DA 06-0395 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

2007 MT 190N 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

RICHARD PAUL GIRARD, 

 Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District, 

In and For the County of Silver Bow, Cause No. DC-2006-016 

Honorable John W. Whelan, Presiding Judge 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Walter M. Hennessey; Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Hon. Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, Mark W. Mattioli, 

Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Robert M. McCarthy, Silver Bow County Attorney, Brad Newman, 

Deputy County Attorney, Butte, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: April 25, 2007 

 Decided: August 7, 2007 

Filed: 

__________________________________________ 

Clerk 
Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal 

Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited 

as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and 

its case title, Supreme Court cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s 

quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. 

¶2 In January of 2006, the State filed its Information in the District Court of the Second 

Judicial District, Silver Bow County, charging Richard Paul Girard with the offense of 

intimidation, a felony, in violation of § 45-5-203(1)(a), MCA. This charge arose from an 

incident in which the State alleged that Girard verbally threatened to inflict physical harm on 

two law enforcement officers as they arrested him in connection with a traffic accident. 

¶3 Girard was tried before a jury and convicted in April of 2006. During the 

proceedings, the two arresting officers testified that Girard had become “enraged” while 

being taken into custody; that he had resisted arrest; and that he had repeatedly issued verbal 

threats to both of them. According to the officers, the most alarming among Girard’s threats 

was directed at Officer Anthony Jurenic. Particularly, the officers testified, Girard named the 

street on which Officer Jurenic resides and threatened to kill him. Along with this threat, the 

officers further testified, Girard provided a detailed description of Officer Jurenic’s residence 

and also claimed to have previously observed his activities inside the home through a bay 

window. 

2
¶4 On appeal, Girard argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to 

establish each element of the offense of intimidation. Thus, Girard contends that the District 

Court erred when it refused to either enter a judgment in his favor or order a new trial. 

¶5 We are not persuaded by Girard’s argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence 

and we therefore need not address his additional arguments. The record clearly demonstrates 

that the State’s evidence was sufficient to establish each element of the offense of 

intimidation. Therefore, we conclude that our decision in this case is appropriately rendered 

by memorandum opinion pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(i) of our 1996 Internal 

Operating Rules, as amended in 2003. 

¶6 Affirmed. 

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER 

 

We Concur: 

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY 

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART 

/S/ JOHN WARNER 

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS 

3