D A 0 9

- 0 6 0 3



### I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F M O N T A N A

2 0 1 0 M T 2 1 2

S T A T E O F M O N T A

N A

,

P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l e e

,

v

.

W I L L I A M A

. P A R R I S H

,

D e f e n d a n t a n d A

p p e l l a n t

.

APPEAL FROM: District Court o f the Sixteenth Judicial District,

I n a n d F o r t h e C o u

n t y o f R o s e b u d

, C a

u s e N o

. D C 0 8

- 2 7

H o n o r a b l e J o e L

. H e g

e l

, P r e s i d i n g J

u d g e

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r A p p e l l a n t :

E l i z a b e t h T h o m a s

, A t t o r n e y a t L a w

, M i s s o u l a

, M o n t a n a

F o r A p p e l l e e :

S t e v e B u l l o c k

, M o n t a n a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; J o h n P a u l s o n

, A s s i s t a n t

A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

M i c h a e l B

. H a y

w o r t h

, R o s e b u d C o u

n t y A t t o r n e y

, F o r s y

t h

, M o n t a n a

S u b m i t t e d o n B r i e f

s : A u g u s t 4

, 2 0 1 0

D e c i d e d : O c t o b e r 5

, 2 0 1 0

F i l e d :

_ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k October 5 20102

W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 A f t e r s i x h o u r s o f d e l i b e r a t i o n s

, a R o s e b u d C o u n t y j u r y c o n v i c t e d W i l l i a m P a r r i s h

( P a r r i s h ) o f c r i m i n a l e n d a n g e r m e n t

. P a r r i s h a

p p e a l s t h e c o n v i c t i o n

, r a i s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g

i s s u e s :

¶ 2 1

. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Parrish ’ s m o t i o n f o r

a n e w t r i a l b a s e d o n a n a l l e g e d B r a d y violation?

¶ 3 2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Parrish ’ s motion for

a new trial based on the discovery of new evidence?

¶ 4 3

. D i d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o m m i t p l a i n e r r o r b y f a i l i n g t o g i v e a l e s s e r

i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r y ?

¶ 5 4

. W a s D e f

e n s e C o u n s e l i n e f

f e c t i v e i n c h o o s i n g n o t t o p r o p o s e a l e s s e r

i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n ?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL B ACKGROUND

¶ 6 I n 2 0 0 8

, P a r r i s h l i v

e d i n F o r s y

t h

, M o n t a n a

, w i t h h i s g i r l f r i e n d ( B

. H

. ) a n d h e r t w o

c h i l d r e n ( M

. G

. a n d h i s s i s t e r )

. O n J u n e 1 6

, 2 0 0 8

, P a r r i s h w a s w a t c h i n g t h e t w o c h i l d r e n

when M.G. ’ s a r m w a s i n j u r e d

. P a r r i s h p r o m

p t l y o b t a i n e d m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t f o r M

. G

. .

W h i l e a t t h e f

a c i l i t y

, C h i l d a n d F a m i l y S e r v i c e s ( C F S ) R e g i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r G r a n t L a r s o n

( L a r s o n ) a n d a d e p u t y s h e r i f f s p o k e w i t h P a r r i s h , but no charges were filed.

¶ 7 O n A

u g u s t 5

, 2 0 0 8

, P a r r i s h a g

a i n w a t c h e d t

h e c h i l d r e n

. A f

t e r r e t u r n i n g h o m e

,

B

. H

. o b s e r v

e d t h a t M

. G

. w a s b e h a v

i n g a b n o r m a l l y a n d s h e t o o k h i m t o t h e m e d i c a l c l i n i c

i n F o r s y t h t h a t s a m e d a y

. A t t h e c l i n i c

, B

. H

. l e a r n e d t h a t M

. G

. h a

d s u s t a i n e d a s k

u l l

f r a c t u r e

, i n t e r n a

l b r u i s i n g

, a n d b r o k e n r i b s

. M

. G

. w a s t r a n s p o r t e d b y a m b u l a n c e t o t

h e

B i l l i n g s C l i n i c a n d e v

e n t u a l l y t o C h i l d r e n ’ s H o s p i t a l i n A u r o r a

, C o l o r a d o

. P a r r i s h t o l d3

B.H., Larson, and the deputy sheriff that he was unaware of any cause for M.G. ’ s

injuries.

¶ 8 Due to Parrish ’ s f a i l u r e t o s e e k t r e a t m e n t f o r M

. G

. o n A

u g u s t 5

, 2 0 0 8

, h e w a s

c h a r g e d w i t h c r i m

i n a l e n d a n g

e r m e n t

. A f

t e r t h e c h a r g

e s w e r e f i l e d

, P a r r i s h d e v

e l o p e d a

d i f f e r e n t s t o r y

, t h i s t i m e e x

p l a i n i n g M

. G

. ’ s i n

j u r i e s

. P a r r i s h a l l e g

e s t h a t h e d i d n o t r e p o r

t

t h e i n j u r i e s i m m e d i a t e l y b e c a u s e h e f e a r e d t h e S t a

t e w o u l d t a k e t

h e k i d s a w a y

, g i v e n t h e

i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n c e r

n i n g t h e e v

e n t s o f J u n e 1 6

, 2 0 0 8

.

¶ 9 Parrish ’ s counsel filed a discovery request for “ [a] ll medical reports of any nature

pr epared in reference to M.G., ” “ [ a ] l l [ D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h a n d H u m a n S e r v i c e s

( D P H H S ) ] r e p o r t s r e l a t i n g t o M

. G

. , ” and “ [ a ] l l l e g a l p l e a d i n g s o r r e p o r t s i n a n y p e n d i n g

[ d e p e n d a n

t a n d n e g l e c t ] a c t i o n c o n c e r n i n g M

. G

. pertinent to M

. G

. ’ s physical or mental

condition. ” The State responded and agreed to proffer all documents not precluded by

§ 4 1

- 3

- 2 0 5

, M C A

. R e g a r d i n g t h e d i s c o v

e r y r e q u e s t f

o r D P H H S r e p o r t s t h a

t m a y b e

p r e c l u d e d b y s t a t

u t e

, t h e S t a t e o f

f e r e d t o p r o v i d e t h e e n t i r e i n v e s t i g a t i v e f i l e s u b j e c t t o i n

c a m e r a screening.

¶ 1 0 T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d a n i n c a m e r a p r o c e e d i n g a n d i s s u e d a n o r d e r p r i o r t o t r i a l

.

A t t a c h e d t o t h e o r d e r w e r e c o p i e s o f D P H H S d o c u m e n t s for Defense Counsel ’ s u s e i n

p r e p a r a t i o n f

o r t r i a l

. A

n I n v e s t i g a t i v e S a f e t y A s s e s s m e n t ( a s s e s s m e n t ) a c c o m p a n i e d t h e

court ’ s o r d e r a n d p r

o v i d e d a d e s c r i p t i o n o f a m e e t i n g o n J u n e 1 7

, 2 0 0 8

, w

h e r e i n D P H H S4

Child Protection Specialist Lisa Reiger (Reiger) met with B.H. at her home. At this

m e e t i n g R e i g

e r h a d B

. H

. s i g

n i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e a s e f

o r m s ( r e l e a s e s )

. 1

¶ 1 1 A t t r i a l

, L a r s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e c a l l e d B

. H

. a t h o m e o n J u n e 1 7

, 2 0 0 8

, a n d

i n f o r m e d h e r t

h a t the investigation regarding M.G. ’ s b r o k e n a r m w a s c l o s e d a n d t h a t a

s o c i a l w o r k e r w o u l d s t o p b y t h e h o u s e

. O n r e d i r e c t

- e x a m i n a t i o n o f L a r s o n

, t h e S t a t e

a t t e m p t e d t o a

d m i t t h e a s s e s s m e n t i n t o e v i d e n c e

. D e f

e n s e C o u n s e l o b

j e c t e d

. O n

r e c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n o f L a r s o n

, D e f e n s e C o u n s e l m o v

e d t o a d m i t t h e f i r s t t w o p a g

e s o f

t h e s e v e n p a g e a s s e s s m e n t into evidence for the purpose of impeaching Larson ’ s

t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e b r o k e n a r m i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n c l u d e d o n J

u n e 1 6

, 2 0 0 8

. T h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t a d m

i t t e d t h e f i r s t t w o p a g

e s i n t o e v i d e n c e a s D e f

e n s e E x h i b i t B o n t h e c o n d i t i o n

t h a t t h e r e m a i n i n g f

i v e p a g e s w e r e a l s o a d m

i t t e d

.

¶ 1 2 P a r r i s h a n d B

. H

. b o t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t C F S d i d n o t c o n

t a c t t h e c o u p l e t o i n f

o r m t h e m

t h a t t h e i n v

e s t i g a t i o n r e g

a r d i n g t h e b r o k e n a r m i n c i d e n t h a d c o n c l u d e d

. T h e y b o t h

t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y h a d l i v

e d i n f e a r o f h a v

i n g t h e i r c h i l d r e n t a k e n a w a y s u b s e q u e n t t h e

J u n e 1 6

, 2 0 0 8

, i n c i d e n t

. O n d a y f o u r o f t r i a l

, t h e S t a t e i n t r o d u c e d t h e s i g n e d releases to

impeach B.H. ’ s testimony that she was not con tacted by CFS

.

¶ 1 3 D e f

e n s e C o u n s e l d i d n o t o f f e r a n i n s t r

u c t i o n o n n e g

l i g e n t e n d a n g

e r m e n t o r a n y

l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e

. T h e j u r y f

o u n d P a r r i s h g

u i l t y o f c r i m

i n a l e n d a n g

e r m e n t

.

T h e r e a f t e r

, P a r r i s h f

i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r a n e w t r i a l

, w

h i c h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d

. P a r r i s h

n o w a p p e a

l s h i s c o n v

i c t i o n a n d d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n f o r a n e w t r i a l

.

1 T h e a s s e s s m e n t i s a c t u a l l y d a t e d J u n e 1 6

, 2 0 0 8

, d e s p i t e i t s i n c l u s i o n o f t h e J u n e 1 7

, 2 0 0 8

, v i s i t s u m m a r y

. N e i t h e r p a r t y r a i s e s t h i s i s s u e

, t h e r e f o r e t h e C o u r

t n o t e s t h i s

d i s c r e p a n c y

, b u t f

i n d s t h e f i l e e r r o r i n c o n s e q

u e n t i a l

.5 STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 1 4 We review a district court ’ s d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r a n e w t r i a l u n d e r t h e a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r

d

. S t a t e v

. C l a r k , 2008 MT 391, ¶ 20, 347 Mont. 113, 197 P.3d 977.

¶ 1 5 We may also apply the common law plain error doctrine to review claimed errors

that implicate a criminal defendant ’ s f u n d a m e n t a l c o n s t i t u

t i o n a l r i g h t s

, e v e n i f n o

o b j e c t i o n i s m a d e

, w

h e r e f a i l i n g t o r e v

i e w t h e c l a i m e d e r r o r a

t i s s u e m a y r e s u l t i n a

m a n i f e s t m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e

. State v. Jackson

, 2 0 0 9 M T 4 2 7

, ¶ 4 2

, 3 5 4 M o n t

. 6 3

, 2 2 1

P

. 3 d 1 2 1 3

.

DISCUSSION

¶ 1 6 1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Parrish ’ s m o t i o n f o r

a n e w t r i a l b a s e d o n a n a l l e g e d B r a d y v i o l a t i o n ?

¶ 1 7 I n o r d e r t o e s t a

b l i s h a B r a d

y v i o l a t i o n

, d e f

e n d a n t m u s t s h o w ( 1 ) t

h e S t a t e

p o s s e s s e d e v i d e n c e f

a v o r a b l e t o t

h e d e f e n s e ; ( 2 ) t h e d e f

e n d a n t d i d n o t p o s s e s s t h e

e v i d e n c e n o r c o u l d h e h a v

e o b t a i n e d i t w i t h r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e ; ( 3 ) t h e S t a t e s u p p r e s s e d

t h e f a v o r a b l e e v i d e n c e ; a n d ( 4 ) h a d t h e e v i d e n c e b e e

n d i s c l o s e d

, a r e a s o n a

b l e p r o b a b i l i t y

e x i s t s t h a t t h e o u

t c o m e o f t h e p r

o c e e d i n g s w o u l d h a v

e b e e n d i f f e r e n t

. Id. at ¶ 53

.

¶ 1 8 W e r e c e n t l y o b s e r v e d i n State v. James

, 2 0 1 0 M T 1 7 5

, ¶ 3 6

, 3 5 7 M o n t

. 1 9 3

, 2 3 7

P

. 3 d 6 7 2

, t h a

t n o B r a d y v i o l a t i o n e x i s t s w

h e r e b o t h p a r t i e s a r e a w a r e o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f

s p e c i f i c e v i d e n c e a n d d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l c o u l d u n c o v e r t h e e v

i d e n c e w i t h r e a s o n a b l e

d i l i g e n c e

. In James

, defense counsel requested that the State provide “ evidence that

would mitigate or negate guilt

. ” Id. a t ¶ 3 0

. D e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h e

n m o t i o n e d f

o r a n e w

t r i a l a l l e g i n g a B r a d

y violation for the State ’ s failure to provide the victim ’ s b o o k i n g6

p h o t o

. I d

. a t ¶ 3 2

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o u n d t h a t b o t h p a r

t i e s k n e w p r i o r t o t r i a l t h a t t

h e

a s s a u l t v i c t i m h a d b e e n a r r e s t e d t h e n i g h t o f t h e i n c i d e n t a n d i t w a s c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e

t h a t b o o k i n g p h o t o s a r e t a k e n o f p e r s o n s who are arrested. Id

. at ¶ 33. I n James

, w e

c o n c l u d e d t h a

t s i n c e c o u n s e l f

o r t h e d e f

e n d a n t w a s g e n e r a l l y f

a m i l i a r w i t h b o o k i n g

p r o c e d u r e s

, c o u n s e l w a s c o n s t r

u c t i v e l y a w a r e t h a t a b o o k i n g p h o t o w a s p r o b a b l y i n

e x i s t e n c e

. I

d

. at ¶¶ 33

- 36.

¶ 1 9 H e r e

, w

h e r e t h e a s s e s s m e n t d o c u m e n t p u t P a r r i s h o n a c t u a l n o t i c e o f t h e e x i s t e n c e

a n d s u b s t a n c e o f t h e r e l e a s e s

, t h e J a m e s r a t i o n a l e i s e v

e n m o r e c o m

p e l l i n g

. P a r r i s h w a s

a w a r e o f t h e r e l e a s e s a n d c l e a r l y i n a p o s i t i o n t o s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e

releases themselves. This argument is belied by the fact that Parrish ’ s c o u n s e l

s u c c e s s f u l l y m o v e d t o i n t r o d u c e t h e f i r s t t w o p a g

e s o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t a n d t h e n o b j e c t e d

w h e n t h e S t a t e s o u g

h t t o i n t r o d u c e p a g

e s e v e n

, t h e p a g

e c o n t a i n i n g t h e s u m m a r y o f t h e

r e l e a s e s

. S i n c e P a r r i s h h a s f a i l e d t o s h o w t

h a t h e c o u l d n o t h a v

e o b t a i n e d t h e r e l e a s e s

w i t h r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g

e n c e

, h e h a s n o t s a t i s f

i e d t h e s e c o n d p r

o n g o f t h e Brady

test and we

need not discuss the other three prongs.

¶ 2 0 2. Did the

District Court abuse its discretion in denying Parrish ’ s m o t i o n f o r

a n e w t r i a l b a s e d o n t h e d i s c o v e r y o f n e w e v i d e n c e ?

¶ 2 1 P a r r i s h c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n

f o r a n e w t r i a l d u e t o n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e

, i

. e

. t

h e r e l e a s e s

. I

n o r d e r t o p r e v

a i l o n a

m o t i o n f o r a n e w t r i a l g

r o u n d e d o n n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e

, a d e f

e n d a n t m u s t m e e t

t h e f i v e p a r t B e r r

y t e s t t h a t w e r e s t a t e d i n State v. Clark

, 2 0 0 5 M T 3 3 0

, ¶ 3 4

, 3 3 0 M o n t

.

8

, 1 2 5 P

. 3 d 1 0 9 9

. I

n t e r a l i a

, a d e f

e n d a n t m u s t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e f

a i l u r e t o d i s c o v

e r t h e7

evidence sooner was not the result of the defendant ’ s l a c k o f d i l i g e n c e

. I d

. A s d i s c u s s e d

a b o v e

, D e f e n s e C o u n s e l w a s a w a r e o f t h e r e l e a s e s b e f o r e t r i a l a n d P a r r i s h c o u l d h a v e

o b t a i n e d t h e r e l e a s e s t h e m s e l v

e s w i t h r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g

e n c e

. S i n c e P a r r i s h f

a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y

t h e d i l i g e n c e r e q u i r e m e n t

, t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g h i s

motion for a new trial.

¶ 2 2 3

. D i d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o m m i t p l a i n e r r o r b y f a i l i n g t o g i v e a l e s s e r

i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r y ?

¶ 2 3 Parrish requests that we review the District Court ’ s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r p l a i n

e r r o r

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y

, P a r r i s h c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d h a v e s u a s p o n t e

instructed the jury as to the lesse r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f § 4 5

- 5

- 2 0 8

, M C A

, N e g l i g e n t

e n d a n g e r m e n t

.

¶ 2 4 Although we have exercised discretionary authority to review claimed errors that

affect a defen dant ’ s f

u n d a m e n t a l r i g

h t s u n d e r t h e c o m

m o n l a w p l a i n e r r o r d o c t r i n e w h e r e

n o o b j e c t i o n s a r e m a d e a t t r i a l

, S t a t e v

. F i n l e y , 276 Mont. 126, 137, 915 P.2d 208 , 215

(1996), the plain error doctrine is “ to be employed sparingly ” and “ pursuant to narrow

circumstances. ” Stat e v. Lindberg , 2008 MT 389, ¶ 34, 347 Mont. 76, 196 P.3d 1252.

According t o § 4 6

- 1 6

- 4 1 0 ( 3 )

, M C A :

A p a r t y m a y n o t a s s i g

n a s e r r o r a n y p o r t i o n o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s o r o m

i s s i o n

f r o m t h e i n s t r

u c t i o n s u n l e s s a n o b

j e c t i o n w a s m a d e s p e c i f

i c a l l y s t a t i n g t h e

m a t t e r o b j e c t e d t o

, a n d t

h e g r o u n d s f o r t h e o b j e c t i o n

, a t t h e s e t

t l e m e n t o f

i n s t r u c t i o n s

.

A b s e n t r e q u e s t b y t h e p a r

t i e s

, t h e t r i a l c o u r

t h a s n o d u

t y t o i n s t r

u c t t h e j u r y o n a l e s s e r

i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e

. State v. Sheppard

, 2 5 3 M o n t

. 1 1 8

, 1 2 4

, 8 3 2 P

. 2 d 3 7 0

, 3 7 3 ( 1 9 9 2 )

. A s

w e e x p l a i n e d i n S

h e p p a r d

, “ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l m a y w a n t t o o m i t s u c h a n i n s t r u c t i o n a s a8

matter of strategy. ” I

d

. T he refore, the District Court ’ s d i s c r e t i o n n o t t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y

o n a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e o f n e g

l i g e n t e n d a n g

e r m e n t s u a s

p o n t e does not warrant plain

error review.

¶ 2 5 4

. W a s D e f

e n s e C o u n s e l i n e f

f e c t i v e i n c h o o s i n g n o t t o p r o p o s e a l e s s e r

i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n ?

¶ 2 6 When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel ’ s

assistance, the defendant must show that c ounsel ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f e l l b e l o w a n o b

j e c t i v e

s t a n d a r d o f r e a s o n a b l e

n e s s

. State v. Gunderson

, 2 0 1 0 M T 1 6 6

, ¶ 6 7

, 3 5 7 M o n t

. 1 4 2

, 2 3 7

P

. 3 d 7 4

. A d d i t i o n a

l l y

, t h e r e i s a s t r o n g p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s c o n d u c t f

e l l w i t h i n

t h e w i d e r a n g

e o f r e a s o n a b l e p r o f

e s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e a n d w a s b a s e d o n s o u n d t r i a l

s t r a t e g y

. State v. Whitlow

, 2 0 0 8 M T 1 4 0

, ¶ 3 3

, 3 4 3 M o n t

. 9 0

, 1 8 3 P

. 3 d 8 6 1

. P a r r i s h

a s s e r t s t h a t D e f

e n s e C o u n s e l h a d n o p l a u s i b l e j u s t i f

i c a t i o n f o r n o t s u b m

i t t i n g a l e s s e r

i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n o n n e g

l i g e n t e n d a n g

e r m e n t

. G i v e n t h a t w e h a v e r e c o g n i z e d

t h a t c o u n s e l c a n

, f o r s t r a t e g i c r e a s o n s

, c h o o s e n o t t o o f f e r a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e

i n s t r u c t i o n

, S h e p p a r d , 253 Mont. at 124, 832 P.2d at 373

, we cannot conclude that

counsel ’ s representation fell bel ow an objective standard of reasonableness.

¶ 2 7 W e a f

f i r m

.

/ S / W

. W I L L I A M L E A P H A R T

W e c o n c u r :

/ S / M I K E M c G R A T H

/ S / M I C H A E L E W H E A T

/ S / J A M E S C

. N E L S O N

/ S / J I M R I C E