Title: STATE v DUPRE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-227
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: September 3, 1982

No. 81-227 IN THE SUPWME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. MICHAEL CHARLES DUPRE, Defendant and Appeliant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula Honorable James 3. Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appeilant: Anthony F. Keast argued, Missouia, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greeiy, Attorney General, Heiena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: June 22, 1982 Decided: September 3, 1982 Filed: sEp - 3 1982 Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Michael Dupre was c o n v i c t e d of one count of d e l i b e r a t e homicide and t h r e e c o u n t s of a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide by a j u r y i n t h e Missoula County District Court. From t h e s e c o n v i c t i o n s , Dupre a p p e a l s . I n t h e e a r l y a f t e r n o o n of J u l y 8, 1980, Michael Dupre s e c r e t e d a . 2 2 c a l i b e r semi-automatic p i s t o l i n some weeds i n t h e downtown Missoula a l l e y t h a t r u n s behind C o n n i e ' s Bar. That evening Dupre began v i s i t i n g Missoula t a v e r n s . H e was d r e s s e d i n L e v i ' s , a s h o r t - s l e e v e d s h i r t unbuttoned t o t h e w a i s t , and thongs, and was wearing s e v e r a l t u r q u o i s e n e c k l a c e s and b r a c e l e t s and numerous r i n g s . H e wore t h e jewelry, some h i s and some h i s m o t h e r ' s , i n an a t t e m p t t o f i n d buyers f o r it i n t h e b a r s . A f t e r c o n f r o n t i n g one p a t r o n of C o n n i e ' s by f l a s h i n g t h e r i n g s under t h e man's nose, Dupre was t o l d t o " h i t t h e road" and t h e man asked i f Dupre would l i k e t o be t a k e n o u t s i d e t o have t h e r i n g s removed. Dupre l e f t C o n n i e ' s w i t h o u t responding, r e t r i e v e d t h e p i s t o l , p l a c e d it behind h i s b e l t buckle, and went t o s e v e r a l o t h e r b a r s b e f o r e r e t u r n i n g t o Connie's. H e t h e n reapproached t h e man i n Connie's, a s k i n g "Where t h e h e l l you been? I ' ve been w a i t i n g o u t s i d e f o r h a l f an hour." Dupre was a g a i n t o l d t o l e a v e t h e p a t r o n a l o n e and t o " h i t t h e road." During t h e t i m e between p i c k i n g up t h e p i s t o l and r e t u r n i n g t o C o n n i e ' s , Dupre had t h e f i r s t o f t h r e e e n c o u n t e r s with a group of young p e o p l e i n f r o n t of L a r k e n ' s F u r n i t u r e s t o r e , which f a c e s Higgins Avenue and sits on t h e a l l e y t h a t runs behind Connie's. On each o c c a s i o n , t h e members of t h e group made remarks and g e s t u r e s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y thought Dupre was a homosexual. Dupre responded each t i m e by c u s s i n g a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l s ( a t l e a s t once c a l l i n g them p u n k s ) , and by i n v i t i n g them t o f i g h t . A f t e r h i s second run-in w i t h t h e group, Dupre a g a i n r e t u r n e d t o Connie's Bar, removed h i s jewelry, and p l a c e d it i n a sack w i t h h i s name on it. H e l e f t it i n t h e b a r t e n d e r ' s c a r e . Dupre's f i n a l encounter w i t h t h e group began w i t h a v e r b a l exchange which developed i n t o a p h y s i c a l c o n f r o n t a - t i o n when he once more i n v i t e d them t o f i g h t . T h i s exchange was p r i m a r i l y between Dupre and Rick M i k e s e l l . Dupre e n t e r e d t h e a l l e y followed by R i c k and Lyle M i k e s e l l , Bob Gersten- b e r g e r , and, some d i s t a n c e behind, Gary Williams. Two o t h e r y o u t h s began t o g e t o u t of a nearby c a r t o watch t h e f i g h t t o be h e l d between Dupre and R i c k M i k e s e l l . A s t h e M i k e s e l l group rounded t h e c o r n e r i n t o t h e a l l e y , someone n o t i c e d Dupre p u l l i n g something from h i s s h i r t . F e a r i n g a k n i f e , R i c k M i k e s e l l broke a beer b o t t l e t o u s e f o r h i s own weapon. Dupre was a s u b s t a n t i a l d i s t a n c e from t h e group when h e t u r n e d , removed t h e gun from h i s s h i r t , aimed it, and w i t l ~ o u t warning emptied it i n t o t h e group c o n s i s t i n g of t h e two M i k e s e l l s , G e r s t e n b e r g e r and Williams. A s he f i r e d , t h e group t u r n e d and r a n around t h e c o r n e r of L a r k e n ' s t o t h e sidewalk. Dupre proceeded down t h e a l l e y , turned p a s t t h e 1Yissoula C i t y P o l i c e s t a t i o n , and e v e n t u a l l y went home. The f o l l o w i n g day, Dupre c a l l e d C o n n i e ' s Bar and asked t h e b a r t e n d e r t o c a l l a t a x i and t o have it d e l i v e r .the sack of jewelry t o h i s m o t h e r ' s home, where h e was s t a y i n g . M i s s o u l a p o l i c e o f f i c e r s i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e s h o o t i n g i n c i d e n t had determined t h a t a man f i t t i n g t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n v o l v e d i 1 1 t h e s h o o t i n g had l e f t jewelry a t Connie's t h e n i g h t of J u l y 8 and had asked t o be informed of any a t t e m p t t o c l a i m it. The b a r t e n d e r n o t i f i e d t h e p o l i c e of D u p r e l s r e q u e s t , and two d e t e c t i v e s were d i s p a t c h e d t o t h e a d d r e s s t h a t had been g i v e n t o t h e b a r t e n d e r . When they a r r i v e d and i d e n t i f i e d themselves, t h e d e t e c t i v e s asked Dupre i f he had c a l l e d about t h e jewelry. He answered t h a t he had, and t h e o f f i c e r s asked him t o accompany them t o p o l i c e h e a d q u a r t e r s t o i d e n t i f y t h e jewelry. When they a r r i v e d a t t h e s t a t i o n , t h e o f f i c e r s ex- p l a i n e d t h a t t h e person who had l e f t t h e jewelry a t C o n n i e ' s matched t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e person involved i n t h e s h o o t i n g t h e n i g h t b e f o r e and t h a t t h e y would l i k e t o t a l k t o him about t h e s h o o t i n g . They t h e n asked him i f he knew anything about t h e shooting. H e answered, "Yes." A t t h a t p o i n t , Dupre was read h i s Miranda r i g h t s (Miranda v. Arizona ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U . S . 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 6 9 4 ) , t h e y were f u l l y e x p l a i n e d t o him, and he s a i d t h a t he wanted t o t a l k t o t h e d e t e c t i v e s . H e t h e n signed a w r i t t e n waiver. H e i n i t i a l l y wrote "No" i n t h e blank t h a t asked i f he wanted t o t a l k t o t h e d e t e c t i v e s . When one of t h e o f f i c e r s p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e "No" meant t h a t he d i d n o t want t o make a s t a t e m e n t , he i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had made a m i s t a k e , changed h i s answer t o "Yes," and i n i t i a l e d t h e change. A f t e r making a s t a t e m e n t t o t h e d e t e c t i v e s , he t h e n r e p e a t e d h i s s t a t e m e n t i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n o r d e r t o make a t a p e recording. F u l l Niranda warnings were a g a i n g i v e n and e x p l a i n e d i n d e t a i l , and Dupre a g a i n waived t h o s e r i g h t s . The taped s t a t e m e n t was admitted i n t o evidence w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n a s P l a i n t i f f ' s E x h i b i t No. 8. Bob G e r s t e n b e r g e r was s t r u c k by a b u l l e t w h i c h e n t e r e d h i s c h e s t c a v i t y under h i s r i g h t a r m p i t and lodged j u s t under t h e s k i n on h i s l e f t s i d e . H e d i e d from t h e r e s u l t i n g i n j u r i e s on J u l y 10, 1980. R i c k M i k e s e l l was h i t w i t h two b u l l e t s , one e n t e r i n g and e x i t i n g t h e t o p of t h e back of h i s r i g h t s h o u l d e r . The o t h e r e n t e r e d t h e t o p of h i s s h o u l d e r near h i s n e c k l i n e , t r a v e l e d t h r e e o r f o u r i n c h e s , and lodged a t t h e base of h i s s k u l l , where it remains. M i k e s e l l recovered from h i s i n j u r i e s . Duprel s c o n v i c t i o n s followed. On a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s he was d e n i e d e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l i n t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s p e c t s : (1) f a i l u r e of c o u n s e l t o p r o t e c t h i s p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a - t i o n ; ( 2 ) f a i l u r e of c o u n s e l t o a d e q u a t e l y cross-examine an e x p e r t w i t n e s s , D r . Henneford; and ( 3 ) f a i l u r e of c o u n s e l t o o b j e c t t o improper and p r e j u d i c i a l s t a t e m e n t s by t h e prose- c u t o r i n c l o s i n g argument. The s t a n d a r d t h a t t h i s Court u s e s t o d e t e r m i n e whe- t h e r a d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v e d e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l was set f o r t h i n S t a t e v. Rose ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. , 608 P.2d 1074, 37 St.Rep. 642: "The new t e s t is known a s t h e ' r e a s o n a b l y e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e ' t e s t and may be s t a t e d a s f o l l o w s : "Persons accused of crime a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e range of competence demanded of a t t o r n e y s i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s . " 608 P.2d a t 1080-1081, 37 St.Rep. a t 649-650. An examination of t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t Dupre's p u b l i c d e f e n d e r , an e x p e r i e n c e d c r i m i n a l a t t o r n e y , d i l i - g e n t l y pursued t h e t h e o r y of s e l f - d e f e n s e which Dupre a g a i n a s s e r t s on a p p e a l . Counsel f i l e d numerous p r e t r i a l motions, i n c l u d i n g : a motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge; n o t i c e s of both t h e d e f e n s e s of i n a b i l i t y t o form t h e r e q u i s i t e mental s t a t e and of s e l f - d e f e n s e ; m o t i o n s f o r p r o d u c t i o n o f w i t n e s s e s , r e b u t t a l w i t n e s s e s , and e v i d e n c e ; motions t o r e q u e s t a p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n and t o r e q u e s t t h e s e r v i c e s of an independent i n v e s t i g a t o r ; and a motion i n l i m i n e t o e x c l u d e testimony t h a t would tend t o connect Dupre w i t h o t h e r c r i m e s , whether charged o r n o t . F i n a l l y , d e f e n s e counsel c a l l e d f i v e w i t n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t , t o t e s t i f y on Dupre's b e h a l f . W e w i l l c o n s i d e r i n t u r n each a l l e g e d e r r o r on t h e p a r t of d e f e n s e c o u n s e l which Dupre r a i s e s . Dupre r a i s e s a s a f i r s t i s s u e t h a t he was d e n i e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n because h i s Niranda r i g h t s were n o t v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y waived and t h a t h i s c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o c h a l l e n g e t h e a d m i s s i b i l - i t y of h i s s t a t e m e n t t h u s c o n s t i t u t e s i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l . H e s p e c i f i e s t h r e e r e a s o n s t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t was n o t v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y g i v e n . H e a r g u e s , f i r s t , t h a t h i s Miranda warnings were g i v e n a f t e r he had a l r e a d y made an admission a g a i n s t i n t e r e s t t h a t amounted t o a c o n f e s s i o n ; second, t h a t t h e "No" marked on t h e w r i t t e n waiver of h i s Miranda r i g h t s t h a t was t h e n changed t o a "Yes" d e m o n s t r a t e s c o n f u s i o n on h i s p a r t t h a t s u p p o r t s a t h e o r y of t r i c k e r y o r c a j o l e r y by t h e p o l i c e ; and, f i n a l l y , he a r g u e s t h a t he could n o t knowingly and i n t e l l i g e n t l y waive h i s Miranda r i g h t s when a t t h e t i m e h i s s t a t e m e n t was made he was w i t h o u t a c t u a l knowledge t h a t anyone was i n j u r e d i n t h e s h o o t i n g . Dupre contends t h a t a t t h e p o i n t D e t e c t i v e s Weaver and L e w i s a r r i v e d a t h i s m o t h e r ' s home and l e a r n e d t h a t h e claimed ownership of t h e jewelry and t h a t he f i t t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s h o o t i n g s u s p e c t , he became t h e f o c u s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and s h o u l d have t h e n been g i v e n Miranda warnings. H e m a i n t a i n s t h a t h i s "Yes" answer t o t h e ques- t i o n of whether he knew a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e s h o o t i n g i n c i d e n t is an admission a g a i n s t i n t e r e s t made p u r s u a n t t o an uncon- s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n and t h a t it amounts t o a confes- s i o n . A c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r i n g Miranda warnings is n o t c r e a t e d simply because an i n d i v i d u a l is t h e f o c u s of an i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Beckwith v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1. Nor are ivliranda warnings n e c e s s a r y simply because t h e q u e s t i o n i n g t a k e s p l a c e a t t h e s t a t i o n house when t h e r e is no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n i n g took p l a c e i n a c o n t e x t where freedom t o d e p a r t was i n any way r e s t r i c t e d . Oregon v. Mathiason ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 429 U . S . 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714. W e have h e l d t h a t t h e test of a d m i s s i b i l i t y is whether t h e waiver w a s v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y g i v e n i n t h e l i g h t of a l l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , c o n s i d e r i n g such p e r - t i n e n t f a c t o r s as " t h e age of t h e a c c u s e d , h i s e d u c a t i o n , h i s knowledge of t h e n a t u r e of h i s F i f t h Amendment r i g h t s , h i s m e n t a l c a p a c i t y , h i s p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system, and h i s e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e a d u l t world." S t a t e v. Blakney ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - Mont . , 641 P.2d 1 0 4 5 , 1050, 39 St.Rep. 436, 441. Defendant was twenty-four y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e he made h i s s t a t e m e n t , h a d a n i n t h g r a d e e d u c a t i o n , h a d r e c e i v e d h i s G.E.D., and had completed a Utah Job Corps c a r p e n t r y program. The taped waiver of h i s Miranda r i g h t s d e m o n s t r a t e s a c l e a r understanding of t h e n a t u r e of F i f t h Amendment r i g h t s and what he was waiving, and t h e r e is a b s o l u t e l y no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t h i s mental c a p a c i t y is such t h a t it would i n v a l i d a t e h i s waiver. H e h a s had p r e v i o u s c o n t a c t w i t h t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m , h a v i n g been c o n v i c t e d of a t h e f t charge i n Arizona and having s e r v e d e l e v e n months on t h a t c o n v i c t i o n . H e h a s l i v e d i n C a l i - f o r n i a f Washing ton, Germany, Arizona and Montana and h a s earned h i s l i v e l i h o o d by working a t c a r p e n t r y , b r i c k l a y i n g , o i l r i g g i n g and f i s h i n g . The f a c t s of t h i s c a s e r e l a t i n g t o d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e - ment c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l t h e s i t u a t i o n w e examined i n S t a t e v. Graves ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 622 P.2d 203, 38 St.Rep. 9. I n Graves, a black s u s p e c t began walking down A i r p o r t Road Eroin Mr. Lucky's lounge i n Helena a f t e r a s t a b b i n g a t t h e bar. Within minutes of t h e i n c i d e n t , a black man was approached on A i r p o r t Road by i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s and was asked i f he was involved i n t h e a l t e r c a t i o n and i f a k n i f e was involved. H e answered "Yes" t o both q u e s t i o n s and turned t h e k n i f e over t o t h e patrolman, who t h e n n o t i c e d blood on t h e s u s p e c t ' s hands, p l a c e d him under a r r e s t , and gave him Miranda warnings. Here, a s i n Graves, t h e s u s p e c t had n o t been deprived of h i s freedom i n any s i g n i f i c a n t manner a t t h e p o i n t a t which t h e s t a t e m e n t was made. I n any e v e n t , d e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i r m a t i o n of knowledge of t h e s h o o t i n g does n o t amount t o a " c o n f e s s i o n , " which t h i s Court h a s d e f i n e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner: "A ' c o n f e s s i o n ' i n a l e g a l s e n s e is r e s t r i c t - ed t o an acknowledgement of g u i l t , made by a p e r s o n a f t e r an o f f e n s e h a s been committed, and does n o t a p p l y t o a mere s t a t e m e n t o r d e c l a r a t i o n of an independent f a c t from which s u c h g u i l t may be i n f e r r e d . ( C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . ) " S t a t e v. S t e v e n s ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 60 Mont. 390, 402, 199 P. 256, 259. Dupre's s t a t e m e n t w a s n o t even an independent f a c t from which g u i l t may have been i n f e r r e d . Dupre d i d n o t make an admission t h a t he had been involved i n t h e s h o o t i n g u n t i l a f t e r h i s Miranda r i g h t s were waived. The s i m p l e a f f i r m a t i o n of knowledge of t h e i n c i d e n t might e a s i l y have been based upon t h e news r e p o r t s which had been p u b l i s h e d and b r o a d c a s t a f t e r t h e a l t e r c a t i o n . Nor had t h e f o c u s of t h e i n v e s t i g a - t i o n y e t begun t o s h i f t t o Dupre b e f o r e h e gave t h a t r e - sponse. S t a t e v. Lucero ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 531, 537, 445 P.2d 731, 734. While he d i d f i t t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s u s p e c t , t h a t d e s c r i p t i o n was v e r y g e n e r a l : " a v e r a g e h e i g h t of about f i v e t e n o r s o ; medium b u i l d ; mustache and h a i r l e n g t h down t o t h e ears, and a l i g h t s h i r t unbuttoned t o t h e m i d d l e of t h e c h e s t . " Miranda warnings were c l e a r l y n o t r e q u i r e d p r i o r t o h i s s t a t e m e n t t h a t he d i d know something about t h e s h o o t i n g . N e i t h e r d o e s t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e waiver was t h e r e s u l t of t r i c k e r y o r c a j o l e r y as evidenced by t h e change of t h e "No" t o "Yes." Dupre s i g n e d t h e waiver and made t h e f i r s t s t a t e m e n t w i t h i n m i n u t e s of a r r i v i n g a t t h e s t a t i o n . The l a p s e of time between t h e o r i g i n a l state- ment of r i g h t s and t h e t a p e r e c o r d i n g is o n l y f o u r t e e n minutes. Both Dupre and D e t e c t i v e Weaver 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 gave a s t a t e m e n t t o t h e o f f i c e r s d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d and t h a t he t h e n agreed t o g i v e a more d e t a i l e d s t a t e m e n t on t a p e . The taped s t a t e m e n t and d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y both i n d i c a t e t h a t he d e f i n i t e l y wanted t o t a l k t o t h e d e t e c t i v e s and t h a t he v o i u n t a r i l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y waived h i s r i g h t t o have c o u n s e l p r e s e n t w h i l e he d i d s o . D e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h i s waiver could n o t be v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y waived i f he was n o t aware of t h e i n j u r i e s t h a t r e s u l t e d from t h e i n c i d e n t is w i t h o u t m e r i t . H e cites no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n . The p r i n t e d "Advice of R i g h t s " which Dupre signed and waived p l a i n l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t " [ a l n y t h i n g [he] [ s a i d ] [could] and [would] be used a g a i n s t [him] ." (Emphasis added.) To p r e - c l u d e t h e p r o s e c u t i o n f r o m u s i n g s t a t e m e n t s t h a t were c l e a r l y g i v e n v o l u n t a r i l y based upon a t h e o r y t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t should be t o l d of d e t a i l s of t h e crime and of a l l p o t e n t i a l c r i m e s t h a t could be charged would h a m s t r i n g p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s where unexpected i n f o r m a t i o n is o f t e n provided t h a t s h e d s l i g h t on o t h e r o f f e n s e s . F i n a l l y , t h i s Court h a s p r e v i o u s l y a d d r e s s e d and soundly r e j e c t e d t h i s argument. Lucero, s u p r a , 1 5 1 Mont. a t 540, 445 P.2d a t 736. Our s t a n d h a s n o t changed. C o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o o b j e c t t o admission of t h e s t a t e m e n t d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l . I n f a c t , t h e s t a t e m e n t provided a c o n s i s t e n t r e i n - forcement of Dupre's c l a i m of s e l f - d e f e n s e . The second major i s s u e r a i s e d by Dupre is t h a t he was d e n i e d e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l by h i s p u b l i c d e f e n d e r ' s f a i l u r e t o cross-examine e x p e r t w i t n e s s D r . J. R. Henneford, t h e p a t h o l o g i s t , r e g a r d i n g t h e p o s s i b l e p r e s e n c e of r i c o c h e t marks on t h e b u l l e t removed from t h e d e c e a s e d ' s body. H e contends t h a t t h i s r e s u l t e d i n a m a t e r i a l l a c k of e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e j u r y t h a t could have provided an a l t e r n a t e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s ' injuries. However, d e f e n a a n t d o e s n o t even a r g u e t h a t such evidence was a v a i l a b l e . The S t a t e n o t e s t h a t t h e b u l l e t is s t i l l i n p o l i c e c u s t o d y and t h a t it is presumable t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l examinea it p r i o r t o t r i a l . I n l i g h t of d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s v i g o r o u s a t t e m p t t o d e v e l o p t h e t h e o r y t h a t Dupre was s h o o t i n g a t t h e ground and t h a t t h e b u l l e t s r i c o c h e t e d i n t o t h e v i c t i m s , it is p r o b a b l e t h a t had such evidence been a v a i l a b i e , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l would have u t i l i z e d it. Defense c o u n s e l cross-examined t h e i n d i v i d u a l s who were I n t h e a l l e y d u r i n g t h e s h o o t i n g t o e l i c i t t e s t i m o n y of s p a r k s and r i c o c h e t i n g sounds. A d d i t i o n a l l y , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l p r e s e n t e d testimony of a gun e x p e r t t h a t seemed d e s i g n e d t o s u p p o r t t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e gun was f i r e d a t t h e ground and t h a t t h e b u l l e t s r i c o c h e t e d and, a l t e r n a t e l y , t h a t t h e g u n ' s r e c o i l may have been a f a c t o r i n c a u s i n g t h e s h o t s t o h i t h i g h e r . F i n a l l y , Dupre was appointed an experienced inde- pendent i n v e s t i g a t o r who was allowed t o examine a l l of t h e p h y s i c a l evidence. Defendant is engaging i n wild s p e c u l a - t i o n . T h i s argument, t o o , is w i t h o u t m e r i t . The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d by Dupre is t h a t he was d e n i e d e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l by t h e p u b l i c d e f e n d e r ' s f a i l u r e t o o b j e c t t o improper argument by t h e p r o s e c u t o r . I t is t o o l a t e on a p p e a l t o r a i s e o b j e c t i o n t o argument by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n when no o b j e c t i o n was r a i s e d below. Hawkins v. C r i s t ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 206, 210, 583 P.2d 396, 398, c e r t . d e n i e d , 4 3 3 U.S. 957, 99 S.Ct. 359, 58 L.Ed.2d 350. W e c o n s i d e r t h i s srgument o n l y because it forms a b a s i s f o r a f i n d i n g of i n e i f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l . T h i s Court r e q u i r e s , however, t h a t i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e , i f p r e j u d i c e is a l l e g e d , it w i l l n o t be presumed, b u t it must be e s t a b l i s h e d from t h e r e c o r d t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t was denied. S t a t e v. Watkins ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 156 Mont. 456, 464, 481 P.2d 689, 693. Here, d e f e n d a n t c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h r e e arguments i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c l o s i n g as p r e j u d i c i a l : f i r s t , t h a t t h e p r o s e - c u t i n g a t t o r n e y drew improper and c o n c l u s o r y i n f e r e n c e s unsupported by f a c t s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y ; second, t h a t remarks made by t h e p r o s e c u t o r i n c l o s i n g argument i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t were s e l f - o p i n i o n a t e d , demeaning and c o n d o n e d a d e r o g a t o r y a t t i t u d e t o w a r d D u p r e ; a n d , f i n a l l y , Dupre c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s c l o s i n g r e m a r k s c o n f u s e d t h e j u r y a s t o t h e " r e a s o n a b l e man" s t a n d a r d of s e l f - d e f e n s e . W e have recognized t h a t : " ' G e n e r a l l y , t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e c r i m e charged, t h e volume of e v i d e n c e , c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s , i n f e r e n c e s t o be drawn from v a r i o u s p h a s e s o f e v i d e n c e , a n d l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s i n v o l v e d , t o b e p r e s e n t e d i n i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e j u r y , a r e a l l m a t t e r s w i t h i n t h e proper scope of argument . . .' ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) " S t a t e v. Thompson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 150, 157, 576 P.2d 1105, 1109. See a l s o , S t a t e v. Musgrove ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 162, 582 P.2d 1246. Dupre's o b j e c t i o n t o improper and c o n c l u s o r y i n f e r - e n c e s is based upon s t a t e m e n t s by t h e p r o s e c u t o r t h a t t h e two p a r t i e s who were wounded were a t t e m p t i n g t o flee from t h e a l l e y . The e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n sub- s t a n t i a l l y s u p p o r t s t h e s e i n f e r e n c e s . R i c k M i k e s e l l was s n o t i n t h e back and G e r s t e n b e r g e r was s h o t sideways through t h e c h e s t with no i n j u r y t o e i t h e r arm. H i s r i g h t arm must have been r a i s e d when t h e b u l l e t e n t e r e d and he was sideways t o t h e l i n e of f i r e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , L y l e M i k e s e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t u r n e d and r a n when t h e s h o o t i n g s t a r t e d , and Gary Williams testified that after freezing for a moment he, too, turned and fled. The prosecutor's comments were proper. Defendant next argues that the prosecutor Is comments as he described defendant's appearance, and the average person's possible reaction to it, condoned a prejudicial and discriminatory community attitude toward defendant that implied that harassment of him was proper. Comments by the prosecutor that indicated an under- standing of how someone might think that Dupre was a "little strange" based upon his appearance were consistently preceded and interspersed by emphatic condemnations of the group's harassment of Dupre. Counsel repeatedly stated that he could not condone or justify their actions and that "to a certain extent they deserved getting tromped on. " Defendant has not demonstrated substantial prejudice. Finally, we are not convinced that the prosecutor's closing remarks, which asked the jury whether a reasonable person would continue to provoke verbal exchanges and harassment by returning to the corner repeatedly, confused the jury as to the reasonable man standard of self-defense. While the use of the term "reasonable man" could cause confusion when it is used in a different context than as the self-defense standard, no likelihood of con£ usion based upon use of the words has been demonstrated. Here, Jury Instruction Nos. 20, 21 and 26 precisely set out the statutory self-defense standard. Sections 45-3-101, -102 and -105, MCA. Additionally, both defense counsel and the prosecutor explained the self-defense instructions and gave examples of the extent of force permissible to use in standing one's ground in given situations. And, they explained that an aggressor has the duty, i f possible, t o withdraw or escape before the use of force t h a t is l i k e l y t o cause death or serious bodily injury. The thrust of the prosecutor's comments goes t o a determination of whether Dupre, rather than one or more of the group members, was the aggressor in the altercation. They do not amount to prejudicial error. Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. Affirmed. %&4,$4&LCIPQQ, Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: /'