97-305

 No. 97-305

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

 1997

STATE OF MONTANA,

 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v.

 

 RODNEY PLENTY 

HAWK, 

 Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Big Horn,

 The Honorable Maurice R. Colberg, Jr., Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellant:

 James L. Vogel, Hardin, Montana

 For Respondent:

 Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Patricia J. Jordan, Assistant

Attorney General, Helena, Montana; Christine A. Cooke, Big Horn County

Attorney, Curtis Bevolden, Deputy Big Horn County Attorney, Hardin,

Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: October 16, 1997

 Decided: October 22, 1997

Filed:

 __________________________________________

 Clerk

Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-305%20Opinion.htm (1 of 4)4/16/2007 4:15:30 PM
97-305

 Rodney Plenty Hawk appeals a jury verdict in the District Court for the 

Thirteenth

Judicial District, Big Horn County, convicting him of Intimidation. We reverse.

 The issues presented for review are:

 1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

 2. Whether Plenty Hawk's right to a speedy trial was violated.

Because we reverse on issue one regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, we 

decline to

address issue two.

 Factual and Procedural Background

 On February 8, 1996, at approximately 9 p.m., Deputy Bob Runge of the Big

Horn County Sheriff's Department was dispatched to investigate a report of an 

intoxicated

person lying in the road. Upon arriving at the scene, Runge discovered Plenty Hawk

lying in the parking lane. Runge noticed that Plenty Hawk had blood coming down over

one eye. Fearing that Plenty Hawk may have been hit by a car, Runge called for an

ambulance. When the ambulance personnel arrived and began examining Plenty Hawk,

he sat up and tried to push them away. Sue Mercier and Patti Medicinehorse, the

ambulance personnel, testified that Plenty Hawk smelled of alcohol and that, 

although he

seemed alert and oriented, he was combative and belligerent. 

 Mercier and Medicinehorse determined that Plenty Hawk's vital signs were 

normal

and that he had not sustained any life-threatening injuries. Because Plenty Hawk was

covered with mud, they decided to transport him to the sheriff's office where they 

could

clean him up and examine him more thoroughly. Runge placed Plenty Hawk in the back

of his patrol car while assuring Plenty Hawk that he was not under arrest. 

 At the sheriff's office, Plenty Hawk was placed in a holding cell. He was

combative and insisted that everyone leave him alone. When Mercier attempted to 

check

his pulse, Plenty Hawk took a swing at her. Mercier then left the cell and 

Medicinehorse

calmed Plenty Hawk down, completed the medical exam and cleaned the abrasion over

Plenty Hawk's eye. 

 As Medicinehorse was leaving, Runge advised Plenty Hawk that he was under

arrest for the charge of Intoxicated Pedestrian and that he would be spending the 

night

in jail. Pete Molina, the detention officer, began the booking process and directed 

Plenty

Hawk to take off his shoes. After taking off one shoe, Plenty Hawk refused to take 

off

his other shoe and twice challenged Runge to fight. Plenty Hawk stood 6 feet 3 

inches

tall, weighed 240 pounds and was 35 to 40 years old, while Runge stood 5 feet 11 

inches

tall, weighed 180 pounds and was 56 years old. 

 Both Runge and Molina testified that Plenty Hawk declared that as soon as he 

got

out of jail he was going to kick Runge's ass and terrorize Runge and his family. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-305%20Opinion.htm (2 of 4)4/16/2007 4:15:30 PM
97-305

Molina

reported that the entire exchange with Plenty Hawk lasted only 15 to 20 minutes and 

that

Plenty Hawk apologized to Molina the next day. Runge acknowledged at trial that he 

had

been told by one of the jailers that Plenty Hawk wished to apologize to Runge as 

well.

 

 At trial, Plenty Hawk recounted that he was in Hardin to make a dental

appointment. While waiting for his ride back to the Crow Agency, he stopped in one 

of

the local casinos to gamble. After winning $150, he visited a few bars and spent 

several

hours drinking. At some point he decided to hitchhike home. He recalled standing on

the side of the road in the rain, but did not recall anything else until he woke up 

in a cell

at the jail. He contended that because of his intoxicated condition he must have 

blacked

out and that he did not remember Runge or the ambulance crew coming to the scene or

having made any threats to Runge.

 Plenty Hawk was charged with Intimidation pursuant to õ 45-5-203, MCA (1995). 

He was tried by a jury on September 6, 1996. At the close of the State's case-inchief,

defense counsel moved for a directed verdict alleging insufficient evidence. The 

District

Court denied the motion and Plenty Hawk was subsequently found guilty and sentenced

to three years at Montana State Prison. On March 5, 1997, defense counsel filed a

motion for a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A hearing on the

motion was conducted on April 7, 1997. By order dated April 18, 1997, the court 

denied

Plenty Hawk's motion as untimely. Plenty Hawk now appeals his conviction.

 Discussion

 Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

 The standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a 

criminal

conviction is whether, after viewing the evidence in the 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. Ross (1995), 269 Mont. 347, 360, 889 P.2d 161,

169 (citing State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 146, 875 P.2d 307, 318). This 

is

the same standard that applies to a district court's decision on a motion for a 

directed

verdict. State v. Treible (1996), 275 Mont. 59, 61, 910 P.2d 237, 238.

 Plenty Hawk was convicted of Intimidation under õ 45-5-203, MCA (1995), which

provides, in pertinent part:

 Intimidation. (1) A person commits the offense of intimidation

 when, with the purpose to cause another to perform or to omit the

 performance of any act, he communicates to another, under circumstances

 which reasonably tend to produce a fear that it will be carried out, a threat

 to perform without lawful authority any of the following acts:

 (a) inflict physical harm on the person threatened or any other

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-305%20Opinion.htm (3 of 4)4/16/2007 4:15:30 PM
97-305

 person;

 (b) subject any person to physical confinement or restraint; or

 (c) commit any felony.

Plenty Hawk contends that his conviction should be reversed because the State failed 

to

present any evidence on one of the essential elements of the crime, namely whether 

the

threats were made "with the purpose to cause another to perform or to omit the

performance of any act." 

 The State contends that at the time the threats were made, Runge was placing

Plenty Hawk under arrest and that Plenty Hawk's purpose in making the threats was to

cause Runge to release him. However, there is no evidence in the record that the 

threats

were made for any particular purpose. Plenty Hawk was belligerent and uncooperative

from the time Runge found him. He tried to push the ambulance attendants away when

they attempted to examine him while he was lying in the roadway. At the jail, prior 

to

being informed he was under arrest, Plenty Hawk took a swing at one of the ambulance

attendants. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Plenty Hawk's threats 

to Runge

were anything other than a continuation of his belligerent attitude. 

 The Criminal Law Commission Comments to õ 45-5-203, MCA, provide that

"[i]ntimidation requires a specific purpose to cause another to perform 'or to omit' 

the

performance of any act . . . and the threat must be 'communicated' with that 

purpose." 

As Plenty Hawk points out, there was no purpose in the threats made to Runge; Plenty

Hawk was simply drunk and belligerent. At no time did Plenty Hawk state what act he

might want Runge to do or to omit and the State has provided no evidence to show what

specific act Plenty Hawk was seeking to have done or omitted. 

 Accordingly, we hold that the evidence is insufficient to support a guilty 

verdict

on the charge of Intimidation. The District Court erred in denying Plenty Hawk's 

motion

for a directed verdict.

 Reversed with instructions that the District Court enter an order granting 

Plenty

Hawk's motion for a directed verdict and vacating his conviction and sentence for

Intimidation.

 /S/ JAMES C. NELSON

We Concur:

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-305%20Opinion.htm (4 of 4)4/16/2007 4:15:30 PM