Title: STATE v CARTWRIGHT
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-220
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: August 25, 1982

NO. 81-220 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T OF T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1982 STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, V S . JOSEPH RAYMOND CARTWRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal f r o m : D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Nineteenth 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 Lincoln Honorable Robert Holter, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appeilant: David W. Harman argued, Libby, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Mike McGrath argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana b 7 i l l i a m A. Douglas, County Attorney, Libby, Montana ~ h & n Thompson argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: June 2 2 , 1982 Oecided : August 25, 1982 Fiied:, ,id3; ,J 3 t98L M r . 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 C o u r t . Joseph C a r t w r i g h t was c o n v i c t e d of d e l i b e r a t e homicide and a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e N i n e t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, S t a t e of Montana, i n and for t h e County of L i n c o l n . C a r t w r i g h t was sentenced t o t h i r t y - f i v e y e a r s imprisonment on each count; t h e s e n t e n c e s t o r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y . From t h e f o r e g o i n g c o n v i c t i o n he a p p e a l s . P r i o r to t h i s u n f o r t u n a t e i n c i d e n t t h e d e f e n d a n t , Joseph C a r t w r i g h t , and t h e d e c e a s e d , Pamela McCully, l i v e d t o g e t h e r f o r a l m o s t f o u r y e a r s . T h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p began to d e t e r i o r a t e , and on A p r i l 11, 1980, an i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d which r e s u l t e d i n t h e d e a t h of Pam McCully and t h e s e r i o u s wounding of P a t McCully. T h a t day, C a r t w r i g h t r e t u r n e d home to f i n d t h a t s e v e r a l of h i s guns were m i s s i n g . H e l e a r n e d from a h o u s e g u e s t t h a t Pam McCully had been t h e r e earlier and had gained access through a l i v i n g - room window. Missing were a ,308, a .30-30, a .14, a ,410 s h o t g u n , and a .357 magnum p i s t o l w i t h h o l s t e r . C a r t w r i g h t w a s a n g r y , and i n h i s anger he "slugged t h e w a l l " and c r e a t e d a h o l e . The houseguest t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s t a t e d h i s i n t e n t i o n s , " t o go up t h e r e and see i f I c a n g e t my guns back and I a m going to s h o o t h e r . " Pamela McCully and s e v e r a l o t h e r members of h e r f a m i l y were f i f t y miles away n e a r Trego a t t h e r e s i d e n c e of Retha McCully, P a m e l a ' s mother. C a r t w r i g h t g o t i n h i s car and drove to Trego. H e t o o k w i t h him a loaded .22 c a l i b e r semi-automatic r i f l e , t h e o n l y gun t h a t had n o t been taken by Pamela McCully. On t h e way t o Trego, C a r t w r i g h t consumed t h r e e b e e r s . H e a r r i v e d a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6:00 p . m . H e p u l l e d h i s c a r i n t o t h e y a r d , s t o p p e d , and l e f t t h e motor running. H e remained i n h i s car. Pamela McCully came o u t of t h e house and t h e two began to a r g u e . A f t e r a few m i n u t e s McCully went back i n t h e house to g e t some c i g a r e t t e s . She t o l d h e r mother t h a t "Joe had a gun o u t t h e r e . " N o n e t h e l e s s she went back o u t s i d e and on t h e way to C a r t w r i g h t l s c a r she picked up a broken cue s t i c k t h a t had been l a y i n g i n t h e y a r d . The t w o continued to a r g u e . A t about t h i s t i m e Bud McCully, h i s wife Debbie, and t h e i r t w o c h i l d r e n came o u t of t h e house and were p r e p a r i n g t o l e a v e . C a r t w r i g h t c a l l e d Bud McCully o v e r to t h e c a r and s t a t e d , "make h e r g i v e me my s t u f f back." Bud McCully d i d n o t respond b u t was i r r i t a t e d by t h e manner i n which h i s sister Pamela was tapping t h e broken cue s t i c k on t h e car. H e t o l d h e r to s t o p and walked away. A t t h i s p o i n t t h e f a c t s a r e c o n f l i c t i n g . The s i t u a t i o n began t o move r a p i d l y . S e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t C a r t w r i g h t t h r e a t e n e d Pamela McCully; s t a t i n g "you have g o t twenty-four h o u r s t o l i v e . " P a t McCully t h e n approached t h e c a r and c h a s t i s e d C a r t w r i g h t f o r t a l k i n g to h i s sister t h a t way. P a t McCully t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t h e n h i t C a r t w r i g h t i n t h e j a w w i t h h i s r i g h t f i s t . C a r t w r i g h t r e p o r t e d l y s a i d , " d o n ' t h i t me P a t . " The . 2 2 c a l i b e r r i f l e t h a t had p r e v i o u s l y been p o i n t i n g toward t h e f l o o r b o a r d was p o i n t i n g o u t t h e window. A s t r u g g l e ensued. Both P a t and Pam McCully were holding on to t h e b a r r e l . The b a r r e l was " t i p p e d up" and P a t McCully was s h o t i n t h e stomach. A f t e r being s h o t he scrambled i n t o t h e house. Then, according to t e s t i m o n y of Retha McCully, "he [ C a r t w r i g h t ] j u s t turned t h e gun on Pam and s h o t her." She was not holding on to t h e b a r r e l when s h e was s h o t . Retha McCully f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t when Pamela was s h o t " h e r neck went back and s h e kind of s t a g g e r e d forward and t h e n he s h o t a g a i n and s h e slumped down on h i s arm because he had h i s arm o u t t h e window." Blood s t a i n s were found on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s l e f t s h i r t s l e e v e , on a b l a n k e t used t o cover t h e c a r s e a t , and on t h e s i d e of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r door. A f o r e n s i c s c i e n t i s t t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l t h r e e blood samples were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Pamela McCully's blood type. Pamela ' s d e a t h was i n s t a n t a n e o u s . The b u l l e t t r a n s e c t e d t h e upper p o r t i o n of t h e s p i n a l c o r d . The d e f e n d a n t ' s r i f l e was loaded w i t h .22 c a l i b e r hollow p o i n t or "dum dum" b u l l e t s . According t o t e s t i m o n y " a hollow p o i n t b u l l e t , when s t r i k i n g bone, t e n d s to mushroom and fragment. . .and i n t h i s case t h e r e was an e x t e n s i v e f r a g m e n t a t i o n of t h e b u l l e t s t r u c t u r e ." Approximately 30 f r a g m e n t s of l e a d were removed from t h e neck area. An i n s t a n t l a t e r , Mike McCully came o u t of t h e house w i t h a .308 c a l i b e r r i f l e . H e aimed t h e r i f l e b u t Retha McCully pushed h i s a i m i n t o t h e a i r as he f i r e d . A n e i g h b o r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r h e a r i n g one loud s h o t from a h e a v y - c a l i b e r r i f l e , he heard a n o t h e r v o l l e y of small c a l i b e r f i r e ; t h i s being C a r t w r i g h t who s t o p p e d a t t h e c a t t l e guard on h i s way o u t t o f i r e back a t t h e house. I n v e s t i g a t o r s found . 2 2 c a l i b e r s h e l l c a s i n g s on t h e ground n e a r t h e cattle guard. The d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n of t h e i n c i d e n t v a r i e s . The defen- d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t t h r e a t e n Pamela McCully w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t s h e had twenty-four h o u r s t o l i v e ; r a t h e r he s t a t e d " s h e had twenty-four hours t o g e t my r i f l e s back and I was going to t h e s h e r i f f ." C a r t w r i g h t f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t when P a t McCully approached t h e car he had a p i s t o l i n h i s l e f t hand. H e also s a i d t h a t he saw Mike McCully w i t h a r i f l e p r i o r to t h e s h o o t i n g . C a r t w r i g h t became " s c a r e d " and he t o l d Pamela t h a t he "was g e t t i n g t h e h e l l o u t of t h e r e ." Pamela responded, " t h e h e l l you a r e . " Then t h e s t r u g g l e f o r h i s .22 c a l i b e r r i f l e ensued. The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he attempted t o d r i v e away b u t t h e car was s p i n n i n g i n t h e mud. H e d i d n o t remember f i r i n g any s h o t s b u t he recalls empty c a s i n g s h i t t i n g him i n t h e f a c e . H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e s t o c k of t h e gun w a s s t u c k i n t h e s t e e r i n g wheel as he was d r i v i n g n e a r t h e cattle guard and t w o s h o t s went o f f . A f t e r l e a v i n g t h e McCully r e s i d e n c e C a r t w r i g h t stopped h i s car n e a r a g r a v e l p i t l o c a t e d 3/4 o f a m i l e from t h e Trego s t o r e . C a r t w r i g h t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he stopped because he had to "go to t h e bathroom real bad." The S t a t e o f f e r e d a n o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e s t o p a t t h e g r a v e l p i t ; t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t stopped t o s h o o t h i s own car i n an a t t e m p t t o confuse t h e i s s u e s . The d e f e n d a n t ' s car s u s t a i n e d a s h a t t e r e d f r o n t p a s s e n g e r window and a h o l e i n t h e l e f t rear s e c t i o n of t h e r o o f . Two b a l l i s t i c s e x p e r t s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e h o l e i n t h e roof was caused by a .22 c a l i b e r b u l l e t . Furthermore, two s p e n t .22 c a l i b e r c a r t r i d g e s were found by t h e g r a v e l p i t . T e s t i n g showed t h a t t h e s e had been f i r e d from C a r t w r i g h t l s r i f l e . A small p i l e of g l a s s was found about 3/4 o f a m i l e from t h e g r a v e l p i t . I t was analyzed and compared to g l a s s samples taken from t h e window and i n t e r i o r of C a r t w r i g h t l s car. The t w o samples had i d e n t i c a l chemical and p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s . The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t C a r t w r i g h t l e f t t h e g r a v e l p i t , went f u r t h e r down t h e road and s h o t h i s own window o u t . N o g l a s s was found a t t h e McCully r e s i d e n c e . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t t h e d e f e n d a n t turned himself o v e r t o t h e Eureka p o l i c e ; he w a s " s c a r e d " and t h o u g h t t h e McCullys would be coming a f t e r him. A t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n t h e d e f e n d a n t made a taped s t a t e m e n t t o Deputy County A t t o r n e y Shaun Thompson and D e t e c t i v e Rodney Deboer. P r i o r to making t h e s t a t e m e n t , C a r t w r i g h t was informed of h i s "Miranda r i g h t s , " signed a w a i v e r , and answered q u e s t i o n s f o r t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s . The d e f e n d a n t raises t h r e e i s s u e s : (1) w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o s u p p r e s s s t a t e m e n t s made to i n v e s t i g a - tors s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t ; ( 2 ) w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by r e f u s i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s o f f e r e d j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s on s e l f - d e f e n s e ; and ( 3 ) whether it was p r o p e r f o r t h e District C o u r t t o r e f u s e o f f e r e d c h a r a c t e r e v i d e n c e of t h e v i c t i m and h e r f arnily. The d e f e n d a n t claims t h a t c e r t a i n p o r t i o n s of t h e tape- r e c o r d e d s t a t e m e n t made by him s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g should n o t have been allowed to impeach h i s testimony. A p p a r e n t l y t h e S t a t e was concerned of p o s s i b l e Miranda v i o l a t i o n s . I n Miranda v . Arizona ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court r u l e d t h a t i f an accused a s k s to c o n s u l t w i t h an a t t o r n e y , p o l i c e q u e s t i o n i n g must s t o p . I n t h i s case it is u n c l e a r whether t h e d e f e n d a n t e f f e c t i v e l y a s s e r t e d h i s r i g h t to c o u n s e l d u r i n g t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n ; and i f he d i d , it is e q u a l l y u n c l e a r whether or n o t he waived t h a t r i g h t . A t a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g on t h i s matter, t h e D i s t r i c t Court r u l e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t e f f e c t i v e l y assert h i s r i g h t to c o u n s e l , and "assuming arguendo t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t e f f e c t i v e l y a s s e r t e d h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l , he waived h i s r i g h t to counsel by d e s i r i n g to proceed w i t h t h e i n t e r v i e w . " However, we need n o t a d d r e s s t h e s e i s s u e s because t h e taped s t a t e m e n t was n o t used f o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f . Various p o r t i o n s were used b u t o n l y f o r impeachment purposes. T h i s is a c r i t i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n which w i l l become e v i d e n t s h o r t l y . F i r s t , it is n e c e s s a r y to show how t h e taped s t a t e m e n t was used. The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t recall when t h e p a s s e n g e r window of h i s car was s h a t t e r e d . The p r o s e c u t i o n p l a y e d t h e £01-lowing p o r t i o n of t h e taped s t a t e m e n t : "A. I w a s t a k i n g o f f a s it happened and I had my .22 a u t o m a t i c l i k e t h i s , and I grabbed l i k e t h a t , and I t u r n e d and t h a t ' s when my window went o u t . " Testiinony of t h e d e f e n d a n t i n d i c a t e d t h a t Mike McCully came o u t of t h e house w i t h a r i f l e d u r i n g t h e s t r u g g l e f o r h i s .22 c a l i b e r r i f l e . Two p o r t i o n s of t h e taped s t a t e m e n t were played which showed t h a t he was f i r s t aware of Mike McCully w i t h t h e r i f l e when he w a s l e a v i n g , a f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g had t a k e n p l a c e . "A. I t h i n k Pam was hanging on to t h e window p a r t -- yeah, my window p a r t ; my window was r o l l e d down and s h e was hanging on t h e r e . I f i r e d once or twice t h e n when I was l e a v i n g , and I went down and I s e e n t h e o t h e r b r o t h e r come o u t w i t h a r i f l e w i t h a scope on and I f i r e d once o r t w i c e a g a i n t h a t way. "Q. H i s name is P a t ? A. P a t . "Q. And -- A. Blond-haired guy, and t h e o t h e r b r o t h e r ' s name is Mike, and Mike, he r a n back to t h e house and he -- as I was going down t h e h i l l from t h e house, he come o u t w i t h a r i f l e w i t h a scope on it cause I looked l i k e t h a t and h e ' s going l i k e t h i s . " The d e f e n d a n t also t e s t i f i e d t h a t he heard a loud s h o t j u s t a f t e r he s a w Mike McCully w i t h t h e r i f l e . The f o l l o w i n g p o r t i o n was used i n r e b u t t a l . "Q. Which b r o t h e r ? A. Mike. "Q. O t h e r t h a n your r i f l e being f i r e d , d o you recall any o t h e r weapons being f i r e d ? A. NO. 'I F i n a l l y , t h e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t honk h i s h o r n when he d r o v e i n t o t h e yard. The f o l l o w i n g p o r t i o n of t h e t a p e d s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t e s o t h e r w i s e . "Q. When you p u l l e d up, d i d you beep your h o r n o r something? A. R i g h t . "Q. You beeped your horn? A. Y e s . "Q. About how many t i m e s d i d you beep your h o r n ? A. Three -- a b o u t t w o times." After t h e p r e c e d i n g p o r t i o n s of t h e s t a t e m e n t were admitted t h e e n t i r e s t a t e m e n t was played to t h e j u r y a t t h e r e q u e s t of t h e d e f e n s e . The r e c o r d makes clear t h a t t h e o b j e c t i o n of t h e defen- d a n t was l i m i t e d to o n l y t h o s e p o r t i o n s of t h e s t a t e m e n t set o u t above. T h i s Court h a s followed t h e r u l e of t w o United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t cases. F i r s t , i n Harris v. New York ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 401 U.S. 222, 9 1 S.Ct. 6 4 3 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1, t h e Court h e l d t h a t a l t h o u g h e v i - d e n c e is i n a d m i s s i b l e i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s case-in-chief because o f Miranda v i o l a t i o n s , such e v i d e n c e is n o t b a r r e d f o r a l l p u r p o s e s . I n Harris, t h e d e f e n d a n t had made s t a t e m e n t s to t h e p o l i c e a f t e r being t a k e n i n t o custody. A t r a n s c r i p t of t h e s t a t e m e n t shows t h a t he w a s n o t informed of h i s r i g h t to c o u n s e l . The p r o s e c u t i o n conceded t h e Miranda v i o l a t i o n b u t still used t h e s t a t e m e n t f o r impeachment purposes. The Court i n upholding t h e c o n v i c t i o n s t a t e d : "Miranda b a r r e d t h e p r o s e c u t i o n from making its case w i t h s t a t e m e n t s of a n accused made w h i l e i n c u s t o d y p r i o r to having o r e f f e c - t i v e l y waiving c o u n s e l . I t does not f o l l o w from Miranda t h a t e v i d e n c e i n a d m i s s i b l e a g a i n s t an accused i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s case- i n - c h i e f is b a r r e d f o r a l l p u r p o s e s , provided o f c o u r s e t h a t t h e t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of t h e e v i - dence s a t i s f i e s l e g a l s t a n d a r d s . " Harris, 401 U.S. a t 224. There is a v e r y good r e a s o n f o r such a r u l e . The Miranda s h i e l d s h o u l d n o t allow an accused t o c o m m i t p e r j u r y . A s t h e C o u r t noted: " [el v e r y c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t is p r i v i l e g e d t o t e s t i f y i n h i s own d e f e n s e , o r r e f u s e t o do so. But t h a t p r i v i l e g e can- n o t be c o n s t r u e d t o i n c l u d e t h e r i g h t to c o m m i t p e r j u r y . " Harris, 401 U.S. a t 225. Thus Harris a l l o w s t h e use of s t a t e m e n t s made by an accused f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g Miranda v i o l a t i o n s . Of c o u r s e t h e r e is a danger h e r e . What is to p r e v e n t police i n v e s t i g a t o r s from w i l l f u l l y v i o l a t i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e s of Miranda, knowing t h a t evidence o b t a i n e d can still be used f o r impeachment? Harris touched on t h i s problem w i t h t h e language: "provided of c o u r s e t h a t t h e t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of t h e e v i d e n c e sat i s £ ies l e g a l s t a n d a r d s . " Harris, 401 U.S. a t 224. The Supreme C o u r t addressed t h e i s s u e i n t h e later case of Oregon v. Hass ( 1 9 7 5 ) r 420 U.S. 714, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 43 L.Ed.2d 570. There t h e Court r e s t a t e d t h e r u l e of Harris and went on to s a y " [ i l f , i n a g i v e n case, t h e o f f i c e r ' s conduct amounts t o a b u s e , t h a t case, l i k e t h o s e i n v o l v i n g c o e r c i o n o r d u r e s s , may be t a k e n care of when it arises measured by t h e t r a d i t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s f o r e v a l u a t i n g volun- t a r i n e s s and t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s . " Hass, 420 U.S. a t 723. Thus, Hass r e f i n e d Harris by emphasizing t h e s a f e g u a r d . The r u l e of Harris w i l l n o t allow c o e r c i o n o r d u r e s s on t h e p a r t of p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t o r s . A s noted above, t h i s Court h a s adopted t h e r a t i o n a l e of Harris and Hass and is n o t persuaded t o change a sound r u l e . I n S t a t e v. Smith ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 93, 5 4 1 P.2d 351, we c i t e d and a g r e e d w i t h both Harris and Hass. W e r e a f f i r m e d o u r p o s i t i o n i n t h e l a t e r case of S t a t e v. Buckley ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 238, 557 P.2d 283, where w e upheld t h e use of t e s t i m o n y a t a p r e t r i a l s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g to impeach t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t r i a l . The d e f e n d a n t claims t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g d i d n o t meet s t a n d a r d s of t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s f o r s e v e r a l r e a s o n s ; " t h e d e f e n d a n t had j u s t a r r i v e d from t h e McCullys. He had blood on h i s s h i r t . H e had g l a s s s p l a t t e r e d o v e r h i m s e l f and h i s car and he t h o u g h t t h a t t h e McCullys would b e coming a f t e r him." However, t h e s e f a c t s do n o t s u g g e s t p r e s s u r e " g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t on any p e r s o n i n l i k e c u s t o d y o r under i n q u i r y by any i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r . " Hass, 420 U.S. a t 7 2 3 . Furthermore, t h e r e are no f a c t s i n t h i s case to s u g g e s t any c o e r c i o n o r d u r e s s . The d e f e n d a n t came w i l l i n g l y to t h e Eureka p o l i c e s t a t i o n . H e w a s read h i s Miranda r i g h t s and s i g n e d a w a i v e r . H e agreed t o make a s t a t e m e n t . H e was t o l d t h a t he c o u l d s t o p a t any t i m e . The i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s were v e r y c a r e f u l t o make s u r e t h a t he understood h i s r i g h t s . The d e f e n d a n t seems t o be p l a c i n g primary emphasis on a r e c e n t case which h o l d s t h a t once a s u s p e c t invokes h i s r i g h t to c o u n s e l , q u e s t i o n i n g must s t o p . T h i s case is Edwards v. Arizona ( 1 9 8 1 ) , U.S. , 1 0 1 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 3 7 8 . I n Edwards t h e d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d , t a k e n to police head- q u a r t e r s , and informed of h i s Miranda r i g h t s . H e agreed to sub- m i t to q u e s t i o n i n g and l e a r n e d t h a t a n o t h e r s u s p e c t had i m p l i c a t e d him. H e t h e n gave a taped s t a t e m e n t denying any involvement. Then he sought t o make a d e a l . N e g o t i a t i o n s broke down and Edwards r e q u e s t e d an a t t o r n e y b e f o r e any d e a l was made. The n e x t morning, a f t e r l i s t e n i n g t o t h e taped s t a t e m e n t of t h e s u s p e c t who had i m p l i c a t e d him, Edwards admitted involvement i n t h e crime. The t r i a l c o u r t admitted t h e c o n f e s s i o n as e v i d e n c e and Edwards was c o n v i c t e d . The Arizona Supreme Court upheld t h e c o n v i c t i o n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e waiver and c o n f e s s i o n were volun- t a r i l y and knowingly made. The United S t a t e s Supreme Court r e v e r s e d . The d e f e n d a n t ' s r e l i a n c e on Edwards is i l l - f o u n d e d . The case d o e s n o t create a new r u l e to c a s t doubt on t h e h o l d i n g s of Harris and Hass. Edwards restates t h e r u l e of Miranda; t h a t i f a n i n d i v i d u a l r e q u e s t s an a t t o r n e y , q u e s t i o n i n g must s t o p . The case goes on to a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n of w a i v e r , h o l d i n g t h a t " a v a l i d waiver of t h a t r i g h t cannot be e s t a b l i s h e d by showing o n l y t h a t he responded t o f u r t h e r c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n even i f he h a s been advised of h i s r i g h t s . " Edwards, 1 0 1 S.Ct. a t 1884. Thus t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n must cease " u n l e s s t h e accused himself i n i t i a t e s f u r t h e r communication, exchanges o r c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e p o l i c e . " Edwards, 1 0 1 S.Ct. a t 1885. I t is c l e a r t h a t t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court d i d n o t i n t e n d to change t h e r u l e of H a r r i s or Hass, r a t h e r t h e y intended t o d e v i s e and d e f i n e a test concerning waiver of t h e r i g h t to c o u n s e l . The q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h i s Court is not a waiver q u e s t i o n and w e do n o t i n t i m a t e an answer to any such q u e s t i o n . Edwards is of no h e l p . Harris and Hass and o u r own c a s e s of Smith and Buckley are on p o i n t . The D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t err by a l l o w i n g p o r t i o n s of t h e s t a t e m e n t f o r impeachment. Next t h e d e f e n d a n t claims he was e n t i t l e d t o j u r y i n s t r u c - t i o n s on s e l f - d e f e n s e . Defendant c o r r e c t l y cites t h e fundamental r u l e found i n Buckley, t h a t " t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s i n s t r u c t i o n s must cover e v e r y i s s u e or t h e o r y having s u p p o r t i n t h e e v i d e n c e , and t h e i n q u i r y of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t must o n l y be whether o r n o t any e v i d e n c e e x i s t s i n t h e record t o w a r r a n t an i n s t r u c t i o n . . .I1 Buckley, 1 7 1 Mont. a t 242, 557 P.2d a t 285; S t a t e v. Gopher (1981) , Mont . , 633 P.2d 1195, 38 St.Rep. 1521; S t a t e v. Sorenson ( 1 9 8 0 ) , ---- Mont . ---- , 619 P.2d 1185, 37 St.Rep. 1834; S t a t e v. Bouslaugh ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 78, 576 P.2d 261. The Montana l e g i s l a t u r e h a s s t a t u t o r i l y adopted r u l e s f o r t h e d e f e n s e of s e l f d e f e n s e or more a c c u r a t e l y , j u s t i f i a b l e use of f o r c e . A s a g e n e r a l r u l e , "A person is j u s t i f i e d i n t h e use of f o r c e or t h r e a t to use f o r c e a g a i n s t a n o t h e r when and t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t he r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h a t s u c h conduct is n e c e s s a r y to defend himself or a n o t h e r a g a i n s t such o t h e r ' s imminent use of u n l a w f u l f o r c e . However, he is j u s t i f i e d i n t h e use of f o r c e l i k e l y t o cause d e a t h or s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm o n l y i f he r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h a t such f o r c e is n e c e s s a r y to pre- v e n t imminent d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm to h i m s e l f or a n o t h e r or to p r e v e n t t h e com- m i s s i o n of a f o r c i b l e f e l o n y . " S e c t i o n 45-3-102, MCA. However t h e use of f o r c e d e s c r i b e d above is n o t a v a i l a b l e to a n a g g r e s s o r . I f an i n d i v i d u a l is an a g g r e s s o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r u l e a p p l i e s . "The j u s t i f i c a t i o n d e s c r i b e d i n 45-3-102 through 45-3-104 is n o t a v a i l a b l e to a p e r s o n who : " ( 1 ) is a t t e m p t i n g to commit, committing, or e s c a p i n g a f t e r t h e commission of a f o r c i b l e f e l o n y ; or " ( 2 ) p u r p o s e l y or knowingly provokes t h e use of f o r c e a g a i n s t h i m s e l f , u n l e s s ; " ( a ) such f o r c e is s o g r e a t t h a t he r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h a t he is i n imminent d a n g e r of d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm and t h a t he h a s exhausted e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e means t o escape such danger o t h e r t h a n t h e use of f o r c e which is l i k e l y to c a u s e d e a t h or s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm to t h e a s s a i l a n t ; or "(b) i n good f a i t h , he withdraws from physi- cal c o n t a c t w i t h t h e a s s a i l a n t and i n d i c a t e s c l e a r l y t o t h e a s s a i l a n t t h a t he d e s i r e s to withdraw and t e r m i n a t e t h e use of f o r c e b u t t h e a s s a i l a n t c o n t i n u e s or resumes t h e use of f o r c e . " S e c t i o n 45-3-1051 MCA. The Commission's comments to 45-3-105 make it clear t h a t " t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s of t h i s c h a p t e r h a s assumed t h a t t h e person u s i n g f o r c e . . .has n o t o t h e r w i s e provoked such f o r c e . T h i s sec- t i o n concerns t h e much more l i m i t e d r i g h t which a p e r s o n h a s to defend h i m s e l f , when he h a s committed a n unlawful act or o t h e r - w i s e provoked t h e use of f o r c e ." The f a c t s i n t h i s case c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was an a g g r e s s o r . A f t e r f i n d i n g h i s guns had been t a k e n he drove f i f t y m i l e s w i t h a loaded .22 c a l i b e r r i f l e . B e f o r e l e a v i n g he t o l d a h o u s e g u e s t t h a t "he w a s going to go up t h e r e and g e t h i s guns and s h o o t h e r . " While a t t h e McCully r e s i d e n c e he t h r e a t e n e d Pamela McCully by s t a t i n g "you have 24 h o u r s to l i v e . " These f a c t s c e r t a i n l y e s t a b l i s h t h e d e f e n d a n t as an a g g r e s s o r , c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e a£ f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e of j u s t i f i a b l e use of f o r c e would a p p l y o n l y i n t w o s i t u a t i o n s . F i r s t , i f such f o r c e w a s so g r e a t t h a t he r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e d he w a s i n danger of d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm and he exhausted e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e means of e s c a p e . Here t h e d e f e n d a n t s t a y e d i n h i s c a r w i t h t h e motor r u n n i n g . H e was parked f o r an e a s y e x i t . Even i f we assume t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n f e a r of h i s l i f e o r being s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d , which seems d o u b t f u l i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t when Pamela McCully was s h o t , a t most she was armed w i t h a broken cue s t i c k , it is c l e a r t h a t he d i d n o t e x h a u s t h i s means of escape. P r i o r to t h e a c t u a l s h o o t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t had ample o p p o r t u n i t y to l e a v e . I n h i s own words he was "scared" even b e f o r e a r r i v i n g a t t h e McCullys, y e t d u r i n g t h e t e n to f i f t e e n minutes he w a s t h e r e he made no a t t e m p t to l e a v e . Second, t h e d e f e n s e would have been a v a i l a b l e i f i n good f a i t h he withdraws from p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t and c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s a d e s i r e to t e r m i n a t e t h e use of f o r c e . C l e a r l y t h e f a c t s w i l l not s u p p o r t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s withdrawal. A f t e r P a t McCully was s h o t , h e could have devoted a l l of h i s e n e r g i e s to escape and withdrawal from t h e f i g h t , r a t h e r he turned t h e gun on Pamela and f i r e d . Furthermore, when he reached t h e c a t t l e guard he f i r e d s e v e r a l more s h o t s a t t h e house. Such a c t i o n s are c e r t a i n l y n o t i n d i c a t i v e of an i n t e n t to withdraw. W e f i n d no error i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l to a l l o w an i n s t r u c t i o n on s e l f -defense. F i n a l l y t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l to a l l o w evidence concerning t h r e a t s made by t h e v i c t i m s and t h e i r f a m i l y . The d e f e n d a n t ' s o f f e r of proof shows t h e i n t e n t i o n to i n t r o d u c e t h e f o l l o w i n g : 1. T h a t Pamela McCully made t h r e a t s toward t h e d e f e n d a n t , s t a t i n g t h a t she was going to k i l l him; 2. T h a t he had s e e n Mike and P a t McCully f i g h t i n g , t h a t P a t was k i c k i n g Mike i n t h e head and P a t had to be r e s t r a i n e d from f u r t h e r a c t s of v i o l e n c e ; and t h a t a t t h a t t i m e P a t a c t u a l l y s t e p p e d on Pam's f o o t and t w i s t e d h e r f o o t to t h e p o i n t where you c o u l d h e a r a snap i n t h e f o o t a r e a ; 3 . That an i n c i d e n t occurred i n a b a r and both P a t and Mike were p r e s e n t , t h a t Mike made p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t and made t h e comment "some day J o e , some day;" 4. T h a t t h e day b e f o r e t h e s h o o t i n g i n c i d e n t , Pamela McCully had followed him w i t h a gun, she was i n h e r c a r and she was bran- d i s h i n g a gun a t t h e defendant; and 5 . T h a t r e c e n t l y Retha McCully had t h r e a t e n e d t h e d e f e n d a n t , s a y i n g t h a t i f s h e e v e r caught t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h Pamela a g a i n s h e would blow h i s head o f f o r have one of t h e boys do it. A r e c e n t c a s e is d i r e c t l y on p o i n t . I n S t a t e v. B r e i t e n s t e i n ( 1 9 7 9 ) r 180 Mont. 503, 591 P.2d 233, we had a similar s i t u a t i o n . The d e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t f o r drawing a .22 c a l i b e r p i s t o l and t h r e a t e n i n g to blow t h e v i c t i m " f u l l of h o l e s l i k e a s i e v e . " Long b e f o r e t h i s i n c i d e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t and v i c t i m had been on poor terms. The d e f e n d a n t wanted to i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e of p a s t t h r e a t s made by t h e v i c t i m and h i s mother-in-law. The t r i a l c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h e e v i d e n c e f o r l a c k of f o u n d a t i o n . W e a f f i r m e d . The a p p l i c a b l e r u l e of e v i d e n c e is Rule 4 0 4 ( a ) (2), Mont.R.Evid., which states: " ( a ) C h a r a c t e r e v i d e n c e g e n e r a l l y . Evidence o f a p e r s o n ' s c h a r a c t e r or t r a i t of h i s c h a r a c t e r is n o t a d m i s s i b l e f o r t h e purpose of p r o v i n g t h a t he a c t e d i n conformity t h e r e w i t h o n a p a r t i c u l a r o c c a s i o n , e x c e p t : " ( 2 ) C h a r a c t e r o f V i c t i m . Evidence of a per- t i n e n t t r a i t of c h a r a c t e r of t h e v i c t i m of t h e crime o f f e r e d by an accused, or by t h e prose- c u t i o n to r e b u t t h e same, or e v i d e n c e of a c h a r a c t e r t r a i t of p e a c e f u l n e s s of t h e v i c t i m o f f e r e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i n a homicide case o r i n a n a s s a u l t c a s e where t h e v i c t i m is i n c a p a b l e of t e s t i f y i n g to r e b u t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e v i c t i m was t h e f i r s t a g g r e s s o r ." The comments t o t h e r u l e s are more s u c c i n c t : " [u] n d e r Montana case l a w t h e accused must f i r s t l a y a f o u n d a t i o n t h a t he a c t e d i n s e l f d e f e n s e b e f o r e he can i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e of t h e v i o l e n t c h a r a c t e r of t h e v i c t i m . " An i n d i s p e n s i b l e component to t h e f o u n d a t i o n of s e l f - d e f e n s e was s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. Logan ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 156 Mont. 48, 65, 473 P.2d 833, 842: " [ u l n t i l such t i m e as d e f e n d a n t took t h e s t a n d and admitted t h e k i l l i n g , t h e i s s u e of s e l f d e f e n s e was n o t joined a t t h e t r i a l . Thus, no f o u n d a t i o n e x i s t e d f o r t h e admission of t h e testimony." I n t h i s case t o o , t h e p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n was a b s e n t . The d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t admit t h e k i l l i n g , r a t h e r he states t h a t he does not remember f i r i n g a n y s h o t s , o n l y empty c a s i n g s h i t t i n g him i n t h e f a c e . The t r i a l c o u r t d i d not e r r i n refusing t h e o f f e r e d c h a r a c t e r evidence. For t h e reasons s t a t e d h e r e i n , we a f f i r m the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment. u J u s t i c e W e concur: 8 d 8 . ~4 Chief J u s t i c e / J u s t i c e s Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., specially concurring: I concur in the result but not with the entire rationale of the majority opinion. With respect to Issue No. 2, concerning whether it was error to deny defendant's offered instruction on self- defense, I would reach the same result, but for a different reason. The defendant here did not rely upon self-defense. Defendant's version of the incident was that the gun accidently discharged. Under these circumstances, it was not error for the District Court to refuse the self-defense instruction. I take issue with the majority's position that the defendent was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because defendant was shown to be the aggressor. Under defendent's version of the facts, he was not the aggressor and would be entitled to an instruction on his theory. However, because he did not rely upon self-defense it was not error for the trial court to refuse to give such an instruction. I would affirm. I join in the specially concurring opinion of Justice Morrison: