No. 14417
IN THE s u p m COUHT OF THE STATE OF rnNTANA
1978
THE STATE OF JONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
-VS-
KENNETH BREmSTEIN',SR.
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal f o n District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District,
ra:
Honorable Ibbert M. Holter, Judge presiding.
Counsel of m d
r :
For Appellant:
Frank B bbrrison, Sr., Whitefish, Mntana
.
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Mntana
William A Douglas, County Attorney, Libby, Mntana
.
Submitted on briefs: N-
o 8, 1978
MAR 2 -
Decided. !7
99
Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court.
Defendant Kenneth B r e i t e n s t e i n , S r . , a p p e a l s from a
judgment c o n v i c t i n g him o f t h e c r i m e o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t
f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of L i n c o l n County.
On J u l y 4 , 1977, a p p e l l a n t Kenneth B r e i t e n s t e i n , S r . ,
w a s a r r e s t e d i n L i n c o l n County, Montana, o n t h e c h a r g e of
a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t under s e c t i o n 94-5-202, R.C.M. 1947, now
s e c t i o n 45-5-202 MCA. An i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d c h a r g i n g
t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had p u r p o s e l y and knowingly p l a c e d W i l l i a m
H. Heika i n r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y
by u s e o f a weapon, s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t h e had p o i n t e d a
p i s t o l a t W i l l i a m Heika and t h r e a t e n e d t o s h o o t him i f he
moved. Defendant p l e a d e d " n o t g u i l t y " . Later d e f e n d a n t
f i l e d 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 s of
i n s a n i t y , s e l f - d e f e n s e and a l i b i .
J u r y t r i a l w a s h e l d March 1 4 and 1 5 , 1978, and a p p e l -
l a n t w a s found g u i l t y of t h e c r i m e of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t .
H e w a s s e n t e n c e d t o f o u r y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n .
The s e n t e n c e w a s suspended.
On J u l y 4 , 1977, W i l l i a m Heika, E a r l B a l l e n g e r and J i m
Tompkins w e r e on a s p u r r o a d a s h o r t d i s t a n c e o f f t h e Long
Meadow Road i n t h e Yaak V a l l e y of L i n c o l n County, Montana,
on t h e i r way t o c u t f i r e w o o d a t Roderick B u t t e n e a r b y .
Heika h e l d a F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r m i t t o c u t f i r e w o o d i n t h e
area. On t h e s p u r r o a d t h e y came upon a number o f trees
f e l l e d a c r o s s t h e road blocking f u r t h e r progress. They
proceeded t o c u t t h e trees i n t o b l o c k s , l o a d i n g them i n t o
H e i k a ' s p i c k u p t o clear p a s s a g e f o r t h e i r t h r e e p i c k u p s .
A p p e l l a n t was d r i v i n g down Long Meadow Road o n h i s way
home from work. H e saw t h e t h r e e p i c k u p s o n t h e s p u r r o a d
and r e c o g n i z e d H e i k a ' s .
A p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d he proceeded t o h i s r a n c h n e a r b y
and washed up. H e t h e n s t r a p p e d on h i s . 2 2 c a l i b e r p i s t o l ,
t i e d a b l o c k of s a l t on h i s t r a i l b i k e and proceeded t o t a k e
the s a l t t o his cattle. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had f e l l e d t h e
trees a c r o s s t h e s p u r r o a d where Heika and h i s two companions
w e r e sawing i n o r d e r t o c o n t a i n h i s cows w i t h i n a F o r e s t
S e r v i c e G r a z i n g P e r m i t l o c a t e d a d j a c e n t t o h i s r a n c h and
upon which t h e i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r
s a l t i n g h i s c a t t l e , h e d e c i d e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t o see i f t h e
trees had been removed, which would a l l o w h i s cows t o walk
away.
A p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d h e was somewhat u p s e t when h e
a r r i v e d a t t h e scene of t h e i n c i d e n t . H e apparently addressed
h i m s e l f t o Heika a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y a l t h o u g h Heika w a s t h e
f u r t h e s t from him a s h e a r r i v e d on t h e s c e n e . He testified
he inquired ". . . what t h e h e l l they w e r e doing t h e r e ,
cutting those trees." Heika's version w a s a p p e l l a n t ". . .
came c h a r g i n g o u t o f t h e woods . . . [ y e l l i n g a t u s ] 'What
i n t h e h e l l are you d o i n g o n m p r o p e r t y ' .
y T h a t h e had c u t
down t h o s e t r e e s f o r a r e a s o n . . ." A p p e l l a n t c a l l e d Heika
some v e r y p r o f a n e and i n s u l t i n g names and o r d e r e d a l l of
them o f f " h i s p r o p e r t y " . Heika w a s from 1 0 t o 2 5 f e e t from
appellant. A p p e l l a n t was s t a n d i n g a b o u t a t t h e rear of
Heika' s p i c k u p .
Both a g r e e Heika t o o k s e v e r a l s t e p s f o r w a r d i n a p p e l -
lant's direction. A p p e l l a n t a t t h i s p o i n t drew h i s a u t o -
m a t i c p i s t o l and p o i n t e d i t a t Heika. Heika t e s t i f i e d he
had been o r d e r e d t o l e a v e and was t r y i n g t o g e t t o h i s
pickup t o do so. Appellant's version i s the steps w e r e
t h r e a t e n i n g , a s Heika had a b e e r c a n i n h i s hand and ~ e i k a
"had a w e i r d l o o k o n h i s f a c e " , " a t w i s t e d l o o k l i k e he Was
r e a l l y mad and g o i n g t o g e t r e v e n g e " . Appellant t e s t i f i e d
h e s a i d , " S t o p B i l l t t and B i l l s t o p p e d . Heika t e s t i f i e d he
s t o p p e d b u t t h a t a g a i n a p p e l l a n t o r d e r e d him t o l e a v e and
a g a i n h e t o o k a s t e p toward h i s p i c k u p whereupon a p p e l l a n t
p u l l e d t h e s l i d e t o cock t h e a u t o m a t i c p i s t o l and s a i d
" A l l r i g h t you f a t s o n - o f - a - b i t c h , a n o t h e r s t e p and I w i l l
blow you f u l l o f h o l e s l i k e a s,i.eve."
Heika t u r n e d away, walked t o t h e f a r t h e s t p i c k u p ,
Tompkins', and l e f t . A p p e l l a n t h o l s t e r e d t h e p i s t o l and
a l l o w e d Tompkins t o t a k e H e i k a ' s p i c k u p . Heika made a
c o m p l a i n t t o t h e s h e r i f f and a p p e l l a n t w a s a r r e s t e d .
Some background i s n e c e s s a r y .
A p p e l l a n t Kenneth B r e i t e n s t e i n owned t h e f a m i l y r a n c h
of 150 acres a l o n g t h e S o u t h Fork o f t h e Yaak R i v e r and had
l i v e d t h e r e h i s whole l i f e , 4 4 y e a r s . H e worked i n t h e
woods f e l l i n g trees and had some c a t t l e on h i s r a n c h . He
a l s o had, a s h i s f a m i l y b e f o r e him, a U. S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e
G r a z i n g P e r m i t o n some 70 odd a c r e s a d j a c e n t t o t h e r a n c h .
The c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s , W i l l i a m Heika, had l i v e d i n
t h e Yaak community f o r two o r two and o n e - h a l f years before
the incident. H e " t h i n n e d i n t h e woods" and r a n a b a r
c a l l e d The Cherokee S t r i p , l o c a t e d a b o u t two o r two and
one-half m i l e s from t h e s c e n e of t h e i n c i d e n t .
A p p e l l a n t and Heika had met f o u r o r f i v e t i m e s i n t h e
t i m e Heika had l i v e d i n t h e community.
I n 1976 Heika owned t h r e e I r i s h S e t t e r s and i n t e n d e d t o
r a i s e s e t t e r s a t t h e Cherokee S t r i p . I n August 1976 a p p e l -
l a n t ' s s o n , Ken, J r . , s h o t two o f H e i k a ' s dogs k i l l i n g o n e
and wounding a n o t h e r . One dog, "Big M e l t ' , w a s r e g i s t e r e d
and a champion, w o r t h $350 a c c o r d i n g t o Heika. ~ccording
t o a p p e l l a n t , t h e dogs were s h o t b e c a u s e t h e y were c h a s i n g
appellant's cattle. I n e a r l y 1977 Heika d i s c o v e r e d who had
s h o t h i s dogs and f i l e d a l a w s u i t a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t .
A p p e l l a n t a l s o t e s t i f i e d Heika had t h r e a t e n e d him o v e r t h e
C i t i z e n Band r a d i o t h r e a t e n i n g t o g e t a p p e l l a n t and h i s son
i f h e c o u l d e v e r c a t c h them " a l o n e o u t o n t h e r o a d " .
The i s s u e o n a p p e a l i s framed by a p p e l l a n t a s f o l l o w s :
Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n e x c l u d i n g e v i d e n c e of
s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of p r i o r t h r e a t s made by t h e v i c t i m o f
t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t / d e f e n d a n t which w e r e
known by a p p e l l a n t and which engendered i n him a r e a s o n a b l e
b e l i e f t h a t h e w a s i n d a n g e r of imminent b o d i l y i n j u r y ?
I t i s w e l l t o note t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d allow
d e f e n d a n t t o t e s t i f y f u l l y a s t o t h r e a t s made by Heika
a g a i n s t h i m s e l f and h i s s o n .
Two s e p a r a t e o f f e r s of proof w e r e made by a p p e l l a n t .
The f i r s t w a s when a p p e l l a n t ' s s o n w a s c a l l e d a s t h e
f i r s t d e f e n s e w i t n e s s and b e f o r e a p p e l l a n t had t e s t i f i e d .
The o f f e r was t h a t t h e w i t n e s s , Ken, J r . , would t e s t i f y
t h a t H e i k a ' s mother-in-law s a i d s h e would blow Ken, J r . ' s
head o f f w i t h a s h o t g u n and t h i s t h r e a t was r e l a t e d t o
appellant. F u r t h e r , h e would t e s t i f y t h a t i n March 1977
t h e r e was a c o n f r o n t a t i o n between Heika and Ken, J r . , a t t h e
D i r t y Shame S a l o o n when Heika s a i d h e was g o i n g t o knock t h e
h e l l o u t o f Ken, Jr. T h i s t h r e a t was a l s o r e l a y e d t o
appellant.
The o f f e r o f proof w a s r e j e c t e d by t h e c o u r t f o r l a c k
of foundation. A p p e l l a n t c i t e s R u l e s 404- ( a ) ( 2 ) and 405 ( b ) ,
Mont.R.Evid., a s t o when s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of c o n d u c t may
b e u s e d t o show c h a r a c t e r where c h a r a c t e r i s an e s s e n t i a l
element of t h e defense.
W e hold t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t w a s c o r r e c t i n i t s r u l i n g
a t this time.
The Commission Comment t o R u l e s 404 ( a ) ( 2 ) and 405 ( b )
s t a t e s i n e f f e c t t h a t t h e Montana r u l e s were m o d i f i e d from
t h e Federal Rules s p e c i f i c a l l y t o be r e s t a t e m e n t s of e x i s t -
i n g Montana c a s e l a w .
A p p e l l a n t ' s argument r e c o g n i z e s t h e Montana r u l e i s t h a t
" a f t e r t h e accused has l a i d h i s foundation f o r self-defense",
such e v i d e n c e m a y b e a d m i s s i b l e . " H e a r g u e s t h a t by a p p e l -
l a n t g i v i n g n o t i c e o f h i s i n t e n t i o n t o r e l y on s e l f - d e f e n s e
t h a t no f u r t h e r f o u n d a t i o n w a s n e c e s s a r y .
T h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v . Logan ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 156 Mont. 48, 64-
65, 473 P.2d 833, 842, s p e c i f i c a l l y r e j e c t e d t h i s argument:
". . . The e x i s t e n c e o f t h e i s s u e o f s e l f - d e f e n s e
and a n i s s u e a s t o t h e a g r e s s o r i n t h e a l t e r c a t i o n
i s n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e c o r r o b o r a t i o n by e v i d e n c e o f
t h e d e c e a s e d ' s r e p u t a t i o n f o r t u r b u l e n c e and v i o -
lence i s admissible.
"The n o t i c e o f i n t e n t i o n t o r e l y on s e l f - d e f e n s e
s e r v e d by d e f e n d a n t on t h e s t a t e p r i o r t o t r i a l
i s immaterial and d o e s n o t p l a c e t h i s m a t t e r i n
i s s u e a t t h e t r i a l . Defendant i s n o t bound t o
r e l y on t h i s defense a t t h e t r i a l notwithstanding
s e r v i c e of t h i s n o t i c e . U n t i l s u c h t i m e a s de-
f e n d a n t took t h e s t a n d and a d m i t t e d t h e k i l l i n g ,
t h e i s s u e of self-defense w a s n o t joined a t t h e
t r i a l . Thus no f o u n d a t i o n e x i s t e d f o r t h e admis-
s i o n of t h e t e s t i m o n y . " (Emphasis a d d e d . )
The C o u r t t h e n a l l o w e d a p p e l l a n t t o t e s t i f y t o h i s
knowledge o f p r i o r t h r e a t s Heika had made. He testified
t h a t i n t h e middle of A p r i l , he, a p p e l l a n t , w a s t a l k i n g t o a
n e i g h b o r o n h i s C i t i z e n Band r a d i o when Heika b r o k e i n and
s a i d " I ' l l g e t e v e n w i t h you and your s o n " i f he c o u l d e v e r
c a t c h them a l o n e somewhere o n t h e r o a d .
H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n A p r i l o r May h i s d a u g h t e r had
t o l d him t h a t Heika had s t o p p e d where s h e w a s l i v i n g and
made h e r g o f o r a r i d e w i t h Heika i n h i s p i c k u p . Heika
wanted a p p e l l a n t ' s d a u g h t e r t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t h e r f a t h e r i n
t h e l a w s u i t o v e r t h e dogs. F u r t h e r , Heika had t h r e a t e n e d t o
c a t c h a p p e l l a n t o u t o n t h e r o a d and even t h i n g s up.
H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1977 h i s
s o n , Ken, J r . , came home and t o l d him h e had had a n e n c o u n t e r
w i t h Heika a t t h e D i r t y Shame Saloon where Heika had t h r e a t -
ened t o g e t him f o r s h o o t i n g t h e dogs.
Under c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n Heika a d m i t t e d t h e two i n c i d e n t s
d e a l i n g w i t h a p p e l l a n t ' s son and d a u g h t e r . H e d e n i e d t h e C.
B. threat. However, a l l t h e t h r e a t s w e r e t h e same, h e
would g e t a p p e l l a n t and h i s son o u t on t h e r o a d a l o n e and
even t h i n g s up.
A second o f f e r of proof was made t o p r o v e by t h e t e s t i -
mony o f o n e David Lawson t h a t t h e C.B. t h r e a t was made. The
t e s t i m o n y o f E l i z a b e t h B r e i t e n s t e i n , now E l i z a b e t h J e t t o n ,
would p r o v i d e c o r r o b o r a t i o n of H e i k a ' s v i s i t t o h e r and h i s
t h r e a t s t o h e r f a t h e r and b r o t h e r . F u r t h e r , Ken, J r . , would
t e s t i f y a s t o t h r e a t s made by Heika a t t h e D i r t y Shame
Saloon.
T h i s o f f e r was r e j e c t e d by t h e c o u r t a f t e r s t a t i n g h e
had a l l o w e d a p p e l l a n t t o t e s t i f y c o n c e r n i n g t h e t h r e a t s on
h i s own s t a t e of mind, b u t found "under t h e Rules o f Evi-
d e n c e t h a t i t would e x c l u d e i t b e c a u s e i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e
i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed by t h e d a n g e r of u n f a i r p r e j u -
d i c e , c o n f u s i o n o f t h e i s s u e and r e s u l t i n g i n m i s l e a d i n g t h e
jury ."
The c o u r t a l s o r e f u s e d t h e S t a t e t h r o u g h William Heika
t o r e b u t t h e t h r e a t s t e s t i f i e d t o by a p p e l l a n t .
The t r i a l judge made h i s a s s e s s m e n t of t h e p r o b a t i v e
v a l u e o f t h e t h r e a t e v i d e n c e and h i s r e a s o n i n g a s f o l l o w s :
"The very most that can be said is that with the
beer can in his hand, if you take the Defendant's
view of him moving toward his agressor, if you take
the complaining witness's statement of standing
there and I started to go to my car and a guy whipped
out a pistol and then said I am going to blow you
out of existence, or something to that effect,
then it might have been admitted solely for the
state of mind of the Defendant. I don't believe
its of any great value to the Jury."
Judge Brantly in State v. Hanlon (1909), 38 Mont. 557,
574, 580, 100 P. 1035, addressed the admissibility of such
evidence as follows:
". . . But no hard-and-fast rule of exclusion may
be laid down. A wise discretion should be the
guide, and in all cases where the specific act, by
reason of its proximity in time and place, would
legitimately reflect upon the conduct or motives
of the parties at the time of the affray ...it
should be admitted."
Did the trial judge abuse his discretion?
"As the admissibility of the evidence itself must
rest largely in the sound discretion of the trial
court, so must the extent to which the investigation
of collateral issues arising thereon may so be
lodged in its discretion, and its action will not
be reviewed except where its discretionary power
has been manifestly abused." Hanlon, 38 Mont. at
580.
The trial judge stated that in his opinion, further
testimony as to the threats would be excluded because its
"probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue and result in
misleading the jury. "
Rule 403, Mont.R.Evid., states:
"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue,
or misleading the jury . . .or needless presenta-
tion of cumulative evidence."
The Commission Comment reads:
"A key element of this rule is the discretion of
the judge in deciding whether otherwise relevant
evidence is to be excluded because of the factors
listed in the rule."
I n S t a t e v . J e n n i n g s ( 1 9 3 4 ) , 96 Mont. 80, 89, 28 P.2d
448, t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d :
"Such e v i d e n c e i s a d m i s s i b l e o n l y when t h e d e f e n -
d a n t has interposed a p l e a of self-defense ( c i t i n g
cases) and when a p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n i s l a i d by
proof o f some o v e r t a c t j u s t i f y i n g s u c h d e f e n s e .
( C i t i n g cases.) The t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d e x e r c i s e
a sound l e g a l d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether
o r n o t t h e p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n h a s been l a i d f o r
t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y . ..
"'The t r u e s o l u t i o n i s t o e x e r c i s e a d i s c r e t i o n
and t o a d m i t s u c h f a c t s when common s e n s e t e l l s
t h a t they could l e g i t i m a t e l y a f f e c t a defendant's
a p p r e h e n s i o n . ' (1 Wigmore on Evidence, 2nd e d . ,
521.)"
I n t h i s case t h e j u r y was informed of t h e t h r e a t s .
From t h e t o t a l r e c o r d of t h e c a s e , t h e l o n g - s t a n d i n g c o n t r o -
v e r s y between Heika and a p p e l l a n t and h i s f a m i l y i s c l e a r
and u n c o n t r a d i c t e d . The e v i d e n c e by t h e w i t n e s s e s t o t h e
i n c i d e n t s u b s t a n t i a t e s t h a t even d u r i n g t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n ,
t h e dog problem w a s a r g u e d .
Under t h e s e c i r o u m s t a n c e s w e h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l judge
d i d n o t a b u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n by r u l i n g t h a t r e p e t i t i o u s
testimony a s t o p r i o r t h r e a t s should be excluded a s l i k e l y
t o d i s t r a c t and m i s l e a d t h e j u r y from t h e i s s u e s a c t u a l l y
i n controversy. S e e S t a t e v. Heaston ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 1 0 9 Mont. 303,
The judgment of c o n v i c t i o n i s a f f i r m e d .
- . -
Chief J u s t i c e