Opinion ID: 884193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

Text: The standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a criminal conviction is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Ross (1995), 269 Mont. 347, 360, 889 P.2d 161, 169 (citing State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 146, 875 P.2d 307, 318). This is the same standard that applies to a district court's decision on a motion for a directed verdict. State v. Treible (1996), 275 Mont. 59, 61, 910 P.2d 237, 238. Plenty Hawk was convicted of Intimidation under § 45-5-203, MCA (1995), which provides, in pertinent part: Intimidation. (1) A person commits the offense of intimidation when, with the purpose to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he communicates to another, under circumstances which reasonably tend to produce a fear that it will be carried out, a threat to perform without lawful authority any of the following acts: (a) inflict physical harm on the person threatened or any other person; (b) subject any person to physical confinement or restraint; or (c) commit any felony. Plenty Hawk contends that his conviction should be reversed because the State failed to present any evidence on one of the essential elements of the crime, namely whether the threats were made with the purpose to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act. The State contends that at the time the threats were made, Runge was placing Plenty Hawk under arrest and that Plenty Hawk's purpose in making the threats was to cause Runge to release him. However, there is no evidence in the record that the threats were made for any particular purpose. Plenty Hawk was belligerent and uncooperative from the time Runge found him. He tried to push the ambulance attendants away when they attempted to examine him while he was lying in the roadway. At the jail, prior to being informed he was under arrest, Plenty Hawk took a swing at one of the ambulance attendants. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Plenty Hawk's threats to Runge were anything other than a continuation of his belligerent attitude. The Criminal Law Commission Comments to § 45-5-203, MCA, provide that [i]ntimidation requires a specific purpose to cause another to perform `or to omit' the performance of any act ... and the threat must be `communicated' with that purpose. As Plenty Hawk points out, there was no purpose in the threats made to Runge; Plenty Hawk was simply drunk and belligerent. At no time did Plenty Hawk state what act he might want Runge to do or to omit and the State has provided no evidence to show what specific act Plenty Hawk was seeking to have done or omitted. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence is insufficient to support a guilty verdict on the charge of Intimidation. The District Court erred in denying Plenty Hawk's motion for a directed verdict. Reversed with instructions that the District Court enter an order granting Plenty Hawk's motion for a directed verdict and vacating his conviction and sentence for Intimidation. TURNAGE, C.J., and GRAY, TRIEWEILER and LEAPHART, JJ., concur.