NO. 81-82
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1981
STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,
MIKE SHURTLIFF,
D e f e n d a n t 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 d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f P o w e l l .
H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t Boyd, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
C. F. Mackay, Anaconda, Montana
F o r Respondent:
H o n o r a b l e Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana
Ted L. M i z n e r , County A t t o r n e y , D e e r Lodge, Montana
Submitted on b r i e f s : J u l y 1 6 , 1981
Decided: $
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B . D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
T h i s is an a p p e a l from a c o n v i c t i o n of s i m p l e a s s a u l t
in the Third Judicial District of the State of Montana,
P o w e l l C o u n t y , t h e H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t J . Boyd p r e s i d i n g . The
defendant had previously been charged, along with two
others, with t h e o f f e n s e of aggravated a s s a u l t . After the
c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e two o t h e r s w e r e d i s m i s s e d , t h e defen-
dant, after waiver of a jury trial, was found g u i l t y of
a s s a u l t u n d e r s e c t i o n 45-5-201, MCA.
During t h e evening of A p r i l 8, 1980, a guard a t t h e
Montana S t a t e P r i s o n was s t r u c k i n t h e b a c k by two handmade
darts. The i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d w h i l e he was c o n d u c t i n g t h e
9:00 p.m. c o u n t i n Lower B U n i t i n C l o s e U n i t No. One o f t h e
prison. The g u a r d was treated in the emergency room of
P o w e l l C o u n t y Memorial H o s p i t a l , and a f t e r t h e d a r t s were
e x t r a c t e d from h i s back, h e was i n o c u l a t e d f o r t e t n u s and
given a n t i b i o t i c s .
Lower B U n i t c o n s i s t s o f two f a c i n g rows o f s i x c e l l s
each. When h i t , t h e g u a r d was f a c i n g t h e row c o n t a i n i n g
c e l l s o n e t h r o u g h s i x , w i t h h i s back t o c e l l s s e v e n t h r o u g h
twelve. The d e f e n d a n t o c c u p i e d c e l l t w e l v e a t t h e t i m e o f
the attack. No o n e saw f r o m which c e l l t h e d a r t s came.
An investigation of the unit immediately a f t e r the
incident resulted i n t h e d i s c o v e r y of three plastic tubes
u s e d t o hang c l o t h e s i n s i d e t h e c e l l s . The e v i d e n c e i n d i -
cated t h a t the tubes in three c e l l s , i n c l u d i n g t h a t of the
d e f e n d a n t , were l o o s e and c a p a b l e o f b e i n g removed f r o m t h e
walls. Also, the evidence illustrated that to hit the
guard, a t u b e had t o be aimed t h r o u g h a h o l e in the c e l l
d o o r t h a t was u s e d f o r p a s s i n g m e a l s i n t o t h e c e l l .
Defendant testified that he and several other
inmates, none o f whom he c o u l d remember, were f i r i n g some
handmade darts into a box, set up in one of the cells,
minutes before the incident. At trial, i t was d e m o n s t r a t e d
that the handmade darts could be propelled for at least
f o r t y f e e t by b l o w i n g them t h r o u g h one o f t h e p l a s t i c t u b e s .
The d e f e n d a n t ' s c e l l was a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o r t y f e e t f r o m where
t h e g u a r d was s t a n d i n g when h i t .
E v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t had made two
s e p a r a t e t h r e a t s a g a i n s t t h e guard approximately t e n hours
before the incident. Further , defendant t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l
t h a t he d i d n o t l i k e t h e g u a r d .
D e f e n d a n t ' s f i n g e r p r i n t s w e r e f o u n d o n o n e o f t h e two
d a r t s which s t r u c k t h e g u a r d . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e
f i n g e r p r i n t s were on t h e d a r t b e c a u s e he sometimes handed
out the writing paper used for the dart fins to other
inmates. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f i n g e r p r i n t s may h a v e
been p l a c e d on t h e d a r t when he and t h e o t h e r i n m a t e s were
s h o o t i n g t h e d a r t s i n t o t h e box moments b e f o r e t h e i n c i d e n t .
Defendant, after waiving a jury trial, was found
guilty of assault under section 45-5-201, MCA. He was
s e n t e n c e d t o s i x months i n t h e P o w e l l C o u n t y j a i l , with the
l a s t two months s u s p e n d e d . The s e n t e n c e was t o be s e r v e d
consecutively with h i s present sentence. H e now a p p e a l s h i s
conviction.
The o n l y i s s u e on a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e pre-
sented s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t .
D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i -
dence f o r a c o n v i c t i o n . H e c i t e s e n c y c l o p e d i a law and c a s e
law t h a t i s n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d . This Court
i n S t a t e v. Duncan (1979), 1 8 1 Mont. 382, 593 P.2d 1026,
1 0 2 9 , 36 S t . R e p . 748, 751, h e l d t h a t :
"We s e t f o r t h t h e p r o p e r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w
i n c r i m i n a l bench t r i a l s i n S t a t e v. Longacre
( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 8 Mont. 3 1 1 , 3 1 3 , 542 P . 2 d 1 2 2 1 ,
1222:
" ' I t is t h e function of t h e t r i e r of t h e
facts, i n t h i s c a s e t h e t r i a l judge, to
determine t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e witnesses
and t h e w e i g h t t o b e g i v e n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y
a n d h e may p i c k a n d c h o o s e w h i c h o f t h e
w i t n e s s e s a r e t o be b e l i e v e d f r o m a c o n s i -
d e r a t i o n o f a l l of t h e e v i d e n c e . g f i ~ t a t ev .
M e d i c i n e B u l l , J r . , 1 5 2 Mont. 34#, 445 P.2d
916. On a p p e a l we s i m p l y d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e
is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e de-
f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t .
S t a t e v . S t o d d a r d , 1 4 7 Mont. 4 0 2 , 412 P.2d
8 2 7 , S t a t e v . W h i t e , 1 4 6 Mont. 226, 405 P . 2 d
761. '
"Thus, the 'substantial evidence' test
a p p l i e s t o a p p e a l s f r o m b o t h j u d g e and j u r y
convictions. Therefore, i n determining
whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o
s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l
c o u r t , t h i s C o u r t w i l l examine t h e e v i d e n c e
i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e . -ri$
S t a t e v . P a s c g o ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. 1 2 1 , -596Sbk
P . 2 d 8 0 2 , 805; S t a t e v . S t o d d a r d ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 4 7
Mont. 402, 408, 412 P . 2 d 8 2 7 , 8 3 1 . "
F u r t h e r , t h i s C o u r t h e l d i n S t a t e v. S t o d d a r d ( 1 9 6 6 ) ,
1 4 7 Mont. 402, 408, 412 P . 2 d 827, 831, that ". . . if the
r e c o r d shows a n y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e j u d g -
ment t h e p r e s u m p t i o n i s i n f a v o r o f s u c h j u d g m e n t . S t a t e v.
Robinson, 1 0 9 Mont. 322, 96 P.2d 265; S t a t e v. Cor, 144
Mont. 3 2 3 , 396 P.2d 8 6 . "
S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e means s u c h r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e a s
a reasonable man might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. S t a t e v. Merseal ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 7 Mont. 409, 416,
538 P.2d 1 3 6 4 , 1 3 6 8 ; 24A C . J . S . C r i m i n a l Law, § I 8 8 0 a t 7 9 3 .
With t h e s e rules i n mind, a review of defendant's conten-
t i o n s concerning the evidence s h a l l follow.
D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t s i n c e t h e r e was no e y e w i t n e s s
to identify the assailant, the State failed to meet its
b u r d e n of p r o o f . However, d e f e n d a n t o f f e r s no o t h e r e x p l a -
n a t i o n t h a n t h e o n e p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e and s u p p o r t e d by
the evidence .
The 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 , though circum-
stantial, was sufficient to uphold a conviction. For
e x a m p l e , d e f e n d a n t ' s f i n g e r p r i n t s w e r e on o n e o f t h e d a r t s
removed from t h e g u a r d ' s b a c k . The C a l i f o r n i a Supreme C o u r t
i n P e o p l e v . G a r d n e r ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 79 C a l . R p t r . 7 4 3 , 747, 457 P.2d
575, 579, held, " [ f l i n g e r p r i n t e v i d e n c e is t h e s t r o n g e s t
e v i d e n c e of i d e n t i t y and i s o r d i n a r i l y s u f f i c i e n t a l o n e t o
identify the defendant."
D e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t an e y e w i t n e s s is neces-
s a r y t o uphold a c o n v i c t i o n is w i t h o u t m e r i t . Indeed, the
criminal justice s y s t e m would be h a r d p r e s s e d t o have an
e y e w i t n e s s p r e s e n t a t t h e s c e n e of e v e r y c r i m e . Further, it
i s up t o t h e t r i e r o f f a c t , n o t t h i s C o u r t , t o d e t e r m i n e i f
t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e p r e s e n c e of h i s f i n g e r -
prints i s t o be believed. Again, i n Gardner, the court
held: "The j u r y i s e n t i t l e d t o draw i t s own i n f e r e n c e s a s t o
how t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i n t s came t o be on t h e bag and when
( s e e P e o p l e v . Wise, 1 9 9 Cal.App.2d 5 7 , 59-60, 18 Cal.Rptr.
3 4 3 ) and t o w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e and o p i n i o n o f the finger-
print experts." 457 P.2d a t 579.
The State introduced other evidence showing: the
d e f e n d a n t had a m o t i v e ( . e l h e t e s t i f i e d he d i s l i k e d t h e
g u a r d a n d had t h r e a t e n e d him a t l e a s t t w i c e t h e d a y o f t h e
i n c i d e n t ) ; t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c e l l was l o c a t e d b e h i n d t h e p l a c e
w h e r e t h e g u a r d was s t a n d i n g ; t h e p l a s t i c t u b e i n t h e d e f e n -
d a n t ' s c e l l was n o t s e c u r e d t o t h e w a l l ; and t h e d e f e n d a n t
knew how t o u s e t h e a p p a r a t u s . When t h i s e v i d e n c e , though
circumstantial, i s viewed i n a l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e
S t a t e , t h e r e i s no d o u b t t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n r e a c h e d by t h e
t r i e r of f a c t was a r e a s o n a b l e o n e .
I n S t a t e v. Fitzpatrick ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 220, 226,
516 P.2d 6 0 5 , 6 0 9 , we h e l d :
"To f i n d a p e r s o n g u i l t y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e
d o u b t , e a c h f a c t i n a c h a i n of c i r c u m s t a n c e s
t h a t w i l l e s t a b l i s h g u i l t need n o t be p r o v e n
beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . What m u s t be
proved is t h a t t h e r e i s n o t r e a s o n a b l e doubt
a r i s i n g from c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l t h e e v i -
dence i n t h e case. S t a t e v. Medicine B u l l ,
Jr., ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 152 Mont. 3 4 , 445 P.2d 916;
P e o p l e v . Eddy ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 1 2 3 Cal.App.2d 8 2 6 ,
268 P.2d 47, 52; P e o p l e v . K r o s s ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 1 2
Cal.App.2d 6 0 2 , 247 P.2d 4 4 , 51; P e o p l e v .
~eihert ( 1 9 5 3 ) . 1 1 7 Cal.App.2d 410, 256 P.2d
3 5 5 , 362."
F i n a l l y , defendant argues t h a t t h e only evidence t h e
State used to convict was circumstantial in nature. In
S t a t e v. Cor ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 144 Mont. 323, 326-327, 396 P.2d 86,
88, t h i s Court held:
"Circumstantial evidence is not always
i n f e r i o r i n q u a l i t y n o r is i t n e c e s s a r i l y
r e l e g a t e d t o a 'second c l a s s s t a t u s ' i n t h e
c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o be g i v e n i t . The v e r y f a c t
i t is c i r c u m s t a n t i a l is n o t a s u f f i c i e n t
a l l e g a t i o n t o j u s t i f y a r e v e r s a l of t h e
judgment f o r s u c h e v i d e n c e may be and f r e -
q u e n t l y i s , m o s t c o n v i n c i n g and s a t i s f a c t o r y .
I n any c r i m i n a l c a s e , e v i d e n c e t h a t is
m a t e r i a l , r e l e v a n t and c o m p e t e n t w i l l be
a d m i t t e d , ' n o t h i n g more and n o t h i n g l e s s . '
The test is whether the facts and
c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e of such a q u a l i t y and
quantity as t o legally justify a jury in
d e t e r m i n i n g g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t .
I f s u c h be t h e c a s e , t h e n t h e c o u r t s h o u l d
not, indeed c a n n o t , s e t a s i d e t h e solemn
f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i ' e r of t h e f a c t s . "
I t i s c l e a r t h a t a c o n v i c t i o n may r e s t on c i r c u m s t a n -
t i a l e v i d e n c e a s e a s i l y a s i t r e s t s on d i r e c t e v i d e n c e .
The S t a t e met i t s burden of p r o o f , and t h e judgment
of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
W concur:
e
c-4 Chief J u s t i e