Title: STATE v LOZEAU
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-132
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: September 9, 1982

No. 82-132 IN THE SUPRE1,IE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . HERBERT RICHARD LOZEAU, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lake Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge re siding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: K. M. rid ens tine, Polson, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Richard P. Heinz, County Attorney, Polson, Montana Submitted on briefs: August 26, 1982 D!ecided: September 9, 1982 Filed: "P J @ * ; ! Y Clerk iqr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant was charged and c o n v i c t e d of t h e crime 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 , and judgment was e n t e r e d t h e r e o n . Following d e n i a l o f d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s . W e a f f i r m . Although d e f e n d a n t p h r a s e s t h e i s s u e s on a p p e a l i n t h r e e p a r t s , t h e b a s i c i s s u e p r e s e n t e d is t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e conviction--more s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t n e d e f e n d a n t was t h e a s s a u l t e r . Defendant H e r b e r t Richard Lozeau was d r i n k i n g a t a t a v e r n i n Ronan, Montana, on t h e evening of June 5, 1980. S e v e r a l r e g u l a r c u s t o m e r s of t h e b a r w e r e t h e r e t h a t evening: Donna "Chicken" Houle, Linda S t e w a r t , Ignace Couture, George M i t c h e l l , John Saloway, J e f f Dance, Dennis Webster, Vonnie Webster, Gerald Cooper, and d e f e n d a n t R i c k Lozeau. Defendant and Donna Boule, a l t h o u g h unmarried, a r e t h e p a r e n t s of a d a u g h t e r . During t h e c o u r s e of t h e e v e n i n g , Gerald Cooper, t h e a s s a u l t v i c t i m , became i n t o x i c a t e d . Cooper took Donna Houle o u t t h e back door of t h e b a r i n t o t h e a l l e y a t t e m p t i n g t o g e t her t o go o u t w i t h him, b u t s h e r e f u s e d and t h e y b o t h r e e n t e r e d t h e b a r . A t t h a t t i m e , t h e v i c t i m , Cooper, as- s a u l t e d t h e two women, Donna Houle and Linda S t e w a r t . Donna l o s t c o n s c i o u s n e s s and f e l l t o t h e f l o o r , and Linda b e n t down on t h e f l o o r a t t e n d i n g t o h e r . Immediately a f t e r Cooper s t r u c k t h e women, Ignace Couture grabbed Cooper's s h o u l d e r and took him o u t t h e f r o n t door of t h e b a r . Saloway and t h e b a r t e n d e r followed them. The b a r t e n d e r watched w h i l e Saloway and Cooper argued. Couture s t o o d i n f r o n t of Cooper t h e whole time w i t h h i s hands on Cooper's s h o u l d e r s . J u s t b e f o r e t h e s t a b b i n g , t h e b a r t e n d e r , S t e v e iiloon, saw t h e d e f e n d a n t approaching t h e group o u t s i d e . H e t h o u g h t t h e d e f e n d a n t was u p s e t t h a t h i s g i r l f r i e n d had been s t r u c k i n t h e bar s o he t o l d him t o t a k e it e a s y . The b a r t e n d e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d he thought he saw t h e d e f e n d a n t go i n between John Saloway and Gerald Cooper who were s t a n d i n g t h e r e argu- i n g . He thought t h e d e f e n d a n t was going t o h i t Cooper and t h e n saw t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s arm move toward Cooper's stomach. John Saloway a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he saw a hand come i n j u s t b e f o r e Cooper grabbed h i s stomach s a y i n g , " I ' v e been s t a b b e d . " The v i c t i m , Cooper, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he e x p e r i e n c e d a s h a r p p a i n w h i l e Couture was h o l d i n g h i s s h o u l d e r s and t a l k i n g t o him i n f r o n t of t h e b a r . Saloway and t h e b a r t e n d e r saw t h e d e f e n d a n t go back i n t o t n e b a r . George M i t c h e l l , who had remained i n s i d e , s a i d t h a t a f t e r R i c k went o u t t h e f r o n t door t o where t h e group had g a t h e r e d , t h e n e x t t h i n g he remembered was some- body c h a r g i n g i n s a y i n g Cooper g o t s t a b b e d . A f t e r Cooper was s t a b b e d , Couture took him t o t h e h o s p i t a l . The b a r t e n d e r c l o s e d t h e b a r . Defendant walked home seven o r e i g h t b l o c k s and passed o u t . Cooper, t h e v i c t i m , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was p r e t t y i n t o x i c a t e d d u r i n g t h e e v e n t s of t h a t evening and d i d n o t remember anything t h a t happened i n s i d e t h e bar w i t h r e s p e c t t o Donna Houle o r Linda S t e w a r t , nor d i d h e remember a r g u i n g w i t h John Saloway o u t s i d e on t h e sidewalk. H e d i d remember e x p e r i e n c i n g a s h a r p p a i n i n h i s s i d e w h i l e Couture was h o l d i n g h i s s h o u l d e r s and t a l k i n g t o him. No e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s t a b b e d Cooper. The weapon was never found. Based on f a c t s g a t h e r e d d u r i n g t h e p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a - t i o n , d e f e n d a n t was charged w i t h t h e o f f e n s e of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . H e p l e d n o t g u i l t y . Following t r i a l , t h e 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 of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . Defen- d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o e i g h t y e a r s imprisonment w i t h s i x y e a r s suspended and c r e d i t e d w i t h t i m e s e r v e d p r i o r t o c o n v i c t i o n . Defendant moved f o r a new t r i a l which was d e n i e d on the ground t h a t r e a s o n a b l e men might conclude t h e S t a t e proved t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n beyond a reason- a b l e doubt. T h i s a p p e a l followed. W e h o l d t h a t t h e evidence is s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n . A c o n v i c t i o n cannot be o v e r t u r n e d when t h e e v i d e n c e , viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e prosecu- t i o n , would a l l o w any r a t i o n a l t r i e r of f a c t t o f i n d t h e e s s e n t i a l elements of t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. S t a t e v. Doney ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 636 P.2d 1377, 1383, 38 St.Rep. 1707, 1713, and c a s e s t h e r e i n c i t e d . The S t a t e is a i d e d by a s t r o n g presumption i n f a v o r of t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e judgment. S t a t e v. S h u r t l i f f ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 635 P.2d 1294, 1296, 38 St.Rep. 1798, 1800. On a p p e a l we view a l l t h e evidence i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e t o determine whether it c o n s t i t u t e s "such r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e a s a r e a s o n a b l e mind might a c c e p t a s adequate t o s u p p o r t a conclusion" of g u i l t . S t a t e v. Wilson ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Plont. , 631 P.2d 1273, 1278, 38 St.Rep. 1040, 1047. I n t h i s c a s e t h e S t a t e was r e q u i r e d t o prove beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly caused s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y t o Gerald Cooper o r n e g l i g e n t l y caused b o d i l y i n j u r y w i t h a weapon. S e c t i o n 45-5-202(1)(a) and ( b ) , MCA. The element of " p u r p o s e l y and knowingly" was established through t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e v o l u n t a r y motion of d e f e n d a n t ' s arm t o t h e v i c t i m ' s abdomen and s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e of motive i n testimony f u r n i s h e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d r i n k i n g buddies and h i s g i r l f r i e n d , Donna Houle, a b o u t Cooper s t r i k i n g Donna unconscious j u s t m i n u t e s b e f o r e being s t a b b e d . The element of " s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y " was sup- p l i e d by Dr. McDonald's testimony a s t o t h e g r a v i t y of Cooper's wound and t h a t t h e wound was caused by a k n i f e w i t h a b l a d e a t l e a s t one and one-half i n c h e s long. S i n c e t h e r e were no e y e w i t n e s s e s who a c t u a l l y saw d e f e n d a n t s t a b Cooper i n t h e abdomen and t h e weapon was never found, c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence was p r e s e n t e d t o e s t a b - l i s h t h a t d e f e n d a n t s t a b b e d Cooper. Witnesses S t e v e Moon, George M i t c h e l l , John Saloway and Ignace Couture t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a t t h e s c e n e of t h e a s s a u l t i n f r o n t of t h e bar. S t e v e Moon, t h e b a r t e n d e r , saw t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s drm move toward Cooper's abdomen. John Saloway saw a hand come i n q u i c k l y j u s t b e f o r e t h e v i c t i m grabbed h i s stomach s a y i n g he had been s t a b b e d . George M i t c h e l l s a i d t h a t s h o r t l y a f t e r d e f e n d a n t l e f t t h e b a r someone r a n back i n t o t h e b a r s a y i n g Cooper had been s t a b b e d . Dr. McDonald t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of Cooper's i n j u r y and gave his e x p e r t medical o p i n i o n t h a t t h e wound was caused by a k n i f e . From t h i s testimony, c o n s i d e r e d c o l l e c t i v e l y , t h e j u r y concluded t h a t d e f e n d a n t s t a b b e d Cooper w i t h a k n i f e . Sec- tion 26-1-501, MCA, permits the jury to make such inferences based on the facts proved. "The jury is not bound to blindly accept defendant's version of the facts. It is free to pick and choose the evidence it wishes to believe." State v. Sorenson (1980), Mont . , 619 P.2d 1185, 1194, 37 St.Rep. 1834, 1845. Defendant's contention that his conviction was based on speculation, conjecture or probability because no witness testified that he saw him stab Cooper is without merit. As we stated in State v. Shurtliff (1981), - Mont. , 635 P.2d 1294, 1297, 38 St.Rep. 1798, 1801, a case involving the assault of a prison guard with a dart in the back where no one saw the defendant throw the dart but motive and opportunity were established and his fingerprint was found on the dart, we said: "Defendant's contention that an eyewit- ness is necessary to uphold a conviction is without merit. Indeed, the criminal justice system would be hard pressed to have an eyewitness present at the scene of every crime." Defendant also argues that the circumstances of the case demonstrate a number of credible theories other than the guilt of the defendant. He states that the circumstan- tial evidence applies with equal force against Couture, Saloway, Moon, Houle and Stewart. This is not correct. The evidence shows the motion of defendant's arm to the victim's abdomen and shows motive insofar as defendant is concerned, all of which is not true as to these other individuals. The issue of the sufficiency of the evidence boils down to the credibility of the State's circumstantial evi- dence versus the defendant's testimony. The jury by its verdict resolved this conflict in favor of the State. See, S t a t e v. Johnson ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - Mont . - , 641 P.2d 462, 466, 39 St.Rep. 419, 423, q u o t i n g S t a t e v. Cors ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 144 Mont. 323, 396 P.2d 86. The j u r y ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t h e l d a k n i f e i n h i s hand when he moved toward Cooper is a r a - t i o n a l f i n a i n g of f a c t , based on t h e d i r e c t evidence t h a t defendant approached Cooper extending h i s arm q u i c k l y toward Cooper's abdomen; Cooper s a i d , " I ' v e been s t a b b e d " ; t h a t defendant immediately t u r n e d and l e f t t h e scene of t h e a s s a u l t ; and t h a t Cooper's b o d i l y i n j u r y was a s e r i o u s , p e n e t r a t i n g k n i f e wound i n t h e abdomen. When a l l t h e f a c t s and circumstances a r e examined c o l l e c t i v e l y , t h e r e is sub- s t a n t i a l evidence, viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e , proving d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of aggravated a s s a u l t . D e f e n d a n t ' s arguments t h a t h i s motion f o r d i s m i s s a l o r a c q u i t t a l a t t h e c l o s e of t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t should have g r a n t e d h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l o r f o r judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t k e v e r d i c t a r e answered by t h e foregoing d i s c u s s i o n and our f i n d i n g of s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n . Af f irmed. Chief ~ u s t i c e \