Title: State v. Huber

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

361 N.W.2d 236 (1985) STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. John HUBER, Defendant and Appellant. Cr. No. 1002. Supreme Court of North Dakota. January 23, 1985. *237 Owen Mehrer, State's Atty., Dickinson, for plaintiff and appellee. Irvin B. Nodland of Lundberg, Conmy, Nodland, Lucas & Schulz, Bismarck, for defendant and appellant. VANDE WALLE, Justice. John J. Huber appealed from a jury verdict finding him guilty of four counts of murder and one count of attempted murder and from the judgment of conviction entered thereon. Huber was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count, the terms to be served consecutively. We affirm. The parties stipulated: Evidence at Huber's trial centered on his mental condition and emotional state at the time of the shootings. Huber has raised the following issues on appeal: Huber requested that the jury be instructed as follows: Huber asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the consequence of a verdict of not guilty by reason of a lack of criminal responsibility. Noting that "[t]here is a split of authority among the states and jurisdictions as to whether such an instruction is required in the interest of a fair trial," Huber contends that "our state should adopt the rule that requires such an instruction be given when requested by the defendant." Many decisions on this subject are collected and analyzed in Annot., 11 A.L.R.3d 737 (1967 and 1984 Supp.). Those decisions are generally summarized in 11 A.L.R.3d 737, 739: The leading case standing for the proposition that where the issue of insanity is raised an instruction on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity should or must be given is Lyles v. United States, 103 D.C.App. 22, 254 F.2d 725, 728-729 (1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 961, 78 S. Ct. 997, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1958), which states the following rule: The opposing viewpoint is concisely stated in State v. McLoughlin, 133 Ariz. 458, 652 P.2d 531, 534-535 (1982): A third line of cases leaves the matter in the trial court's discretion, as exemplified by State v. Wade, 96 Conn. 238, 113 A. 458, 460 (1921): The court in Dipert v. State, 259 Ind. 260, 286 N.E.2d 405, 407 (1972), states that, while a defendant is normally not entitled to such an instruction, a defendant No "erroneous view of the law on this subject has been planted" in the minds of the jurors in this case, so a curative instruction was not necessary. No productive purpose would be served by analyzing each of the viewpoints stated at length. We have not been persuaded of the wisdom of adopting the rule sought by Huber. We believe the better rule is that an instruction on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of a lack of criminal responsibility ordinarily should not be given, except in a situation such as that in Dipert, supra. The purpose of the jury is to find the facts and determine a defendant's guilt or innocence. The consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of a lack of criminal responsibility have no bearing on any issue which the jury must decide. An instruction of the kind requested would invite the jury to speculate about a defendant's ultimate disposition and invite it to render a verdict on the basis of something other than the evidence before it. See State v. Garrett, 391 S.W.2d 235 (Mo.1965). "Punishment, or whatever may transpire after the verdict, is not the concern of the jury." State v. Park, 159 Me. 328, 193 A.2d 1, 5 (1963). In short, "it is simply no business of the jury what happens to the accused if he is acquitted on the ground of insanity." Annot., 11 A.L.R.3d 737, 742 (1967). We therefore hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the disposition of the defendant in the event the jury were to find him not guilty by reason of a lack of criminal responsibility. For the same reasons, we also find no error in the trial court's refusal to allow cross-examination of witnesses on this subject *239 or to allow Huber to inquire into post-verdict disposition in voir dire. Huber next contends that the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on the offense of manslaughter.[1] In particular, Huber argues that requiring a connection between the victim and the defendant, precipitating or aggravating the extreme emotional disturbance, injects an element not provided by the Legislature. We note initially that Huber did not object to the instruction before it was given. While he interposed specific objections to other instructions, he did not do so with regard to the manslaughter instruction prior to its submission to the jury, other than to enter a blanket objection to not having his requested instructions given. The trial court thus was not apprised of any error in the instruction before submitting it to the jury. After the jury retired for its deliberations, it requested that manslaughter be "explained to them better." Huber then asserted, for the first time, that the last sentence of the instruction was erroneous. Counsel for the State responded that the instruction was proper under our decision in State v. Trieb, 315 N.W.2d 649 (N.D. 1982). The State has adhered to that argument on appeal. It has also appeared to argue that no manslaughter instruction should have been given and therefore "whatever instruction was given would only benefit the defendant and should not result in reversible error. See, e.g., State v. Dilger, 338 N.W.2d 87, 96 (N.D.1983)." To the extent that the State argues that no manslaughter instruction should have been given, we disagree. The evidence clearly warranted a manslaughter instruction. The State's reliance upon State v. Trieb, supra, is misplaced. All that we said in that case about a connection between a victim and a defendant is that: The quoted portion of our manslaughter statute was drawn from a proposed Federal Criminal Code provision which had been drawn from Model Penal Code (U.L.A.) § 210.3. The proposed Federal code formulation modified the Model Penal Code formulation "by deleting reference to `mental' disturbance for which there is reasonable `explanation.'" II Working Papers of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws 829 (1970). We also followed the Federal proposal by adopting the last sentence of § 12.1-16-02, N.D.C.C., providing that "[a]n emotional disturbance is excusable, within the meaning of this subsection, if it is occasioned by any provocation, event, or situation for which the offender was not culpably responsible."[2] Because our manslaughter statute is essentially derived from Model Penal Code § 210.3, we may look to the commentaries on that section for insight into the meaning and application of the statute. The Comment to Model Penal Code § 210.3, American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries (Revised Commentaries, 1980) states, at pages 60-61: The instruction given, insofar as it requires "some connection between the victim and the Defendant precipitating or aggravating an extreme emotional disturbance in the Defendant," might very well constitute reversible error in a case involving a factual situation in which there clearly was no such connection. While we need not address that issue today, we do not wish to be understood as endorsing the submission of such an instruction in the future. We disavow the instruction submitted to the jury, but we do not find that its submission constituted reversible error. In the instant case, the very evidence that justified the giving of a manslaughter instruction also satisfied the instruction's requirement of "some connection between the victim and the Defendant precipitating or aggravating an extreme emotional disturbance in the Defendant." There was evidence that Huber believed that his wife, Gladys, was having an affair with Maurice O'Connell, her boss at the bank where she worked. There was evidence that Huber believed it necessary that Kathleen O'Connell, Maurice O'Connell's wife, must be "terminated" because she knew of the affair. Huber also blamed the O'Connells for what he deemed to be an excessive number of hours that Gladys was working. There was evidence that Huber hated Timothy Riegel, Gladys Huber's brother; that Huber blamed Dinah Riegel, Timothy's wife, for John and Gladys Huber's impending divorce; and that he felt that Gladys's family, including the Riegels, had "closed ranks" against him. Huber's argument that the jury was confused by the last sentence of the manslaughter instruction given is sheer conjecture. Huber further asserts, although he did not so assert at trial, that the "remaining portion of the manslaughter instruction was also erroneous after the court departed from the wording of the statute." Even if it was erroneous (and we do not decide that it was), Huber has not demonstrated any possibility of prejudice and we will therefore not consider it. Huber argues in his brief: No productive purpose would be served by discussing this matter at length. The record presented to us does not reveal that Huber asked that the instruction previously given be "withdrawn or corrected." Huber merely explained his position and said, "I think that the jury should have the requested instruction that I originally asked for." Huber cannot now be heard to complain because the trial court did as Huber suggested. Huber contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to life imprisonment upon conviction for the attempted murder of Timothy Riegel. Huber contends that he should have been sentenced for attempted murder as a class A felony pursuant to § 12.1-06-01(3), N.D.C.C., as amended in 1983. At the time of the shootings, murder was a class AA felony under § 12.1-16-01, N.D. C.C., with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment provided by § 12.1-32-01, N.D. C.C. At the time of the shootings, § 12.1-06-01(3), N.D.C.C., provided: Thus, at the time of the shootings, attempted murder was a class AA felony. Section 12.1-06-01(3), N.D.C.C., was amended in 1983 (after the shootings occurred but before trial) to provide: Thus, attempted murder is now a class A felony. A class A felony is punishable by a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment, a fine of $10,000, or both. Section 12.1-32-01(2), N.D.C.C. Huber's first argument on this point is that the 1983 amendment reducing an attempt to commit a class AA felony to a class A felony "was necessitated by an oversight." It is not apparent to us that the failure to make attempted murder a class A felony when murder was reclassified from a class A to a class AA felony in a 1979 amendment of § 12.1-16-01, N.D. C.C., was an oversight. Other than the ipse dixit in his brief, Huber has provided us with nothing in support of this argument. Without more, the argument is without merit. Huber's second argument on this point is based upon § 12.1-01-01(3), N.D.C.C., which provides: He argues that the amendment to § 12.1-06-01, N.D.C.C., reducing attempted murder from a class AA to a class A felony became effective July 1, 1983, and that, because this case was then pending and the alleged offense occurred prior thereto, he should have been sentenced pursuant to the 1983 amendment. This argument, however, overlooks the fact that Title 12.1, N.D.C.C., became effective on July 1, 1975, and § 12.1-01-01(3), N.D.C.C., applies to "cases ... involving offenses committed prior thereto." The trial court did not err in sentencing Huber to life imprisonment upon conviction for the March 15, 1983, attempted murder of Timothy Riegel. For the reasons stated, the verdicts and judgment are affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C.J., GIERKE, J., and PEDERSON, Surrogate Judge, concur. PEDERSON, Surrogate Judge, participated. Justice PAUL M. SAND, who died on December 8, 1984, was a member of this Court at the time this case was submitted. [1] Huber requested that the following instruction be submitted to the jury: "A person is guilty of manslaughter, a class B felony, if he recklessly causes the death of another human being, or, if he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would be murder, except that he causes the death under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable excuse. The reasonableness of the excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in his situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be. An emotional disturbance is excusable, within the meaning of this subsection, if it is occasioned by any provocation, event, or situation for which the offender was not culpably responsible." The trial court instructed the jury as follows: "MANSLAUGHTER "A person is guilty of manslaughter if he: "1. Recklessly causes the death of another human being; or "2. Causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would be murder, except that he causes the death under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable excuse. The reasonableness of the excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in his situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be. An extreme emotional disturbance is excusable, within the meaning of this subsection only, if it is occasioned by substantial provocation, or a serious event, or situation for which the offender was not culpably responsible. "As it relates to recklessly causing the death of another human being under this instruction, voluntary intoxication alone is not sufficient to constitute recklessness under this instruction. "`Extreme emotional disturbance' as used in this instruction is defined as the emotional state of an individual who: "(a) Has no mental disease that rises to the level of insanity; "(b) Is exposed to an extremely unusual and overwhelming stress; and "(c) Has an extreme emotional reaction to it, as a result of which there is loss of self-control and reason is overborne by intense feelings, such as passion, anger, distress, grief, excessive agitation, or other similar emotions. "In addition, as it relates to this instruction, there must be some connection between the victim and the Defendant precipitating or aggravating an extreme emotional disturbance in the Defendant." [2] Effective July 1, 1983, the sentence was amended to provide: "... by substantial provocation, or a serious event, or situation...." Section 12.1-16-02, N.D.C.C.