No. 12785
I N THE SUPRhXE COIJRT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
1975
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
JOHN GRADY,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable R o b e r t Wilson, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f R.ecord:
For Appellant :
John L. Adams, Jr. a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
F o r Respondent:
Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena,
Montana
Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ,
a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
Harold F. Hanser, County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana
C h a r l e s A. B r a d l e y , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s ,
Montana
Submitted: J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1975
Decided :
-
FEB 7 1975
Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by d e f e n d a n t from a judgment of t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, r e n d e r e d upon a j u r y v e r d i c t
c o n v i c t i n g him of t h e crime of a s s a u l t i n t h e second d e g r e e .
E a r l y i n t h e morning of September 2 2 , 1973, o f f i c e r s
Knutsen and J o n e s of t h e B i l l i n g s P o l i c e Department responded
t o a c o m p l a i n t t h a t a s h o o t i n g had o c c u r r e d i n a r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a
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 s c e n e , t h e y d i s c o v e r e d
one C a l v i n "Bubbles" White had been s e v e r e l y wounded by g u n f i r e
and w a s b e i n g h e l p e d i n t o h i s c a r by M. and Mrs. B i l l F o s t e r .
r
Immediately upon t h e d i s c o v e r y t h a t a s h o o t i n g had o c c u r r e d ,
O f f i c e r J o n e s i n q u i r e d a s t o who had done t h e s h o o t i n g ; F o s t e r
r e p l i e d w i t h 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 r a d i o e d t o o t h e r p a t r o l c a r s t h a t t h e s u s p e c t was John
Grady and a l l o w e d t h e F o s t e r s t o d r i v e t h e v i c t i m 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 s h e was awakened by a s h o t
and looked o u t t h e window of h e r house, which was a c r o s s t h e
s t r e e t from Bubbles' house. She o b s e r v e d M r . and Mrs. F o s t e r s t a n d -
i n g on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e o f B u b b l e s ' c a r a p p a r e n t l y t r y i n g t o h e l p
him g e t i n . She t h e n saw a c a r come down t h e s t r e e t w i t h i t s
l i g h t s o f f , make a U-turn and t h e n s t o p . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t
t h i s p o i n t a man g o t o u t of t h i s c a r on t h e p a s s e n g e r s i d e and
a s h o t was f i r e d , which s h e t h o u g h t was i n t o t h e a i r . She t e s t i -
f i e d t h a t a second s h o t w a s t h e n f i r e d which c a u s e d Bubbles t o
f a l l t o t h e ground.
Roberta A q u i l a r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was awakened by t h e
sound of l o u d t a l k i n g . She h e a r d one s h o t a n d , from t h e window
of h e r house a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - t h i r d o f a b l o c k 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 f o u r o t h e r s h o t s . She o b s e r v e d Bubbles
l y i n g down, p r o b a b l y on t h e s i d e w a l k . Bubbles t h e n g o t u p a n d ,
w h i l e he w a s b e i n g h e l p e d i n t o h i s c a r by t h e F o s t e r s , a b l u e
Buick proceeded down t h e s t r e e t w i t h 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 s t o p p e d and more s h o t s w e r e f i r e d , a b o u t
f i v e she thought. The c a r t h e n l e f t , made a U-turn and came back.
She t h e n 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 a p p r o x i m a t e l y
f i v e minutes t h e r e a f t e r . Over o b j e c t i o n M r s . A q u i l a r was p e r -
m i t t e d 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 , s h e h e a r d ,
t h r o u g h h e r open window, t h e p o l i c e a s k M r . F o s t e r i f h e knew
who had s h o t M r . White and t h a t "Mr. F o s t e r s a i d i t was John
Grady." The Court a l l o w e d t h e w i t n e s s t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n
but c a u t i o n e d t h e j u r y t h a t i t was " a l l o w i n g t h e answer o n l y
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 s t a t e m e n t
was made, n o t f o r t h e p u r p o s e 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 d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n of O f f i c e r Mnutsen, t h i s t r a n s p i r e d :
n
"Q. N w when you a r r i v e d d i d you a s k M r . White
o
and M r . F o s t e r who had done t h e s h o o t i n g ?
"MR. ADAMS: O b j e c t 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
p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n f o r i t s a d m i s s i o n h a s been
l a i d . F u r t h e r on t h e grounds t h a t it v i o l a t e s
t h e Rules o f C o n f r o n t a t i o n .
"THE COURT: O v e r r u l e d , I am g o i n g t o a l l o w t h e
w i t n e s s t o answer b u t a g a i n I c a u t i o n t h e J u r y
d o n ' t a l l o w t h e answer t o a f f e c t your d e t e r m i n a t i o n
of g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e of t h i s d e f e n d a n t . I t ' s only
f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e sequence of
events.
"MR. ADAMS: I f your Honor p l e a s e , May I have an
e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l i n g s o I am n o t waiving my
objection?
"THE COURT: Yes, you may have a c o n t i n u i n g
objection.
"A. I d i d n o t a s k them, O f f i c e r J o n e s asked them
wno had done t h e s h o o t i n g .
"Q. Did anyone r e p l y t o O f f i c e r J o n e s ' q u e s t i o n ?
A.. Yes, s i r , B i l l F o s t e r d i d .
"Q. And what d i d he r e p l y ? A. He s t a t e d t h a t
John Grady had s h o t him.
"A. I p u t o u t t o l o c a l c a r s t h a t o n e of t h e
w i t n e s s e s a t t h e s c e n e had s t a t e d t h a t John Grady
had d.one t h e s h o o t i n g and t h a t John Grady owned a
' 6 5 Buick, w h i t e o v e r b l u e f o u r d o o r . A t t h e
t i m e I had t h e l i c e n s e p l a c e number w r i t t e n down
i n m n o t e s and I do n o t r e c a l l what i t was t o d a y .
y
Q . Did you p u t o u t t h e l i c e n s e number t o o ? A.
Yes, s i r , I d i d . "
On d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n of O f f i c e r J o n e s , t h i s was e l i c i t e d :
"A. * * * So I t u r n e d back t o William F o s t e r who
had r u n 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 s h o t B u b b l e s ? ' and he s a i d ,
' J o h n Grady, John s h o t B u b b l e s . ' "
And on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n :
"Q. What a b o u t S a l l y F o s t e r , d i d s h e s a y a n y t h i n g ?
A. Yes, s h e d i d .
"Q. What d i d s h e s a y ? A. She s a i d t h a t John Grady
s h o t Bubbles.
"Q. Then b o t h h e r and h e r husband v o l u n t e e r e d t h i s ?
A. No, I asked them and t h e n t h e y came r i g h t o u t - -
"Q . Did you s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k e a c h of them i n d i v i d -
u a l l y ? A. There was a l o t of e x c i t e m e n t t h e r e and
I sa i d , 'Who s h o t him?' and M r . F o s t e r s a i d , ' J o h n
Grady d i d . ' And t h e n t h e y g o t i n t h e c a r and t o o k
o f f and I s t a y e d a t t h e s c e n e and Mrs. F o s t e r was
t h e r e and I asked h e r , 'Now who d i d you s e e s h o o t -
i n g ? ' And s h e s a i d , ' I saw John and Carolyn and
t h e y were s h o o t i n g a t h i m . ' "
O f f i c e r Wong of t h e B i l l i n g s P o l i c e Department t e s t i f i e d
t h a t h e and O f f i c e r S p o e r l were downtown i n a p a t r o l c a r and
h e a r d a d i s p a t c h t h a t a s h o o t i n g had o c c u r r e d and t h e s u s p e c t i n
t h e s h o o t i n g was p u t o v e r t h e a i r a s John Grady, d r i v i n g a w h i t e
o v e r b l u e Buick. O f f i c e r Wong t h e n d e s c r i b e d t h e o b s e r v a t i o n of
a c a r which t h e y t h o u g h t m i g h t be t h e s u s p e c t v e h i c l e , 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 v e h i c l e a n d , t h e i r f o l l o w i n g t h e
v e h i c l e i n t o a c o r n f i e l d where John Grady and Carolyn Grady were
arrested.
A f t e r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n 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 d e f e n d a n t t h a t he was n o t r e q u i r e d t o t a k e
che s t a n d t h a t , i f h e d i d n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d and t e s t i f y i n h i s
own b e h a l f , no comment a s t o t h a t c o u l d be made by t h e c o u n t y
a t t o r n e y i n any way. That t h e S t a t e w a s o b l i g a t e d t o prove t h e
c h a r g e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t even though he d i d n o t t e s t i f y
and t h a t , on t h e 0 t h 9 r 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 b e h a l f b u t would be s u b j e c t t o t h e same t y p e o f c r o s s -
e x a m i n a t i o n a s any o t h e r w i t n e s s . A f t e r h a v i n g been s o informed
and a f t e r c o n f e r r i n g p r i v a t e l y w i t h h i s c o u n s e l , d e f e n d a n t
elected t o testify. The t e s t i m o n y of d e f e n d a n t , b o t h on d i r e c t
and c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , i s r e p l e t e w i t h a d m i s s i o n s t h a t he g o t o u t
o f h i s c a r and s h o t a t t h e group o f p e o p l e i n f r o n t of Bubbles
W h i t e ' s house t h a t n i g h t . Defendant, however, s t a t e s t h a t he
s h o t o n l y i n s e l f - d e f e n s e ' , . h i s c a r h a v i n g been f i r e d upon as he
d r o v e down t h e s t r e e t . He t h e n s t o p p e d 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 p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s who were f i r i n g upon him. This testimony
on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n f a i r l y summarizes h i s t e s t i m o n y :
"Q. Then what d i d you do? A. I went back t o t h e
s i d e of my c a r t o where I c o u l d l o o k o v e r and some
more s h o t s come and I f i r e d a warning s h o t , I f i r e d
i n t h e a i r and t h e n 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 w i t h
t h e s h o t g u n , you f i r e once i n t h e a i r . Who d i d
you s h o o t a t t h e second t i m e you f i r e d t h e s h o t -
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 t h a t - - b u t low--I w a s n ' t t r y i n g t o h u r t
anybody.
I t * * *
"Q. How many t i m e s d i d you s h o o t a t t h e s e t h r e e
p e o p l e s t a n d i n g t h e r e on t h e s i d e w a l k w i t h t h e
shotgun? A. I b e l i e v e i t might have been t w i c e .
I t might have been once. I d o n ' t know.
"Q. Now you have s h o t once i n t h e a i r , t w i c e a t
t h e p e o p l e o v e r h e r e w i t h t h e s h o t gun, once
i n t o t h e c a r and you p u t t h e s h o t g u n away. A .
Yes.
"Q. Did you s e e whether o r n o t you had h i t anybody
when you s h o t them w i t h t h e s h o t g u n ? A. No,
I d i d n o t b e c a u s e I was f i r e d upon a g a i n .
" * * *
"0. So now you were f i r e d upon a g a i n . A.
Yes.
"Q. Okay, and t h i s t i m e 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 w i t h
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 h e r e i n f r o n t of t h e c a r and I w a s n ' t - -
"9. T h a t ' s t h e o n e t h a t h i t t h e cement? A. Yes.
"Q. Where was t h e second s h o t w i t h t h e r i f l e ?
A. I t was f i r e d t o w a r d s t h e p e r s o n n e a r e s t t o
t h e end o v e r h e r e , i t t u r n e d o u t t o be C a l v i n
White. "
The S t a t e ' s c a s e was w i t h o u t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f C a l v i n
White, t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y , and w i t h o u t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f W i l l i a m
and S a l l y F o s t e r , two p e r s o n s a c t u a l l y a t t h e s c e n e a t t h e t i m e
af t h e s h o o t i n g .
J o h n Grady was a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d w i t h t h e crime of
a s s a u l t i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e , a f e l o n y u n d e r former s e c t i o n 9 4 -
6 0 1 , R.C.M. 1947, then i n e f f e c t . The j u r y r e t u r n e d 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 d e g r e e . There-
upon, d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o a t e r m o f s i x y e a r s i n t h e Mont-
ana S t a t e P r i s o n .
Defendant a p p e a l s from t h a t c o n v i c t i o n and p r e s e n t s two
issues: (1) Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s a d m i s s i o n o f t h e
h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y o f t h e S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t was
the a s s a i l a n t i s 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 o f t h e S t a t e t o p r o d u c e c e r t a i n
w i t n e s s e s , 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 . f f r a y ,
3 s L a b l i s h e d t h e d e f e n s e of s e l f - d e f e n s e and p r e c l u d e d d e f e n d a n t
from b e i n g c o n v i c t e d o f t h e crime of a s s a u l t ? W e answer e a c h
- 6 -
q u e s t i o n i n t h e n e g a t i v e and a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t
court .
With r e s p e c t t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e , d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n
i s s t a t e d i n t h e s e two s e n t e n c e s t a k e n from h i s b r i e f t o t h i s
Court :
" B r i e f l y s t a t e d , it i s f e l t t h a t c o n v i c t i o n might
n o t have been had i f t h e d e f e n d a n t had n o t e l e c t e d
t o t e s t i f y and a d m i t t h a t he had f i r e d c e r t a i n
s h o t s t h a t e v e n i n g a t M r . White, u s i n g b o t h a
r i f l e and a s h o t g u n * * *. M r . Grady v o l u n t a r i l y
assumed t h e s t a n d b u t p r i m a r i l y h i s r e a s o n s f o r
assuming t h e s t a n d were p r e d i c a t e d on t h e h e a r s a y
i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e c a s e i n c h i e f * * *."
Because o f t h e view we t a k e o f t h i s a p p e a l , we do n o t examine
t h e i s s u e of whether t h e a d m i s s i o n of t h e t e s t i m o n y 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 . S e c t i o n 95-2425, R.C.M.
1947, p r o v i d e s :
"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 v a r i a n c e
which d o e s n o t 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 d i s r e g a r d e d . "
I t i s 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 s e a r c h
for the truth. Defendant v o l u n t a r i l y assumed t h e s t a n d . His
a d m i s s i o n s i n h i s t e s t i m o n y c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h beyond a r e a s o n -
a b l e d o u b t t h a t h e was t h e p e r s o n f i r i n g a t "Bubbles1' White on
the night i n question. Thus t h e e r r o r , i f a n y , i n a d m i t t i n g t h e
t e s t i m o n y t h a t "John Grady d i d i t " when viewed i n l i g h t of t h e
t e s t i m o n y a s a whole, d i d n o t 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 o f
d e f e n d a n t and i s p r o p e r l y d i s r e g a r d e d .
A d m i t t i n g f o r t h e moment t h e S t a t e ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t
"John Grady d i d i t " may have prompted d e f e n d a n t t o t a k e t h e s t a n d ,
a l t h o u g h t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t show t h i s , s u c h f a c t d o e s n o t
e n t i t l e d e f e n d a n t t o have h i s t e s t i m o n y d i s r e g a r d e d s h o u l d e r r o r
be found. Defendant a p p a r e n t l y a s k s t h i s C o u r t t o e s t a b l i s h a
r u l e o f law which would a l l o w t h e d e f e n d a n t t o enumerate e v e r y
c o n c e i v a b l e s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r h e c o u l d t h i n k o f and s t a t e
t h a t b e c a u s e of such e r r o r he was compelled t o t a k e t h e s t a n d 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 C o u r t found t h a t
any o f 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 d e f e n d a n t
would be e n t i t l e d t o h a v e h i s t e s t i m o n y d i s r e g a r d e d . This
C o u r t w i l l n o t e s t a b l i s h s u c h a r u l e of law.
D e f e n d a n t ' s s e c o n d i s s u e may b e summarily a n s w e r e d .
He c o n t e n d s t h a t by h i s p l e a o f s e l f - d e f e n s e h e 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 prosecution should
t n e n have been c o m p e l l e d 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 s u c h p l e a , and t h a t
s i n c e none o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e c o u l d v i t i a t e
t h e p l e a , i t s h o u l d b e deemed e s t a b l i s h e d a n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
s h o u l d h a v e 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 l a w i n Montana
i s t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e burden of p e r s u a s i o n 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 -
d e f e n s e , 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 r e a s o n a b l e doubt of h i s g u i l t .
S t a t e v . ~ e a k k ~ 4, Mont. 3 5 4 , 366, 120 P . 234; S t a t e v . P o w e l l ,
4
5 4 Mont. 217, 220, 1 6 9 P . 46.
The judgment i s a f f i r m e d .
W concur:
e
Chief J u s t i c e
................................
Justices
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