b j e c t e d t o a t t r i a l which f o r e c l o s e s our review on a p p e a l . S t a t e v. P a t t o n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 600 P.2d 194, 36 St.Rep. 1731. A d d i t i o n a l l y , w e f a i l t o see how p o s s e s s i o n of t h e r e v o l v e r o r d e f e n d a n t ' s c a u s i n g damage t o h i s own i ~ o u s e c o n s t i t u t e a crime, and d e f e n d a n t f a i l s t o e n l i g h t e n us on t h i s p o i n t i n h i s b r i e f . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o o b j e c t was n o t f a t a l because t h i s c o n s t i t u t e s p l a i n e r r o r . However, t h e r e was no e r r o r h e r e . Regarding t h e a s s a u l t by d e f e n d a n t on h i s s t e p d a u g h t e r t h e t r a n s c r i p t shows t h e f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y by t h e defen- d a n t under q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e p r o s e c u t o r : "A. Okay. T h a t day-- L e t ' s see-- W e had gone home and I was spanking t h e g i r l f o r l y i n g t o m e . And I d i d u s e a b e l t . And w h i l e I was spanking h e r over m y l a p , w e l l , of c o u r s e s h e was f i g h t i n g m e . And s h e d i d g e t a black eye. "Q. Were t h e r e c h a r g e s brought a g a i n s t you a s a r e s u l t of t h a t ? I1IJ1R. DOUGLASS [ D e f e n d a n t ' s A t t o r n e y ] : Your Honor, O b j e c t t o q u e s t i o n s of t h a t n a t u r e . "THE COURT: I w i l l s u s t a i n t h a t a s t o c h a r g e s . " L a t e r , b e f o r e s e t t l i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s , d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y moved f o r a m i s t r i a l on t h e grounds t h a t t h e above testimony p l a n t e d t h e seed of d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i o r c r i m e s i n t h e j u r o r s ' minds which could n o t be e l i m i n a t e d w i t h o u t a new t r i a l . The D i s t r i c t Court c o r r e c t l y denied d e f e n d a n t ' s m i s - t r i a l motion. I t is e v i d e n t from t h e above p o r t i o n of t h e t r a n s c r i p t t h a t d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t t e s t i f y about any p r i o r crime because t h e q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g c h a r g e s being brought a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t was never answered o r a l l u d e d t o a g a i n . I n J u s t , upon which d e f e n d a n t h e a v i l y r e l i e s , t h e v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d r e g a r d i n g s e v e r a l p r e v i o u s s e x u a l o f f e n s e s com- m i t t e d a g a i n s t h e r by t h e d e f e n d a n t . Here, d e f e n d a n t never d i d t e s t i f y about any p r e v i o u s c r i m e s a l l e g e d l y committed by him and t h u s t h e r e is no p a r a l l e l between J u s t and t h i s c a s e which would make t h e J u s t holding a p p r o p r i a t e h e r e . I n t h e second i s s u e d e f e n d a n t a s s i g n s a s e r r o r t h e admission of seven photographs taken by O f f i c e r S t a n l e y on t h e n i g h t of t h e i n c i d e n t i n q u e s t i o n . S e v e r a l of t h e s e photographs show where t h e s p e n t .22 s h e l l s f e l l and t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e b u l l e t h o l e s i n t h e bathroom door and f r o n t door of t h e house. E x h i b i t No. 26 is a view of t h e edge of t h e bathroom door showing how one b u l l e t nicked t h e edge of t h e door. On a l l b u t one of t h e s e p i c t u r e s , O f f i c e r S t a n l e y c i r c l e d w i t h a black pen t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e b u l l e t h o l e s and s p e n t c a r t r i d g e s and made n o t a t i o n s on t h e backs of a l l of them, i n d i c a t i n g what each showed. Defsndant o b j e c t s t o t h e s e p i c t u r e s because t h e y do n o t a c c u r a t e l y p o r t r a y t h e s c e n e a t t h e t i m e , i.e., t h e c i r c l e s were drawn on t h e p i c t u r e s a t a l a t e r t i m e . D e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n t o E x h i b i t No. 26, on t h e grounds t h a t it d i d n o t show t h e door i n t h e same c o n d i t i o n a s it was a t t h e t i m e of t h e i n c i d e n t , is a p p a r e n t l y based on t h e f o l l o w i n g p o r t i o n of t h e t r a n s c r i p t : "MR. DOUGLASS: O f f i c e r S t a n l e y , r e f e r - r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t o 26, is t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e door was i n when you f i r s t e n t e r e d t h e r e s i d e n c e ? A. I r e a l l y d o n ' t - - I d o n ' t t h i n k s o , b u t I am n o t s u r e . I can't r e c a l l now. "MR. DOUGLASS: Would your r e c o l l e c t i o n be t h a t it was open wider t h a n t h a t ? A. I b e l i e v e it was, yes. "MR. DOUGLASS: I would o b j e c t t o 26. I t h i n k t h e same o b j e c t i o n , f i r s t , i t ' s been marked upon, t h a t I o b j e c t e d t o b e f o r e . Secondly, it d o e s n o t a c c u r a t e l y d e p i c t t h e s c e n e a s it was found." These c o n t e n t i o n s border on t h e l u d i c r o u s . O f f i c e r S t a n l e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t w r i t i n g n o t a t i o n s on t h e back of t h e photographs is s t a n d a r d p o l i c e procedure. A .22 b u l l e t d o e s n o t l e a v e a v e r y l a r g e h o l e nor is t h e c a r t r i d g e v e r y b i g , and i f t h e c i r c l e s had n o t been made, it would be d i f f i c u l t indeed t o d e t e r m i n e why t h e p i c t u r e s were t a k e n . W e s e e no r e a s o n why t h e admission of t h e p i c t u r e showing t h e bathroom door c l o s e d more t h a n it had been a t t h e t i m e of t h e p o l i c e e n t r y i n t o t h e house p r e j u d i c e d t h e d e f e n d a n t i n any way. Moreover, t h e law i n t h e Montana is t h a t t r i a l c o u r t s have wide d i s c r e t i o n i n a d m i t t i n g photographs, Brown v. North American Mfg. Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 98, 576 P.2d 711. See a l s o , S t a t e v. Hoffman ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont . , 639 P.2d 507, 39 St.Rep. 79 ( p a t h o l o g i s t ' s c o l o r s l i d e s were p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d ) ; and S t a t e v. Warrick ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 152 Mont. 9 4 , 446 P.2d 916 ( c o l o r photographs were p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d ) . I n S t a t e v. Lang ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 197 Neb. 4 7 , 246 N.W.2d 608, i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s took a p i c t u r e of two marks on a l i q u o r s t o r e w a l l which were p r o b a b l y caused by a r i c o - c h e t i n g b u l l e t , a f t e r a melee i n a p a r k i n g l o t n e x t t o t h e l i q u o r s t o r e . The o f f i c e r s c i r c l e d t h e marks on t h e photo- graph and t h e Supreme Court of Nebraska found t h e p i c t u r e s were p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d a t t r i a l . W e s i m i l a r l y s o hold h e r e . I n t h e t h i r d i s s u e d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s h e was d e n i e d a unanimous j u r y v e r d i c t by t h e language of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n and j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s which were worded i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e by use of t h e word " o r . " Defendant f i r s t p o i n t s t o t h e i n f o r m a t i o n which s t a t e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t " p u r p o s e l y o r k n o w i n g l y " f i r e d t h e r i f l e , t h a t s u c h a c t was d o n e " ~ u r p o s e l y o r knowingly" and caused " r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n or s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y . " The j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s which, a c c o r d i n g t o d e t e n d a n t , c o n t a i n a s i m i l a r f a u l t a r e a s follows: No. 1 2 which s t a t e d i n p a r t , " [ p l u r p o s e l y o r knowingly c a u s i n g 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 is an element of t h e o f f e n s e of AGGRAVATED ASSAULT"; No. 1 3 which s t a t e d i n p a r t , " [ t l o s u s t a i n t h e c h a r g e of AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, t h e S t a t e must prove t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , MILO W A K N I C K , p u r p o s e l y o r k n o w i n g l y c a u s e d r e a s o n a b l e apprehension of s e r i o u s injury i n a n o t h e r human being w i t h a weapon"; No. 1 4 which p r o v i d e d , " [ t l o s u s t a i n t h e c h a r g e of AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, t h e S t a t e must prove t h a t each element of t h e o f f e n s e was done p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly"; and No. 21 which provided i n p a r t , " [ a ] p e r s o n commits t h e o f f e n s e of ASSAULT ~f he: (1) purposely or knowingly causes b o d l l y I n j u r y t o another ; or ( 2 ) n e g l i g e n t l y c a u s e s b o d i l y i n j u r y t o a n o t h e r with a weapon; o r ( 3 ) p u r p o s e l y o r knowinyly 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 . " For e x a m p l e , d e f e n d a n t s t a t e s t h a t I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 3 allowed t h e j u r y t o f i n d d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y i f o n l y one-half of t h e j u r o r s found t h a t he a c t e d "purposely" w h i l e t h e o t h e r h a l f found t h a t he a c t e d "knowingly." W e d i s a g r e e . I n i t i a l l y w e n o t e t h a t d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t o b j e c t t o I n s t r u c t i o n Nos. 14 and 21 t h u s p r e s e r v i n g no b a s i s f o r a p p e l l a t e review of t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s . S t a t e v. Powers e t a l . ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont. , 645 P.2d 1357, 39 3t.Rep. 989. W e a l s o n o t e t h a t w e have r e j e c t e d t h i s unanimous j u r y v e r d i c t c o n t e n t i o n on two p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n s , McKenzie v. Osborne ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mon t . , 640 P.2d 368, 38 St.Kep. 1745, and F i t z p a t r i c k v. S t a t e ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , 638 P.2d 1002, 38 St.Kep. 1448. Defendant h e r e c i t e s two c a s e s , S t a t e v. Green ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 94 Wash.2d 216, 616 P.2d 628, and United S t a t e s v. Gipson ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) , 553 F.2d 453, whose a p p l i c a t i o n w e r e j e c t e d i n McKenzie and F i t z p a t r i c k and whose a p p l i c a t i o n w e s i m i l a r l y r e j e c t h e r e . I n r e j e c t i n g t h e r e a s o n i n g o f G i p s o n and G r e e n , t h e - McKenzie and F i t z p a t r i c k c o u r t s d i s c u s s e d two p i v o t a l i s s u e s : (1) t h a t t h e j u r y had been i n s t r u c t e d a s t o t h e requirement of a unanimous v e r d i c t , and ( 2 ) t h a t each a l t e r n a t i v e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y was supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. W e hold t h a t t h e s e requirements were met h e r e . I n I n s t r u c t i o n No. 30 t h e Court admonished t h e j u r y t h a t a unanimous v e r d i c t was r e q u i r e d w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g words: ". . . a l l twelve ( 1 2 ) j u r o r s must a g r e e i n o r d e r t o r e t u r n e i t h e r a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y o r n o t g u i l t y . To do s o , it is n e c e s s a r y t h a t you c o n s i d e r t h e crime of AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, f i r s t , and t h a t a l l twelve of you f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t e i t h e r g u i l t y o r n o t g u i l t y o f t h a t charge. . ." Defendant p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n h e r e i n s t a t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t caused " r e a s o n a b l e apprehension o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y - i n j u r y by u s e of a weapon." (Emphasis added. ) The s t a t u t e c i t e d i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , s e c t i o n 4 5 - 5 - 2 0 2 ( 1 ) ( c ) , MCA, r e a d s , " 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 . . . by u s e of a weapon." (Emphasis added.) A s shown by I n s t r u c t i o n Nos. 1 2 and 1 3 above, t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d on two d i f f e r e n t o c c a s i o n s t h a t r e a s o n a b l e apprehension - o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y was t h e element of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t ( I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 5 a l s o s t a t e d t h a t a person commits 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 o r knowingly c a u s e s 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 i n a n o t h e r by use of a weapon). Here t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o t s i x times a t a door where people ( t h e t o p s of whose heads he had s e e n through t h e g l a s s windows i n t h e d o o r ) had j u s t p r e v i o u s l y knocked. The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he wanted t o s c a r e t h o s e p e o p l e away. W e f i n d t h a t t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s of p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly s e t f o r t h i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s . There is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t it was d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n s c i o u s o b j e c t t o c a u s e a 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 i n t h o s e o u t s i d e t h e door ( t h u s f i t t i n g w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of "purposely"-- s e c t i o n 45-2-101(58), MCA) and d e f e n d a n t was aware t h a t it was h i g h l y p r o b a b l e t h a t t h i s r e s u l t would be caused by h i s conduct ( t h u s f i t t i n g w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of "knowingly"-- s e c t i o n 45-2-101(33), MCA). I n t h e f o u r t h i s s u e , d e f e n d a n t c i t e s s e c t i o n 45-3-115, MCA, which p r o v i d e s : " A f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e . A d e f e n s e of jus- t i f i a b l e u s e of f o r c e based on t h e p r o v i - s i o n s of t h i s p a r t is an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e . " Defendant t h e n a r g u e s i n rambling f a s h i o n t h a t somehow s e c t i o n 45-3-115, NCA, v i o l a t e s h i s due p r o c e s s r i g h t s because d e f e n d a n t had t h e burden of p r o v i n g he d i d n o t commit t h e crime charged. W e have p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d t h a t because j u s t i f i a b l e u s e o f f o r c e is an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , t h e r e is no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t p l a c i n g t h e burden of proof on t h e d e f e n d a n t . S t a t e v. Graves ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 622 P.2d 203, 38 St.Rep. 9. The j u r y h e r e was i n s t r u c t e d as f o l l o w s : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t a d e f e n s e of j u s t i f i a b l e u s e of f o r c e is a n a f f i r m a - t i v e d e f e n s e and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s t h e burden o f producing s u f f i c i e n t e v i - dence on t h e i s s u e t o raise a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t of h i s g u i l t . " T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n is i n keeping w i t h s e c t i o n 45-3-115, MCA, and S t a t e v. Grady ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 168, 531 P.2d 681. Defendant h a s had two chances, i n h i s i n i t i a l b r i e f and i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f , t o put f o r t h some kind of under- s t a n d a b l e , c o h e r e n t argument w i t h s u p p o r t i n g c a s e law as t o how d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s h e r e were p r e j u d i c e d i n some manner. Defendant h a s f a i l e d t o do t h i s , and w e r e f u s e t h e r e f o r e t o c o n s i d e r t h i s m a t t e r f u r t h e r . Defendant f a r e s no b e t t e r i n h i s f i f t h i s s u e . Defen- d a n t c l a i m s t h a t c e r t a i n i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t were g i v e n f a i l e d t o p e r m i t t h e j u r y t o f u l l y and p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e of j u s t i f i e d use of f o r c e by t h e d e f e n d a n t . Defendant t h e n s t a t e s t h a t when t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s are c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r t h e j u r y c o u l d w e 1 1 have found i n d e f e n d a n t ' s f a v o r as a f a c t u a l i s s u e and found t h a t he was f a c t u a l l y j u s t i f i e d i n h i s a c t i o n b u t s t i l l , i n r e f e r r i n g t o t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s , f i n d him g u i l t y . Defendant d o e s n o t set f o r t h any reasoned e f f o r t s u p p o r t i n g t h e s e c l a i m s o r i n c o r p o r a t e any language i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s i n t o an e x p l a n a t i o n of why d e f e n d a n t ' s claims a r e j u s t i f i e d . W e a r e n o t a b o u t t o waste j u d i c i a l r e s o u r c e s i n a t t e m p t i n g t o determine what d e f e n d a n t is d r i v i n g a t h e r e when it h a s n o t been e x p r e s s e d c l e a r l y i n t h e b r i e f s . I n t h e s i x t h i s s u e d e f e n d a n t t a k e s t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t a review of t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a u s e would show t h a t no r a t i o n a l t r i e r s of f a c t c o u l d h e r e have found beyond a r e a - s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s were n o t j u s t i f i e d as a matter of s e l f - d e f e n s e . I n s u p p o r t of t h i s s t a n d a r d of review, d e f e n d a n t cites Jackson v. V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 6 1 L.Ed.2d 560, and P i l o n v. Borden- k i r c h e r ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 444 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 7 , 62 L.Ed.2d 1. However, n e i t h e r of t h e s e c a s e s is on p o i n t because t h e y d e a l w i t h t h e s t a n d a r d of review t h a t a f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i l l a p p l y when a p r i s o n e r a p p l i e s f o r h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f from a s t a t e c o u r t d e c i s i o n . That t h i s is t h e s c o p e of t h e s e two c a s e s is amply borne o u t by t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s : ". . . The q u e s t i o n i n t h i s case is what s t a n d a r d is t o be a p p l i e d i n a f e d e r a l habeas c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n g when t h e c l a i m is made t h a t a p e r s o n h a s been c o n v i c t e d i n a s t a t e c o u r t upon i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence." J a c k s o n , 443 U.S. a t 309, 99 S.Ct. a t 2783, 6 1 L.Ed.2d a t 567. "We hold that i n a c h a l l e n g e t o a s t a t e c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n b r o u g h t u n d e r 28 U.S.C. 2254--if t h e s e t t l e d p r o c e d u r a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r s u c h a claim h a v e o t h e r w i s e been s a t i s f i e d - - t h e a p p l i c a n t is e n t i t l e d t o h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f i f it is found t h a t upon t h e r e c o r d e v i d e n c e adduced a t t h e t r i a l no r a t i o n a l t r i e r of f a c t c o u l d have found p r o o f o f g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt." J a c k s o n , 443 U.S. a t 324, 99 S.Ct. a t 2791-2792, 6 1 L.Ed. 2d a t 576-577. ". . . An earlier d e c i s i o n had made c l e a r t h a t t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e of t h e Four- t e e n t h Amendment p r o h i b i t s t h e c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n o f a n y p e r s o n e x c e p t upon proof of g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . I n re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . The C o u r t i n J a c k s o n h e l d t h a t t h i s c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t c a n b e e f f e c t u a t e d o n l y i f a f e d e r a l habeas c o r p u s c o u r t , i n a s s e s s i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a s t a t e - c o u r t c o n v i c t i o n , i n q u i r e s ' w h e t h e r , a f t e r viewing t h e e v i - dence 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 p r o s e c u t i o n , any r a t i o n a l t r i e r of f a c t c o u l d have found t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. ' 443 U.S., a t 319 (emphasis o m i t t e d ) ." P i l o n , 444 U . S . a t 2, 1 0 0 S.Ct. a t 8 , 62 L.E.2d a t 3. Obviously t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t is n o t a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of habeas c o r p u s i n a f e d e r a l c o u r t t o q u e s t i o n t h e v a l i d i t y of a s t a t e c o u r t c o n v i c t i o n . The c a s e s c i t e d and c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e arguments m a r s h a l l e d by a p p e l l a n t a r e i n a p p o s i t e t o t h i s c a s e , g i v e n its p r e s e n t p r o c e d u r a l s t a n c e . I n t h e f i n a l assignment of e r r o r , d e f e n d a n t takes I s s u e w i t h t n e s e n t e n c e imposed by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Defendant h e r e was s e n t e n c e d t o t e n y e a r s w i t h e i g h t y e a r s suspended and t o two y e a r s f o r u s i n g a dangerous weapon i n t h e commission o f a n o f f e n s e , t o r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y w i t h t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e . S e c t i o n 45-5-202(2), MCA, s t a t e s t h a t a p e r s o n c o n v i c t e d of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t s h a l l be imprisoned f o r a minimum of two y e a r s and a maximum o f t w e n t y y e a r s . S e c t i o n 46-18-221(1), MCA, mandates t h a t a p e r s o n who h a s used a f i r e a r m d u r i n g t h e commission of an o f f e n s e s h a l l be s e n t e n c e d t o a t l e a s t two more y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n . D e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t q u e s t i o n t h e l e g a l i t y o f h i s s e n t e n c e b u t o n l y its e q u i t y . Such c o n c e r n s s h o u l d be a d d r e s s e d t o t h e Sentence Review D i v i s i o n , s e c t i o n 46-18-901 e t s e q . , MCA. See, S t a t e v. Hubbard ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont. , 649 P.2d 1331, 39 St.Rep. 1608. kf f irmed.