Title: STATE v MANNING

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12180 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 THE STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - P A U L MANNING, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth J u d i c i a l District, Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : John L. Adams, Jr. argued, Billings, Montana. For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. David V. Gliko, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana. Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana. G. Todd Baugh, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Billings, Montana. Submitted: April 20, 1972 Decided : Juf. 2 8 1 9 E Filed: JUL 2 Fj 1972 Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. T h i s is an appeal from a conviction of the crime of assault i n the second degree following a trial before a jury i n the d i s t r i c t court of Yellowstone County. Defendant was sentenced to ten years i n the Montana state prison fol lowing proof of a prior conviction. From the record i t appears that i n the early morning hours of September 13, 1971, Rita Jensen, hereinafter referred to as Rita, was force- fully struck i n the face by the defendant outside the Midway Club, a Billings night club. The blow, inflicted by defendant's f i s t , was of such impact as to produce a comminuted and depressed fracture of the zygomatic arch and a fracture of the coronoid process, which are component bones in the jawbone structure. The injury required Rita to be hospitalized and operated upon by an oral surgeon. Rita testified that the injury was so painful t h a t she had to return to the hospital emergency room for several days to receive pain- suppressing injections. A t t r i a l , the oral surgeon also gave his opinion that such an injury would surely be painful. Rita was a student a t Billings Business College and had to miss about three weeks of school because of the injury. The circumstances leading to the injury began w i t h the arrival of Rita and her escort, Gordon Sticka, a t the Midway Club about 10:30 p.m. on the evening of September 12. She and her escort had some drinks and engaged i n dancing from their time of arrival until the club closed about 2:00 a.m., September 13. Shortly prior to closing time, the defendant and the lady he was escorting arrived a t the Midway Club for the purpose of dancing and having "a few drinks". Defendant's testimony states that he arrived about 1 :00 or 1 :30 a.m. Defendant, Paul Manning, says he was also drinking that evening before arriving a t the Midway. Although Manning and Rita were i n separate parties t h a t evening, they did on one occasion dance together. I t was apparently customary for a couple to "switch off every once in awhile" and dance with other partners. This one dance was the only contact Rita had w i t h Manning until closing time a t the Midway. A t this point, the testimony i s in conflict regarding the immediate circumstances bringing about the injury, which occurred just following the closing of the Midway Club on the morning of September 13. Defendant said he was talking w i t h Rita outside the club when Gordon Sticka suddenly started a fight w i t h him. Manning testified that i f he h i t Rita, i t must have been by accident due to her getting i n the way of the alleged Sticka- Manning melee. Rita and Gordon Sticka deny that there was any fight whatsoever be- tween Sticka and Manning. Rita testified that while she was standing out- side the club waiting for her escort to bring his car from where i t was parked, Manning asked her to leave w i t h him. She refused, turned away from Manning and moved toward the car which Gordon Sticka had now brought nearby. She did not hear Manning say anything else, b u t she does remember Manning's f i s t swinging toward her. Gordon Sticka testified that when Rita reached the car w i t h Manning just behind her, Manning said: "Have you ever seen a woman hit?" A t that point, defendant h i t Rita. On or about September 14, 1971, defendant was arrested on a charge of second degree assaul t. A t the close of the t r i a l , defendant's attorney offered his instruc- tions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 on third degree assault and the penalties for second and t h i r d degree assault. All these instructions were refused by the court. Alleging error i n such ruling, defendant appeals. The issue to be determined is whether, upon this record, the d i s t r i c t court erred i n refusing to instruct the jury on third degree assault. Defendant's refused instruction No. 11 would have advised the jury that second degree assault i s a felony and that third degree assault i s a misdemeanor and would have described the difference in penalty for each offense. Refused instruction No. 12 would have advised that defendant might be found guilty of any lesser included offense i f the evidence was insuf- ficient to establish the offense charged, and that the offense charged, second degree assault, " * * * necessarily includes the lesser offense of Assault i n the Third Degree". Defendant's instruction No. 13, also refused, would have defined t h i r d degree assault for the jury. Defendant was charged w i t h and found guilty of violating section 94-602(3), R.C.M. 1947, which reads as follows: "Every person who, under circumstances not amounting to the offense specified in the l a s t section: * * * "(3) Mil lful ly or wrongfully wounds or infl i c t s grievous bodily harm upon another, either w i t h or without a weapon * * *, ' 1 Section 94-603, R.C.M. 1947, essentially defines third degree assault as any assault or assault and battery not previously specified i n the Code as a greater degree of assault. Like other degrees of assault, t h i r d degree assault requires unlawful intent on the part of the actor. On the basis of the evidence i t had to consider, there can be no question that the jury-could find that the defendant "willfully" inflicted "grievous bodily harm" upon Rita Jensen. T w o of the three witnesses testi- fied that without provocation, Manning struck Rita w i t h his closed f i s t . Her jaw was fractured, requiring hospital izati on and oral surgery. In refusing t o give defendant's offered instructions, the court i n effect ruled that, as a matter of law, there was no evidence to support a finding of third degree assault. The d i s t r i c t court was correct in so limit- ing the jury's determination to second degree assault or no assault a t a l l . In reviewing the record w e find that there was no evidence of third degree assault, w i t h i t s requisite of criminal, unlawful intent, because the only other testimony regarding the cause of the injury, Manning's, was prem- ised upon a theory of accidental striking. If the jury were to believe de- fendant's theory of "accident", they would then have to acquit, since no element of criminal intent would then be involved. This Court recently ruled in State v. Lewis, 157 Mont. 452, 457, " * * * Where the facts disclose, as in this case, that the evidence constituted at 1 east second degree assaul t or no assault at a1 1 , the contention that the court erred in failing to give instructions on third degree assault is not meritorious." See also State v. Satterfield, 114 Mont. 122, 132 P.2d 372 and State v. Karri, 8 4 Mont. 130, 276 P.2d 427. The district court was also correct in refusing to instruct on degrees of punishment. In State v. Zuidema, 157 Mont. 367, 373, 485 P.2d 952, we stated: "We note here that in all criminal prosecutions the jury under the new rules is told that punishment is not of its concern; its sole function is to decide the de- fendant's guilt or innocence. By legislative action punishment has been given solely to the trial judge, leaving the function of finding facts and weighing them to the jury," Accordingly,. the j ................................... Associate Justices