Title: STATE v RUMLEY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-288
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: August 27, 1981

N o . 80-288 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 THE STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS. OWEN A S A R U M L E Y , J R . , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Flathead. Honorable James M. Salansky, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: K. M. Bridenstine, Polson, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Ted 0. Lympus, County Attorney, K a l i s p e l l , Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : May 28, 1981 F i l e d : 0 7 p R -< 4# I , % ? a . - Q v Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The d e f e n d a n t , Owen Asa Rumley, J r . , was charged on June 7 , 1979, w i t h n e g l i g e n t homicide under s e c t i o n 45-5- 1 0 4 , MCA, by a n i n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d i n F l a t h e a d C o u n t y D i s t r i c t Court. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n charged t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n t o p e r a t i o n of h i s motor v e h i c l e c a u s e d t h e d e a t h o f M a r g a r e t Beebe on May 1 2 , 1 9 7 9 . Defendant pleaded n o t g u i l t y and a s s e r t e d t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e of mechanical d e f e c t . Defendant a l s o f i l e d a motion t o s u p p r e s s evidence of a blood a l c o h o l t e s t . A f t e r an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , t h e motion was d e n i e d . Defendant was found g u i l t y of n e g l i g e n t homicide and sentenced t o f i v e y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . The s e n t e n c e was suspended on t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s e r v e s i x t y days i n t h e Flathead County j a i l , perform p u b l i c s e r v i c e a t t h e county n u r s i n g home f o r t e n weeks, and undergo an e v a l u a t i o n a t t h e Chemical Dependency Center i n K a l i s p e l l . 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 a f t e r n o o n of May 1 2 , 1979, d e f e n d a n t was d r i v i n g n o r t h on Highway 93 s e v e r a l m i l e s s o u t h o f K a l i s p e l l , Montana. H e had j u s t l e f t a bar where he claimed he drank o n l y two bourbon d i t c h e s . According t o t h e testimony of another d r i v e r on t h e road a t t h e t i m e , d e f e n d a n t ' s yellow pickup t r u c k suddenly appeared i n h i s r e a r view m i r r o r . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t blew h i s horn, and then passed h i s v e h i c l e a s w e l l a s t h e v e h i c l e ahead of him, coming s o c l o s e t h a t he had t o swerve t o avoid being h i t by t h e d e f e n d a n t . A few miles down t h e r o a d , t h e d r i v e r and h i s w i f e came upon t h e scene of t h e c o l l i s i o n which gave r i s e t o t h i s a c t i o n . An off-duty highway patrolman witnessed the collision as he was driving south on Highway 93. As the patrolman crossed the center line to see whether he could pass the vehicle ahead of him, he saw the defendant's pickup swerve across the center line and collide with a Buick sedan driven by Margaret Scherf Beebe. Margaret Beebe died as a result of the injuries she received in the accident. Defendant testified that he was driving between 50 and 55 miles per hour when he saw a southbound vehicle pull into his lane in an attempt to pass another car. When he saw the other car, defendant slammed on his brakes leaving skid marks for 134 feet in the northbound lane. The marks indicate that defendant's pickup swerved into the southbound lane, and just before the collision, the marks indicate that the pickup swerved back toward the northbound lane. The highway patrolman who investigated the scene testified that in his opinion the defendant's pickup was traveling between 65 and 70 miles per hour at the time of the collision. Numerous witnesses, including several highway patrolmen, an ambulance driver, and a nurse at the hospital where defendant was taken, testified that after the collision defendant smelled of alcohol and was confused and disoriented. Defendant was either unresponsive or incoherent when he did try to respond to questions. Even when others tried to explain to defendant what had occurred, he kept repeating, "What did I do?" or "What happened?" At the hospital in Kalispell a blood sample was drawn from the defendant and sent to the criminal investigation lab in Missoula. The crime 1 a ~ ' s analysis showed that defendant's blood alcohol level was 0.25 grams percent by welgnt e t h y l a l c o h o l . Defendant p r e s e n t s t o r review four specifications o i e r r o r : 1. Denlal oZ t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motlon t o s u p p r e s s ; 2. Admission of t h e blood a n a l y s i s a t t h e t r i a l ; 3 . Denial of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s or d l r e c t a v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l ; and 4 . Limitation of t h e f i n a l argument t o f o r t y - f i v e mlnutes. Defendant a r g u e s t h a t h i s motlon t o s u p p r e s s should have been g r a n t e d because he had n o t e x p r e s s l y consented t o t h e t a k i n g of h i s blood and was n o t informed of t h e reason f o r its e x t r a c t i o n . F u r t h e r , ciefendant contends t h a t he was n o t a r r e s t e d p r i o r t o t h e time t h e blood sample was t a k e n and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e t a k i n g of t h e blood was an improper s e a r c h . These arguments a r e a p p a r e n t l y made t o show t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o comply with s u b s e c t i o n (1) of s e c t i o n 61-8-402, MCA. S e c t i o n 61-8-402, MCA, is Montana's implied c o n s e n t s t a t u t e , and s u b s e c t i o n (1) of t h a t s e c t i o n does r e q u i r e t h a t a formal a r r e s t be made p r i o r t o t h e t a k i n g of a blood sample. A s t h i s Court found i n S t a t e v. Mangels ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 190, 531 P.2d 1313, however, s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) of s e c t i o n 61-8-402, MCA, does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t a formal a r r e s t be made ~f a person is "unconscious" o r " o t h e r w i s e i n a c o n d i t i o n r e n d e r i n g him i n c a p a b l e of r e f u s a l . " See s e c t i o n 61-8- 4L)2(2), MCA. Here, t h e D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t a t t h e t l m e t h e blood sample was t a k e n , t h e d e f e n d a n t was " i n a c o n d i t i o n r e n d e r i n g him i n c a p a b l e of r e f u s a l " of a blood t e s t . A formal a r r e s t was t h e r e f o r e n o t n e c e s s a r y , nor was it p o s s i b l e a t t h a t time t o o b t a i n t h e e x p r e s s c o n s e n t o i t h e d e f e n d a n t . D e f e n d a n t ' s argument t h a t he was n o t a r r e s t e d f a i l s a l s o f o r t h e simple reason t h a t t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t s a f i n d i n g t h a t an a r r e s t was made. The i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r a t t h e scene of t h e c o l l i s i o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he placed t h e d e f e n d a n t under a r r e s t f o r d r i v i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l . S i m i l a r l y , t h e o f f i c e r who met d e f e n d a n t a t t h e h o s p i t a l when t h e ambulance a r r i v e d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t o o had placed t h e d e f e n d a n t under a r r e s t . The t e s t f o r determining whether a person is " i n a c o n d i t i o n r e n d e r i n g him i n c a p a b l e of r e f u s a l " was f i r s t set down i n Mangels and r e c e n t l y a f f i r m e d i n S t a t e v. Campbell (1980 1 , Mont. , 615 P.2d 190, 37 St.Rep. 1337. The Court i n Manqels s t a t e d : "Here, we o n l y r e q u i r e t h a t t h e i n c a p a c i t y be determined on t h e b a s i s of t h e b e s t evidence which is reasonably a v a i l a b l e t o t h e o f f i c e r . " 166 Mont. a t 194, 531 P.2d a t 1315. I n - Mangels - t h e r e s u l t s o f a b l o o d t e s t w e r e s u p p r e s s e d b e c a u s e t h e o f f i c e r s o n l y had e v i d e n c e o f c o n f u s i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t had minor i n j u r i e s , and because t h e o f f i c e r s d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o t r y t o q u e s t i o n t h e d e f e n d a n t . I n Campbell t h e blood t e s t was admitted i n t o evidence because t h e o f f i c e r s could s e e t h a t Campbell was s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d and i n g r e a t p a i n , were advised by a n u r s e t h a t it would be b e t t e r n o t t o t r y t o t a l k t o h i m , and could n o t g e t him t o respond c o h e r e n t l y when t h e y d i d t r y t o t a l k t o him. Here, t h e o f f i c e r who i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e scene of t h e c o l l i s i o n , t h e ambulance d r i v e r , t h e o f f i c e r a t t h e h o s p i t a l , and a n u r s e i n t h e emergency room where d e f e n d a n t was taken a f t e r t h e c o l l i s i o n , a l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was confused and d i s o r i e n t e d , t h a t d e f e n d a n t kept r e p e a t i n g "What happened?" even a f t e r he was t o l d what had happened, and t h a t d e f e n d a n t was n o t c o h e r e n t i n h i s r e s p o n s e s even when he r e a l i z e d he was being asked a q u e s t i o n . A s a r e s u l t of t h e c o l l i s i o n , d e f e n d a n t had a f r a c t u r e d jaw, a broken f o o t , a c o n t u s i o n on h i s c h e s t t h a t l e d t o a c o l l a p s e d l u n g , and m u l t i p l e l a c e r a t i o n s . I n l i g h t of t h i s evidence of i n c a p a c i t y , t h e D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y denied t h e motion t o s u p p r e s s , and t h e o f f i c e r a t t h e K a l i s p e l l h o s p i t a l , unable t o r e c e i v e a c o h e r e n t response from t h e d e f e n d a n t , p r o p e r l y r e q u e s t e d t h a t a blood sample be t a k e n . Defendant's second c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by a d m i t t i n g t h e blood a n a l y s i s i n t o evidence a t t r i a l . Defendant c l a i m s t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a n a d e q u a t e f o u n d a t i o n f o r i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e b l o o d a n a l y s i s due t o an a s s e r t e d break i n t h e c h a i n of p o s s e s s i o n of t h e sample taken from d e f e n d a n t . Defendant c l a i m s more s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t t h e c h a i n of custody was broken because t n e o f f i c e r i n charge of t a k i n g t h e blood sample d i d n o t a c t u a l l y see t h e blood drawn from d e f e n d a n t . The o f f i c e r , s t a n d i n g i n t h e doorway of t h e room where t h e blood was being drawn from d e f e n d a n t , saw a d o c t o r and two n u r s e s s t a n d i n g around t h e t a b l e where d e f e n d a n t l a y . H e d i d n o t see t h e a c t u a l drawing of blood. Never- t h e l e s s , one of t h e n u r s e s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e drawing of blood from d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e helped t o draw t h e blood sample i n t o a v i a l t h e o f f i c e r had g i v e n her and gave t h a t same v i a l t o t h e o f f i c e r . I n l i g h t of t h i s n u r s e ' s testimony, t h e second c l a i m of d e i e n d a n t l a c k s any m e r i t . I n S t a t e v. Nelson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 280, 583 P.2d 435, q u o t i n g S t a t e v. Wong Fong ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 75 Mont. 81, 87, 241 P . 1072, 1074, t h i s Court d e s c r i b e d t h e S t a t e ' s burden i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e c h a i n of custody of c e r t a i n evidence: '"It was n o t incumbent upon t h e s t a t e t o prove t h a t it could n o t have been tampered w i t h . I t was n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t a l l pos- s i b i l i t y of its having been tampered w i t h should be excluded by a f f i r m a t i v e testimony. [ C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . ] I t was o n l y n e c e s s a r y t o i d e n t i f y t h e package, and t o make a prima f a c i e showing t h a t t h e r e has been no substan- t i a l change i n it t o w a r r a n t its i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o evidence. ' " Nelson, 178 Mont. a t 288, 583 P.2d a t 4 3 9 . I n Nelson t h e Court found t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e of an unbroken s e a l and s e a l number saved t h e evidence from e x c l u s i o n , i n s p i t e of an e a r l i e r m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a misread s e a l number. Here, t h e n u r s e who helped draw t h e blood from t h e d e f e n d a n t placed t h e blood i n t h e g l a s s v i a l g i v e n her by t h e o f f i c e r ; t h e o f f i c e r s e a l e d t h e v i a l and secured it i n t h e s e a l e d crime l a b c o n t a i n e r . The s e a l on t h e v i a l and t h e c o n t a i n e r were i n t a c t when opened by t h e chemist a t t h e ivlissoula crime l a b . The i n t a c t s e a l and t h e testimony of t h e n u r s e who helped t o draw t h e blood show t h a t t h e r e was n o t a s u b s t a n t i a l change i n t h e blood from t h e time it was drawn from defendant t o t h e time it was analyzed. The c h a i n of custody was n o t broken. D e f e n d a n t ' s t h i r d c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by denying h i s motion t o d i s m i s s o r f o r a d l r e c t e d v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l . Defendant c l a i m s t h a t t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a g u i l t y v e r a i c t . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h a t proximate cause was n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y shown. Defendant c l a i m s t h a t t h e r e remains t h e q u e s t i o n of whether he s t e e r e d h i s pickup i n t o t h e oncoming l a n e or whether a mechanical d e f e c t brought him i n t o t h e oncoming l a n e . The o f f i c e r who i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e c o l l i s i o n gave h i s o p i n i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t had s t e e r e d h i s t r u c k i n t o t h e oncoming l a n e . Defendant p r e s e n t e d testimony of a p e r s o n t r a i n e d a s a m e t a l l u r g i s t and an a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t o r , who gave t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e pickup veered a s a r e s u l t of damage t o a s p r i n g i n t h e f r o n t end of t h e pickup. I t is t h e p r e r o g a t i v e of t h e j u r y t o d e c i d e t h e f a c t s , and t h i s Court must uphold such f i n d i n g s when t h e y a r e supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. A s we s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 179 k o n t . 283, 587 P.2d 1298, 1305, 35 St.Rep. 1532, 1539, " [ t l h e j u r y is t h e f a c t - f i n d i n g body and its d e c i s i o n is c o n t r o l l i n g . . . Given t h e r e q u i r e d l e g a l minimum of e v i d e n c e , we w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e our d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e f a c t s f o r t h a t of t h e jury. . . I f s u b s t a n t i a l evidence is found t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , it w i l l s t a n d . . ." ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) Contrary t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c l a i m s , t h e r e c o r d is r e p l e t e w i t h e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a c o n v i c t i o n o f n e g l i g e n t homicide. Evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l showed t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was extremely i n t o x i c a t e d , d r i v i n g c a r e l e s s l y j u s t moments p r i o r t o t h e c o l l i s i o n , and d r i v i n g a t an e x c e s s i v e speed. Such evidence is c l e a r l y 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 f i n d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s behavior was a g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from t h e s t a n d a r d of r e a s o n a b l e c a r e . See s e c t i o n s 45-2-101(31) and 45-5-104, MCA. Defendant contends f i n a l l y t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by l i m i t i n g c l o s i n g argument t o a p e r i o d of f o r t y - f i v e minutes per s i d e . Although t h e r e c o r d does show t h a t t h e c l o s i n g argument was l i m i t e d t o f o r t y - f i v e minutes, t h e r e is no i n d i c a t i o n on t h e r e c o r d t h a t an o b j e c t i o n was made by d e f e n s e counsel a t t h a t time. F u r t h e r , s i n c e t h e r e is no r e c o r d of e i t h e r t h e S t a t e ' s or t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c l o s i n g argument, we cannot determine whether d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s were abridged by t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n . A s s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. Musgrove ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 162, 582 P.2d 1246, t h i s Court w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r i s s u e s which a r e n o t based upon a r e c o r d t o which t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t can look. A s i m i l a r holding was made i n S t a t e ex r e l . Woodahl v. D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 514, 518, 540 P.2d 312, 314, where t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n e d no i n d i c a t i o n of a motion t o s u b s t i t u t e a judge. The Court i n S t a t e ex r e l . Woodahl decided: "We w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of p a r t i e s a f t e r t h e f a c t o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s d e h o r s t h e r e c o r d s . " R e g a r d l e s s of t h e p o s s i b l e m e r i t s of d e f e n d a n t ' s f i n a l c o n t e n t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s time l i m i t a t i o n must be upheld s i n c e we have no b a s i s on which t o review t h e a l l e g a t i o n of e r r o r . Af f irmed. we concur: