Title: STATE v O DONNELL
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12111
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: April 13, 1972

No. 12111 I N T H E S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA 1972 THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - DAN PEL EDWARD 0 ' DONNELL , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Holland, Holland and Haxby, Butte, Montana. Leonard J, Haxby argued, Butte, Montana, For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. David V. Gliko argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Lawrence G, Stimatz, County Attorney, Butte, Montana. J. Brian Tierney, Deputy County Attorney, Butte, Montana. Submitted: February 15, 1972 Decided : ApR 1 4 1972 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court . Defendant was convicted of mans laughter by jury verdict in the d i s t r i c t court of the second j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Silver B o w County, the Hon. James D. Freebourn, judge presiding, and sen- tenced t o seven years i n the s t a t e penitentiary. From t h a t verdict and judgment, defendant appeals. O n the night of April 10-11, 1970, a t approximately 12:37 a.m., the Butte f i r e department received a c a l l requesting it t o proceed t o defendant's home with a resuscitator. Upon a r r i v a l , the firemen found defendant's stepson, three year old Donald Cuchine, i n a s t a t e of apparent lifelessness. The firemen's attempts t o revive t h e child were unsuccessful so they rushed him t o the hospital, where he was pronounced "dead on arrival". A visual examination and an i n t e r n a l autopsy of the body revealed: the boy's body was covered with bruises and h i s stomach was distended; there was one group of bruises t h a t f i t the pattern of a person's knuckles; the boy had received prior i n j u r i e s t o h i s r i b s ; and, there was an adhesion or scar t i s s u e on the mesentery indicating an old wound. A coroner's inquest determined death resulted from the rupture of the large blood vessel i n the mesentery, which caused the boy t o bleed t o death internally. The distended stomach was a r e s u l t of the i n t e r n a l bleeding. Further, the consistency of the blood i n the stomach cavity indicated the hemorrhage had occurred j u s t ten minutes prior t o death. Both defendant and h i s wife, Carol, were away from home the evening of A p r i l 10, 1970. Their children, including Donald, teen-age had been Left in the custody of twolbabysitters, Leland Docken and Mike Mazzola. When defendant returned home alone around 11:30 p.m., young Donald Cuchine was asleep on the living room couch. Defendant then drove the two babysitters home, leaving Donald unattended. Both of the babysitters t e s t i f i e d t h a t when defendant returned home he appeared t o have been drinking and was i n a "mean mood". They a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t when they l e f t defendant's home the house was neat and orderly and Donald Cuchine did not have any bruises on h i s face. The events following defendant's return t o h i s home, a f t e r taking the babysitters home, a r e somewhat confused and the testimony is conflicting. Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r he returned home he had been watching television for about 15-30 minutes when he heard Donald f a l l off the living room couch, Donald "had wet himselfP', so defendant changed h i s shorts and pa jamas. Aiter changing and dressing Donald, defendant l a i d him back on the couch. "A few minutes l a t e r he rolled off t h e couch and s t a r t e d vomiting." Donald appeared f a i n t and pale so defendant put him on a kitchen chair and "started t o g e t him a drink of water1'. Donald f e l l okf the chair. Defendant gave Donald a glass of water but he j u s t "kept on vomiting". De- fendant then t e s t i f i e d t h a t he ran upstairs, caught h i s foot on the telephone cord and pulled it from the wall. When he returned, Donald appeared t o be "passing out" s o defendant ran over t o h i s sister-in-law's house and t r i e d t o locate h i s wife. Failing t o find her, he returned home and administered mouth-to-mouth resus- c i t a t i o n t o Donald, but without success. In t h e meantime, defendant's mother-in-law, Mrs. Fred Docken, called a telephone operator requesting t h a t help be s e n t t o t h e 0 ' ~ o n n e l l home. Apparently, t h e Butte f i r e de- pa rtment received i t s c a l l from t h e telephone opera t o r . Defendant r a i s e s f i v e issues on appeal, alleging: 1. The use of inadmissible photographs and t h e c h a r t was prejudicia 1 t o t h e defendant and therefore r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . 2. A l l reference t o t h e broken telephone, a p a i r of shoes, a s t i c k , and a p a i r of pajamas was immaterial and ir- relevant and only served t o prejudice t h e minds of t h e jury a g a i n s t the defendant. 3 . The prosecution was allowed t o impeach i t s own witness. 4. The evidence was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e v e r d i c t . 5. ~ e f e n d a n t ' s motions for a m i s t r i a l , directed verdict of not g u i l t y , and t o advise the jury t o acquit, should have been granted. The f i r s t issue concerns the use of photographs of the deceased i n a criminal prosecution. A t t r i a l seven photographs depicting the body or the deceased from various angles were offered i n evidence by the s t a t e . Deiendant's counsel objected t o t h e i r admission on the basis t h a t the pathologist could t e s t i t y t o the f a c t s in the pictures and the "pictures a r e unreasonable and ~nflarnmatory". Counsel c i t e d S t a t e v. Bischert, 131 Mont. 152, 308 P.2d 969. The t r i a l court reserved i t s ruling a t t h i s time i n order t o see i f the photographs would be connected up with the crime charged. The pathologist, D r . Newrnan, t e s t i f i e d t h a t blood hemorrhaging i n the boy's stomach cavity had caused the distension. This distension became a factual issue during the t r i a l , or more precisely, the time t h a t distension of the stomach occurred became an issue. D r . Newrnan further t e s t i f i e d t h a t "the f a t a l blow was delivered about ten minutes prior t o the cessation of l i f e of t h e infantf'; t h a t the "blow" caused the hemorrhaging and the hemorrhaging caused the stomach distension. s t a t e ' s exhibit #4, a photograph of the l e f t s i d e of t h e body, was ad- mitted i n t o evidence over objection for t h e s o l e purpose of showing the nature and extent of the distension of the stomach. This Court i n S t a t e v. Warrick, 152 Mont. 94, 100, 446 P.2d 916, held t h a t "color photographs t h a t have probative value a r e admissiblet', c i t i n g S t a t e v. Rollings, 149 Mont. 481, 428 P.2d 462. Photographs t h a t a r e "probative and material" a r e admissible. S t a t e v. Logan, 156 Mont. 48, 60, 473 P.2d 833. In S t a t e v. Quigg, 155 Mont. 119, 145, 467 P.2d 692, t h i s Court c i t e d S t a t e v. Campbell, 146 Mont. 251, 261, 405 P.2d 978: '"~hotographs a r e admissible f o r t h e purpose of explaining and applying the evidence and a s s i s t i n g the court and jury i n understanding t h e case. Fulton v. Chouteau County ~ a r m e r s ' Co., 98 Mont. 48, 37 P.2d 1025. When the purpose d a n e x h i b i t is t o in£ lame t h e minds of the jury o r e x c i t e the f e e l i n g s r a t h e r than t o enlighten the jury a s t o any f a c t , it should be excluded. S t a t e v. Bischert, 131 Mont. 152, 308 P. 2d 969.'" See also: S t a t e v. Adams, 76 Wash.2d 650, 458 P.2d 558; S t a t e v. H i l l , 193 Kan. 512, 394 P.2d 106; People v. Spencer, 60 C.2d Here, t h e photograph was properly admitted t o show t h e nature and extent of t h e stomach distension. The photograph allowed the jury t o judge whether o r not such an abnormal stomach condition would have been noticeable had it existed s e v e r a l hours p r i o r t o death, a s contended by two witnesses f o r t h e defendant. Defendant a l l e g e s e r r o r i n t h a t t h e prosecution was con- tinuously "flashing" an elaborate s e t of photographs of the boy's body before the jury. This s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r i s addressed t o a c t i o n s of the prosecution which a r e n o t recorded i n the t r a n s c r i p t . The t r a n s c r i p t does show the prosecution did attempt, unsuccessfully, t o have such photographs admitted i n t o evidence. Nowhere does t h e record indicate t h a t t h e photo- graphs were "flashed" before t h e jury. ~ e f e n d a n t ' s second s p e c i f i c a t i o n a l l e g e s e r r o r i n the ad- mission i n t o evidence of f i v e photographs depicting t h e condition of the i n t e r i o r of defendant's home as it looked shortly a f t e r young Donald Cuchine was pronounced dead a t the hospital. The basis for defendant's objection is t h a t these photographs a r e not relevant or material. Four of t h e photographs, S t a t e ' s exhibits #8, #9, #10, and #11, a l l show the dining area of defendant's home; they show the position of a black shoe or pair of black shoes which defendant was alleged t o have used t o s t r i k e t h e boy. Exhibits ! I 8 and #9 show a s t i c k on the dining room table, however its connection with the crime was never established. A l l four exhibits show the position of the pajamas worn by the deceased on the evening of h i s death. The pajamas were material t o the theory of the s t a t e ' s case. The position, a s well a s the condition, of the pajamas indicated t h a t c e r t a i n unexplained events had taken place between the time the babysitters l e f t defendant's home and the time the Butte firemen arrived. Exhibits /,I0 and #14 show the broken telephone cord, which played a part i n the s t a t e ' s theory of the case i n s o f a r a s it t r i e d t o prove t h a t some s o r t of violent a c t i v i t y had taken place a t the home a f t e r the babysitters had l e f t . While the s t i c k does not appear t o be relevant, we a r e or the opinion t h a t the pajamas, shoes and telephone cord a r e relevant and material and the photographs depicting these items were properly admitted. Evidence t h a t is admissible for one purpose, but not f o r another, must not be excluded. Teesdale v. Ans- chutz Drilling Co., 138 Mont. 427, 357 P.2d 4, c i t i n g Edquest v. Tripp & Dragstedt Co., 93 Mont. 446, 19 P.2d 637. Defendant alleges error in the use of a chart during the t r i a l upon which the pathologist, D r . Newman, was asked t o locate the position o i various cuts and bruises. This chart was used by D r . Newman for i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes. During h i s testimony when i t developed t h a t many of the scars were old and healing and had nothing t o do with the events of April 10-11, the t r i a l court q u i t e properly admonished the jury not t o con- sider any of the evidence concerning those body scars. The exhibit was not allowed t o be considered a s evidence by the jury. Deiendant made no objection t o the ruling of the t r i a l f o r the f i r s t time court, s o the matter cannot now be raised/on appeal. Too, de- fendant f a i l e d t o ask f o r any curative instruction, i f one were needed. Defendant's t h i r d specification o i error i s t h a t the t r i a l court improperly allowed the prosecution t o impeach i t s own witnesses i n t h a t inconsistent statements were e l i c i t e d from both Leland and Darla Docken. W e do not believe t h a t we have a case of impeachment here. What we do have is merely inconsis- tent statements offered by a witness on d i r e c t examination. N o showing was made t h a t such inconsistent statements were harmful t o the defendant's case. I f anyone derived any benefit from the inconsistent statements of Leland and Darla Docken, it should have been the defendant. It was for the jury t o decide the weight t h a t should be given t o these two witnesses' testimony. Defendant's fourth contention is t h a t the evidence i s in- s u f f i c i e n t t o support the verdict. W e find no merit i n t h i s contention. While the bulk of the evidence presented by the s t a t e was circumstantial, there was one witness who offered eyewitness evidence. DarLa Docken, defendant's sister-in-law, t e s t i f i e d t h a t she saw the defendant s t r i k e Donald Cuchine with a shoe and a b e l t ; she heard Donald screaming; and, t h a t defendant was hollering a t Donald sometime j u s t prior t o ~ o n a l d ' s death. The testimony of Darla Docken combined with the t e s t i - mony of the pathologist a s t o the cause of death (blood vessel rupture, caused by a heavy blow t o the abdomen and t h a t blow was delivered approximately ten minutes prior t o death), plus the further f a c t t h a t defendant was the l a s t person t o be with the boy prior t o h i s death, a r e s u f t i c i e n t for a jury t o reach a verdict t h a t defendant was g u i l t y of manslaughter. Defendant's l a s t speciiication of error is t h a t the t r i a l court erred i n not granting h i s motion f o r e i t h e r a m i s t r i a l or a directed verdict a t the close of the s t a t e ' s case-in-chief. The allegations of prejudice which gave r i s e t o defendant's motion for a m i s t r i a l have been discussed i n our treatment of the f i r s t three specifications of error. Since there was no prejudice, defendant's motion for a m i s t r i a l was properly denied. The r u l e governing the granting o t motions for directed verdicts i s s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. Yoss, 146 Mont. 508, 514, 409 "A directed verdict i n a criminal case i n t h i s jurisdiction i s given only where the S t a t e f a i l s t o prove its case and there i s no evidence upon which a jury could base its verdict. S t a t e v. Widdicombe, 130 Mont. 325, 301 P.2d 116; S t a t e v. Welch, 22 Mont. 92, 55 P. 927; S t a t e v. Rother, 130 Mont. 357, 303 P.2d 393." See also: Section 95-1909(i), R.C.M. 1947. Here, there was ample evidence presented upon which a jury could have based its verdict. Since the sufficiency of the evidence was discussed heretofore, we need not delineate t h e evidence which was presented during the s t a t e ' s case-in-chief. The judgment i s affirmed. / \ Associate J u s t i c e / '/chief J u s t i c e - / ' , / , Associate Jus-tices // // Hon. Jack Shanscrom, D i s t r i c t ' Judge, s i t t i n g for Juscice Wesley Castles.