State v. Owens

Summarize Case

Related Cases

No. 14416 m THE SPREME m m O THE S u ' F T m O M3m"ANA F 1979 THE S- T OF PDYI'ANA, P l a i n t i f f and Fkspondent, ALFRED VR m CPENS, EN a/k/a AZ; O E S W N, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal fran: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: John L. Adams, Billings, Mntana Leonard Haxby argued, Butte, Mntana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, H e l e n a , PJbntana Sheri Sprigg argued, A s s i s t a n t Attomey General, Helena, Mntana Harold Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Mntana Submitted: June 5, 1979 Decided: JUN 2 3 JUN ? 9 1979 Filed : -. Mr. Chief 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 o f t h e Court. Defendant A l f r e d Owens w a s c o n v i c t e d of t h e crimesf of m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide and r o b b e r y i n t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t of Yellowstone County f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l . Defen- d a n t appeals. The i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g e d d e f e n d a n t A l f r e d Owens and h i s b r o t h e r , L. D. Owens, w i t h f o u r c o u n t s : Count I c h a r g e d t h e c o d e f e n d a n t s w i t h d e l i b e r a t e homicide committed p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , Count I1 c h a r g e d t h e c o d e f e n d a n t s w i t h d e l i b e r a t e homicide w h i l e engaged i n t h e commission of a felony. Count I11 c h a r g e d t h e c o d e f e n d a n t s w i t h r o b b e r y . Count I V c h a r g e d t h e c o d e f e n d a n t s w i t h a g g r a v a t e d kidnap- ping. L. D. Owens p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o Counts I1 and 111. Counts I and I V w e r e d i s m i s s e d as t o him. Commencing May 8 , 1978, d e f e n d a n t A l f r e d Owens w a s tried. The j u r y found him g u i l t y of m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide, a lesser i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f Counts I and 11, and of robbery. I t found him n o t g u i l t y o f a g g r a v a t e d kidnap- ping. On J u n e 1 4 , 1978, d e f e n d a n t w a s s e n t e n c e d . Some con- f u s i o n r e s u l t e d , as t h e c o u r t m i n u t e s s t a t e d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o 4 0 y e a r s on e a c h c o u n t t o r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y , w h i l e t h e judgment states t h e s e n t e n c e s a r e t o r u n concur- rently. Defendant A l f r e d Owens a p p e a l s . The f a c t s l e a d i n g t o t h i s a p p e a l are a s f o l l o w s . I n l a t e 1977 d e f e n d a n t A l f r e d Owens, h i s o l d e r b r o t h e r , L. D. Owens, and h i s b r o t h e r ' s g i r l f r i e n d , B e t t y S h i p e s , l e f t C a l i f o r n i a heading f o r Texas. By a c i r c u i t o u s r o u t e , t h e t r i o a r r i v e d i n L a u r e l , Montana, i n t h e a f t e r n o o n o f November 27, 1977, and r e n t e d a m o t e l room. Sometime d u r i n g t h e a f t e r n o o n of t h e i r a r r i v a l , d e f e n - d a n t , accompanied by h i s b r o t h e r , p u r c h a s e d and s i g n e d f o r a box of .410 s h o t g u n s h e l l s , o s t e n s i b l y t o do some b i r d h u n t i n g and t a r g e t s h o o t i n g . Neither defendant nor h i s b r o t h e r purchased a h u n t i n g l i c e n s e . A f t e r dropping Shipes o f f a t a laundromat n e a r t h e m o t e l , d e f e n d a n t and L. D. went t o town where t h e y s t a r t e d d r i n k i n g i n v a r i o u s b a r s . About m i d n i g h t , d e f e n d a n t , who e s t i m a t e d h e had drunk a c a s e of b e e r d u r i n g t h e d a y , r e t u r n e d t o t h e m o t e l room t o go t o bed. L. D . , a f t e r accompanying d e f e n d a n t back t o t h e room, l e f t a g a i n t o go e a t b r e a k f a s t . While o u t t h i s second t i m e , L. D. m e t Kenneth Olson and s u b s e q u e n t l y i n v i t e d him back t o t h e m o t e l . Once t h e r e , a f t e r a s h o r t c o n v e r s a t i o n , L. D. d e c i d e d t o r o b Olson, and drew t h e s h o t g u n o n him. A p p a r e n t l y , i t w a s t h e sound of L. D. l o a d i n g t h e gun t h a t woke d e f e n d a n t . During t h e r o b b e r y S h i p e s , who was f e i g n i n g s l e e p , h e a r d d e f e n d a n t t e l l Olson t h a t h e had b e t t e r d o what L. D. said. A f t e r emptying O l s o n ' s p o c k e t s , L. D . , d e f e n d a n t , and Olson l e f t t h e m o t e l room. There i s some d i s p u t e o v e r whether L. D. o r d e r e d d e f e n d a n t t o accompany him o r t h r e a t e n e d him i n any manner. According t o S h i p e s , however, L. D. d i d n o t t h r e a t e n d e f e n d a n t i n any manner and m e r e l y s a i d " l e t ' s go" b e f o r e a l l t h r e e l e f t . The t h r e e l e f t t h e m o t e l room and g o t i n t o S h i p e s ' c a r . Defendant was d r i v i n g w i t h Olson on t h e f r o n t s e a t n e x t t o him and L. D. i n t h e back h o l d i n g t h e s h o t g u n . ~lthough L. D. i n i t i a l l y indicated t h a t he intended only t o take Olson o u t somewhere and t i e him up, d e f e n d a n t conceded t h a t \ i t soon became c l e a r t h a t L. D. i n t e n d e d t o k i l l Olson. ~ f t e a r u n n i n g argument between d e f e n d a n t and L. D. r while d r i v i n g i n t o t h e country, defendant stopped t h e c a r , g o t o u t , and began w a l k i n g back t o town. L. D. then drove t h e c a r a s h o r t d i s t a n c e , s t i l l h o l d i n g t h e s h o t g u n on Olson i n t h e f r o n t seat n e x t t o him. L. D. t h e n o r d e r e d Olson t o g e t o u t of t h e c a r and t o l i e f a c e down on t h e ground, and t h e n s h o t him a t l e a s t t w i c e . Olson, s h o t i n t h e back of t h e head and lower back, d i e d w i t h i n m i n u t e s . L. D. t u r n e d t h e c a r around and on h i s way back i n t o town p i c k e d up d e f e n d a n t . I t i s d i s p u t e d whether, a f t e r L. D. had p i c k e d him up, d e f e n d a n t handed L. D. a n o t h e r s h e l l , s a y i n g t h a t t h e y s h o u l d s h o o t Olson a g a i n t o b e s u r e . I t i s a l s o d i s p u t e d as t o what happened n e x t . Both d e f e n d a n t ' s and L. D . ' s t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l was i n t e r n a l l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y and t e n d e d t o be i l l o g i c a l i n p o s i t i n g t h e n e x t sequence of e v e n t s . According t o t h e r e a d i n g o f t h a t t e s t i m o n y most f a v o r a b l e t o d e f e n d a n t , h e dropped L. D. o f f downtown where t h e l a t t e r g o t O l s o n ' s v e h i c l e and d r o v e i t t o t h e Yellowstone R i v e r . A f t e r r a n s a c k i n g t h e v e h i c l e and s t a s h i n g t h e s t o l e n goods under some b u s h e s , L. D . then d r o v e i t i n t o t h e r i v e r and walked back t o t h e m o t e l . Upon a r r i v i n g a t t h e m o t e l , L. D. g o t S h i p e s ' c a r , d r o v e back t o t h e r i v e r a l o n e , and packed t h e s t o l e n goods i n t h e t r u n k . H e t h e n r e t u r n e d t o t h e m o t e l where h e met d e f e n d a n t who had been o u t walking t o c l e a r h i s head. According t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r a r - r e s t i n g d e f e n d a n t , however, d e f e n d a n t t o l d him t h a t h e had f o l l o w e d L. D . o u t t o t h e r i v e r where t h e y had b o t h r a n - sacked O l s o n ' s t r u c k and t h e n r e t u r n e d t o t h e m o t e l . L o D. t o o t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l (and i n a n e a r l i e r s t a t e m e n t ) t h a t defendant helped ransack Olson's v e h i c l e . A s noted, both L. D . ' S and d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l tended t o b e u n c l e a r as t o d e f e n d a n t ' s r o l e i n r a n s a c k i n g O l s o n ' s t r u c k , e s p e c i a l l y on s u c h p o i n t s a s L. D. walking t h e one and one- h a l f o r two m i l e s back t o town from t h e s i t e where h e d r o v e t h e v e h i c l e i n t o t h e r i v e r , and how L. D. managed t o d r i v e S h i p e s ' c a r back t o p i c k up t h e goods when a p p a r e n t l y de- f e n d a n t had one s e t of k e y s w i t h him and S h i p e s had t h e o t h e r set i n her purse. I n any e v e n t , b o t h L. D. and d e f e n d a n t r e t u r n e d a t t h e same t i m e t o t h e m o t e l where t h e y and S h i p e s packed up and l e f t town, headed f o r Texas. En r o u t e , a c c o r d i n g t o S h i p e s , d e f e n d a n t d i c t a t e d t o h e r a l i s t of t h e r i f l e s t a k e n from O l s o n ' s t r u c k which s h e took down on h e r C a l i f o r n i a motor v e h i c l e code book. T h i s book w a s e v e n t u a l l y i n t r o d u c e d i n t o evidence. S h i p e s f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t and L. D. p e r i o d i c a l l y d i s c u s s e d t h e i n c i d e n t a f t e r t h e y had l e f t Montana. Along t h e way t h e p a r t i e s a p p a r e n t l y pawned o r s o l d v a r i o u s r i f l e s and o t h e r i t e m s t a k e n from O l s o n ' s t r u c k . Although d e f e n d a n t d e n i e d t h a t h e r e c e i v e d any money from t h e s a l e of t h e s e i t e m s , h e d i d concede " t h e money went i n t o t h e g a s t a n k and s u c h as t h a t . " Defendant a l s o a d m i t t e d h e wore O l s o n ' s w r i s t w a t c h which L. D. had g i v e n him. The t h r e e s t a y e d t o g e t h e r u n t i l Kansas where, a f t e r L. D. and d e f e n d a n t had a n argument, d e f e n d a n t s e p a r a t e d from L o D. and S h i p e s . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , Shipes t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e reason d e f e n d a n t gave h e r f o r l e a v i n g w a s t h a t he ( d e f e n d a n t ) was a f r a i d h e would h u r t L. D. E v e n t u a l l y L. D. was a r r e s t e d i n Texas and gave a statement implicating defendant, i n o r d e r , he s a i d a t t r i a l , t o keep S h i p e s from i n c a r c e r a t i o n . I n t h i s s t a t e m e n t , which w a s used a t t r i a l t o impeach h i s t e s t i m o n y , L. D . stated t h a t d e f e n d a n t had, i n f a c t , accompanied L. D. and Olson t o t h e s p o t where t h e l a t t e r w a s s h o t and had o r d e r e d Olson t o l i e down j u s t b e f o r e L. D. s h o t him. L. D. further stated t h a t w h i l e h e , d e f e n d a n t , and Olson w e r e d r i v i n g o u t t o t h e c o u n t r y , h e and d e f e n d a n t had robbed Olson a g a i n , a p p a r e n t l y g e t t i n g h i s r i n g s and watch. S h i p e s , i n c i d e n t a l l y , was never charged i n t h i s m a t t e r . Defendant was s u b s e q u e n t l y a r r e s t e d i n Tucson, A r i z o n a , where h e t o o gave a s t a t e m e n t t o a u t h o r i t i e s a s n o t e d above. Upon t h e i r r e t u r n t o Montana, L. D. Owens p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o c h a r g e s of d e l i b e r a t e homicide and r o b b e r y and r e c e i v e d a s e n t e n c e of 140 y e a r s . Defendant A l f r e d Owens was t r i e d and found g u i l t y o f m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide and r o b b e r y and r e c e i v e d a s e n t e n c e of 40 y e a r s on e a c h count. Because of a c o n f l i c t between t h e c o u r t m i n u t e e n t r y and t h e judgment, i t i s u n c l e a r a s t o whether t h e s e sen- tences a r e t o run consecutively o r concurrently. Defendant a p p e a l s . The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w a r e : 1. Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t c o r r o b o r a t i o n o f t h e t e s t i m o n y of L. D. Owens t o c o n n e c t d e f e n d a n t t o t h e commission of t h e crimes? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a d m i t improper h e a r s a y testimony? 3. W a s t h e D i s t r i c t Court's r e f u s a l of defendant's o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n c o n c e r n i n g compulsion r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r ? 4. Was t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r e f u s a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n concerning a c c o u n t a b i l i t y r e v e r s i b l e error? 5. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s e n t e n c e d e f e n d a n t t o two forty-year t e r m s t o run consecutively o r concurrently? ~ e f e n d a n t ' sf i r s t i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a n a c c o m p l i c e i n a c r i m i n a l a c t must b e c o r r o b o r a t e d by o t h e r i n d e p e n d e n t t e s t i m o n y o r e v i d e n c e which c o n n e c t s t h e d e f e n d a n t t o t h e commission o f t h e c r i m e b e f o r e t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n b e c o n v i c t e d of t h e c r i m e . This r e q u i r e m e n t i s c o d i f i e d a s s e c t i o n 95-3012, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 46-16-213 MCA: "A c o n v i c t i o n c a n n o t b e had on t h e t e s t i m o n y of one r e s p o n s i b l e o r l e g a l l y accountable f o r t h e same o f f e n s e , a s d e f i n e d i n 94-2-106, u n l e s s t h e t e s t i m o n y i s c o r r o b o r a t e d by o t h e r e v i d e n c e which i n i t s e l f and w i t h o u t t h e a i d of t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e one r e s p o n s i b l e o r l e g a l l y a c c o u n t a b l e f o r t h e s a m e offense tends t o connect t h e defendant w i t h t h e commission of t h e o f f e n s e . The c o r r o b o - r a t i o n i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t i f i t merely shows t h e commission of t h e o f f e n s e o r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s thereof. " D e f e n d a n t ' s argument b a s i c a l l y i s t h a t t h e r e w a s no e v i d e n c e , o t h e r t h a n t h e t e s t i m o n y of L. D. Owens, h i s c o n v i c t e d a c c o m p l i c e , t o c o n n e c t him t o t h e commission o f t h e o f f e n s e s f o r which h e was c o n v i c t e d . W e disagree. W e d i s c u s s e d t h e n a t u r e and q u a l i t y of t h e r e q u i r e d c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e i n S t a t e v . Coleman (1978) , Mont. , 579 P.2d 732, 748, 35 St.Rep. 560, 576-77: "The r u l e on c o r r o b o r a t i o n i s s t a t e d i n S t a t e v . Cobb ( 1 9 2 6 ) , 76 Mont. 89, 245 P. 265. In t h a t case, we held t h a t the corroborating evi- dence may be s u p p l i e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t o r h i s w i t n e s s e s ; i t may be c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ; i t need n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n o r e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e c a s e of g u i l t ; and i t need n o t b e s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n n e c t t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e c r i m e b u t must t e n d t o c o n n e c t him w i t h t h e crime. I n S t a t e v. Keckonen ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 107 Mont. 253, 84 P.2d 341, we h e l d t h a t where t h e a l l e g e d c o r r o b a t i v e evidence i s e q u a l l y consonant w i t h a r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n p o i n t i n g toward i n - n o c e n t c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t of d e f e n d a n t , t h e n s u c h e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t t e n d t o c o n n e c t him w i t h t h e commission of t h e o f f e n s e and i s i n t h e r e a l m of s p e c u l a t i o n , n o t c o r r o b o r a t i o n . Where t h e c l a i m e d c o r r o b o r a t i o n shows no more t h a n an op- p o r t u n i t y t o commit a crime and s i m p l y p r o v e s s u s - p i c i o n , it i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t c o r r o b o r a t i o n t o j u s t i f y a c o n v i c t i o n upon t h e t e s t i m o n y of a n a c - complice. S t a t e v. J o n e s ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 9 5 Mont. 317, 26 P.2d 341." Applying t h e s e r u l e s , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence presented a t t r i a l i s s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n defen- d a n t ' s conviction. From Brenda Dennis, a c l e r k i n a s t o r e i n L a u r e l , t h e j u r y h e a r d t h a t on t h e a f t e r n o o n b e f o r e Olson was k i l l e d , d e f e n d a n t p u r c h a s e d and s i g n e d f o r a box o f .410 s h o t g u n s h e l l s of t h e t y p e used t o k i l l Olson. D e f e n d a n t ' s argument t h a t t h e l a c k o f d e f e n d a n t ' s f i n g e r p r i n t s on t h e s h e l l s found a t t h e murder s c e n e e l i m i n a t e s any c o r r o b o r a t i v e v a l u e i s completely unpersuasive. L. D.'s f i n g e r p r i n t s were n o t found on t h e s e s h e l l s e i t h e r , y e t h e a d m i t t e d t h a t h e had u s e d them t o k i l l Olson. From B e t t y S h i p e s , who was n o t a n accomplice t o t h e c r i m e s , t h e j u r y h e a r d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i n s t r u c t e d Olson t o do a s L. D. d i r e c t e d d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y i n t h e m o t e l room; t h a t d e f e n d a n t made no a t t e m p t t o s t o p L. D. from r o b b i n g Olson; and t h a t L. D. n e v e r t h r e a t e n e d o r o r d e r e d d e f e n d a n t t o a s s i s t him i n t h e r o b b e r y . Shipes a l s o testi- f i e d t h a t s h e h e a r d d e f e n d a n t , L. D . , and Olson l e a v e t h e m o t e l t o g e t h e r ; t h a t o n l y L. D. and d e f e n d a n t r e t u r n e d , a g a i n t o g e t h e r ; and t h a t upon t h e i r r e t u r n , t h e p a r t y h a s t i l y packed up and l e f t town. She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r t h e g r o u p had l e f t town, d e f e n d a n t d i c t a t e d t o h e r a l i s t o f weapons t h a t had been t a k e n from O l s o n ' s vehicle. From R o b e r t Lough, t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r who a r r e s t e d d e f e n d a n t i n A r i z o n a , t h e j u r y h e a r d d u r i n g t h e S t a t e ' s re- b u t t a l t h a t d e f e n d a n t had a d m i t t e d t h a t h e had a i d e d L. D. i n r o b b i n g t h e v i c t i m i n t h e m o t e l room and t h a t h e had l e f t t h e s c e n e of t h e homicide o n l y b e c a u s e h e b e l i e v e d i t w a s a n i n a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e as h e t h o u g h t t h e y had s t o p p e d i n some- o n e ' s driveway, n o t b e c a u s e he n e c e s s a r i l y b e l i e v e d t h e a c t i t s e l f w a s wrong. Lough f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s t a t e d t o him t h a t h e had h e l p e d r a n s a c k and d i s p o s e of O l s o n ' s v e h i c l e and t h a t h e had h i m s e l f s o l d one o f t h e s h o t g u n s t a k e n from O l s o n ' s v e h i c l e . F i n a l l y , from d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f , t h e j u r y h e a r d t h a t h e d i d p u r c h a s e t h e s h o t g u n s h e l l s used t o k i l l Olson. De- f e n d a n t a l s o a d m i t t e d t h a t d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y of Olson i n t h e m o t e l room, h e had t o l d Olson t o do as L. D . d i r e c t e d . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d r o v e L. D. and Olson o u t i n t o t h e c o u n t r y a l m o s t t o t h e s i t e where Olson was k i l l e d ; t h a t a f t e r h e a r i n g Olson b e i n g s h o t , h e d r o v e L . D. back i n t o town; and t h a t l a t e r h e , L. D. and S h i p e s packed up hur- r i e d l y and l e f t town. Although d e f e n d a n t d e n i e d r e c e i v i n g any s p o i l s from t h e r o b b e r y , he d i d concede t h a t t h e money r e c e i v e d from t h e s a l e of t h e s t o l e n i t e m s f i n a n c e d t h e g r o u p ' s journey toward Texas and t h a t , a f t e r t h e group had l e f t Montana, h e w a s g i v e n O l s o n ' s w r i s t w a t c h by L. D. A p e r s o n may b e c o n v i c t e d of d e l i b e r a t e homicide i f s u c h homicide " i s committed w h i l e t h e o f f e n d e r i s . . . an a c c o m p l i c e i n t h e commission of . . . or f l i g h t a f t e r com- mitting . . . any o t h e r f e l o n y which i n v o l v e s t h e u s e o r t h r e a t of p h y s i c a l f o r c e o r v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t any i n d i v i - dual." S e c t i o n 94-5-102 (1)( b ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 45- 5-102 MCA. C l e a r l y , t h i s evidence tends t o connect defendant with the o f t h e o f f e n s e s o f r o b b e r y and homicide as a participant in the actual robbery and as an accomplice in the commission of and flight after the deliberate homicide of Kenneth Olson after the robbery. The second issue presented for review concerns the introduction through the testimony of one witness of a prior inconsistent statement made by another witness. The State correctly states that, as defendant made no objection at trial to the introduction of any of the testimony he now claims was improperly admitted hearsay, he is barred from predicating error on its admission on appeal, and therefore this Court need not consider the issue. Rule 103 (a)(1), Mont.R.Evid.; State v. Armstrong (1977), Mont . I 562 P.2d 1129, 1132, 34 St.Rep. 213, 216. In a recent case presenting very similar circumstances, we stated: ". .. At any rate, defendants never objected to Wicks' testifying to the Peterson statement nor did they move to strike it from the record. They may not now object to its introduction." State v. Cripps (1978), Mont . , 582 P.2d 312, 317, 35 St.Rep. 967, 972. The same rule applies to the instant case. In any event, were we to examine defendant's contention on the merits, our ultimate conclusion would be unchanged. See State v. Longacre (1975), 168 Mont. 311, 312, 542 P.2d 1221, 1222; State v. Mally (1961), 139 Mont. 599, 609, 366 P.2d The third issue presented for review concerns the re- fusal of the District Court to give defendant's requested instruction on the defense of compulsion which read: "You are instructed that a person is not guilty of an offense, other than an offense punishable with death, by reason of conduct which he per- forms under the compulsion of threat or menace of the imminent infliction of death or serious bodily harm, if he reasonably believes that death or serious bodily harm will be inflicted upon him if he does not perform such conduct." D e f e n d a n t i s c o r r e c t i n s t a t i n g t h a t where t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f a n y d e f e n s e o f f e r e d by a n a c c u s e d which r a i s e s a n i s s u e o f f a c t f a v o r a b l e t o him, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d p r e s e n t t h e i s s u e by a n a f f i r m a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n which e x p l a i n s t h e p e r t i n e n t law. S t a t e v . Azure ( 1 9 7 7 ) , Mont. 573 P.2d 1 7 9 , 1 8 2 , 34 S t . R e p . 1569, 1573. However, " [ w l h e r e t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d sup- p o r t i n g each element of t h e [compulsion] d e f e n s e , t h e c o u r t may p r o p e r l y r e f u s e t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e d e f e n s e . " S t a t e v. GallaNher (1978), Mont . , 580 P.2d 930, 935, 35 St.Rep. 848, 855. (Emphasis a d d e d . ) The e l e m e n t s of t h e c o m p u l s i o n d e f e n s e a r e f o u n d i n s e c t i o n 94-3-110, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 45-2-212 MCA. Under t h a t s t a t u t e , f o r a d e f e n d a n t t o a v a i l h i m s e l f o f t h e d e f e n s e of c o m p u l s i o n , h e must show t h a t : (1) h e was c o m p e l l e d t o p e r f o r m t h e o f f e n s i v e c o n d u c t ( 2 ) by t h e t h r e a t o r menace ( 3 ) o f t h e imminent i n f l i c t i o n ( 4 ) o f d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm, and t h a t ( 5 ) h e b e l i e v e d t h a t d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm would b e i n f l i c t e d upon him i f h e d i d n o t p e r f o r m s u c h c o n d u c t , and ( 6 ) h i s b e l i e f was r e a s o n a b l e . W e have examined t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t and c o n c l u d e t h a t defendant f a i l e d t o produce evidence i n s u p p o r t of s e v e r a l of t h e s e elements. T h e r e was a b s o l u t e l y no t e s t i m o n y t h a t L. D. Owens t h r e a t e n e d d e f e n d a n t a t a n y t i m e w i t h t h e i m m i - n e n t i n f l i c t i o n o f d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm; d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t t e s t i f y h e b e l i e v e d h i s o l d e r b r o t h e r would h a v e s h o t him had he r e f u s e d t o comply w i t h h i s d i r e c t i o n s . L. D.'s s t a t e m e n t when h e , d e f e n d a n t , and Olson l e f t t h e m o t e l room, a c c o r d i n g t o B e t t y S h i p e s , was s i m p l y " l e t ' s go." P r i o r t o t h a t t i m e , d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f had d i r e c t e d O l s o n t o comply w i t h L. D.'s o r d e r s , doing s o under abso- l u t e l y no t h r e a t from L. D. Although d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t d u r i n g t h e d r i v e o u t t o O l s o n ' s e x e c u t i o n s i t e L. D. repeatedly t o l d defendant t o b e q u i e t and keep d r i v i n g , he a d m i t t e d t h a t L . D . n e v e r p o i n t e d t h e s h o t g u n a t him. Defendant e v e n t u a l l y g o t o u t o f t h e car and s t a r t e d walking back t o town, a p p a r e n t l y w i t h o u t f e a r of any p h y s i c a l harm. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , h e volun- t a r i l y g o t back i n t o t h e car and d r o v e L. D. back t o L a u r e l where h e a l l e g e d l y dropped him o f f t o p i c k up O l s o n ' s ve- hicle. A f t e r t h i s p o i n t , d e f e n d a n t had t h e s h o t g u n i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n i n S h i p e s ' c a r and L. D. w a s n o t around. Yet de- f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o i n f o r m any a u t h o r i t i e s a s t o t h e i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g Olson and i n f a c t v o l u n t a r i l y c o n t i n u e d h i s as- s o c i a t i o n w i t h L. D. by h e l p i n g him pack up and t h e n l e a v i n g town w i t h him. These a r e h a r d l y t h e a c t i o n s of a p e r s o n who h a s j u s t been compelled t o perform a n o d i o u s c r i m i n a l a c t by t h e t h r e a t o f imminent i n f l i c t i o n of s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm o r death. I n f a c t , i t a p p e a r s from d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t h e w a s more f r i g h t e n e d o f t h e s i t u a t i o n b e c a u s e h e had n e v e r p a r t i c i p a t e d i n anything l i k e it before r a t h e r than of a n y t h i n g L. D. m i g h t have done. Indeed, it appears t h a t d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t a f r a i d of L. D. a t all--the reason he l e f t L. D. - and S h i p e s i n Kansas w a s t h a t h e was a f r a i d t h a t h e m i g h t end up h u r t i n g L. D. The compulsion d e f e n s e i s a narrow d e f e n s e . As the Commission Comment t o s e c t i o n 94-3-110 states: "The j u s t i f i c a t i o n d o e s n o t e x t e n d t o a c t i o n under t h r e a t of damage t o p r o p e r t y , o r of i n j u r y less t h a n s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm o r even of d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm which i s n o t imminent; b u t t h e p e r s o n ' s r e a s o n a b l e f e a r of imminent d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm i f m i s t a k e n , i s w i t h i n t h e principle. ( S e e 1 Bishop on C r i m i n a l Law ( 9 t h e d . ) 1111346 t o 348.) " T h i s e s t a b l i s h e d t y p e o f f o r m u l a t i o n h a s been criticized. However, t o broaden t h e d e f e n s e t o accord completely with t h e ' f r e e w i l l ' theory would b e t o i n v i t e r o u t i n e c o n t e n t i o n s of some k i n d of p r e s s u r e , s u c h as ' t h r e a t s of harm t o property, reputation, health, general safety, and t o a c t s done under t h e o r d e r s , ' w i t h accom- panying a s s e r t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l i t y weak- ness. (Newman and W e i t z e r , s u p r a , a t 334.) P r o f . Wharton, a f t e r s t a t i n g t h e e s t a b l i s h e d r e s t r i c t i o n s upon t h e d e f e n s e , comments: ' I t would b e a most dangerous r u l e i f a d e f e n d a n t c o u l d s h i e l d h i m s e l f from p r o s e c u t i o n f o r c r i m e by merely s e t t i n g up a f e a r from o r b e c a u s e of t h r e a t of a t h i r d p e r s o n . ' (1 Wharton's C r i m i - n a l Law ( 1 9 t h e d . ) , 11384.)" Defendant f a i l e d t o i n t r o d u c e any e v i d e n c e t h a t h e f e a r e d t h e imminent i n f l i c t i o n of d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y o r t h a t he reasonably believed t h a t , i f he f a i l e d t o do a s L. D. d i r e c t e d , s u c h i n j u r y o r d e a t h would b e i n f l i c t e d . The proposed i n s t r u c t i o n was p r o p e r l y r e f u s e d . The f o u r t h i s s u e f o r r e v i e w c o n c e r n s 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 g i v e d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n on a c c o u n t a b i l i t y which s t a t e d : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t some e v i d e n c e h a s been i n t r o d u c e d t e n d i n g t o show t h a t a p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n t h e d e f e n d a n t , A l f r e d Owens, i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c r i m e s h e r e charged. I f , a f t e r a con- s i d e r a t i o n of a l l t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e r e r e m a i n s i n your minds a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t a s t o who i s r e s p o n - s i b l e f o r t h e crimes, t h e n i t i s your d u t y t o ac- quit." The t r i a l c o u r t d i d g i v e t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t a p e r s o n i s l e g a l l y ac- c o u n t a b l e f o r t h e c o n d u c t o f a n o t h e r when e i t h e r b e f o r e o r d u r i n g t h e commission of a n o f f e n s e , and w i t h t h e p u r p o s e t o promote o r f a c i l i t a t e s u c h commission, h e s o l i c i t s , a i d s , a b e t s , a g r e e s o r attempts t o a i d such person i n t h e planning o r commission o f t h e o f f e n s e . " S e c t i o n s 94-2-106 and 94-2-107, R.C.M. 1947, now sec- t i o n s 45-2-301 and 45-2-302 MCA, t h e s t a t u t e s on a c c o u n t - ability, s t a t e i n pertinent part: "94-2-106. Accountability for conduct of another. A person i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r conduct w h i z i s an e l e m e n t of a n o f f e n s e , i f t h e c o n d u c t i s e i t h e r t h a t of t h e p e r s o n h i m s e l f , o r t h a t o f a n o t h e r a n d h e i s l e g a l l y a c c o u n t a b l e f o r s u c h c o n d u c t as p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 94-2-107, o r b o t h . "94-2-107. When a c c o u n t a b i l i t y e x i s t s . A p e r s o n i s l e g a l l y accountable f o r t h e conduct of another when: " ( 3 ) e i t h e r b e f o r e o r d u r i n g t h e commission o f a n o f f e n s e , a n d w i t h t h e p u r p o s e t o promote o r f a c i - l i t a t e s u c h commission, h e s o l i c i t s , a i d s , a b e t s , agrees o r attempts t o a i d , such o t h e r person i n t h e p l a n n i n g o r commission o f t h e o f f e n s e . " From a c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e s t a t u t e s w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n , it i s c l e a r t h a t t h e proposed i n s t r u c - t i o n i s a n i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f t h e law. It creates the d i s t i n c t impression t h a t t h e defendant could n o t be held r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e crimes c h a r g e d i f somebody e l s e a c t u a l l y performed t h e o f f e n s i v e conduct. This i s contrary t o t h e s t a t u t e and h a s b e e n r e j e c t e d by t h i s C o u r t a t l e a s t s i n c e 1914. S t a t e v . Chevigny ( 1 9 1 4 ) , 48 Mont. 382, 385-86, 138 P. 257, 258. The law o n a c c o u n t a b i l i t y was c o r r e c t l y p r e - sented i n t h e given instruction. D e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n was p r o p e r l y r e f u s e d . The l a s t i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w i s n o t r e a l l y a n issue a t all. The S t a t e c o n c e d e s t h a t t h e two f o r t y - y e a r sentences given defendant a r e t o run concurrently a s speci- f i e d i n t h e judgment r a t h e r t h a n c o n s e c u t i v e l y a s s t a t e d i n t h e m i n u t e book e n t r y . Absent s p e c i a l circumstances i n d i - c a t i n g o t h e r w i s e , t h e f i n a l f o r m a l judgment a s e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n t r o l s over an i n c o n s i s t e n t minute e n t r y . S e e , s e c t i o n 95-2404, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 46-20-104 MCA; S t a t e v . Herndon ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 Ariz.App. 1 8 0 , 400 P.2d 851, 852. The judgment o f 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 . %AS@- Chief J u s t i c e We concur: