Opinion ID: 879929
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: The District Court convicted McKimmie of deliberate homicide as defined in § 45-5-102(1)(a), MCA (1985): Criminal homicide constitutes deliberate homicide if: (a) it is committed purposely or knowingly. At sentencing, the District Court told McKimmie: [Y]ou laid in wait for her until she came home, and you deliberately shot her. She was still holding her purse, and one of the shells penetrated the metal clasp on the purse and went into her chest, which indicates to me that this is deliberate homicide of the worst type. However, McKimmie contends that the shooting was accidental and that the State did not prove he acted purposely or knowingly in causing Valarie's death. Our standard of review on sufficiency of evidence is whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would allow any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kutnyak (Mont. 1984), 685 P.2d 901, 910, 41 St.Rep. 1277, 1289. If events are capable of different interpretations, the trier of fact shall determine which is the most reasonable. State v. Matson (Mont. 1987), 736 P.2d 971, 973, 44 St.Rep. 874, 875, citing State v. Atlas (Mont. 1986), 728 P.2d 421, 423, 43 St.Rep. 2042, 2044. In the instant case, the State was required to show that McKimmie purposely or knowingly caused the death of Valarie. Knowingly is defined in § 45-2-101(33), MCA: A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of his conduct or that the circumstance exists. A person acts knowingly with respect to the result of conduct described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that it is highly probable that such result will be caused by his conduct. [Emphasis added.] This knowing element was manifest in McKimmie's actions. McKimmie admitted that he had broken into Eugene Ameline's apartment earlier in the evening. McKimmie removed the weapon used to kill Valarie, which was a 7.65 Mauser rifle, and two sizes of ammunition from the apartment. He left everything else in place. McKimmie testified that he then tried to commit suicide with the rifle around 10:30 p.m. on June 5. As he was positioning himself on the couch, he claimed that the rifle slipped off the coffee table and discharged into the refrigerator. But the District Court stated: You said that you attempted to commit suicide, but it's the Court's belief that you fired that shot that hit the refrigerator, about a foot from the floor, just to see if it worked, see if you had the right ammunition in the gun. McKimmie testified that he reloaded the rifle around 12:30 a.m. According to McKimmie, when Valarie came home at about 1:30 a.m., McKimmie talked to her about his attempted suicide. While he was holding the rifle across his lap, Valarie sat on an adjacent couch. McKimmie stated that he fell back, and the gun discharged. McKimmie testified: I looked at her and thought, my God, she's dead. A firearms expert testified that the rifle was operating normally and that Valarie was shot from a distance of less than four feet. We find that McKimmie's actions prior to, during and after the shooting demonstrate an awareness of his conduct and its probable results. However, McKimmie next asserts that he is an alcoholic and was not aware of what he was doing because he drank alcohol from noon on June 5, 1987, until his arrest on June 6, 1987, for DUI. We note § 45-2-203, MCA (1985), which states: A person who is in an intoxicated or drugged condition is criminally responsible for his conduct unless such condition is involuntarily produced and deprives him of his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct ... [Emphasis added.] By his own admission on the witness stand, McKimmie had voluntarily consumed alcohol since noon. Where sufficient credible evidence supports the findings, the question of the relationship of voluntary intoxication to specific intent will not be reconsidered on appeal. State v. Hardy (1980), 185 Mont. 130, 135, 604 P.2d 792, 795-796. In light of the supporting evidence, we will not make an independent determination of the effect of voluntary intoxication on the defendant's state of mind. State v. Sage (Mont. 1986), 717 P.2d 1096, 1101, 43 St.Rep. 738, 744. Finally, McKimmie admits that his flight after the shooting might infer knowledge or purpose, but he asserts that mere flight does not establish the requisite mental state. We note that, standing alone, such flight does not establish the requisite mental state. However, flight by a defendant may be considered by the trier of fact as a circumstance tending to prove consciousness of guilt. State v. Charlo (Mont. 1987), 735 P.2d 278, 282, 44 St.Rep. 597, 603. As trier of fact, the District Court determined the evidentiary weight and significance of McKimmie's flight from the crime scene. State v. Twoteeth (Mont. 1985), 711 P.2d 789, 794, 42 St.Rep. 1873, 1879. McKimmie fled the crime scene, he disposed of the Mauser rifle, and he subsequently admitted shooting Valarie. The record contains ample evidence that McKimmie knowingly caused the death of Valarie. If the act which causes the death is done purposely or knowingly, deliberate homicide is committed even if death is not the intended result. State v. Sigler (Mont. 1984), 688 P.2d 749, 758, 41 St.Rep. 1039, 1047. McKimmie's claim is without merit. We hold that the evidence clearly supports McKimmie's conviction for deliberate homicide.