96-392

 No. 96-392

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

1997

STATE OF MONTANA, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v.

PATRICK DALE NEARY, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, In and for the 

County of

 Custer, the Honorable Kenneth R. Wilson, Judge Presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellant:

 Terry J. Hanson, Miles City, Montana

 For Respondent:

 Honorable Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General; Christina Goe, 

 Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

 Garry P. Bunke, County Attorney, Miles City, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: June 26, 1997

 Decided: September 11, 1997

Filed:

 __________________________________________

 Clerk

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-392%20Opinion.htm (1 of 9)4/16/2007 1:14:52 PM
96-392

Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

 A jury in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Custer County, found Patrick 

Neary

guilty of aggravated assault. Neary appeals. We affirm. 

 We restate the following two issues Neary raises on appeal:

 1. Is the jury verdict supported by substantial evidence?

 2. Did the District Court err when it granted the Stateþs proposed jury

instruction No. 13 and denied Nearyþs proposed weapon instruction?

BACKGROUND

 On June 7, 1995, Patrick Neary invited Victoria Haaser to his house in Miles 

City,

Montana. The two spent much of the day in bed together. That afternoon, Neary

received a phone call from another woman. Haaser left, informing Neary, "Iþm 

finished

with you." Later, Haaser and Neary separately visited several Miles City bars. When

the bars closed, Neary stopped to talk with Haaser after he saw her van parked 

outside

Linda Merchantþs house. 

 Various individuals gathered in a room above a flight of stairs leading from

Merchantþs garage to her house observed Neary and Haaser standing together on the

stairs. Donald Bair heard a "thud" and ran to investigate. He saw Haaser falling 

down

the stairs as Neary backed away and headed for the garage door saying, "Iþm getting 

the

hell out of here." Bair rushed down the stairs. Haaser had landed with her head on 

the

floor and her feet lying up the stairs. Blood was flowing from her head, nose, and 

ear. 

Bair propped Haaser up, placed her over his shoulder in a "firemanþs carry," and 

drove

her to the hospital. 

 Bair did not see Neary holding Haaser. During cross-examination, he maintained

that Haaser was still falling when he arrived. Bair testified that when he sat 

Haaser on

the stairs, her head was nowhere near a pipe which protruded from the garage wall. 

Darin Ewalt heard a "loud crack." As he came to the top of the stairs, Haaser was 

still

falling. He observed Neary leaving the garage, but did not see him holding Haaser at

any time.

 According to Linda Merchant, Neary and Haaser had an argument at her house

earlier the evening of June 7, 1995. After she asked them to leave, Neary and Haaser

departed separately. When Neary returned to Merchant's house after the bars closed,

Haaser agreed to speak with him, but Merchant was nervous about what might happen. 

She testified:

I wanted them to come upstairs so . . . we could keep an eye on them. I

left the door open to the top of stairs into the house to where we were at,

just above them. So we could hear in case . . . it got out of hand.

. . .

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-392%20Opinion.htm (2 of 9)4/16/2007 1:14:52 PM
96-392

[A]fter I checked on them, I walked up . . . into my bedroom . . . and sat

down on my stool. I just barely got sat down, and I heard it. It sounded

like, I believe, a shotgun. It was just a bang. 

I have a china closet in my bedroom thatþs against the far wall, the dishes

in it rattled. And thatþs when I looked and Donny Bair and Darin Ewalt

were literally falling over each other to go down and see what happened,

and thatþs when I went down. 

As Merchant stood at the top of the stairs, she saw Bair attempting to sit Haaser up 

on

the stairwell. Neary was standing in the garage, and Merchant yelled at him to 

leave. 

She did not notice whether Neary had anything in his hands.

 Shannon Dalbec, one of Nearyþs friends, testified that Neary arrived at her home

around 3:00 a.m. Neary stated Haaser had fallen, he was innocent, and "he was going

to leave town because even if he was innocent nobody would believe him." Later that

morning, Neary called Dalbec and said he was going to Canada and was going to take

a boat to Mexico. Monica Foreman testified that Neary telephoned her between 3:30 

and

4:30 a.m. He stated, "I hurt Vicki really bad. Itþs my fault." Neary informed 

Foreman

that he was leaving town or probably the country. 

 At 7:30 a.m., Miles City police arrived at Merchantþs house. Inside her garage,

they photographed blood stains on the wall, concrete floor, and stairs. They also

searched the area for a weapon but were unable to find one. 

 Due to the severity of Haaserþs injuries, she was airlifted to St. Vincent 

Hospital

in Billings, Montana. Upon learning this information, Neary drove to Billings. Ella

Wood, Haaserþs mother, testified that Neary was already at St. Vincent Hospital when

she arrived at 10:00 a.m. Neary told her a friend had called him and that was how he

learned about the accident. Haaserþs sister was also at the hospital. When she 

asked

Neary what happened, he responded that he did not know. Neary explained he was not

at Merchantþs house when the accident occurred and that a friend had called him. 

Then

he stated, "This is all my fault." Donald Wood, Haaserþs father, confirmed that 

Neary

claimed not to know anything about how Haaser was injured.

 Billings police arrested Neary at St. Vincent Hospital and seized his bloodstained

clothes. At trial, the Stateþs forensic scientist testified that the blood on 

Nearyþs shirt and

pants was not his but belonged to the same type as Haaserþs.

 Neary testified that he stopped at Merchantþs house because he wanted Haaser to

leave, claiming to be concerned about her children and career. Haaser was standing 

on

the steps with her back leaning against the wall near a pipe. Neary started walking 

away

from her. Haaser fell, and when Neary turned around, she was lying on the floor. 

Neary knelt beside Haaser and turned her over on her back. Bair "shouldered" him out

of the way, and Merchant yelled at him to leave. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-392%20Opinion.htm (3 of 9)4/16/2007 1:14:52 PM
96-392

 Neary denied hitting Haaser on June 8. He claimed his statements to friends and

Haaserþs family were either taken out of context or were lies. During crossexamination,

he stated that when he examined Haaser, he did not observe anything stuck to her 

head. 

He further claimed that he received blood stains on his clothing when he knelt down 

to

examine Haaser.

 As a result of her injuries, Haaser has no memory of the incident and suffers

long-term brain damage. She testified that prior to the incident, however, Neary 

had not

shown any concern for her children or her career.

 At trial, two physicians testified regarding the extent of Haaserþs injuries. 

Dr.

Fred McMurry, Haaserþs attending neurosurgeon and the Stateþs medical expert, 

testified

that Haaser suffered a subdural hematoma and an extradural hematoma on the right and

left sides of her head. She also received a fracture to the left side of her head 

and a scalp

injury. Dr. McMurry testified that the injury, "a round hole in the scalp going 

right

down to bone," was probably caused by a blow to the side of the head. It would be

unlikely for a fall to cause such an injury unless it was from a considerable 

distance onto

an object. 

 Dr. Scott Callaghan, a neurologist and Nearyþs medical expert, testified by

deposition that Haaserþs injuries would not be expected to result from a punch from a

bare fist but could have been caused by a fall from a considerable distance and 

hitting an

object on the floor. Her scalp wound could not have been caused by hitting a flat

surface. Dr. Callaghan did not disagree with Dr. McMurryþs opinion that Haaserþs

injury could also have been caused by a blow to the side of the head with an object. 

According to Dr. Callaghan, Haaser had a blood alcohol level of .15, tested positive 

for

amphetamines, and was taking a prescription medication. This combination would cause

her to have a propensity to fall.

 On June 26, 1995, the State charged Neary with attempted deliberate homicide,

or in the alternative, aggravated assault. The information stated: 

[O]n or about June 8, 1995, in Custer County, Montana, . . . Patrick Neary

. . . did commit the offense of attempted deliberate homicide, a felony, as

specified in section 45-4-103(1) and 45-5-102(1)(a) . . . or, in the

alternative, aggravated assault, a felony, as specified in section 45-5-

202(1)[.]

The State alleged the facts constituting the offense of aggravated assault as:

Patrick Neary . . . purposely or knowingly caused serious bodily injury to

Victoria Haaser, by striking her with some type of blunt weapon, on the left

side of her head, just above the ear, with enough force to cause trauma to

the left side of the skull with right subdural hematoma.

 At the close of the Stateþs case-in-chief, Neary moved for a directed verdict 

or to

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-392%20Opinion.htm (4 of 9)4/16/2007 1:14:52 PM
96-392

dismiss the information based on insufficient evidence. The court took his motion 

under

advisement. At the conclusion of the case, Neary again moved for a directed verdict 

and

to dismiss the information. The court granted a directed verdict on the charge of

attempted deliberate homicide but concluded there was sufficient evidence for the 

charge

of aggravated assault to go to the jury.

 During settlement of jury instructions, Neary objected to the Stateþs proposed

instruction No. 13 because it stated "caused serious bodily injury" but did not 

include that

the serious bodily injury was caused by a weapon. Neary requested the addition of 

the

words "with a weapon" to the Stateþs proposed instruction No. 13. The court 

overruled

the objection and gave the Stateþs proposed instruction No. 13.

 A jury found Neary guilty of aggravated assault, and the District Court 

sentenced

him to twelve years at the Montana State Prison with seven years suspended. Neary

appeals.

DISCUSSION

 1. Is the jury verdict supported by substantial evidence?

 The standard of review of sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after 

reviewing

the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 

fact could

have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.

Bower (1992), 254 Mont. 1, 6, 833 P.2d 1106, 1110. The credibility of witnesses and

the weight to be given to their trial testimony are determined by the trier of fact, 

and if

events are capable of different interpretations, the trier of fact determines which 

is the

most reasonable. State v. Ahmed (1996), 278 Mont. 200, 212, 924 P.2d, 679, 686; 

State

v. Brogan (1993), 261 Mont. 79, 87, 862 P.2d 19, 24. 

 Neary argues this is a circumstantial evidence case and the evidence does not

support the verdict. He contends, as he did at trial, that Haaser lost her balance, 

fell

down the stairs, and struck the floor where there was a beer bottle cap which removed

a piece of her scalp. When Haaser was taken to the hospital, the bottle cap fell 

from her

head. Neary relies on State v. Lucero (1984), 214 Mont. 334, 693 P.2d 511, to argue

that when circumstantial evidence is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations, 

one

pointing to innocence and one pointing to guilt, a jury must adopt the 

interpretation that

points to innocence. 

 In Lucero, we concluded that absent affirmative evidence to the contrary, the 

jury

did not err as a matter of law in finding that the defendantþs interpretation of the

circumstantial evidence was not reasonable. Lucero, 693 P.2d at 513-14. At trial 

Neary

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-392%20Opinion.htm (5 of 9)4/16/2007 1:14:52 PM
96-392

did not produce a bottle cap or any physical evidence of Haaserþs missing hair or 

scalp. 

He testified that he examined Haaser and did not see anything stuck to her head. 

Neary

did not provide affirmative evidence that Haaser fell on a bottle cap, or other 

similar

object, with such force to cause her injuries. His bottle cap theory was nothing 

more

than an alternative theory for the juryþs consideration.

 The State argues the verdict against Neary is supported by substantial 

evidence. 

We agree. Neary and Haaser were involved in a sexual relationship and argued on June

7. Merchant testified that she was afraid to leave the two alone together. Three

witnesses at Merchantþs house testified they heard a loud noise and ran to the 

stairs to

investigate. When they arrived, Neary was not touching Haaser, but was backing away

towards the garage door. This testimony is inconsistent with Nearyþs explanation

that he received blood on his clothing because he kneeled to examine Haaser. A 

forensic

expert identified the blood type on Nearyþs pants and shirt as Haaserþs. Blood 

spatters

covered the wall, stairs, and floor near where Neary and Haaser were standing. Neary

left Merchantþs house immediately after Bair, Ewalt, and Merchant arrived. The 

Stateþs

medical expert testified it would be unlikely that Haaserþs injuries were caused by 

a fall

onto a flat surface.

 Nearyþs statements and actions following the incident also support the juryþs

verdict. After leaving Merchantþs house, Neary arrived at Dalbecþs home and informed

her that he was leaving town. Later, he called her and said he was going to Canada 

and

would take a boat to Mexico. Foreman testified that Neary called and told her that 

he

had hurt Haaser badly, that it was his fault, and that he was going to leave town or

probably the country. Although Neary admitted being at Merchantþs house, Haaserþs

family testified that Neary did not know what happened to Haaser, that he was not 

there,

and that a friend had called him.Neary relies on State v. Gommenginger (1990),

242 Mont. 265, 790 P.2d 455, to argue that his statements made to various persons 

after

the incident as subsequent inconsistent statements cannot be the sole substantive 

evidence

upon which a jury should be allowed to base guilt. Gommenginger is distinguishable

from this case. Gommenginger involved testimony from a drug informant who had a

motive to lie. Here, the Stateþs witnesses had no identifiable motive to lie. In

Gommenginger, the court restricted cross-examination of the informant. Neary was 

free

to cross-examine and impeach the Stateþs witnesses, which he attempted to do. 

 Bair's only prior inconsistent statement in this case was his testimony from the

hearing on Nearyþs motion to dismiss. At trial, Neary attempted to impeach Bair by

using his previous testimony. Bair explained the inconsistencies and the jury was 

free

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-392%20Opinion.htm (6 of 9)4/16/2007 1:14:52 PM
96-392

to weigh Bairþs testimony. 

 Moreover, Nearyþs subsequent inconsistent statements were not the only evidence

upon which the jury could base Nearyþs guilt. Nearyþs acts before, during, and 

after the

incident would allow a jury to find him guilty. We conclude that Nearyþs subsequent

inconsistent statements were not the sole substantive evidence upon which a jury 

could

have found him guilty of aggravated assault. 

 In further support of his argument that the verdict is unsupported by the 

evidence,

Neary relies on State v. Gould (1985), 216 Mont. 455, 466, 704 P.2d 20, 28, to argue

that his out-of-court statements do not meet the requisite trustworthiness as 

competent

admissions against interest. Gould differs from the present case. Gould moved to

suppress his pretrial admission pursuant to 46-13-301, MCA (1981). Neary did not

move to suppress his out-of-court statements, and he did not object to the admission 

of

his statements at trial. We will not review issues which have not been properly 

preserved

for appeal. See 46-20-104(2), MCA; State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 151,

875 P.2d 307, 321. 

 When the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the 

jury,

as a rational trier of fact, could reasonably have concluded that Neary purposely or

knowingly caused Haaser serious bodily injury. We hold that the verdict convicting

Neary of aggravated assault is supported by substantial evidence.

 2. Did the District Court err when it granted the Stateþs proposed jury 

instruction

No. 13 and denied Nearyþs proposed weapon instruction?

 We review jury instructions in a criminal case to determine whether the

instructions, as a whole, fully and fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable 

to the

case. State v. Leyba (1996), 276 Mont. 45, 51, 915 P.2d 794, 797.

 Section 45-5-202(1), MCA (1985), provides, "(1) A person commits the offense

of aggravated assault if he purposely or knowingly causes serious bodily injury to

another." Section 45-5-202(2), MCA (1985), provides, in relevant part, "(2) A person

commits the offense of felony assault if he purposely or knowingly causes: (a) bodily

injury to another with a weapon[.]" 

 The Stateþs proposed instruction No. 13, adopted by the court, stated:

To convict the defendant of aggravated assault, the State must prove the

following elements:

 1. That the defendant caused serious bodily injury to Vicki Haaser,

and

 2. That the defendant acted purposely or knowingly.

Neary requested the addition of the words "with a weapon" to the above instruction. 

 Neary argues that the District Court erred when it granted the Stateþs proposed

instruction No. 13 and refused his proposed weapon instruction because the 

information

alleged that he caused Haaser serious bodily injury using a weapon.

 The State charged Neary with aggravated assault, not felony assault. Felony

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-392%20Opinion.htm (7 of 9)4/16/2007 1:14:52 PM
96-392

assault requires the use of a weapon; aggravated assault does not. Cf. 45-5-202

(2),

MCA (1985) and 45-5-202(1), MCA (1985). See also Arlington, 875 P.2d at 307.

 The information charged Neary with attempted deliberate homicide, or in the

alternative, aggravated assault. Under the section "facts constituting the 

offense," the

information stated:

Neary . . . purposely or knowingly caused serious bodily injury to Victoria

Haaser, by striking her with some type of blunt weapon, on the left side of

her head, just above the ear, with enough force to cause trauma to the left

side of the skull with right subdural hematoma.

 The District Courtþs jury instruction No. 13 stated the elements of aggravated

assault as they are enumerated in 45-5-202(1), MCA (1985). Because 45-5-202(1),

MCA (1985), does not require that serious bodily injury be caused by a weapon, the 

jury

was not required to find that Neary used a weapon to find him guilty of aggravated

assault.

 Neary maintains he was prevented from preparing an adequate defense because

instruction No. 13 does not require the use of a weapon, but the facts in the 

information

alleged that he used a weapon. He relies on State v. Later (1993), 260 Mont. 363, 

860

P.2d 135. In Later, the State charged the defendant with misdemeanor official

misconduct. During settlement of jury instructions, the State conceded that it had 

charged

the defendant under the incorrect statute. The State offered an alternative 

instruction

charging the defendant with violation of another statute. We reversed, reasoning 

that the

function of an information is to notify the defendant of the offense charged, thereby

giving him the opportunity to defend. Later, 860 P.2d at 137, citing State v. Tropf

(1975), 166 Mont. 79, 88, 530 P.2d 1158, 1163. 

 Nearyþs reliance on Later is misplaced. Unlike in Later, the State charged 

Neary

with aggravated assault, which was contained in the information, and the District 

Court

instructed the jury using the same language taken from the aggravated assault statute

contained at 45-5-202(1), MCA (1985). Notwithstanding the recital of facts 

contained

in the information, Neary knew with what offense he was being charged and its 

elements. 

The jury had to find that Neary purposely or knowingly caused serious bodily injury 

to

Haaser in order to convict him of aggravated assault. We conclude that Neary was not

prevented from preparing an adequate defense based on the courtþs instruction of the

elements of aggravated assault.

 The cases cited by Neary from other states are also distinguishable from the 

facts

of this case. In State v. Jones (Kan. 1995), 896 P.2d 1077, the trial court added 

another

type of intent to the jury instruction which was not included in the information. In

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-392%20Opinion.htm (8 of 9)4/16/2007 1:14:52 PM
96-392

Atterberry v. State (Okla. Crim. App. 1986), 731 P.2d 420, the trial court broadened 

the

definition of child abuse by adding elements not contained in the statute. In State 

v.

DeSantos (N.M. 1976), 553 P.2d 1265, the court erred by adding instructions on 

felony

murder and depraved mind murder when the evidence did not support the instruction. 

 We conclude that the District Courtþs jury instructions, as a whole, fully and 

fairly

presented the applicable law on aggravated assault. Nearyþs proposed weapon 

instruction

was an inaccurate statement of the law and was an attempt to broaden the statutory

definition of aggravated assault. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its

discretion when it adopted the Stateþs proposed instruction No. 13 and denied Nearyþs

proposed weapon instruction.

 Affirmed.

 /S/ J. A. TURNAGE

We concur:

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.

/S/ JIM REGNIER 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-392%20Opinion.htm (9 of 9)4/16/2007 1:14:52 PM