Title: STATE v GRADY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12785
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 7, 1975

No. 12785 I N THE SUPRhXE COIJRT OF THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1975 THE STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - JOHN GRADY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of R.ecord: For Appellant : John L. Adams, Jr. argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Charles A. Bradley, Deputy County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: January 17, 1975 Decided : FEB - 7 1975 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, rendered upon a jury v e r d i c t convicting him of t h e crime of a s s a u l t i n t h e second degree. Early i n t h e morning of September 2 2 , 1973, o f f i c e r s Knutsen and Jones of t h e B i l l i n g s Police Department responded t o a complaint t h a t a shooting had occurred i n a r e s i d e n t i a l area of B i l l i n g s . Upon t h e i r a r r i v a l a t t h e scene, they discovered one Calvin "Bubbles" White had been severely wounded by gunfire and w a s being helped i n t o h i s c a r by M r . and Mrs. B i l l Foster. Immediately upon t h e discovery t h a t a shooting had occurred, Officer Jones inquired a s t o who had done t h e shooting; Foster r e p l i e d with words t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t "John Grady d i d i t " . The o f f i c e r s radioed t o other p a t r o l c a r s t h a t t h e suspect was John Grady and allowed t h e Fosters t o d r i v e t h e victim t o t h e l ~ o s p i t a l . Amelio Martinez t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was awakened by a shot and looked o u t t h e window of her house, which was across t h e s t r e e t from Bubbles' house. She observed M r . and Mrs. Foster stand- ing on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e of Bubbles' c a r apparently t r y i n g t o help him g e t i n . She then saw a c a r come down t h e s t r e e t with i t s l i g h t s o f f , make a U-turn and then stop. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h i s point a man got o u t of t h i s c a r on t h e passenger s i d e and a shot was f i r e d , which she thought was i n t o t h e a i r . She testi- f i e d t h a t a second shot w a s then f i r e d which caused Bubbles t o f a l l t o t h e ground. Roberta Aquilar t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was awakened by t h e sound of loud t a l k i n g . She heard one shot and, from t h e window of her house approximately one-third of a block o r 1 0 0 f e e t from t h e a c t i v i t y , saw t h r e e o r four other shots. She observed Bubbles lying down, probably on t h e sidewalk. Bubbles then g o t up and, while he w a s being helped i n t o h i s c a r by t h e F o s t e r s , a blue Buick proceeded down t h e s t r e e t with i t s l i g h t s o f f . She s t a t e d t h a t t h e Buick stopped and more s h o t s w e r e f i r e d , about f i v e she thought. The c a r then l e f t , made a U-turn and came back. She then c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e . The o f f i c e r s a r r i v e d approximately f i v e minutes t h e r e a f t e r . Over objection M r s . Aquilar was per- mitted t o t e s t i f y t h a t when t h e p o l i c e a r r i v e d , she heard, through her open window, t h e p o l i c e ask M r . Foster i f he knew who had shot M r . White and t h a t "Mr. Foster s a i d it was John Grady." The Court allowed t h e witness t o answer t h e question but cautioned t h e jury t h a t it was "allowing t h e answer only f o r t h e purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s statement was made, not f o r t h e purpose of showing t h e t r u t h o r f a l s i t y of t h e statement i t s e l f . " O n d i r e c t examination of O f f i c e r Mnutsen, t h i s t r a n s p i r e d : "Q. N o w when you a r r i v e d d i d you ask M r . White and M r . F o s t e r who had done t h e shooting? "MR. A D A M S : Object t o t h i s , Your Honor, on t h e grounds it v i o l a t e s t h e Rules of Hearsay, no proper foundation f o r its admission has been l a i d . Further on t h e grounds t h a t it v i o l a t e s t h e Rules of Confrontation. "THE COURT: Overruled, I am going t o allow t h e witness t o answer but again I c a u t i o n t h e Jury d o n ' t allow t h e answer t o a f f e c t your determination of g u i l t o r innocence of t h i s defendant. I t ' s only f o r t h e purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e sequence of events. "MR. A D A M S : I f your Honor p l e a s e , May I have an exception t o t h e r u l i n g s o I am not waiving m y objection? "THE COURT: Yes, you may have a continuing objection. "A. I d i d not ask them, Officer Jones asked them wno had done t h e shooting. "Q. Did anyone r e p l y t o O f f i c e r Jones' question? A.. Yes, sir, B i l l Foster d i d . "Q. And what d i d he reply? A. He s t a t e d t h a t John Grady had s h o t him. "A. I put out t o l o c a l c a r s t h a t one of t h e witnesses a t t h e scene had s t a t e d t h a t John Grady had d.one t h e shooting and t h a t John Grady owned a ' 6 5 Buick, white over blue four door. A t t h e time I had t h e l i c e n s e place number w r i t t e n down i n m y notes and I do not r e c a l l what it was today. Q . Did you put o u t the l i c e n s e number too? A. Yes, sir, I d i d . " O n d i r e c t examination of Officer Jones, t h i s was e l i c i t e d : "A. * * * So I turned back t o William Foster who had run around and s t a r t e d t o g e t i n t o t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e and I s a i d , 'Who shot Bubbles?' and he s a i d , 'John Grady, John shot Bubbles.'" And on cross-examination: "Q. What about S a l l y Foster, d i d she say anything? A. Yes, she did. "Q. What did she say? A. She s a i d t h a t John Grady shot Bubbles. "Q. Then both her and her husband volunteered t h i s ? A . No, I asked them and then they came r i g h t out-- "Q . u a l I s Did you s p e c i f i c a l l y ask each of them individ- l y ? A. There was a l o t of excitement t h e r e and a i d , 'Who shot him?' and M r . Foster s a i d , 'John Grady d i d . ' And then they g o t i n t h e c a r and took off and I stayed a t t h e scene and Mrs. Foster was t h e r e and I asked her, 'Now who d i d you see shoot- ing?' And she s a i d , ' I saw John and Carolyn and they were shooting a t him.'" Officer Wong of t h e B i l l i n g s Police Department t e s t i f i e d t h a t he and Officer Spoerl were downtown i n a p a t r o l c a r and heard a dispatch t h a t a shooting had occurred and t h e suspect i n the shooting was put over t h e a i r a s John Grady, d r i v i n g a white over blue Buick. Officer Wong then described t h e observation of a c a r which they thought might be t h e suspect vehicle, t h e de- t a i l s of t h e i r p u r s u i t of t h a t vehicle and, t h e i r following t h e vehicle i n t o a c o r n f i e l d where John Grady and Carolyn Grady were a r r e s t e d . After t h e prosecution had r e s t e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i n chambers, informed defendant t h a t he was not required t o take che stand t h a t , i f he d i d not take t h e stand and t e s t i f y i n h i s own behalf, no comment a s t o t h a t could be made by t h e county a t t o r n e y i n any way. That t h e S t a t e was obligated t o prove t h e charge beyond a reasonable doubt even though he d i d not t e s t i f y and t h a t , on t h e 0th9r hand, he d i d have t h e r i g h t t o t e s t i f y on h i s own behalf but would be subject t o t h e same type of cross- examination a s any other witness. After having been so informed and a f t e r conferring p r i v a t e l y with h i s counsel, defendant e l e c t e d t o t e s t i f y . The testimony of defendant, both on d i r e c t and cross-examination, i s r e p l e t e with admissions t h a t he g o t o u t of h i s c a r and shot a t t h e group of people i n f r o n t of Bubbles White's house t h a t night. Defendant, however, s t a t e s t h a t he s h o t only i n self-defense',. h i s c a r having been f i r e d upon as he drove down t h e s t r e e t . He then stopped t h e c a r a t t h e i n t e r s e c - t i o n , g o t o u t of t h e c a r , walked around t h e c a r f u l l y exposed t o t h e person o r persons who were f i r i n g upon him. This testimony on cross-examination f a i r l y summarizes h i s testimony: "Q. Then what d i d you do? A. I went back t o t h e s i d e of m y c a r t o where I could look over and some more s h o t s come and I f i r e d a warning shot, I f i r e d i n t h e a i r and then I had t o duck. "Q. A l l r i g h t now, you a r e o u t of t h e c a r with t h e shotgun, you f i r e once i n t h e a i r . W h o d i d you shoot a t t h e second time you f i r e d t h e shot- gun? A. I j u s t f i r e d i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e crowd that--but low--I wasn't t r y i n g t o h u r t anybody. I t * * * "Q. H o w many t i m e s d i d you shoot a t these t h r e e people standing t h e r e on t h e sidewalk with t h e shotgun? A. I believe it might have been twice. I t might have been once. I d o n ' t know. "Q. N o w you have shot once i n t h e a i r , twice a t t h e people over here with t h e shot gun, once i n t o t h e c a r and you put t h e shotgun away. A. Y e s . "Q. Did you see whether o r not you had h i t anybody when you shot them with t h e shotgun? A. No, I d i d not because I was f i r e d upon again. " * * * " 0 . So now you were f i r e d upon again. A. Y e s . "Q. Okay, and t h i s time how d i d you g e t t h e automatic r i f l e o r semi-automatic r i f l e o u t ? A. I t a k e it o u t of t h e back s e a t . "Q. Okay, now how many s h o t s d i d you f i r e with t h e r i f l e ? A. F i r s t shot I f i r e d with t h e r i f l e was r i g h t here i n f r o n t of t h e c a r and I wasn't-- "9. T h a t ' s t h e one t h a t h i t t h e cement? A. Y e s . "Q. Where was t h e second shot with t h e r i f l e ? A. It was f i r e d towards t h e person n e a r e s t t o t h e end over here, it turned o u t t o be Calvin White. " The S t a t e ' s case was without t h e testimony of Calvin White, t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y , and without t h e testimony of William and S a l l y F o s t e r , two persons a c t u a l l y a t t h e scene a t t h e t i m e af t h e shooting. John Grady was a r r e s t e d and charged with t h e crime of a s s a u l t i n t h e f i r s t degree, a felony under former s e c t i o n 94- 6 0 1 , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , then i n e f f e c t . The jury returned a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y of t h e crime of a s s a u l t i n t h e second degree. There- upon, defendant was sentenced t o a t e r m of s i x years i n t h e Mont- ana S t a t e Prison. Defendant appeals from t h a t conviction and p r e s e n t s two i s s u e s : (1) Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s admission of t h e hearsay testimony of t h e S t a t e ' s witnesses t h a t defendant was the a s s a i l a n t is r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r ? ( 2 ) Whether t h e f a i l u r e of t h e S t a t e t o produce c e r t a i n witnesses, who may have been d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e a.ffray, 3sLablished t h e defense of self-defense and precluded defendant from being convicted of t h e crime of a s s a u l t ? W e answer each - 6 - question i n t h e negative and a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . With r e s p e c t t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e , defendant's p o s i t i o n is s t a t e d i n these two sentences taken from h i s b r i e f t o t h i s Court : "Briefly s t a t e d , it i s f e l t t h a t conviction might not have been had i f t h e defendant had not e l e c t e d t o t e s t i f y and admit t h a t he had f i r e d c e r t a i n shots t h a t evening a t M r . White, using both a r i f l e and a shotgun * * *. M r . Grady v o l u n t a r i l y assumed t h e stand but primarily h i s reasons f o r assuming t h e stand were predicated on t h e hearsay introduced i n t h e c a s e i n chief * * *." Because of t h e view we take of t h i s appeal, we do not examine t h e i s s u e of whether t h e admission of t h e testimony t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t "John Grady d i d i t " was e r r o r . Section 95-2425, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "Any e r r o r , d e f e c t , i r r e g u l a r i t y o r variance which does not a f f e c t s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s s h a l l be disregarded. " It is o f t e n s a i d t h a t t h e o b j e c t of a t r i a l i s a search f o r t h e t r u t h . Defendant v o l u n t a r i l y assumed t h e stand. H i s admissions i n h i s testimony c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h beyond a reason- a b l e doubt t h a t he was t h e person f i r i n g a t "Bubbles1' White on t h e night i n question. Thus t h e e r r o r , i f any, i n admitting t h e testimony t h a t "John Grady d i d it" when viewed i n l i g h t of t h e testimony a s a whole, d i d not a f f e c t t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of defendant and is properly disregarded. Admitting f o r t h e moment t h e S t a t e ' s testimony t h a t "John Grady d i d i t " may have prompted defendant t o t a k e t h e stand, although t h e record does not show t h i s , such f a c t does not e n t i t l e defendant t o have h i s testimony disregarded should e r r o r be found. Defendant apparently asks t h i s Court t o e s t a b l i s h a r u l e of law which would allow t h e defendant t o enumerate every conceivable s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r he could think of and s t a t e t h a t because of such e r r o r he was compelled t o take t h e stand i n n i r own b e h a l f . Then, upon a p p e a l , i f t h i s Court found t h a t any of t h o s e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f e r r o r had m e r i t , t h e defendant would be e n t i t l e d t o have h i s testimony d i s r e g a r d e d . This Court w i l l n o t e s t a b l i s h such a r u l e of law. Defendant's second i s s u e may be summarily answered. He contends t h a t by h i s p l e a of s e l f - d e f e n s e he had i n e f f e c t admitted t h e doing of c e r t a i n a c t s ; t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n should t n e n have been compelled t o p r e s e n t t h e w i t n e s s e s , namely "Bubbles' White and t h e F o s t e r s , t o v i t i a t e such p l e a , and t h a t s i n c e none of t h e evidence presented by t h e S t a t e could v i t i a t e t h e p l e a , it should be deemed e s t a b l i s h e d and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t should have d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l . The law i n Montana is t h a t although t h e burden of persuasion remains on t h e S t a t e , i n o r d e r t o a v a i l himself of t h e a f f i r m a t i v e defense of s e l f - defense, t h e defendant has t h e burden of producing s u f f i c i e n t evidence on t h e i s s u e t o r a i s e a reasonable doubt of h i s g u i l t . S t a t e v . ~ e a k k ~ , 4 4 Mont. 354, 366, 120 P. 234; S t a t e v. Powell, 54 Mont. 217, 220, 169 P . 46. The judgment is affirmed. W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e ................................ J u s t i c e s Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell and Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly specially concurring: We concur in affirming the conviction, but feel the majority opinion contains an error of law to which this special concurring opinion is directed. The defendant contends that he was prejudiced "by the Court's allowing the hearsay testimony of Officer Knutson that the defendant was the assailant". The majority hold the admis- sion of this testimony "harmless error". In our view, the ad- mission of this testimony is no error at all as the testimony is clearly admissible. The testimony of Officer Knutson that upon his arrival at the scene of the shooting Mr. Foster stated that defendant had shot the victim is admissible as a "verbal act", a well recognized exception to the hearsay rule. See Wharton's Crim- inal Evidence, 13th Ed., Vol. 2, Sec. 274. The fact the state- ment was made, irrespective of its truth or falsity, is relevant. It serves to show the sequence of events immediately following the shooting; in particular it explains why police activity had focused on defendant and why police subsequently apprehended him. Without this information, the jury would be left in the dark concerning the chase and subsequent arrest of defendant. Judge Wilson clearly limited the testimony to this purpose: "Overruled, I am going to allow the witness to answer but again I caution the Jury don't allow the answer to affect your determination of guilt or innocence of this defendant. It's only for the purpose of establishing the sequence of events. " Hence, the testimony was clearly admissible; no error was committed; and the "harmless error" rule is not involved. Justices k