Opinion ID: 882167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: intimidation

Text: The jury convicted appellant of felony intimidation in violation of § 45-5-203(2), MCA, which provides: A person commits the offense of intimidation if he knowingly communicates a threat or false report of a pending fire, explosion, or disaster which would endanger life or property. The facts alleged in the information regarding intimidation are as follows: Count I That on or about May 23, 1989, in Lake County, Montana, the ... Defendant, [Felando] knowingly communicated a threat of a pending fire to Janet Read, which would endanger her life and her home. These threats were recorded by Ms. Read and the tape was played for the jury and admitted into evidence. The tape contained a collection of appellant's vulgar and derogatory remarks all directed to Ms. Read which evidenced the hostility which appellant felt toward Ms. Read. The tape also contained appellant's threat that he planned to put a bullet through her neck and threatened to force her to engage in sodomy. In its most pertinent part, the tape revealed appellant's threat of a pending fire: I'm warning you, you [expletive], you better back the f____ up or we're talking about burning somebody's place down. I'm surprised your place is still standing, [expletive]. ..... Now you better watch out or you won't have a house you stupid [expletive]. I see you hiding, J____ C____, you're sleazy f____ing [expletive]. ..... You better sell that place quick while it's still standing. Appellant did not deny making the threats, but argues for a different interpretation of the tape. However, the jury was the trier of fact and it was within its province to resolve such a question. Laverdure, 241 Mont. at 138, 785 P.2d at 720. Ms. Read testified that she definitely understood appellant's words as threats to burn her house down. The question of whether an intention to commit a felony is present must be decided on the basis of an objective standard, and whether a statement constitutes a true threat is to be determined by the trier of fact. State v. Lance (1986), 222 Mont. 92, 104, 721 P.2d 1258, 1267 (citing United States v. Kelner (2d Cir.1976), 534 F.2d 1020, and United States v. Merrill (9th Cir.1984), 746 F.2d 458. The threats were made at the culmination of several days of harassment of Ms. Read by the appellant. Ms. Read testified that she was so frightened by appellant that she began hiding in her house, coming out only when necessary. Based on this testimony, the jury convicted appellant of intimidation. In this case we hold that the evidence produced a fear in the neighbor Janet Read that appellant's threats would be carried out. Therefore, we affirm the jury's verdict for this conviction and for the conviction for disorderly conduct, but reverse as to the assault conviction. GRAY, HUNT and TRIEWEILER, JJ., concur.