NO. 81-474 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982

THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent,

VS. SHERRY RILEY, Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of theFifteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Roosevelt Honorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: David Nielsen argued, Glasgow, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Chris Tweeten argued, Assistant Attorney General,

Helena, Montana Marc F. Racicot, County Prosecutors Service, Helena,

Montana James A. McCann, County Attorney, Wolf Point, Montana

Submitted: March 29, 1982 Decided: ~ugust 13, 1982



# TA-5

bEp~~,~m~4.- Clerk

### Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. Sherry Riley and three codefendants were convicted of deliberate homicide following a jury trial in the Fifteenth Judicial District, State of Montana, in and for the County of Roosevelt. Riley was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment with ten years suspended. From that judgment she appeals. The fact situation relating to the death of fiveyear-old James Gill has been stated in a recent opinion of this Court, State v. Powers (1982), Mont

# . , 645 

### P.2d 1357, 39 St-Rep. 989. Only those facts specifically applicable to Sherry Riley, the appellant here,will be set forth in this opinion. Appellant, her husband Arthur, and Norma Phillips,

were tried jointly. Charges against Norma Phillips were dismissed at the close of the State's case. The jury found Arthur Riley not guilty. Appellant and her husband were members of a religious group known as the River of Life Tabernacle, which originally was based in Wapato, Washington. James DeLorme, the leader of the church, appointed various persons as "ministers" and "counselors" to assist him in church matters. DeLorme traveled much of the time leaving church operations in the hands of Arthur Riley and the appellant, who served

as a "women's counselor." Members of the church lived communally, sharing food and responsibilities for the community. Often several families would occupy the same dwelling. It was within this framework that church leaders exerted substantial control over the lives of the members.

### The leaders established rules regarding members' work, living conditions and expenditures of money. Members were expected to contribute a percentage of their income to the church and to make special contributions for other items needed by the church leaders. The leaders of the church established a policy on child discipline that evolved from a desire to recruit members. DeLorme determined that well-behaved children would make a 

### good impression on potential converts, and in the fall of 1979, the church began a policy of strict discipline for children of church members. During this period, DeLorme had 

### a group of ten children of church members living at his house because he was dissatisfied with their parents' compliance with his discipline policies. Testimony indicated that he used a spatula and electric cord to discipline the children. Evidence also was introduced that members would compete with each other in carrying out the discipline policies in an attempt to please DeLorme. Testimony showed that adult members, including DeLorme and the appellant, sat around in a circle and placed a number of small children in the center. Whichever adult a child went towas expected to spank the child and place him back in the center of the circle. Children as young as five months were subjected to this treatment. Appellant was a central figure in the enforcement of the church discipline policy. She told Pat Lewis, one of the mothers, that Lewis had no authority over her own children and was not to discipline them. Appellant served as disciplinarian when DeLorme was away and undertook the jobof disciplining theLewischildren aswell asother children of the commune. Beatings were inflicted on the children with a blue-green fiberglass stick or with an electrical cord and thereafter the children often

### were hosed down with coldwater. James Gillwas one of these children.

di-tjcip4-i-ne47Fm~ The appellant disciplined James on several occasions, both with the fiberglass stickand the electrical cord because he refused to eat. According tothe testimony of Pat Lewis, appellant hosed James down after one beating and made him stand in mud for "an hour or so." Another witness, Takkeal, testified that he saw the appellant beat James for "a couple of hours" for refusing toeat and that afterwardsJames was bruised and appeared unconscious. These incidents occurred prior to the move of the commune to Montana inthefallof 1980. James Gillwas, throughout his short life, a sickly child. He suffered from sickle cell anemia, a hereditary circulation disorder. This condition was known to the church leaders, including the appellant. Dr. Kenneth Mueller, who testified at the trial as an expert in pediatrics and forensic pathology, stated that the disease was "relativelymoderate" and thatthe childwould not have died of that disease alone. However, he testified that as a resultof thebeatings about 20 percent of thechild's blood volume seeped from broken blood vessels intothe surrounding tissue. Thisblood lossproduced a shock-like effectwhich, in combination with the sickle cell disease, led to James Gill'sdeath.In the late fall of 1980, the church moved from Wapato, Washington, to Glasgow and Poplar, Montana. The Rileys, the Gillsand severalothermembers moved intothree unitsof a motel inGlasgow. They stayed atthemotel until sometime in December. Then they gave up two of the units and moved those families, including the Gills, to Poplar where they occupied mobile homes. The appellant and her familykept one unit untilJanuary 2, 1981. Richard Dick, a church member, testified that during theperiod they

### were alltogether inGlasgow he observed the appellant and Don Howtopat beat James with an 

### electrical cord and a stick and that this beating seemed to weaken James. Appellant testified that after her husband moved their trailer to Poplar sometime in mid-December she spent part of the 

### time inPoplar and part inGlasgow. During this period, James Gilllived attheir trailer part of the 

### time. She also testified that during thisperiod that James lived with them she did not spank him. The appellant was in Glasgowmost of the

### time fromJanuary 2, 1981toJanuary 11, 1981, but on Thursday, January 8, she was in Poplar to attendchurch services. According toher testimony, she saw James in church and he appeared to be perfectly normal. After church, she returned toGlasgow and did not return to Poplar until Sunday, January 11. She learned of James Gill'sdeath Saturdaymorning. The appellant testified that on January 9, the day James died, she drove from Glasgow toFort Benton, Montana, to get one of the church members out of jail. She denied that she had left the children in the charge of Robert

### Powers, a defendant in the earlier case. This testimonywas controverted by the State through the testimony of Ronald Wilson, a deputy sheriff of Roosevelt County, who testified that shortly after the boy's death Powers told him that the appellant had told him on Thursday night, January 8, to return to the Riley trailer and take care of the children. Seven issues are presented for consideration: 1. Is the information, as amended, sufficient to properly charge the appellant with the offense of deliberate homicide? 2. 

### Was probable cause sufficiently established in the county attorney's supporting affidavits to permit the court's granting of leave to file an information? 3. 

### Is the jury verdict finding the appellant guilty of deliberate homicide supportedby sufficient evidence? 

### 4. Did the trial court err in allowing evidence of other crimes, wrongs and acts of the appellant and of individuals not parties to this action and in denying appellant's motion in limine to exclude such evidence? 5. 

### Did the trial court err in admitting the electrical cords into eviuence? 6. Did the trial court err in allowing photographs of the deceased victim into evidence? 

### 7. Did the trial court err in giving InstructionNo. 16, which contains a verbatim recital of the amended information?The original information of January 12, 1981, was amended twice following motions to dismiss. In denying these motions the trial court ruled that: "The affidavits and Information filed by the County Attorney are sufficientto give the Defendants notice of the charges against them. The amended Information charges the offenses inthe language of the statute. The charging statutescomply with the law." The defendants charged by this information applied to this Court for writs of supervisory control. We accepted jurisdiction and denied the relief petitioned for, finding that the affidavits established probable cause to believe that thedefendantswere guiltyof deliberatehomicide. Appellant levels two attacks against the amended information--one, that it failstostatean offensewith the specificityrequired by the constitutional guarantee of due process of law, Amend. XIV, U.S. Const. and Art. 11, Sec. 17, 1972Mont. Const.; and two, that the affidavitsfiledby the State failed to establish probable cause to charge the defendants. As previously noted, we have considered the sufficiency of the information in a special proceeding of Arthur Riley for writ of supervisory control and ruled that the charging language atissuehere was sufficiently specificto satisfy due process requirements. This ruling makes the issueresjudicata. Section 46-1-4()(c), MCA, controls here and states the legal standards of specificity. Itprovides in pertinentpart: "(1) A charge shall:

"(c)charge the commission of an offenseby:

"(iii) stating the facts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language and in such manner astoenable a person of common understanding toknow what 

### is intended;"(iv) stating ths time and place of the offense asdefinitely ascan be done; 

# .

# .."
'The language must be "concise" but still sufficient to allow a "person of common understanding toknow what is intended." This Court has held previously that an information charging a homicide is sufficient under this standard if it charges the offense in terms of a statute without reciting supporting evidentiary facts. See, State v. Coleman (1978), 177 Mont. 1, 22, 579 P.2d 732, 745, cert. denied, 446 U.S. 970 (1980). In an earlier case, State v. Heaston (1939), 109 Nont. 303, 308, 97 P.2d 330, 332, this Court held that an informationneed not setforth themanner inwhich thedeath

was caused, nor recite all possible legal theories the prosecutor wishes topursue. See, Stateex rel. McKenzie v. District Court (1974), 165 Mont. 54, 63, 525 P.2d 1211, 1216. The purpose of an information is to provide the defendant with notice, not to provide discovery of the State's evidence. See, McKenzie, supra. We find the amended information is sufficient. It charged three theories of homicide: (1)that the defendant

as a principal purposely or knowingly caused the death of James Gill by engaging in one or more of four enumerated kinds of conduct; (2) that the defendant aided and abetted inpurposely or knowingly causing the death of James Gillby engaging in one or rnore of the four kinds of conduct; and (3)that the death of James Gill occurred while the defendantwas engaged inor aiding and abetting inthe commission of aggravated assault. Each theory was charged in the statutory language under section 45-5-102(1)(a) and (b), MCA. In addition, the defendant was notified that the State

### intended to offer an accountability theory under section 45-2-302,MCA. The State abandoned the felonymurder theory prior to trial. The information is intended to be a notice device, and this amended information served thatpurpose. One of the attacks appellant makes on the information is that it fails to state the time and place of the offense "as definitely as can be done," since it charges that the various acts occurred in three different counties in this state over a period of about two years. We consider this allegation withoutmerit. The lawdoes not require that the time and place be stated with impossible precision; it merely requires that they be stated as definitely as possible under the circumstanees of the case, unless time is a "material ingredient in the offense." See, Statev. Heaston, 109 Mont. at 307, 97 P.2d at 332. Here the information alleges a continuing course of abusive conduct towards James Gill, beginning when his family joined the River of Life Tabernacle group and culminating with the boy's death on January 9, 

### 1981. When such a continuing course of conduct is alleged, further specificity is not required. State v. House (1971), 260 Or. 138, 489 P.2d 

### 381, 384. Appellant relies most directly on State ex rel. Offerdahl v. District Court (1971), 156 Mont. 432, 

### 481 P.2d 338,which is distinguishable from the case here. Offerdahl dealt with the sale of drugs by a relator to an informant, then identified only as "John Doe," occurring in Cascade County on a particular date. This Court held that the information did not sufficiently protect the relator from double jeopardy since it did not state sufficient facts to identify the transaction at issue. The Court ordered the

### prosecutor to remedy this defect by filing an amended information which either identified John Doe, the informer,

or stated other facts which sufficiently identified the transaction. Offerdahl did not hold that the details of evidentiary facts of the offense must be stated in every

case. In fact, this Court has had numerous cases which hold otherwise. See,State v. Coleman, supra. Appellant's next contention, that the amended information is defective because it fails to state the underlying factsof an aggravated assault which served as the basis for the felony murder theory, is incorrect for several reasons. First, no authority is cited for the proposition that such underlying evidentiary facts must be plead. Second, a person of ordinary intelligence would understand that the State intended toprove the aggravated assaults were against James Gill and resulted in his death. Next appellant claims that the four aff idavits filed in support of the charges did not establish probable cause to charge appellant with deliberate homicide. We find no merit to this argument. See, State v. McKenzie, supra, for principles governing the filing of an information. In evaluating the various affidavits for probable cause, "magistrates are not to be confined by niggardly limitations or by restrictions on the use of their common sense," and the reviewing court must give special deference to judicial probable cause determinations. See, State v. Troglia (1971), 157 Mont. 22, 26, 482 P.2d 143, 146, where this Court quoted from Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637. Here, the evidence from the affidavits considered by the District Court showedthat James Gill 

### met his death as a result of a policy of persistent childabuse formulated by DeLorme and effectuated in large part by appellant. She encouraged the growth of the policy by counseling the church members tocomply; she inflicted beatings remarkably 

### similar to those which directlyresulted inthe death of 

### James Gillon a varietyof children of the commune, including 

### James himself. While this conduct began in late 1979when the church's disciplinary policy 

### first arose, it continued when the church moved intoMontana shortlybefore

### James Gill's death. The affidavits showed that James Gill's death 

### resulted from

### a continuing course of brutal abuse inwhich the appellant

### was both an instigator and an activeparticipant. The evidence indicated appellanthad previously beaten James to

### a point of unconsciousness and that because of the beatings and his sickle 

### cell anemia, the child's condition 

### was noticeablyweakened by the 

### time thegroup moved toMontana. Here the District Court, using 

### itscommon sense and drawing permissible inferences, found probable cause tobelieve that appellant's intentional and knowing infliction, encouragement and instigation of such injuries caused or aided and abetted in the cause of 

### James Gill's death. These affidavitsprovide more than sufficient support for the District Court's conclusion. The next issuefor consideration 

### iswhether there

### was sufficient evidence to support thejury verdict finding the appellant guilty of deliberate homicide. Appellant argues that under sections 45-2-301 and -302, MCA, for her tobe guilty of deliberate homicide, there had to be evidence showing (1)that appellant did some 

### act which either causedor facilitated thevictim's death, and (2)that shedid that actpurposely or knowingly. She argues that under Statev. Jones (1963), 143 Mont. 155, 181, 387 P.2d 913, 926, this Court held: 

### "

# .. . in every crime or public offense there must exist a union or joint operation of act and intent." Appellant argues that under Jones, therefore, for her tobe liablefor thedeath of James Gillitmust be shown thather act of disciplining James Gill in July 1980 and again in September 1980 was done with the accompanying intent, knowledge or purpose that this discipline would cause his death. Appellant claims therewas no evidence fromwhich to draw any such inference. Appellant argues that, inadditiontotherequirement that there must be some evidence showing a "conduct" on the part of the defendant to cause the death, under the provisions of section 45-2-201, MCA, there must be some "causal relationship" between the conduct and the resulting death. 

### We have previously 

### set forththefactssupporting the flling of the information against appellant. In reviewing these facts to show a sufficiency of the evidence, we must note that the Statedid not attempt toprove that appellant struck the blow that ended James Gill's life. The State's

case was tried on the theory that appellant was a major participant in a systematic seriesof actswhich led tothe death of James Gill, and, under this aspect of the case, it

was appellant's conduct which was "a" cause of the death. Section45-2-201, MCA. All of the acts here related directly to the disciplinary program of the church, carried on under the directionof James DeLorme, the creator and leader of the church.

### DeLorme spentmuch of the time during the last two years of James Gill's life on the road,and during those times appellant and her husband assumed the responsibility for child discipline. Appellant was involved in church discipline throughout the time the churchmoved from Washington to Glasgow and Poplar. Along with her husband and DeLorme, appellant counseled the Gills and other church members aboutproper discipline of children. This discipline included punishment by beating with a fiberglass stick or electrical cord followed by a cold-water hose down. Appellant disciplined James Gill in this manner in his mother's presence for his refusal to eat; beat a one-year-old child who did not come back when called; and whipped Justelle Phillips DeLorme with an electrical cord in her mother's presence. Justelle testified at trial that the appellant did most of the whipping for the church and primarily was responsible for spankingJames Gill in Glasgow. Appellant's involvement in the church's discipline policy continued to the very day of JamesGill's death when she left Powers with the children, including James Gill, and told Powers he was in charge. The evidence clearly established that appellant knew of the severe beatings inflicted on the children of the churchmembers. She was aware that Justelle Phillipshad at

one time been beaten so severely that she was bruised from thewaist down and passed blood in her urine. Appellant knew that James Gill suffered from sickle cell anemia and had beat him into unconsciousness on at least one prior occasion. Appellant argues that by allowing the evidence of"other crimes" the trial court failed to adhere to the decisions of this Court in State v. Just (1979), Mont

# .

, 602 P.2d 957, 36 St.Rep. 1649, and State v. Brubaker (198111 -Mont. 

## , 625 P.2d 78,38 St.Rep. 432. This Court has identified several kinds of evidence which may be admitted despite the fact it tends to prove crimes other than those charged. See, State v. Meidinger (1972), 160 Mont. 310, 321, 502 P.2d 58, 65, wherein this Court allowed evidence of crimes committed in preparation for the charged offense as part of resgestae. In addition, in Statev. Frates (1972), 160 Mont. 431, 437, 503 P.2d 47, 50, we allowed evidence of prior drug sales between the defendant and the police informant as "part of the corpus delecti of the crime

# .. . charged." 

### In a series of recent cases, the Court held thatevidence of 

### crimes which is inextricably or inseparably linked with the 

### crime chargedmay be admitted without regard to the rules governing "other crimes" evidence. State

### v. Trombley (1980), Mont. 

## -, 620 P.2d 367, 37 St.Rep. 1871, and Statev. Jackson (1979), 180 Mont. 195, 202, 589 P.2d 1009, 1014; see also, Statev. Powers, supra. The common thread tying these cases together is the factthat the State

### is entitled topresent

### tne entirecorpus delecti of the charged offense including matters closely related tothe offense and explanatory of it, even when such evidence discloses crimes other than those charged. The State's evidence inthiscase showed thatthe finalbeatings inflicted on James Gill differed from those previously inflicted by appellant and other church members only inthe ultimate severityof the result.

### We hold that the jury is entitled to view the death of James Gill in the context of prior events and that the beatings inflicted by the other people in the community were not isolated events but part of a continuous series of beatings inflicted by appellant and others over a period of months. To properly understand the events that took place before James Gill's death, the jury was entitled to consider all of these factors of child abuse prior to the boy's death. As we noted in State v. Powers, supra, under these facts the State need not prove a specific intent to kill to prove deliberate homicide but need only show that the defendants engaged in a common design or course of conduct to accomplish an unlawful purpose (child abuse or assault). In Powers this Court also approved the State's contention that under Montana's accountability statute,where codefendants undertake a course of conduct or common scheme which results in a person's death, all can be held criminally responsible for a murder, citing People v. Spagnola (1970), 123 Ill.App.2d 171, 260 N.E.2d 20. See also, People v. Johnson (1966), 35 

### 111.2d 624, 221N.E.2d 662, and People v. Richardson (1965), 32 111.2d 472, 207 N.E.2d 478. We find that the facts here are sufficient under Spagnola and the

cases above-cited to support the jury verdict. The next issue raised is whether the court properly admitted two electrical cords as exhibits. The cords in question were State's Exhibits 8 and 9 and had been seized from appellant's mobile home on January 10, 1981, after Arthur Riley consented to the search. The State offered the cords through the testimony 

### of Sgt. Ronald Wilson who seizedthem during the search. The offer was objected to, and the State withdrew the offer pending further foundation during the testimony of Justin Phillips. Justin Phillips, one of the children, testified thatwhen Powers was inflicting the final beating on James Gill, he told Justin to fetch an extension cord from the cupboard. After questioning Justin about the cord, the Stateoffered it for admission with the foundation laid by Wilson who had obtained the cord during the search. The court then took thematter under advisement. Further argument about the cords took place when the State announced its intention torest

### itscase. They were finally admitted asexhibitsinevidence. Appellant argues that the cords were neither sufficiently identified as those cords used to beat James Gill

nor connected with any conduct of the appellant. As 

### we have previously held, the foundation for admission of exhibits is left to the discretion of the trial court. See, State v. Coleman, supra. Here, therewas no abuse of thatdiscretion. Sgt. Wilson established the chain of custody of the exhibits from the timeof their seizure tothe timethey 

### were admitted. Justin Phillipsf testimony indicated that the cords

were similar tothose employed tobeatJames Gillon two occasions. The cords were relevant in light of Dr. Mueller's description of the marks on James Gill's body as inflicted with a looped object. They allowed thejury tocompare the cords with themarks depicted in thephotograph exhibits. Finally, appellant argues that the exhibitswere not tied toher conduct and therefore should have been excluded under our recent decisionof Statev. Casagranda (1981),

## - Mont. - 

## , 637 P.2d 826, 38 St.Rep. 2122. Inthatcase, theState introduced intoevidence a pharmaceutical bottle which

was never connected in any way to the charged burglary. Here, the cords were connected to the beatings inflicted on James Gill through the testimony of Justin Phillips. Casaqranda is obviously distinguishable on the facts. We find the exhibitswere properly admitted. The next issue raised concerns whether the court properly admitted photographs of the victim's body into evidence. This issuewas covered fully inState v. Powers, supra. Weadopt the findings inthat case, noting that the testimony of Dr. Mueller was virtually the same in the two

cases. Dr. Mueller testified that the pictures accurately represented the victim's appearance at the autopsy and were reasonably necessary to depict the multiplicity and the extent of the injuries, how they were caused and their age. Here, the pictures taken at the autopsy definitely related to the charges against the appellant and were properly admitted. See, Statev. Hoffman (1982),

## -Mont

# . ,639 P.2d 507, 39 St.Rep. 79. The next issue raised by the appellant concerns whether the court properly instructed the jury in the language of the amended information. Instruction No. 16 stated:"You are instructed that the specific charge involving the defendants reads asfollows: "'That during theperiod of November, 1979 to January 9, 1981atYakima County, Washington, Valley County and Roosevelt County, Montana the Defendants committed the offense of Deliberate Homicide, a felony, in that the Defendants did purposely or knowingly cause or aided or abetted inpurposely or knowingly causing the death of James Gill, a human being, by instigating, inciting, promoting, encouraging or commanding the physical abuse or mistreatment of James Gill, and/or bylending their support, assent, countenance or approval tothe continued or repeated 

### mistreatment of James Gill, and/or by failingor refusing tointervene or oppose themistreatment of James Gill, and/or by failing or refusing to secure medical or hygenic care for James Gill necessary for his physical well-being in violation of sections 45-5- 102(l)(a)and 45-2-302(3), MCA and contrary to the form, force, and effect of the statutes in such case made and provided and against thepeace and dignity of the Stateof Montana.

## ' "To this charge the defendants have pled not guiltyand under their pleas, they deny every material allegation of the Amended Information against them, and in order to convict them of the crime charged against them every material fact necessary to constitute such crime must be proved by the State by competent evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. If thejury entertains any reasonable doubt upon any fact or element necessary to constitute the crime charged, it 

### is your duty to give the defendants the benefit of such doubt and acquit." (Emphasis added.) To this proposed instruction counsel for appellant objected on thefollowing basis: "Your Honor, I took my instruction basically from

## -- and the only objectionthat I have is that if you put the information in, that it would contain extra wordage which might confuse the jury on the actual elements of the offense, it has such things as maltreatment and so forth and there 

### is not going to be an instruction on negligent homicide, so I think this

### is confusing tothejury." Appellant's objection to the instruction must be considered in light of our previous discussionof the first issue. InMcKenzie, supra, we noted that thepurpose of the information 

### is toprovide the defendant with notice, not to provide discovery of all the State's evidence. Appellant previously had filed motions to dismiss the original information and two amended informations. As a result of his objections, the State amended to provide the necessary information contained inInstructionNo. 16. We have inourdiscussion of the first issueupheld the sufficiencyof that information and find no necessity of changing thatdecision under thissecond attackon that issue. This Court has previously established the standard for instructions that 

### a single instruction must not be viewed in artificial isolation but must be viewed in the contextof theoverall charge. If allinstructions,reviewed



### as 

### a whole, fairly and accurately present the case to the jury, the factthat one instruction, standing alone, is not



### as full

### as itmight have been is not reversible error. State

v. Coleman, supra; Statev. Azure (1979), 181Mont. 47, 591 P.2d 1125; State v. Farnes (1976), 171Mont. 368, 558 P.2d 472. The instruction is a proper instructionin

### a deliber

### atehomicide case, and 

### itsonlydifference from the instruction offered in the previous defendants1 

### case is that the words of the informationwere inserted intoit. The instructionexplains in detailthe State's theory of the charge and when read with the other instructions given by the court, Instruction Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38, along with Instruction No. 13, it 

### is our opinion that the instructionwas properlygranted. The 

### last issue for consideration is whether the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence. As previously 

### set forth, there 

### is ample evidence tosupporttheverdict in this case which would allow the jury to find appellant guiltybeyond a reasonable doubt. Aswepreviously noted in State v. Fitzpatrick (1973), 163 Mont. 220, 227, 516 P.2d 605, 610, evidence must be given "all the legal effect toward guiltwhich 

### it could support," and conflicts in theevidence on appeal must be resolved in favor of the State. See, State v. Pascgo (1977), 173 Mont. 121, 566 P.2d 802. When the evidence is analyzed in light of the rules set forth in the above cases, it is more than sufficient to support the State's theory of the case. Finding no reversible error we affirm the conviction.

We concur:

# %!aChief JuStic5

Justices

### Mr. JusticeJohn C. 

### Sheehy,dissenting:

I would reverse the convictionof SherryRiley. Inmy opinion the connection of Sherry Riley to the beating death of JamesGill is far too attenuated tomake her accountablewith theprincipals in this case. This is a bizarre caseof guiltby association. Shehas been convicted as accountable not because sheacted towhip or beat James Gill, or stoodbywhile hewas being beaten, but because sheadhered to a belief in the strong discipline of children as a religious tenet. Acting under that tenet, shehad previously administered some strong discipline herself, to JamesGill and to others,but shenever beat anyone to thepoint of death. It cannot be said under the evidence here that she "purposelyorknowingly"acted to bring about thedeath of James Gill, or that she purposely promoted or facilitated the commissionof deliberatehomicide. Additionally, I think that she is at the least entitled to a new trial because instructionno. 16 is fatally flawed inpermitting the jury to convict Sherry Riley fornonstatutory

reasons. In effect,the court and the jurymade up their

own crimeof accountability. A person is accountableunder section 45-2-302(3), MCA, onlywhen, "either before or during the commission of an offense with the purpose to promote or facilitate such commission," the person aids or abets the principal actor in theplanning or commission of the offense. The court correctly instructed the jury on this point in instruction no. 30. Instructionno. 16 conflictswith instructionno. 30 

### because no. 16 adds additional but nonstatutory grounds upon which to convictof accountability. By breaking instruction

### no. 16 into someof its components,one can see language thathad noplace in an instruction to the jury: 

# ".

. .Thedefendantsdid purposely or knowingly causeor aided or abetted in purposely orknowingly causing the death of JamesGillby 

### "[l] 

### '

# .. . lending their support

# . . . countenanceor approval to the continued or repeated mistreatment of JamesGill; "[2] 

## '.


# .. failingor refusing to interveneor oppose the mistreatment of James Gill; 

### "[3] I. 

# .. failingor refusing to securemedical orhygenic care for James Gill; "[4] 

## '.



# .

# . in violation of sections 45-2-201(I), (a),and 45-2-302(3),MCA I1 

# ... The languagecontained in [l]

## , [2]

## ,and [3]

## , is not to be found inany statutedefining a crime either of accountability or deliberate homicide inMontana. Yet, that bracketed language is,by the statement in [4] held out to the jury asbeing a violation of certain sectionsof the Montana Code. On thatbasis, the instruction ismisleading, confusing and in conflictwith the other instructions given by the court which define the offenseof accountability in statutory language. It was of course improper in this case for the court to include the language of the information in an instruction to the jury. We have approved in earlier cases the inclusion of the language froman information in a jury instruction, particularly in Statev. McKenzie (1980),

### - I 

### Mont

# . - 608P.2d 428, 444, 37 St.Rep. 325, 339,wherewe said: "PpIontana'scriminal code iswritten in clearplain language which serveswell as the basis for instructions to the jury. There was no error in incorporating the entire Information into thepreliminary instructions,

## ---- for it too isbasically in statutory languagemerely insertingdezndant's name and thevictim's name in theproper 

### --- ---

### places and enumerating theweapons used



# .. . (Emphasisadded.) It is one thing to incorporate the statutory language in an instruction froman informationand quite another to include in an instructionnonstatutory language froman information. For allwe know, the jury convicted Sherry Riley of "failingor refusing to secure medical care" for James Gill or "failingor refusing to interveneor oppose in the mistreatment of James Gill," for neither orwhich is there a statutory dutyplaced upon SherryRiley. To that extent instructionno. 16 invents a crime not set out in our criminal code. I 

### thereforedissent.

Mr. 

### Justice DanielJ. Shea dissenting: I joinwith Mr. Justice Sheehy inhis dissent.