Title: STATE v BRUBAKER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-334
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: March 19, 1981

No. 80-334 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . JAMES W. BRUBAKER, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone. Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: John L . Adams, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Submitted on briefs: February 17, 1981 Decided : MAR 2 8 1981 Filed: @A!? 2 0 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. On November 4 , 1977, d e f e n d a n t was convicted of t h e o f f e n s e of aggravated a s s a u l t . T h i s Court r e v e r s e d t h e c o n v i c t i o n and ordered a new t r i a l . S t a t e v. Brubaker (1979 I Mont . , 602 P.2d 974, 36 St.Rep. 1915. On June 4 , 1980, d e f e n d a n t was a g a i n c o n v i c t e d of t h e o f f e n s e of aggravated a s s a u l t f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e District Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . Defendant now a p p e a l s . On J a n u a r y 1 2 , 1977, d e f e n d a n t - a p p e l l a n t brought h i s g i r l f r i e n d and roommate, Sharon Watson, a l s o known a s Sharon Brubaker, t o t h e emergency room of Big Horn County Memorial H o s p i t a l . Dr. Robert Whiting, t h e a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n , t e s t i f i e d t h a t Watson was comatose w i t h abnormal r e s p i r a t i o n and o t h e r n e u r o l o g i c a l symptoms i n d i c a t i n g s e v e r e b r a i n damage. He noted m u l t i p l e b r u i s e s over t h e l e f t s i d e of her forehead, her eye, her arms and s h o u l d e r s . He e s t i m a t e d t h a t t h e b r u i s e s were a t l e a s t f o r t y - e i g h t hours o l d . Watson was t r a n s p o r t e d by ambulance t o B i l l i n g s , Montana, where s h e was t r e a t e d by Dr. Lashman S o r i y a . Dr. S o r i y a diagnosed a head i n j u r y c a u s i n g s e v e r e b r a i n damage. H e a l s o observed m u l t i p l e b r u i s e s and s t a t e d i n h i s o p i n i o n t h e y were approximately f o r t y - e i g h t hours o l d and could n o t have been caused by a f a l l . Dr. S o r i y a performed b r a i n s u r g e r y on Watson t h e n e x t morning t o r e l i e v e i n t r a c r a n i a l p r e s s u r e caused by a l a r g e blood c l o t . Based on h i s e v a l u a t i o n of t h e symptoms, h i s o p i n i o n was t h a t once t h e i n j u r y was i n f l i c t e d , Watson would have l o s t c o n s c i o u s n e s s and could n o t have p o s s i b l y awakened. On J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1 9 7 7 , D e t e c t i v e R i c k a r d R o s s interviewed appellant regarding the circumstances under which Watson was injured. Appellant told Ross that he had closed the bar where he and Watson lived and worked at approximately 1: 00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 12, 1977. Appellant stated that he spent approximately one-half hour hauling coal from an outbuilding into the bar and that he then discovered Watson lying unconscious on the floor on some electrical wires. He stated that he took Watson into their living quarters where she regained consciousness, took two aspirins, and drank some 7-Up. Appellant stated that Watson regained consciousness several times in the next few hours but that her condition deteriorated in the afternoon leading him to take her to the hospital that evening. A tape recording of appellant's statement was played at trial. Appellant's testimony at trial was essentially consistent with the taped statement. The State presented several witnesses at trial who contradicted appellant's story. Cy Welch and Jim Clifton testified that appellant had told them that Watson received her injuries Tuesday morning, rather than Wednesday morning. Dr. Whiting and Dr. Soriya also contradicted appellant's story. Both doctors testified that the bruises they observed on Watson's body on Wednesday evening were at least forty-eight hours old. The State also presented testimony from two witnesses as to a previous assault on Watson by appellant. Kenneth Perrin and Don Gilreath testified that sometime in late spring of 1977 they observed appellant strike Watson in the parking lot of the Prairie Diner east of Custer, Montana. In both instances, an admonition was given to the jury to comply w i t h t h e d e c i s i o n of t h i s Court i n S t a t e v. J u s t (1979) I Mont . , 602 P.2d 957, 36 St.Rep. 1649. A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s two i s s u e s : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n p e r m i t t i n g w i t n e s s e s P e r r i n and G i l r e a t h t o t e s t i f y a s t o an a l l e g e d p r i o r a s s a u l t by a p p e l l a n t on t h e v i c t i m approximately e i g h t o r n i n e months b e f o r e t h e crime h e r e charged? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o d i s m i s s t h e charge of aggravated a s s a u l t because t h e r e was n o t s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o connect a p p e l l a n t t o t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t on t h e v i c t i m ? A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e testimony on t h e p a r t of t h e two w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d t o t e s t i f y a s t o a p r i o r a s s a u l t by t h e a p p e l l a n t on t h e v i c t i m was t o o remote i n time. He a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e p r i o r a s s a u l t had no r e l a t i o n t o t h e crime charged h e r e . H e f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e was l e s s t h a n t h e i n h e r e n t p r e j u d i c i a l n a t u r e o f t h e testimony. I n t h e p r i o r Brubaker c a s e , we addressed t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d h e r e and h e l d t h a t t h e testimony of t h e s e two w i t n e s s e s was p r o p e r l y a d m i s s i b l e a s evidence of o t h e r crimes. "The evidence of P e r r i n and G i l r e a t h r e l a t e s t o an i n c i d e n t where t h e a s s a u l t by Brubaker r e s u l t e d i n a s e v e r e i n j u r y t o Sharon and it was an a t t a c k w i t h i n t h e kind t h a t must have occurred t o her on J a n u a r y 10 o r 11, 1977. . ." S t a t e v. Brubaker, 602 P.2d a t 981. "We recognize t h a t t h e admission of such evidence is an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e and a c c o r d i n g l y w e a r e o b l i g a t e d t o look v e r y c a r e f u l l y a t t h e r e l a t i v e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of such e v i d e n c e , i f any, and weigh it a g a i n s t t h e p r e j u d i c e i n h e r e n t i n t h i s t y p e of evidence i n t h e l i g h t of t h e a c t u a l need t o i n t r o d u c e such evidence by t h e s t a t e . " S t a t e v. F r a t e s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 431, 503 P.2d 47, 50. The a d m i s s i o n o f " o t h e r c r i m e s " e v i d e n c e i s determined under a f o u r - p a r t t e s t : (1) whether t h e a c t s a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y s i m i l a r ; ( 2 ) whether t h e a c t s a r e t o o remote i n time; ( 3 ) whether t h e evidence is o f f e r e d f o r one of t h e purposes p e r m i t t e d by Rule 4 0 4 ( b ) , Mont.R.Evid. ; and ( 4 ) whether t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e evidence outweighs its i n h e r e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l n a t u r e . S t a t e v. J u s t ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 602 P.2d 957, 36 St.Rep. 1649. The f i r s t element of t h e t e s t was s a t i s f i e d . The a c t s were s i m i l a r i n n a t u r e . Second, t h e o t h e r a c t occurred approximately e i g h t months p r i o r t o t h e crime charged h e r e . T h i s is n o t t o o remote i n time. S t a t e v. J e n s e n ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153 Mont. 233, 455 P.2d 631. (Allowing evidence of p r e v i o u s crimes f i f t e e n months b e f o r e o t h e r crime charged.) T h i r d , Rule 404 ( b ) , Mont .R.Evid., s t a t e s : ". . . [ o t h e r c r i m e s evidence] may be a d m i s s i b l e f o r o t h e r purposes, such a s proof of motive, o p p o r t u n i t y , i n t e n t , p r e p a r a t i o n , p l a n , knowledge, i d e n t i t y , or absence of m i s t a k e or a c c i d e n t . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The e v i d e n c e was o f f e r e d t o show a c o u r s e o f a s s a u l t i v e conduct by t h e a p p e l l a n t and t o n e g a t e any s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e v i c t i m had s u f f e r e d her i n j u r i e s by a c c i d e n t . I n S t a t e v. Heine ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 25, 544 P.2d 1212, w e h e l d t h a t evidence of a p r i o r a s s a u l t on t h e same v i c t i m was a d m i s s i b l e f o r p r e c i s e l y t h e same purpose a s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e . F i n a l l y , t h e e v i d e n c e was h i g h l y p r o b a t i v e and n e c e s s a r y t o t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e . The evidence i n t h i s c a s e was e n t i r e l y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l . The S t a t e p r o v e d c o r p u s -- d e l e c t i and o p p o r t u n i t y , b u t t h e evidence of o t h e r c r i m e s added s u b s t a n t i a l l y t o t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e by showing t h a t a p p e l l a n t had on a p r i o r o c c a s i o n i n f l i c t e d s e r i o u s i n j u r i e s on t h e same v i c t i m and i n t h e same manner, t h u s n e g a t i n g t h e in£ e r e n c e t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s were s u s t a i n e d by a c c i d e n t . N e x t , a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t of g u i l t y . R e v i e w i n g t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d t h i s C o u r t f i n d s s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t . Dr. Whiting and Dr. S o r i y a c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s t o t h e v i c t i m were i n f l i c t e d some f o r t y - e i g h t h o u r s p r i o r t o t h e time a p p e l l a n t brought t h e v i c t i m t o t h e emergency room. A p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he found t h e v i c t i m i n j u r e d some e i g h t e e n hours b e f o r e he sought t r e a t m e n t of her i n j u r i e s . Dr. S o r i y a ' s testimony showed t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s could n o t have been s u s t a i n e d i n a f a l l o r i n s e v e r a l f a l l s . H i s t e s t i m o n y f u r t h e r d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t e d a p p e l l a n t ' s testimony t h a t t h e v i c t i m had regained c o n s c i o u s n e s s s e v e r a l times. A p p e l l a n t had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o commit t h e crime. There is no evidence t h a t anyone o t h e r t h a n a p p e l l a n t was w i t h t h e v i c t i m when t h e i n j u r i e s o c c u r r e d . A p p e l l a n t never r e p o r t e d a n a s s a u l t on t h e v i c t i m . A p p e l l a n t ' s own s t a t e m e n t provided evidence of motive. H i s s t a t e m e n t shows t h e e x i s t e n c e of p r i o r domestic d i s c o r d which r e s u l t e d i n p h y s i c a l c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n him and t h e v i c t i m . A p p e l l a n t admitted s t r i k i n g t h e v i c t i m on another o c c a s i o n d u r i n g an argument over her p r i o r husband. When t h e testimony of P e r r i n and G i l r e a t h is added, t h e evidence a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t i s s u f f i c i e n t a s a c a s e b u i l t on circumstantial evidence to exclude any hypothesis consistent with appellant's innocence. See State v. Fitzpatrick (1973), 163 Mont. 220, 516 P.2d 605. The fact that appellant never reported the incident to the police and waited some forty-eight hours before seeking medical attention for life-threatening injuries is certainly not consistent with innocent conduct. Further, appellant's explanation of his failure to report the alleged assault to the sheriff--that he assumed the doctors would automatically do so--is belied by the fact that appellant never told Dr. Soriya that an assault had occurred. When the evidence is reviewed in a light most favorable to the State, State v. Pascgo (1977), 173 Mont. 121, 566 P.2d 802, we find that the verdict clearly is supported by substantial evidence. While the evidence is circumstantial in part, it indicates injuries inflicted by the appellant in a domestic quarrel and not some type of accidental injury. Affirmed. We concur: