Title: STATE v GOPHER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-276
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: September 14, 1981

No. 80-276 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . THANE GOPHER, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade. Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Donovan and Anderson, Office of Public Defender, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on briefs: June 10, 1981 Decided: @ p 1 4 ifdl i rlr>r-r Filed: s! i' tybl oi;F,,,p**d Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daiy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Thane Gopher was charged on October 1 6 , 1959, w i t h aggravated a s s a u l t , s e c t i o n 4 5 - 5 - 2 0 2 ( 1 ) ( d ) , MCA, by an i n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d i n Cascade County D i s t r i c t Court. The i n f o r m a t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly caused b o d i l y i n j u r y t o a peace o f f i c e r by k i c k i n g nim i n t h e l e g . Defendant e n t e r e d a p l e a of n o t g u i l t y . O n A p r i l 1, 1980, a j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y anci t n e c o u r t sentenced d e f e n d a n t t o t h r e e y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n , w i t h a l l of t h e s e n t e n c e suspended e x c e p t f o r t h e f i r s t s i x months which was t o be s e r v e d i n t h e Cascade County j a i l . O n June 23, 1980, t h e c o u r t excused d e f e n d a n t from s e r v i n g any f u r t h e r time i n j a i l on t h e requirement t h a t he complete c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s of employment. Defendant a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n . On t h e morning of October 5, 1979, an automobile i n which defendant was a passenger was stopped f o r " e r r a t i c " d r i v i n g . The d e p u t y s h e r i f f r e q u e s t e d t h e o p e r a t o r ' s l i c e n s e of t h e d r i v e r , d e f e n d a n t ' s b r o t h e r , who was unable t o produce one. Af t e r r e c e i v i n g t h e n e c e s s a r y i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e d r i v e r , t h e deputy s h e r i f f i s s u e d a c i t a t i o n and i n q u i r e d a s t o t h e i d e n t i t i e s of t h e p a s s e n g e r s . Upon l e a r n i n g t h e names of t h e p a s s e n g e r s , t h e deputy s h e r i f f checked w i t h t h e s h e r i f f 's o f f i c e t o a s c e r t a i n i f t h e r e were any o u t s t a n d i n g w a r r a n t s on t h e p a s s e n g e r s . When t h e deputy s h e r i f f was informed t h a t t h e r e was an o u t s t a n d i n g b u r g l a r y war r a n t f o r "Jay Thane Gopher, " he approached t h e v e h i c l e and a s k e d t h e p a s s e n g e r s which o n e was Thane G o p h e r . Defendant h e s i t a t e d b u t i d e n t i f i e d himself and e x i t e d t h e v e h i c l e upon t h e d e p u t y ' s r e q u e s t . He was t h e n informed by t h e deputy t h a t he was under a r r e s t f o r b u r g l a r y . Before defendant was placed i n t h e p a t r o l v e h i c l e , he was p a t t e d down and handcuffed. A t t h i s time d e f e n d a n t became v e r b a l l y a b u s i v e and v e r b a l l y t h r e a t e n e d t h e deputy s h e r i f f . Defendant a l s o r e f u s e d t o g e t i n t o t h e b a c k s e a t of t h e p a t r o l c a r and p h y s i c a l l y r e s i s t e d t h e deputy s h e r i f f by k i c k i n g him i n t h e l e g j u s t above t h e knee. T h e r e a f t e r , defendant f e l l back i n t o t h e p a t r o l c a r and continued t o r e s i s t t h e deputy s h e r i f f by kicking a t him. F i n a l l y , t h e d e p u t y , w i t h a s s i s t a n c e from a n o t h e r o f f i c e r , p u s h e d d e f e n d a n t i n t o t h e c a r f a r enough t o g e t t h e door c l o s e d . The b a s i s f o r t h e charge of aggravated a s s a u l t was t h e " b o d i l y i n j u r y " t h a t t h e deputy s h e r i f f r e c e i v e d from t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s k i c k t o t h e d e p u t y ' s l e g . When q u e s t i o n e d about t h e n a t u r e and d e g r e e of t h e i n j u r y , t h e deputy s h e r i f f t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s l e g was d i s c o l o r e d and s o r e f o r about a week b u t t h a t t h e i n j u r y d i d n o t r e q u i r e any medical t r e a t m e n t whatsoever. The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r review a r e : 1. Whether, by r e f u s i n g t o i n c l u d e an o f f e r e d in- s t r u c t i o n on r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r ? 2. Whether t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt? 3 . Whether t h e t r i a l judge had proper j u r i s d i c t i o n ? Defendant contends t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by n o t i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y t h a t t h e o f f e n s e of r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t was a l e s s e r included o f f e n s e of aggravated a s s a u l t . I t is a b a s i c r u l e i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s must cover every i s s u e o r t h e o r y having s u p p o r t i n t h e evidence. S t a t e v. Buckley ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 171 Mont. 238, 557 P.2d 283. T h i s Court i n S t a t e v. Ostwald ( 1 9 7 9 ) , -- Mont. , 591 P.2d 646, 651, 36 St.Rep. 442, 448, s t a t e d t h a t , " . . . a d e f e n d a n t is e n t i t l e d t o i n s t r u c t i o n s on l e s s e r included o f f e n s e s i f any evidence e x i s t s i n t h e r e c o r d which would p e r m i t t h e j u r y t o r a t i o n a l l y f i n d him g u i l t y of a l e s s e r o f f e n s e and a c q u i t him of a g r e a t e r . " See a l s o S t a t e v . Baugh ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 456, 571 P.261 779; S t a t e v. Bouslaugh ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 78, 576 P.2d 261; S t a t e v. Radi ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 451, 578 P.2d 1169. F u r t h e r , t h i s Court i n S t a t e v. Hamilton ( 1 9 8 0 ) t - Mont . , 605 P.2d 1121, 1129, 37 St.Rep. 70, 77, emphasized t h a t , " [w]e have c o n s i s t e n t l y held t h a t such an i n s t r u c t i o n is r e q u i r e d where t h e r e is some evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e l e s s e r o f f e n s e . " The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e o f f e n s e of r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t b e c a u s e t h e o f f e n s e s o f r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t and aggravated a s s a u l t a r e n o t i n h e r e n t l y r e l a t e d and t h i s Court should adopt t h e " i n h e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p " test t o determine i f t h e two o f f e n s e s a r e i n h e r e n t l y r e l a t e d . The " i n h e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p " test is a p r o d u c t of s e v e r a l United S t a t e s Supreme Court c a s e s c u l m i n a t i n g i n Keeble v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 412 U.S. 205, 93 S.Ct. 1993, 36 L.Ed.2d 844. I n Keeble t h e Court held t h a t ". . . t h e d e f e n d a n t is e n t i t l e d t o i n s t r u c t i o n s on a l e s s e r included o f f e n s e , i f evidence would p e r m i t t h e j u r y r a t i o n a l l y t o f i n d him g u i l t y of t h e l e s s e r o f f e n s e and a c q u i t him of t h e g r e a t e r ." 412 U.S. a t 208. I n o t h e r words, t h e t e s t t o be a p p l i e d is, i f t h e l e s s e r o f f e n s e is supported by t h e evidence and is " i n h e r e n t l y r e l a t e d " t o t h e g r e a t e r o f f e n s e , t h e n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n should be g i v e n t o t h e j u r y . T h i s t e s t does n o t d i f f e r i n any a p p r e c i a b l e way from t h e s t a n d a r d t h a t has been used i n t h i s s t a t e . See S t a t e v. Ostwald ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 591 P.2d 646, 36 St.Rep. 442. T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e is no reason t o adopt t h e " i n h e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p " t e s t . The S t a t e ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t cannot p o s s i b l y be a l e s s e r included o f f e n s e of aggravated a s s a u l t is e r r o n e o u s . The b a s i s f o r its c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t t h e two s e c t i o n s , 4 5 - 5 - 2 0 2 ( 1 ) ( d ) , MCA ( a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t ) , and 45- 7-301, MCA ( r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t ) , p r o t e c t two t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t i n t e r e s t s i n our s o c i e t y . I t a r g u e s t h a t t h e aggravated a s s a u l t s e c t i o n p r o t e c t s t h e p h y s i c a l s a f e t y of peace o f f i - c e r s while they perform t h e i r d u t i e s and t h a t t h e r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t s e c t i o n p r o t e c t s s o c i e t y ' s i n t e r e s t i n p r e v e n t i n g s u s p e c t s from t h w a r t i n g an a r r e s t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e S t a t e c o n c l u d e s , t h e r e is n o t a s u f f i c i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e two s e c t i o n s t o r e q u i r e t h e l e s s e r included o f f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n . The r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 45-7-301, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "A person commits t h e o f f e n s e of r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t i f he knowingly p r e v e n t s or a t t e m p t s t o p r e v e n t a peace o f f i c e r from e f f e c t i n g an an a r r e s t by: " ( a ) using o r t h r e a t e n i n g t o u s e p h y s i c a l f o r c e or v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t t h e peace o f f i c e r o r a n o t h e r ; o r " ( b ) using any o t h e r means which c r e a t e s a r i s k of c a u s i n g p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o t h e peace o f f i c e r or a n o t h e r . " The testimony of t h e deputy s h e r i f f was t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t v e r b a l l y t h r e a t e n e d t h e d e p u t i e s , kicked one of them i n t h e l e g , and continued t o kick u n t i l both o f f i c e r s forced d e f e n d a n t i n t o t h e b a c k s e a t . C l e a r l y , t h i s is s u f f i - c i e n t evidence t o s a t i s f y t h e elements of t h e r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t s t a t u t e ; t h a t is, t h e defendant d i d use " t h r e a t e n i n g " language t o t h e peace o f f i c e r s and he d i d use " p h y s i c a l f o r c e " a g a i n s t t h e peace o f f i c e r s . The testimony of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s was n o t even c o n t r a v e r t e d by d e f e n d a n t . F u r t h e r , under t h e p e r t i n e n t p a r t of t h e aggravated a s s a u l t s t a t u t e , it is s t a t e d : "A person commits t h e o f f e n s e of aggravated a s s a u l t i f he purposely o r knowingly c a u s e s b o d i l y i n j u r y t o a peace o f f i c e r . " I t is a p p a r e n t from t h e f a c t s t h a t t h e r e was a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e t r i e r of f a c t a s t o whether d e f e n d a n t " p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly caused b o d i l y i n j u r y " t o t h e deputy s h e r i f f . Again, when t h e f a c t s a r e a p p l i e d t o t h e s t a t u t e s , t h e y would be s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y t h e n e c e s s a r y elements f o r e i t h e r o f f e n s e . F i n a l l y , from t h e language of Ostwald, i . e . , " [ a ] d e f e n d a n t is e n t i t l e d t o i n s t r u c t i o n s on l e s s e r included o f f e n s e s i f any evidence e x i s t s i n t h e r e c o r d which would p e r m i t t h e j u r y t o r a t i o n - a l l y f i n d him g u i l t y of a l e s s e r o f f e n s e and a c q u i t him of a g r e a t e r ," 591 P.2d 651, it is c l e a r t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n on r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t should have been p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y . Under f e d e r a l c a s e law t h e r e s u l t is a l s o t h e same. The two f e d e r a l c a s e s t h a t b e s t i l l u s t r a t e how t h e " i n h e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p " test works a r e United S t a t e s v. Whitaker ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) , 447 F.2d 34, and United S t a t e s v. Johnson ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) , 637 F.2d 1224, 1233. I n Johnson t h e c o u r t analyzed t h e i n h e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p test used by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n Keeble, by u t i l i z i n g a two-part test. F i r s t , t h e c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f i e n s e must be i d e n t i t i e d , and second, a r a t i o n a l j u r y must be a b l e t o f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of t h e included o f f e n s e b u t i n n o c e n t of t h e g r e a t e r o f f e n s e . Here, a l e s s e r included o f f e n s e is i d e n t i f i a b l e and a j u r y , i f t h e r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t i n s t r u c t i o n is g i v e n , could r e a s o n a b l y f i n d d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t and a c q u i t on aggravated a s s a u l t . The Johnson c o u r t approach is based upon i t s r e a d i n g of Rule 3 1 ( c ) , Fed.R.Crim.P. (synonymous w i t h s e c t i o n 46- 1 6 - 6 0 3 ( 3 ) , MCA), which r e g u l a t e s t h e requirement of when a l e s s e r included o f f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n should be g i v e n . The c o u r t reasoned t h a t , " [ t l h e purpose of t h i s r u l e is t o avoid t h e s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e j u r y , convinced t h a t t h e defen- d a n t is g u i l t y of some crime, is tempted t o c o n v i c t him of t h e charged o f f e n s e s . " 637 F.2d 1233. From t h e f a c t s , a s t h e y have been p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e , t h e j u r y could have been f o r c e d t o f i n d t h e defendant g u i l t y - - t h a t is, t h e j u r y may n o t have wanted t o l e t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n go unpunished, s o t h e y chose t o f i n d him g u i l t y of aggravated a s s a u l t because t h e o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e was a c q u i t t a l . The q u e s t i o n a s t o w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt does n o t r e q u i r e d i s c u s s i o n s i n c e t h e c a s e is being r e v e r s e d on o t h e r grounds. D e f e n d a n t ' s argument t h a t t h e t r i a l judge lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n is w i t h o u t m e r i t . T h i s Court r u l e d on February 14, 1980, t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s "Motion and Assignment of Judge" t o hear d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n proceedings was moot, and t h a t o r d e r s t i l l s t a n d s . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is r e v e r s e d , and t h e s e n t e n c e is v a c a t e d . The cause is remanded f o r a new triai consistent with this opinion. We concur: 8 A & & , u d ~ u p P - 9 Chief ~ust-ice