No. 12732
I N T E S P E E C U T O THE STATE O M N A A
H URM OR F F OTN
1974
STATE O M N A A
F OTN,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-VS -
WILLIAM E. FRENCH, JR.,
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 M. James S o r t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record :
For Appellant :
Joseph P. Hennessey, argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
Kenneth R. Wilson, argued, Miles C i t y , Montana
For ~ e s p o n d e n t :
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
William K r u t z f e l d t , County Attorney, appeared, Miles
City, Montana
Berger, Anderson, S i n c l a i r and Murphy, B i l l i n g s ,
Montana
James J. S i n c l a i r argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted: November 13, 1974
Decided :
JRN - 8 :975
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of 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 second d e g r e e
murder c o n v i c t i o n e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone
County, and from t h a t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of h i s motion f o r a new
trial.
T h i s C o u r t p r e v i o u s l y g r a n t e d a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y con-
t r o l r e l a t i n g t o matters r a i s e d p r i o r t o t h e t r i a l of t h i s c a s e ,
b u t i n v o l v i n g some of t h e i s s u e s now r a i s e d on a p p e a l . See S t a t e
ex rel. K r u t z f e l d t v . D i s t r i c t Court, Mont . , 515 P.2d
1312, 30 St.Rep. 993.
On March 5 , 1973, Douglas Fleming was s h o t and k i l l e d i n
t h e O l i v e H o t e l Lounge i n M i l e s C i t y , Montana. Fleming and de-
f e n d a n t , William E. F r e n c h , J r . , had been engaged i n a s h o u t i n g
and p u s h i n g c o n t e s t a t t h e lounge e n t r a n c e some f i f t e e n t o t h i r t y
minutes p r i o r t o t h e shooting. Following t h e a l t e r c a t i o n , de-
f e n d a n t d r o v e t o h i s home, found h i s p i s t o l and r e t u r n e d t o t h e
lounge. Without s a y i n g a word, he walked t o t h e b o o t h where
Fleming, F l e m i n g ' s w i f e , and two f r i e n d s were s e a t e d , and f i r e d
a t l e a s t t h r e e s h o t s i n t o Fleming. One of t h o s e s h o t s p e n e t r a t e d
Fleming's h e a r t , producing near-instantaneous death.
Defendant t h e n d r o v e t o h i s home and c a l l e d t h e a u t h o r -
i t i e s , r e p o r t i n g t h a t h e had s h o t a man. He was a r r e s t e d s h o r t l y
t h e r e a f t e r and c h a r g e d w i t h f i r s t d e g r e e murder.
P r i o r t o t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a w r i t t e n n o t i c e of h i s
i n t e n t i o n t o r e l y on t h e d e f e n s e of m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t
e x c l u d i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e homicide. The d i s t r i c t court
o r d e r e d a p s y c h i a t r i c e x a m i n a t i o n t o be conducted a t t h e Warm
Springs S t a t e Hospital. S e c t i o n 95-505, R.C.M. 1947. Defense
p s y c h i a t r i s t s were a l s o p e r m i t t e d t o examine d e f e n d a n t .
A r e p o r t of t h e e x a m i n a t i o n by t h e Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e
Hospital w a s f i l e d with t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . It contained findings
t h a t d e f e n d a n t , a t t h e t i m e of t h e homicide, had t h e a b i l i t y
t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e c r i m i n a l i t y of h i s c o n d u c t and t o conform h i s
c o n d u c t t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f law. The r e p o r t f u r t h e r s t a t e d
t h a t d e f e n d a n t had t h e c a p a c i t y t o have k i l l e d a man w i t h a
d e l i b e r a t e and p r e m e d i t a t e d d e s i g n , u n l a w f u l l y and m a l i c i o u s l y .
A h e a r i n g was c o n d u c t e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of
s e c t i o n 95-507, R.C.M. 1947. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r d b o t h l a y
and e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y a s t o d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n a t t h e
t i m e of t h e s h o o t i n g . In effect, the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s findings
c o n c u r r e d w i t h t h e r e p o r t f i l e d by t h e W a r m S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l .
D e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a c q u i t t a l on t h e ground of m e n t a l d i s e a s e
o r d e f e c t e x c l u d i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was d e n i e d .
C e r t a i n p r e t r i a l r u l i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w e r e t h e n
b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i n a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y
control. Our o p i n i o n i n t h a t m a t t e r r e c o g n i z e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n -
a l i t y of s e c t i o n 95-503, R.C.M. 1947; r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e l e g i s -
l a t u r e had c r e a t e d a new t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i -
b i l i t y ; a n d , d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e p r e t r i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of defend-
a n t ' s m e n t a l s t a t u s d i d n o t p r e c l u d e h i s r a i s i n g t h e d e f e n s e of
mental d e f e c t a t t r i a l . S t a t e ex r e l . K r u t z f e l d t v . D i s t r i c t
Court, supra.
A j u r y t r i a l w a s h e l d and d e f e n d a n t was found g u i l t y of
second d e g r e e murder. T h e r e a f t e r , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied de-
f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l . Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e
judgment of c o n v i c t i o n and t h e d e n i a l of h i s motion f o r a new
trial.
Defendant s e e k s r e v e r s a l f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g a l l e g e d e r r o r s
of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t :
( 1 ) D e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a c q u i t t a l by
r e a s o n of m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t e x c l u d i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
( 2 ) D e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a c q u i t t a l on t h e
c h a r g e o f f i r s t d e g r e e murder.
( 3 ) E r r o r s r e l a t i n g t o t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of c e r t a i n
evidence.
( 4 ) Improper c l o s i n g arguments by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n .
( 5 ) E r r o r s i n t h e g i v i n g o r r e f u s a l of c e r t a i n j u r y
instructions.
F i r s t , defendant argues t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t should
have a c q u i t t e d him by f i n d i n g t h a t he had a m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r
d e f e c t which excluded h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e homicide. The
c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 9 5 - 5 0 7 ( a ) , R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s :
" I f t h e r e p o r t f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 95-505
f i n d s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e t i m e of t h e crim-
i n a l c o n d u c t c h a r g e d s u f f e r e d from a m e n t a l d i s e a s e
o r d e f e c t which r e n d e r e d him u n a b l e t o a p p r e c i a t e
t h e c r i m i n a l i t y of h i s c o n d u c t o r t o conform h i s
c o n d u c t t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of law, and t h e c o u r t ,
a f t e r a h e a r i n g i f a h e a r i n g i s r e q u e s t e d by t h e
attorney prosecuting o r t h e defendant, i s s a t i s f i e d
t h a t s u c h m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t was s u f f i c i e n t
t o e x c l u d e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , t h e c o u r t on motion of
t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a l l e n t e r judgment of a c q u i t t a l on
t h e ground of m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t e x c l u d i n g
responsibility."
Three r e q u i r e m e n t s must be met b e f o r e a d e f e n d a n t c a n be
a c q u i t t e d under t h i s s t a t u t e : (1) A r e p o r t f i n d i n g m e n t a l d i s -
e a s e o r d e f e c t a t t h e t i m e of t h e c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t ; ( 2 ) t h e
c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t s u c h mental d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t excluded
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; and ( 3 ) d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a c q u i t t a l .
Here, t h e r e p o r t f i l e d by t h e Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l
found no m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t . Under t h e terms of t h e s t a t u t e ,
t h i s p r e c l u d e s t h e g r a n t i n g of a p r e t r i a l a c q u i t t a l . The m a t t e r
t h e n must go t o t h e j u r y f o r f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n .
Second, d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h o u l d have
g r a n t e d h i s motion f o r a c q u i t t a l on t h e c h a r g e of f i r s t d e g r e e
murder made a t t h e c l o s e of t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f . He moved
f o r a c q u i t t a l on t h e grounds t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h
i n t e n t , malice, premeditation o r t h e corpus d e l i c t i .
W w i l l t r e a t t h i s motion a s a motion f o r d i s m i s s a l of t h e
e
c h a r g e of f i r s t d e g r e e murder under s e c t i o n 9 5 - 1 9 0 9 ( i ) , R.C.M.
1947. That s e c t i o n provides, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
"When, a t t h e c l o s e of t h e s t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e
o r a t t h e c l o s e of a l l t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e
evidence i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support a f i n d i n g
o r v e r d i c t of g u i l t y , t h e c o u r t may on i t s own
motion o r on t h e motion of t h e d e f e n d a n t , d i s -
m i s s t h e a c t i o n and d i s c h a r g e t h e d e f e n d a n t .
* * *!I
A r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d f i n d s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t -
i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e motion. A pathologist
t e s t i f i e d t h a t Fleming d i e d from a g u n s h o t wound i n t h e h e a r t .
Defendant a d m i t t e d s h o o t i n g Fleming a t l e a s t t h r e e t i m e s , and
h i s t e s t i m o n y was c o r r o b o r a t e d by e y e w i t n e s s e s .
Defendant and Fleming were i n v o l v e d i n an a l t e r c a t i o n
f i f t e e n t o t h i r t y minutes p r i o r t o t h e shooting. I n t h e time
between t h e two e v e n t s , d e f e n d a n t d r o v e t o h i s home, found h i s
p i s t o l , and r e t u r n e d t o t h e s c e n e . S a y i n g n o t h i n g , he walked
d i r e c t l y t o where Fleming was s e a t e d and f i r e d t h e s h o t s , b e f o r e
Fleming had a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e a c t .
T h i s f a c t u a l r e c i t a t i o n p o r t r a y s o n l y a p o r t i o n of t h e
e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t when i t d e n i e d t h e motion f o r
a c q u i t t a l on t h e f i r s t d e g r e e murder c h a r g e . The e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y
p r o v i d e d s u b s t a n t i a l proof of t h e c o r p u s d e l i c t i , i n t e n t , m a l i c e
and p r e m e d i t a t i o n . W f i n d no e r r o r h e r e .
e
T h i r d , d e f e n d a n t q u e s t i o n s t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of a photo-
g r a p h o f t h e v i c t i m ; b u l l e t s removed from t h e b o d i e s of t h e v i c t i m
and h i s companion; and e v i d e n c e of d e f e n d a n t ' s s u b s e q u e n t a d j u d -
i c a t i o n of incompetency.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a d m i t t e d a b l a c k and w h i t e p h o t o g r a p h
of t h e v i c t i m ' s body which showed t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e b u l l e t wounds.
Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e o n l y purpose s e r v e d by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n
o f t h i s e x h i b i t was t o i n f l a m e t h e minds of t h e j u r y .
A s we n o t e d i n S t a t e v . F i t z p a t r i c k , Mont . I
516 P.2d 605, 610, 30 St.Rep. 1052, 1058:
" I * * * When t h e purpose of a n e x h i b i t i s
i n f l a m e t h e minds of t h e j u r y o r e x c i t e t h e
f e e l i n g s r a t h e r t h a n t o e n l i g h t e n t h e j u r y as t o
any f a c t , i t s h o u l d be e x c l u d e d . ' S t a t e v. Bischert ,
1 3 1 Mont. 152, 159, 308 P.2d 969."
The c h a l l e n g e d photograph was r e l e v a n t . I t was used t o
p r o v i d e a f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e p a t h o l o g i s t ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of
t h e v i c t i m as t h e s u b j e c t examined. W have viewed t h e photo-
e
g r a p h and f i n d it t o be noninflarnmatory. Were i t n o t f o r t h e
markings on t h e p h o t o g r a p h , a viewer would have d i f f i c u l t y even
a s c e r t a i n i n g t h a t i t showed b u l l e t wounds.
The c h a l l e n g e t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e p i s t o l and t h e
b u l l e t s w a s t h a t no p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n was l a i d . There can be
no q u e s t i o n b u t t h a t t h e p o l i c e e r r e d i n t h e i r i n i t i a l i d e n t i f i -
c a t i o n of t h e b u l l e t s , b u t it i s e q u a l l y a p p a r e n t t h e e r r o r w a s
corrected later i n t h e t r i a l . Our r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s
no p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r i n t h e a d m i s s i o n of t h e s e e x h i b i t s .
Defendant a l s o c o n t e n d s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y
g r a n t e d t h e s t a t e ' s motion i n l i m i n e , e x c l u d i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t a
g u a r d i a n had been a p p o i n t e d f o r d e f e n d a n t and t h a t he had been
d e c l a r e d incompetent some n i n e months a f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g . Al-
though n e i t h e r t h e t r a n s c r i p t nor t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e c o n t a i n s
t h e motion i n l i m i n e o r e v i d e n c e of t h e incompetency a d j u d i c a t i o n ,
t h e a p p e l l a t e b r i e f s of b o t h p a r t i e s acknowledge t h e e x i s t e n c e of
b o t h t h e motion and such e v i d e n c e of incompetency. Therefore w e
w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e matter a s argued i n t h e b r i e f s .
I n S t a t e v . Crowe, 39 Mont. 1 7 4 , 1 7 9 , 1 0 2 P . 579, i t
was h e l d t h a t :
" * * * w h i l e t h e l a w d o e s n o t f i x any l i m i t of
t i m e w i t h i n which t h e i n q u i r y a s t o t h e m e n t a l
c o n d i t i o n of o n e a c c u s e d o f c r i m e i s t o be
d i r e c t e d , t h e r u l e most g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d
a p p e a r s t o be t o r e f e r t h e m a t t e r t o t h e sound
l e g a l d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , s u b j e c t
t o r e v i e w f o r a b u s e of s u c h d i s c r e t i o n o n l y . "
However h e r e d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t a l l e g e a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n
by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , b u t r a t h e r u r g e s t h a t t h e c o u r t was bound
t o t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of t h e r e c o r d s of t h e incompetency
proceeding. That argument i s n o t p e r s u a s i v e , a b s e n t a showing
t h e e v i d e n c e would have been r e l e v a n t .
Without t h e b e n e f i t of any r e c o r d of t h e motion i n t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t , we a r e n o t a t l i b e r t y t o s p e c u l a t e a s t o t h e
evidence before t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Knowing o n l y t h a t t h e d i s -
t r i c t c o u r t p r e v e n t e d t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of e v i d e n c e of a n a d j u d -
i c a t i o n which o c c u r r e d n i n e months a f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g , we f i n d
no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . The p a s s a g e of t i m e may have s o a l t e r e d
c o n d i t i o n s t h a t t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n was i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e of
d e f e n d a n t ' s mental c o n d i t i o n a t t h e t i m e of t h e o f f e n s e . See:
2 2 A C.J.S. C r i m i n a l Law S 6 2 0 ( 3 ) .
Defendant's f o u r t h a l l e g a t i o n of e r r o r concerns t h e use
made of t h e photograph of t h e v i c t i m ' s body i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s
c l o s i n g argument. A s a l r e a d y n o t e d , t h e photograph i t s e l f was
n o t inflammatory. N objection w a s raised e i t h e r during o r a f t e r
o
t h e s t a t e ' s c l o s i n g argument, c o n c e r n i n g t h e u s e made of t h e p i c -
ture therein. The c h a l l e n g e a r i s e s o n l y on t h i s a p p e a l . An ob-
j e c t i o n r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l comes t o o l a t e . Boehler
v . S a n d e r s , 146 Mont. 1 5 8 , 4 0 4 P.2d 885; C a r p e n t e r v. F r e e , 138
Mont. 552, 357 P.2d 882; Hayward v . Richardson Const. Co., 136
Mont. 2 4 1 , 347 P.2d 475.
D e f e n d a n t ' s f i n a l a l l e g a t i o n of e r r o r r e l a t e s t o j u r y
instructions. Many of t h e s e c h a l l e n g e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n summary
f a s h i o n , and t h e y w i l l be d e a l t w i t h i n l i k e manner h e r e .
The i n s t r u c t i o n d e f i n i n g t h e d e g r e e s of murder i s p h r a s e d
i n t h e language of s e c t i o n 94-2503, R.C.M. 1947. ~efendantk
o b j e c t i o n c a n n o t be a l l o w e d .
Defendant a l s o o b j e c t e d t o a n i n s t r u c t i o n d e f i n i n g and
explaining t h e element of premeditation i n t h e f i r s t degree
murder. S i n c e d e f e n d a n t was n o t c o n v i c t e d o f t h i s c r i m e , t h e
alleged error is irrelevant. This Court has previously held
i n S t a t e v . Le Duc, 89 Mont. 545, 566, 300 P . 919, u n d e r s i m i l a r
circumstances:
" * * * S i n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d of
second d e g r e e murder o n l y , i t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e
j u r y must have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e w a s no
d e l i b e r a t i o n , and hence he was n o t p r e j u d i c e d
by t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n e v e n though i t be
assumed t h a t it was e r r o n e o u s . "
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e f u s e d a n i n s t r u c t i o n which would
have informed t h e j u r y o f s e c t i o n 95-508, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d i n g
t h a t a p e r s o n a c q u i t t e d by r e a s o n of m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t
s h a l l be committed t o t h e s t a t e h o s p i t a l u n t i l c u r e d . While t h e
p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n a c c u r a t e l y s t a t e s t h e l a w , it d o e s n o t
follow t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e it.
Defendant u r g e s t h a t w e a d o p t t h e r a t i o n a l e employed i n
L y l e s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 103 U.S.App.D.C. 2 2 , 254 F.2d 725; c e r t .
den. 356 U.S. 961, 78 S.Ct. 997, 2 L e d 2d 1067; c e r t . d e n . 362
U.S. 943, 80 S.Ct. 809, 4 L e d 2d 771; c e r t . d e n . 368 U.S. 992,
82 S.Ct. 610, 7 L e d 2d 529. While t h a t c a s e r e f l e c t s t h e r u l e
i n t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t s u c h a n i n s t r u c t i o n must be g i v e n , w e
n o t e t h a t t h i s p o s i t i o n h a s been e x p r e s s l y r e j e c t e d i n a number
of j u r i s d i c t i o n s . See, e.g. S t a t e v. G a r r e t t , (Mo. 1 9 6 5 ) , 391
S.W.2d 235; S t a t e v . C o n f o r t i , 53 N . J . 239, 250 A.2d 6; S t a t e v .
Hood, 123 V t . 273, 187 A.2d 499, 1 ALR3d 732; Lonquest v . S t a t e ,
1
(Wyo. 1 9 7 2 ) , 495 P.2d 575; c e r t . d e n . 409 U.S. 1006, 93 S . C t .
432, 34 L e d 2d 299; Pope v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , (CA5 1 9 6 2 ) , 298 F.2d
507.
The c i t e d cases, and many o t h e r s c o l l e c t e d i n t h e Anno-
t a t i o n a t 1 ALR3d, 737-753,
1 a d o p t t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e c o n c u r r i n g
o p i n i o n s u b s c r i b e d t o by t h r e e of t h e j u d g e s i n L y l e s . The
r e s u l t of a n a c q u i t t a l by r e a s o n of m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t
i s a wholly e x t r a n e o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n , n o t c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e
j u r y ' s r o l e i n determining f a c t u a l i s s u e s properly before it.
Our r a t i o n a l e h e r e i s n o t u n l i k e t h a t which w e a d o p t e d
i n S t a t e v . Zuidema, 157 Mont. 367, 374, 485 P.2d 952, where
we s a i d :
" * * * a n i n s t r u c t i o n of t h i s t y p e a l l o w s
i r r e l e v a n t m a t t e r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e
j u r y which may i n f l u e n c e i t s d e c i s i o n a s i d e
from t h e s t a n d a r d of proof by t h e e v i d e n c e
beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . * * * By i n s t r u c t -
i n g a j u r y on v a r i o u s p o s s i b i l i t i e s of s e n t e n c e ,
t h e c o u r t s u g g e s t s t h a t it should g i v e weight
t o t h a t p o s s i b i l i t y i n reaching a verdict."
Although t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i n v o l v e d i n Zuidema concerned p o t e n t i a l
s e n t e n c e , w h i l e h e r e we d e a l w i t h commitment f o l l o w i n g a c q u i t t a l ,
t h e r a t i o n a l e remains t h e same. The j u r y ' s f u n c t i o n i s t o d e t e r -
mine t h e f a c t s r e l e v a n t t o g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e . It should n o t
concern i t s e l f with a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e c o u r t following
the verdict. A c c o r d i n g l y , we f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s
r e f u s a l t o i n s t r u c t on t h i s m a t t e r .
W have n o t e d t h e o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s proposed by d e f e n d -
e
a n t which t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e f u s e d t o g i v e . Each was e i t h e r
c o v e r e d by o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n o r was n o t a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e r
t h e evidence i n t h e case.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
Justice
W e concur
L
-, , -* /-- c-- 4L 7