Title: STATE v SHURTLIFF
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-082
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 5, 1981

NO. 81-82 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, MIKE SHURTLIFF, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third 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 Powell. Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: C. F. Mackay, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent: Honorable Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Ted L. Mizner, County Attorney, D e e r Lodge, Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : J u l y 1 6 , 1981 Decided: $ 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. T h i s is an appeal from a c o n v i c t i o n of simple a s s a u l t i n t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, Powell County, t h e Honorable Robert J. Boyd p r e s i d i n g . The d e f e n d a n t had p r e v i o u s l y been c h a r g e d , a l o n g w i t h two o t h e r s , w i t h t h e o f f e n s e of aggravated a s s a u l t . A f t e r t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e two o t h e r s were d i s m i s s e d , t h e defen- d a n t , a f t e r waiver of a j u r y t r i a l , was found g u i l t y of a s s a u l t under s e c t i o n 45-5-201, MCA. During t h e evening of A p r i l 8, 1980, a guard a t t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n was s t r u c k i n t h e back by two handmade d a r t s . The i n c i d e n t occurred while he was conducting t h e 9:00 p.m. count i n Lower B Unit i n Close U n i t No. One of t h e p r i s o n . The guard was t r e a t e d i n t h e emergency room of Powell County Memorial H o s p i t a l , and a f t e r t h e d a r t s were e x t r a c t e d from h i s back, he was i n o c u l a t e d f o r t e t n u s and g i v e n a n t i b i o t i c s . Lower B Unit c o n s i s t s of two f a c i n g rows of s i x c e l l s each. When h i t , t h e guard was f a c i n g t h e row c o n t a i n i n g c e l l s one through s i x , w i t h h i s back t o c e l l s seven through twelve. The d e f e n d a n t occupied c e l l twelve a t t h e t i m e of t h e a t t a c k . No one saw from which c e l l t h e d a r t s came. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e u n i t immediately a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t r e s u l t e d i n t h e d i s c o v e r y of t h r e e p l a s t i c t u b e s used t o hang c l o t h e s i n s i d e t h e c e l l s . The evidence i n d i - c a t e d t h a t t h e t u b e s i n t h r e e c e l l s , i n c l u d i n g t h a t of t h e d e f e n d a n t , were l o o s e and c a p a b l e of being removed from t h e w a l l s . Also, t h e evidence i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t t o h i t t h e g u a r d , a t u b e had t o be aimed through a h o l e i n t h e c e l l door t h a t was used f o r p a s s i n g meals i n t o t h e c e l l . D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e and s e v e r a l o t h e r inmates, none of whom he could remember, were f i r i n g some handmade d a r t s i n t o a box, s e t up i n one of t h e c e l l s , minutes b e f o r e t h e i n c i d e n t . A t t r i a l , it was demonstrated t h a t t h e handmade d a r t s could be p r o p e l l e d f o r a t l e a s t f o r t y f e e t by blowing them through one of t h e p l a s t i c t u b e s . The d e f e n d a n t ' s c e l l was approximately f o r t y f e e t from where t h e guard was s t a n d i n g when h i t . Evidence was i n t r o d u c e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t had made two s e p a r a t e t h r e a t s a g a i n s t t h e guard approximately t e n h o u r s b e f o r e t h e i n c i d e n t . F u r t h e r , d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t he d i d n o t l i k e t h e guard. D e f e n d a n t ' s f i n g e r p r i n t s were found on one of t h e two d a r t s which s t r u c k t h e guard. Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f i n g e r p r i n t s were on t h e d a r t because he sometimes handed o u t t h e w r i t i n g paper used f o r t h e d a r t f i n s t o o t h e r inmates. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f i n g e r p r i n t s may have been p l a c e d on t h e d a r t when he and t h e o t h e r inmates were s h o o t i n g t h e d a r t s i n t o t h e box moments b e f o r e t h e i n c i d e n t . Defendant, a f t e r waiving a j u r y t r i a l , was found g u i l t y of a s s a u l t under s e c t i o n 45-5-201, MCA. He was sentenced t o s i x months i n t h e Powell County j a i l , w i t h t h e l a s t two months suspended. The s e n t e n c e was t o be s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y w i t h h i s p r e s e n t s e n t e n c e . H e now a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n . The o n l y i s s u e on a p p e a l is whether t h e S t a t e pre- s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t . Defendant contends t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i - dence f o r a c o n v i c t i o n . H e c i t e s e n c y c l o p e d i a law and c a s e law t h a t is n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d . T h i s Court i n S t a t e v. Duncan ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 1 Mont. 382, 593 P.2d 1026, 1029, 36 St.Rep. 748, 751, h e l d t h a t : "We s e t f o r t h t h e p r o p e r s t a n d a r d o f review i n c r i m i n a l bench t r i a l s i n S t a t e v. Longacre ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 311, 313, 542 P.2d 1221, 1222: " ' I t is t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e t r i e r o f t h e f a c t s , i n t h i s c a s e t h e t r i a l judge, t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s and t h e weight t o be g i v e n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y and he may p i c k and choose which o f t h e w i t n e s s e s a r e t o be b e l i e v e d from a c o n s i - d e r a t i o n of a l l of t h e e v i d e n c e . g f i ~ t a t e v. Medicine B u l l , J r . , 152 Mont. 34#, 445 P.2d 916. On a p p e a l we s i m p l y d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e de- f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. S t a t e v. S t o d d a r d , 147 Mont. 402, 412 P.2d 827, S t a t e v. White, 146 Mont. 226, 405 P.2d 761. ' " T h u s , t h e ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' t e s t a p p l i e s t o a p p e a l s from b o t h judge and j u r y c o n v i c t i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h i s C o u r t w i l l examine t h e e v i d e n c e 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 . -ri$ S t a t e v. Pascgo ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 121, -596Sbk P.2d 802, 805; S t a t e v. Stoddard ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 147 Mont. 402, 408, 412 P.2d 827, 831." F u r t h e r , t h i s C o u r t h e l d i n S t a t e v. S t o d d a r d ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 147 Mont. 402, 408, 412 P.2d 827, 831, t h a t ". . . i f t h e r e c o r d shows any s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e judg- ment t h e presumption is i n f a v o r of such judgment. S t a t e v. Robinson, 109 Mont. 322, 96 P.2d 265; S t a t e v. Cor, 144 Mont. 323, 396 P.2d 86." S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e means s u c h 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 man might a c c e p t as a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n . S t a t e v. Merseal ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 167 Mont. 409, 416, 538 P.2d 1364, 1368; 24A C.J.S. C r i m i n a l Law, §I880 a t 793. With t h e s e r u l e s i n mind, a review o f d e f e n d a n t ' s conten- t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e e v i d e n c e s h a l l f o l l o w . Defendant a r g u e s t h a t s i n c e t h e r e was no e y e w i t n e s s t o i d e n t i f y t h e a s s a i l a n t , t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o meet its burden of p r o o f . However, d e f e n d a n t o f f e r s no o t h e r expla- n a t i o n t h a n t h e one p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e and supported by t h e evidence . The evidence p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e , though circum- s t a n t i a l , was s u f f i c i e n t t o uphold a c o n v i c t i o n . For example, d e f e n d a n t ' s f i n g e r p r i n t s were on one of t h e d a r t s removed from t h e g u a r d ' s back. The C a l i f o r n i a Supreme Court i n People v. Gardner ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 79 C a l . R p t r . 743, 747, 457 P.2d 575, 579, h e l d , " [ f l i n g e r p r i n t evidence is t h e s t r o n g e s t evidence of i d e n t i t y and is o r d i n a r i l y s u f f i c i e n t a l o n e t o i d e n t i f y t h e d e f e n d a n t . " D e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t an eyewitness is neces- s a r y t o uphold a c o n v i c t i o n is w i t h o u t m e r i t . Indeed, t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system would be hard p r e s s e d t o have an e y e w i t n e s s p r e s e n t a t t h e scene of e v e r y crime. F u r t h e r , it is up t o t h e t r i e r of f a c t , n o t t h i s Court, t o determine i f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e p r e s e n c e of h i s f i n g e r - p r i n t s is t o be b e l i e v e d . Again, i n Gardner, t h e c o u r t held: "The j u r y is e n t i t l e d t o draw its own i n f e r e n c e s a s t o how t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i n t s came t o be on t h e bag and when ( s e e People v. Wise, 199 Cal.App.2d 57, 59-60, 18 Cal.Rptr. 343) and t o weigh t h e evidence and o p i n i o n of t h e f i n g e r - p r i n t e x p e r t s . " 457 P.2d a t 579. The S t a t e i n t r o d u c e d o t h e r evidence showing: t h e d e f e n d a n t had a motive ( . e l he t e s t i f i e d he d i s l i k e d t h e guard and had t h r e a t e n e d him a t l e a s t t w i c e t h e day of t h e i n c i d e n t ) ; t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c e l l was l o c a t e d behind t h e p l a c e where t h e guard was s t a n d i n g ; t h e p l a s t i c t u b e i n t h e defen- d a n t ' s c e l l was n o t s e c u r e d t o t h e w a l l ; and t h e d e f e n d a n t knew how t o use t h e a p p a r a t u s . When t h i s e v i d e n c e , though c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , is viewed i n a 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 h e r e i s no doubt t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n reached by t h e t r i e r of f a c t was a r e a s o n a b l e one. I n S t a t e v. F i t z p a t r i c k ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 163 Mont. 220, 226, 516 P.2d 605, 609, we h e l d : "To f i n d a person g u i l t y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt, each f a c t i n a c h a i n of c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t w i l l e s t a b l i s h g u i l t need n o t be proven beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. What must be proved is t h a t t h e r e is n o t r e a s o n a b l e doubt a r i s i n g from c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l t h e e v i - dence i n t h e c a s e . S t a t e v. Medicine B u l l , J r . , ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 152 Mont. 34, 445 P.2d 916; People v. Eddy ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 123 Cal.App.2d 826, 268 P.2d 47, 52; People v. Kross ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 112 Cal.App.2d 602, 247 P.2d 44, 51; People v. ~ e i h e r t ( 1 9 5 3 ) . 117 Cal.App.2d 410, 256 P.2d 355, 362." F i n a l l y , d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e o n l y evidence t h e S t a t e used t o c o n v i c t was c i r c u m s t a n t i a l i n n a t u r e . I n S t a t e v. Cor ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 144 Mont. 323, 326-327, 396 P.2d 86, 88, t h i s Court held: " C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e is n o t a l w a y s i n f e r i o r i n q u a l i t y nor is it n e c e s s a r i l y r e l e g a t e d t o a 'second c l a s s s t a t u s ' i n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o be g i v e n it. The v e r y f a c t it is c i r c u m s t a n t i a l is n o t a s u f f i c i e n t a l l e g a t i o n t o j u s t i f y a r e v e r s a l of t h e judgment f o r such evidence may be and f r e - q u e n t l y is, most convincing and s a t i s f a c t o r y . I n any c r i m i n a l c a s e , e v i d e n c e t h a t is m a t e r i a l , r e l e v a n t and c o m p e t e n t w i l l b e a d m i t t e d , ' n o t h i n g more and nothing less.' The t e s t i s w h e t h e r t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e o f s u c h a q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y a s t o l e g a l l y j u s t i f y a j u r y i n determining g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. I f such be t h e c a s e , t h e n t h e c o u r t should n o t , indeed c a n n o t , s e t a s i d e t h e solemn f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i ' e r of t h e f a c t s . " I t is c l e a r t h a t a c o n v i c t i o n may r e s t on circumstan- t i a l evidence a s e a s i l y a s it r e s t s on d i r e c t evidence. The S t a t e met i t s burden of proof, and the judgment of the t r i a l court is affirmed. W e concur: c - 4 Chief J u s t i e