State v. Doney

Summarize Case

Related Cases

No. 81-70 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 , VS . DENNIS VIRGIL DONEY, 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 Court of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e County o f H i l l H o n o r a b l e B. W. Thomas, 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: M o r r i s o n , E t t i e n and B a r r o n , H a v r e , Montana C h r i s R. Young a r g u e d , Havre, Montana F o r Respondent: Hon. 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 S h e r i Sprigg argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, H e l e n a , Montana Ronald W. S m i t h , County A t t o r n e y , H a v r e , Montana David R i c e a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , H a v r e , Montana Submitted: September 1 8 , 1 9 8 1 Decided : @2 0 ig8f Filed :DCT 2 0 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber 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 . A f t e r t r i a l b y j u r y , d e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d i n t h e T w e l f t h ~ u d i c i a lD i s t r i c t C o u r t , H i l l C o u n t y , of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t and a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y . He appeals the conviction. We affirm. The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s are p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r review: 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l . 2. W h e t h e r 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 to o v e r - t u r n t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t of n o t g u i l t y of a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e , b u t g u i l t y of t h e lesser i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t and g u i l t y o f a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y . 3. W h e t h e r t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o commit C t h e d e f e n d a n t to t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e d i r e c t o r o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t of Institutions. On F e b r u a r y 1 7 1980 s h o r t l y af ter midnight, t h r e e per- s o n s e n t e r e d t h e P a r k Hotel i n H a v r e . One o f them, t h e d e f e n d a n t , w e a r i n g a l o n g , d a r k coat and a d a r k w e s t e r n h a t , became a b u s i v e t o t h e n i g h t c l e r k who s a i d t h e r e were no rooms. H e s t r a d d l e d h e r c h a i r , r e p e a t e d l y p u s h i n g h e r down, t h r e a t e n i n g h e r and a c c u s i n g h e r o f h a t i n g I n d i a n s . The c l e r k s a i d i f he harmed h e r , t h e p o l i c e would c a t c h him. The d e f e n d a n t r e p l i e d t h a t h e c o u l d be a c r o s s t h e b o r d e r b e f o r e t h e p o l i c e knew w h a t happened. H e t h e n g r a b b e d t h e n i g h t c l e r k ' s hand and a t t e m p t e d t o remove h e r r i n g ; when he c o u l d n o t , he t o o k o u t a p o c k e t k n i f e , t h r e a t e n e d t o g e t t h e r i n g b y c u t t i n g o f f h e r f i n g e r , and p r e s s e d t h e b l a d e a g a i n s t h e r f i n g e r , l e a v i n g a w h i t e mark. The n i g h t c l e r k f i n a l l y managed t o r i s e whereupon t h e d e f e n d a n t s e i z e d h e r b y t h e s h o u l d e r and s t a b b e d h e r o n c e i n t h e abdomen, i n £ l i c t i n g a wound t h a t r e q u i r e d s e v e r a l d a y s 1 h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n . When a n e l d e r l y woman a p p r o a c h e d and o r d e r e d t h e d e f e n d a n t to " L e t t h a t g i r l a l o n e ," he t u r n e d t o w a r d h e r , and t h e n i g h t c l e r k fled. She r e t u r n e d w i t h h e l p , b u t h e r a s s a i l a n t had f l e d . The n i g h t c l e r k r e c a l l e d t h e d e f e n d a n t had worn a " s m i r k y s m i l e " d u r i n g t h e a t t a c k , and o n c e , when s h e g l a n c e d a t h i s e y e s , t h e y appeared "glassy". The f o l l o w i n g a f t e r n o o n , d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d i n t h e G r e a t F a l l s b u s d e p o t and r e t u r n e d to H a v r e , where he w a s c h a r g e d w i t h a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y and a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e . D e f e n d a n t i n d i c a t e d h i s i n t e n t i o n to r e l y on t h e d e f e n s e t h a t , d u e t o m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t , and d u e to h i s i n t o x i c a t e d and d r u g g e d c o n d i t i o n , he was i n c a p a b l e of f o r m i n g t h e r e q u i s i t e men- t a l state. H e was s u b s e q u e n t l y t e s t e d and examined b y a psycho- l o g i s t and a p s y c h i a t r i s t . T r i a l was h e l d November 2 0 , 1 9 8 0 . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i n t h e t h r e e or f o u r d a y s p r i o r to t h e i n c i d e n t , in Great F a l l s , Harlem and H a v r e , he had had a l m o s t no s l e e p , b u t had b e e n d r i n k i n g s t e a d i l y and i n j e c t i n g " s p e e d " . H e a l s o c l a i m e d to h a v e smoked o n e " a n g e l d u s t " , or PCP-soaked, cigarette in Harlem the a f t e r n o o n p r e c e d i n g t h e i n c i d e n t , w h i l e h i s g i r l f r i e n d was i n Dodson. H e c l a i m e d t o h a v e smoked p a r t o f a n o t h e r " a n g e l d u s t " c i g a r e t t e i n Havre w i t h i n a few h o u r s b e f o r e t h e a t t a c k upon t h e night clerk. D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had no r e c o l l e c t i o n of t h e a t t a c k , o r e v e n of b e i n g i n t h e P a r k Hotel. H e s a i d he b l a c k e d o u t a f t e r l e a v i n g a b a r and came to some t i m e l a t e r , many b l o c k s away. D e f e n d a n t ' s g i r l f r i e n d and companion a t t h e t i m e of t h e P a r k Hotel i n c i d e n t c o r r o b o r a t e d h i s t e s t i m o n y to some e x t e n t . She r e c a l l e d t h e s l e e p l e s s d a y s and n i g h t s , t h e h e a v y d r i n k i n g and t h e c o n s u m p t i o n of s p e e d and o t h e r d r u g s . But s h e d i d n o t r e c a l l d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i n g o r m e n t i o n i n g PCP; n o r d i d s h e r e c a l l g o i n g t o Dodson w h i l e d e f e n d a n t r e m a i n e d i n H a r l e m , t h e a f t e r n o o n of February 1 6 , 1980. She d i d r e c a l l d e f e n d a n t ' s b e i n g " r e a l l y m e l l o w " and " n o t hyped up" i m m e d i a t e l y p r i o r t o h i s a s s a u l t upon t h e n i g h t c l e r k . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t when t h e c l e r k t o l d d e f e n d a n t s h e had no rooms, he assumed i t was b e c a u s e h e was an I n d i a n and a s k e d h e r , a w h i t e g i r l , to go i n and a s k i f t h e r e were rooms. I t was a f t e r t h e c l e r k t o l d t h e g i r l t h e r e were no rooms t h a t t h e a s s a u l t o c c u r r e d . Defendant's g i r l f r i e n d d i d n o t h e a r him t h r e a t e n t h e n i g h t c l e r k ' s l i f e ; i n d e e d , t h e o n l y p e r s o n who t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t had t h r e a t e n e d to k i l l the night clerk was the night clerk herself. The p s y c h o l o g i s t , D r . S t i n e f o r d , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had e x a m i n e d d e f e n d a n t a t f o u r d i f f e r e n t times and a d m i n i s t e r e d s i x t e s t s d e s i g n e d t o d e t e r m i n e I Q , b r a i n damage and e m o t i o n a l / p s y c h o l o g i c a l p a t t e r n s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e s u b j e c t . The t e s t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a s a n o r m a l I Q and n o a p p a r e n t b r a i n damage, b u t t h a t he d o e s h a v e a t e n d e n c y toward d e p r e s s i o n , h o s t i l e acting-out o f f e e l i n g s , and con£ l i c t w i t h a u t h o r i t y . The r e s u l t s of one t e s t , a s e q u e n t i a l - p i c t u r e - a r r a n g e m e n t test, on w h i c h d e f e n d a n t ' s p e r f o r m a n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e l o w a v e r a g e ( 17th percentile), led Dr. S t i n e f o r d to c o n c l u d e t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a s a " s p e c i f i c d e f i c i t " i n a b i l i t y to a n t i c i p a t e t h e c o n s e q u e n - ces o f h i s own b e h a v i o r . This d e f i c i t could r e s u l t i n d e f e n d a n t ' s i n a b i l i t y to h a v e a c o n s c i o u s o b j e c t t o e n g a g e i n c o n d u c t w i t h an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of i t s p r o b a b l e r e s u l t s , p a r - t i c u l a r l y i n f a i r l y complex s i t u a t i o n s . Dr. S t i n e f o r d conceded t h a t h i s c o n c l u s i o n s d i d n o t t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e f a c t s of t h i s case. As a r e s u l t , Dr. S t i n e f o r d d i d n o t e x p r e s s a n o p i n i o n as t o w h e t h e r or n o t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a b l e to a n t i c i p a t e t h e con- s e q u e n c e s o f h i s a s s a u l t on t h e h o t e l c l e r k . When a s k e d to e x p r e s s a n o p i n i o n on t h e e f f e c t of d r u g s upon t h e a c t i o n s of t h e defendant, Dr. S t i n e f o r d a d m i t t e d t h a t , b e c a u s e of " t h e l a c k o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e e x a c t d r u g s , t h e amount of d r u g s t a k e n i n t o Mr. D o n e y ' s p e r s o n , w i t h o u t a b l o o d t e s t and a s c a n to v e r i f y t h a t h e t o o k a n y d r u g s a t a l l , a d e f i n i t e o p i n i o n b a s e d on s c i e n t i f i c e v i d e n c e , f o r m e , is n o t p o s s i b l e .I1 Dr. E a r l e , a p s y c h i a t r i s t who examined d e f e n d a n t , i s fami- l i a r w i t h PCP/angel d u s t . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d r u g ' s c l i n i c a l u s e as a n a n e s t h e t i c was d i s c o n t i n u e d b e c a u s e i t sometimes c a u s e d s u d d e n , u n p r e d i c t a b l e e p i s o d e s of v i o l e n t and d e s t r u c t i v e b e h a v i o r , d u r i n g which p a t i e n t s c o u l d act w i t h o u t a c o n s c i o u s o b j e c t and w i t h o u t a w a r e n e s s o f t h e i r c o n d u c t . He concluded t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s b i z a r r e , v i o l e n t c o n d u c t and h i s " g l a s s y " e y e s were s u g g e s t i v e o f a n g e l d u s t , and t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y c o u p l e d w i t h h i s b e h a v i o r i n d i c a t e d a " r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y " t h a t PCP w a s involved. Dr. Earle c o n c e d e d t h a t s u c h b e h a v i o r c o u l d a l s o b e r e l a t e d t o l a c k o f s l e e p , t h e u s e o f a l c o h o l , and a n a n t i - social personality. H e a d m i t t e d t h a t h e had no t e s t r e s u l t s and n o e v i d e n c e o t h e r t h a n d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y and b e h a v i o r to i n d i c a t e t h a t d e f e n d a n t had t a k e n PCP. A f t e r some n e g o t i a t i o n , t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s were a c c e p t e d w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n by e i t h e r s i d e . D e f e n d a n t moved f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e " u n c o n t r o v e r t e d " e v i d e n c e of d e f e n d a n t ' s mental d e f e c t and d r u g i n t o x i c a t i o n a t t h e t i m e t h e o f f e n s e was com- m i t t e d showed t h a t d e f e n d a n t was i n c a p a b l e o f f o r m i n g t h e r e q u i s i t e mental state. The c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e was s u f - f i c i e n t d i s a g r e e m e n t as t o d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l s t a t e t o j u s t i f y s e n d i n g t h e matter t o t h e j u r y . D e f e n d a n t t h e n e n t e r e d a n o b j e c t i o n to t h e v e r d i c t f o r m s o f f e r e d t o the jury. The c o u r t found t h a t t h e j u r y would be ade- q u a t e l y i n s t r u c t e d and t h e v e r d i c t f o r m s would g i v e them t h e p r o p e r a l t e r n a t i v e s to c o n s i d e r . The j u r y found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y and n o t g u i l t y of a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide, b u t g u i l t y of t h e lesser i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . S u b s e q u e n t l y d e f e n d a n t moved f o r a new t r i a l and a l t e r n a - t i v e l y f o r judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t . The m o t i o n s were d e n i e d . Defendant t h e n requested t h a t t h e c o u r t , i n c o n s i d e r i n g w h e t h e r t o add to t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e u n d e r t h e p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y and m a n d a t o r y minimum s e n t e n c e s t a t u t e s , t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a i r m e n t of d e f e n d a n t t s m e n t a l c a p a c i t y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e crime. The d e f e n - d a n t a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e c o u r t commit him b e c a u s e of h i s men- t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t , as p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n s 46-14-311 and 46-14-3121 MCA. The c o u r t d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t t h a t he be committed. J u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d o n December 8 , 1 9 8 0 , s e n t e n c i n g d e f e n - d a n t t o t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n f o r two t e n - y e a r terms to be served concurrently. The m a n d a t o r y minimum s e n t e n c e s f o r p e r - s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r and o f f e n s e i n v o l v i n g u s e o f a d a n g e r o u s weapon were s u s p e n d e d and w i t h h e l d r e s p e c t i v e l y p u r s u a n t to t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 46-18-222( 2 ) , MCA, b a s e d upon t h e c o u r t t s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l c a p a c i t y a t t h e t i m e of t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e o f f e n s e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y i m p a i r e d a l t h o u g h n o t so i m p a i r e d as t o c o n s t i t u t e a d e f e n s e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n and h i s s e n t e n c e to t h i s Court. The f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d b y d e f e n d a n t is w h e t h e r t h e District Court e r r e d i n denying h i s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t of acquittal. D e f e n d a n t r e l i e s p r i m a r i l y upon s e c t i o n 46-14-102, MCA, which s t a t e s : " E v i d e n c e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s u f f e r e d from a m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t is a d m i s s i b l e w h e n e v e r i t is r e l e - v a n t t o p r o v e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d or d i d n o t h a v e a s t a t e o f mind which is a n e l e m e n t o f t h e o f f e n s e .'I a n d s e c t i o n 45-2-203, MCA, which s t a t e s i n r e l e v a n t p a r t : " ... An i n t o x i c a t e d or d r u g g e d c o n d i t i o n may be taken into consideration i n determining the existence o f a m e n t a l s t a t e which is a n e l e m e n t o f t h e offense ." Defendant m a i n t a i n s t h a t D r . Stineford I s testimony proved defen- d a n t s u f f e r e d from a m e n t a l d e f e c t which p r e c l u d e d h i s f o r m i n g t h e r e q u i s i t e m e n t a l s t a t e and D r . Earlets testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t a c t e d u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f PCP, w i t h o u t c o n s c i o u s p u r p o s e or a w a r e n e s s . A c c o r d i n g to d e f e n d a n t , when t h e S t a t e r e s t e d i t s case w i t h o u t a n s w e r i n g t h e e x p e r t s o r r e b u t t i n g t h e i r p r o o f o f d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l d e f e c t and h i s d r u g g e d , p s y c h o - t i c s t a t e , it f a i l e d to meet i t s b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g m e n t a l s t a t e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . Defendant a r g u e s t h a t because he r a i s e d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t a b o u t m e n t a l s t a t e , which was " u n c o n t r o v e r t e d " b y f u r t h e r 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 , d e f e n d a n t was e n t i t l e d t o a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t o f a c q u i t t a l , and t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n denying h i s motion f o r such d i r e c t e d verdict . We disagree. I n e f f e c t d e f e n d a n t is a r g u i n g t h a t t h e j u d g e m u s t make a f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e h a s f a i l e d t o p r o v e a n e l e m e n t o f e a c h o f t h e crimes c h a r g e d beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , a n d , i f he so f i n d s , t h a t h e m u s t t a k e t h e c a s e away from t h e j u r y and a c q u i t t h e d e f e n d a n t . T h i s is n o t t h e l a w i n Montana. This Court has r e p e a t e d l y s t a t e d t h a t i n c r i m i n a l cases a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t or m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s s h o u l d o n l y be g i v e n w h e r e t h e r e is no e v i d e n c e on which a j u r y c o u l d b a s e a conviction. S t a t e v White (1980) Mon t . , 6 0 5 P.2d 1 9 1 , 194-1951 37 S t . R e p . 8 4 , 8 8 ; S t a t e v. Thompson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 1 5 0 , 1 5 5 , 576 P.2d 1105, 1108. The d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a n a c q u i t t a l i f r e a s o n a b l e men c o u l d n o t c o n c l u d e from t h e e v i d e n c e t a k e n 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 p r o s e c u t i o n t h a t g u i l t h a s b e e n p r o v e n beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . S t a t e v . W h i t e Water (Cause No. 81-112, d e c i d e d O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1 9 8 1 ) ; S t a t e v. P e r e z ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 2 6 Mont. 1 5 , 1 8 , 2 4 3 P.2d 3 0 9 , 310-311. The d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r t o g r a n t a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s l i e s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , s e c t i o n 46-16-403, MCA, and w i l l b e d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l o n l y when a b u s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n is shown. W h i t e Water, s u p r a ; S t a t e v. Hart ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mon t . f 6 2 5 P.2d 2 1 , 2 8 , 38 S t . R e p . 1 3 3 , 1 3 9 ; S t a t e v. S m i t h ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mon t . 609 P.2d 6 9 6 , 6 9 8 , 37 S t . R e p . 5 8 3 , 586. Nor is a j u r o r r e q u i r e d t o a c c e p t as t r u e t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a n e x p e r t , e v e n @ though t h a t t e s t i m o n y is u n r e b u t t e d . The w e i g h t to be g i v e n t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e e x p e r t w i t n e s s , and t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s u c h t e s t i m o n y is f o r t h e j u r y . S t a t e v. Hardy ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mon t . I 6 0 4 P.2d 7 9 2 , 7 9 6 , 37 S t . R e p . 1, 5 ; S t a t e v. O I D o n n e l l ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 5 9 Mont. 1 3 8 , 1 4 4 , 496 P.2d 2 9 9 , 303. I n t h i s case w h i l e b o t h e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s p r e s e n t e d t e s t i - mony w h i c h c o u l d h a v e l e d t h e j u r y to f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was i n c a p a b l e o f f o r m i n g t h e r e q u i s i t e m e n t a l s t a t e , t h e y so q u a l i f i e d t h e i r t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e j u r y c o u l d w e l l have d i s r e - g a r d e d it. Both e x p e r t s s t a t e d t h e y had n o way o f knowing how much PCP o r o t h e r d r u g s ( i f a n y ) t h e d e f e n d a n t had i n g e s t e d . Dr. S t i n e f o r d d i d n o t s t a t e t h a t h i s t e s t s p r o v e d d e f e n d a n t was i n c a - p a b l e of a n t i c i p a t i n g t h e consequences of h i s conduct , o n l y t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t 1s p o o r p e r f o r m a n c e i n a s i n g l e p i c t u r e - s e q u e n c e - a r r a n g e m e n t t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e would p r o b a b l y h a v e d i f f i c u l t y a n t i c i p a t i n g c o n s e q u e n c e s i n complex s e q u e n c e s . Dr. Earle a d m i t t e d t h a t any of s e v e r a l o t h e r f a c t o r s i n c l u d i n g s l e e p l e s s n e s s , d r u n k e n n e s s o r an a n t i - s o c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n could have l e d to d e f e n d a n t ' s v i o l e n t o u t b u r s t a g a i n s t t h e n i g h t c l e r k . W e d o n o t f i n d t h e q u a l i f i e d and e q u i v o c a l t e s t i m o n y o f the experts warrants a directed verdict. N o r was t h a t t e s t i m o n y " u n c o n t r o v e r t e d " as c l a i m e d b y d e f e n d a n t . T h e r e was ample t e s t i - mony from w h i c h t h e j u r y c o u l d h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t had n o t t a k e n PCP o r was n o t e x p e r i e n c i n g a PCP-induced violent spell. D e f e n d a n t ' s g i r l f r i e n d c o u l d r e c a l l n o m e n t i o n o f PCP, a 1t h o u g h s h e seemed t o h a v e known a b o u t , e v e n s h a r e d , the other d r u g s he had t a k e n . She d i d n o t remember t a k i n g a s i d e t r i p to Dodson and l e a v i n g d e f e n d a n t i n H a r l e m w h e r e , a c c o r d i n g to him, h e smoked PCP i n h e r a b s e n c e . T h e r e w a s a l s o e v i d e n c e from which t h e j u r y c o u l d h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was f u l l y r a t i o n a l a n d aware o f h i s c o n d u c t . The g i r l f r i e n d remembered d e f e n d a n t 1s a s k i n g - t o a s k f o r a room a f t e r he had b e e n r e f u s e d , to see i f her t h e c l e r k had d e n i e d him a room b e c a u s e he was a n I n d i a n . The n i g h t c l e r k r e c a l l e d d e f e n d a n t ' s s a y i n g he c o u l d g e t across t h e b o r d e r t o Canada b e f o r e t h e p o l i c e knew w h a t had h a p p e n e d . I n l i g h t o f t h e o b v i o u s m a t e r i a l q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t which were u n r e s o l v e d , and t h e b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , we f i n d t h a t t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t ' s d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s C m o t i o n f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t was e n t i r e l y p r o p e r . The s e c o n d i s s u e r a i s e d b y d e f e n d a n t is w h e t h e r 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 to o v e r t u r n t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t o f n o t g u i l t y of a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide b u t g u i l t y of t h e l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t and g u i l t y o f attempted robbery. Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e w a s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t to s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t . H e r e l i e s upon t h e claim t h a t b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t had p r o v e n h i s i n a b i l i t y to form t h e n e c e s s a r y m e n t a l s t a t e by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of e v i d e n c e ( i .e., c o n v i n c i n g " u n c o n t r o v e r t e d " e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y ) i t was i n c u m b e n t upon t h e S t a t e t o o v e r c o m e t h e e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t b y p r o v i n g h i s s a n i t y o r c a p a c i t y , as w e l l as t h e e x i s t e n c e of m e n t a l s t a t e , beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . I n t h e f i r s t p l a c e , as w e h a v e s t a t e d a b o v e , t h e e x p e r t e v i d e n c e was n e i t h e r c o n v i n c i n g n o r u n c o n t r o v e r t e d ; n o r w a s t h e j u r y r e q u i r e d t o g i v e it more w e i g h t t h a n a n y o t h e r t e s t i m o n y . D e f e n d a n t s i m p l y d i d n o t c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h t h a t he s u f f e r e d from a m e n t a l d e f e c t or was s o d r u g g e d or i n t o x i c a t e d a s to be i n c a p a b l e o f forming t h e n e c e s s a r y mental s t a t e . I t is f o r t h e j u r y to d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e h a s p r o v e n e a c h o f t h e e l e m e n t s of t h e crimes c h a r g e d beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , u n l e s s t h e r e is no e v i - d e n c e upon which t h e y c a n b a s e a c o n v i c t i o n , which is c e r t a i n l y n o t t h e case h e r e . I n t h e s e c o n d p l a c e , t h e j u r y w a s f u l l y i n s t r u c t e d o n (1) t h e S t a t e ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to p r o v e e a c h and e v e r y e l e m e n t of e a c h crime c h a r g e d beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ; ( 2) the jury's duty t o a c q u i t t h e d e f e n d a n t i f they e n t e r t a i n e d any r e a s o n a b l e doubt upon a n y f a c t o r e l e m e n t n e c e s s a r y to c o n s t i t u t e t h e crime c h a r g e d ; and ( 3 ) t h e f a c t t h a t no b u r d e n o f p r o o f or d i s p r o o f w i t h r e s p e c t t o a n y e l e m e n t o f t h e o f f e n s e s c h a r g e d rests upon t h e defendant. I t is s u f f i c i e n t t h a t t h e S t a t e p r o v e beyond a reaso- n a b l e d o u b t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e m e n t a l s t a t e t h a t is a n e s s e n - t i a l e l e m e n t of each o f t h e o f f e n s e s c h a r g e d . Implicit in the j u r y ' s c o n v i c t i o n is i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t p o s s e s s e d t h e r e q u i s i t e m e n t a l s t a t e , and t h e r e f o r e had t h e c a p a c i t y to form t h a t mental state. The S t a t e h a s m e t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of Montana l a w . C l e a r l y , t h e j u r y decided t h a t , i n l i g h t of a l l t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e S t a t e had m e t i t s b u r d e n o f p r o o f as to a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y and a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t b u t n o t a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e hom i c i d e . The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t and t h i s C o u r t h a v e b o t h s t a t e d t h a t a c o n v i c t i o n c a n n o t be o v e r t u r n e d when t h e e v i d e n c e , v i e w e d i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , would allow any r a t i o n a l trier of f a c t t o f i n d t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . J a c k s o n v. v i r g i n i a ( 1 9 7 9 1 , 4 4 3 U.S. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 99 S e c t . 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 , 6 1 L.Ed.2d 560, 573. S e e a l s o S t a t e v. R o d r i p e z ( 1 9 8 1 ) Mon t . , 628 P.2d 2 8 0 , 2 8 3 , 38 S t - R e p . 578F1 5 7 8 1 ; S t a t e v. B r u b a k e r ( 1 9 8 1 ) Mont . 6 2 5 P.2d 7 8 , 8 1 , 38 S t . R e p . 4 3 2 , 436. On a p p e a l t h i s C o u r t v i e w s 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 to t h e p r e - v a i l i n g p a r t y ( t h e S t a t e ) i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , S t a t e v. P a s c g o ( 1 9 7 7 ) t 1 7 3 Mont. 1 2 1 , 1 2 5 , 566 P.2d 802, 805. W e f i n d t h a t t h e r e w a s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e , f u l l y sup- p o r t e d by a d e q u a t e i n s t r u c t i o n s , f o r t h e j u r y r e a s o n a b l y to con- v i c t the defendant. The s e c o n d r e a s o n d e f e n d a n t g i v e s i n s u p p o r t o f i t s c h a r g e t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d i n denying a judgment not- w i t h s t a n d i n g v e r d i c t o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , a new t r i a l , is t h a t t h e v e r d i c t s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t , i r r e c o n c i l a b l e and c o n t r a r y to l a w . Defendant maintains t h a t the o n l y p o s s i b l e reason f o r a c q u i t t a l on t h e c h a r g e of a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide w a s t h e jury's f i n d i n g t h a t d u e t o m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t , and h i s d r u g g e d , i n t o x i c a t e d c o n d i t i o n , d e f e n d a n t was i n c a p a b l e of f o r m i n g t h e m e n t a l s t a t e , p r o o f o f which is e s s e n t i a l to conviction. According to d e f e n d a n t , t h i s f i n d i n g s h o u l d p r e c l u d e c o n v i c t i o n o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t and a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y s i n c e a1 1 t h e a c t s o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e time t h a t d e f e n d a n t was d r u g g e d , and h i s m e n t a l d e f e c t is a c o n t i n u i n g d i s a b i l i t y . The q u e s t i o n o f i n c o n s i s t e n c y o f v e r d i c t s is c o m p l i c a t e d b y t h e c o u r t 1s r e f u s a l ( o v e r d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n ) o f a v e r d i c t f o r m w h i c h s t a t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was found n o t g u i l t y o f a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e d u e t o m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t , was b u t - found g u i l t y of t h e lesser i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of a g g r a v a t e d assault. D e f e n d a n t had a r g u e d t h a t , w i t h o u t t h i s v e r d i c t f o r m , i f t h e j u r y a c q u i t t e d d e f e n d a n t of a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide b u t c o n v i c t e d him o f t h e lesser i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t ( a s u l t i m a t e l y t h e y d i d ) t h e r e would be no way o f knowing t h e reason f o r the a c q u i t t a l . S e c t i o n 46-14-201(2), MCA, provides: "When t h e d e f e n d a n t is a c q u i t t e d o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t d u e t o a m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t he c o u l d n o t h a v e a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e o f mind t h a t is a n e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d , t h e v e r d i c t and t h e j u d g m e n t s h a l l so s t a t e . " D e f e n d a n t now a r g u e s t h a t h i s p r o o f o f i r r e c o n c i l a b l e v e r d i c t s i s hampered b y h i s and t h e c o u r t ' s i g n o r a n c e o f t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e v e r d i c t o f n o t g u i l t y o f d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e , and t h e r e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t 1s m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t notwithstanding verdict or, alternatively, f o r a new t r i a l . W agree with defendant t h a t the jury's reasons f o r e f i n d i n g d e f e n d a n t n o t g u i l t y of attempted d e l i b e r a t e homicide m i g h t h a v e b e e n c l e a r e r had t h e a b o v e v e r d i c t form b e e n i n c l u d e d with the others. W e do n o t a g r e e t h a t its m i s s i o n p r e j u d i c e s t h e d e f e n d a n t so as to r e q u i r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t j u d g e t o o v e r - t u r n t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t or g r a n t a new t r i a l . "The t e s t f o r d e c l a r i n g a m i s t r i a l was s t a t e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n u n i t e d S t a t e s v. P e r e z ( 1 8 2 4 ) , 22 U.S. ( 9 W h e a t . ) 579, 5 8 0 , 6 L.Ed 1 6 5 : " ' t h e law h a s i n v e s t e d C o u r t s of j u s t i c e w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t y t o d i s c h a r g e a j u r y from g i v i n g a n y v e r d i c t , whenever, i n t h e i r o p i n i o n , t a k i n g a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e r e is a m a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e a c t , o r t h e ends of p u b l i c j u s t i c e would o t h e r w i s e be d e f e a t e d . They are to e x e r c i s e a s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n on t h e s u b j e c t ... [ T l h e power o u g h t t o be used w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t c a u t i o n , u n d e r causes; ... u r g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and f o r v e r y p l a i n and o b v i o u s I 11 S t a t e v. Close ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. I 6 2 3 P.2d 9 4 0 , 945-46, 38 S t . R e p . 1 7 7 , 1 8 3 . Our f u n c t i o n on a p p e a l is to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n n o t g r a n t i n g a mistrial. United S t a t e s v . J o r n ( 1 9 7 1 1 , 400 U.S. 470, 9 1 S.Ct. 5 4 7 , 27 L.Ed.2d 543; S t a t e v . Close, 6 2 3 P.2d a t 9 4 6 , 38 S t . R e p . a t 183. I f the circumstances reasonably j u s t i f y the v e r d i c t , t h i s C o u r t m u s t assume t h e e x i s t e n c e o f e v e r y f a c t which t h e j u r y r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d h a v e d e d u c e d from a l l t h e e v i d e n c e . S t a t e v. Meader ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mon t . 6 0 1 P.2d 386, 392, 36 St.Rep. 1747, 1755. Here, t h e v e r d i c t o f n o t g u i l t y o f a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e c o u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d from t h e f a i l u r e of t h e S t a t e to make i t s p r o o f as w e l l as from t h e s u c c e s s o f t h e d e f e n s e of m e n t a l disease or defect. No one b u t t h e n i g h t c l e r k t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t t h r e a t e n e d h e r l i f e ; i n d e e d d e f e n d a n t ' s g i r l f r i e n d and t h e e l d e r l y l a d y b o t h t e s t i f i e d to n o t h e a r i n g s u c h a t h r e a t . The k n i f e was s m a l l , t h e wound n o t major. The j u r y r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h e S t a t e p r o v e d beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t d e f e n d a n t m e a n t to f r i g h t e n and i n j u r e t h e n i g h t c l e r k , b u t n o t t h a t h e m e a n t to k i l l h e r . I n a d d i t i o n , even i f the j u r y d i d find defendant not g u i l t y o f a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e d u e t o m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t , t h e v e r d i c t s are n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n c o n s i s t e n t , f o r t h e j u r y c o u l d h a v e b e l i e v e d d e f e n d a n t c a p a b l e of a n t i c i p a t i n g t h a t h i s a c t i o n s would c a u s e f e a r and i n j u r y , b u t i n c a p a b l e o f a n t i c i p a t i n g t h a t t h e y might cause death. T h e r e is case l a w i n Montana w h i c h , w h i l e b a s e d o n e a r l i e r law, is r e l e v a n t to t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r a j u r y c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y h a v e c o n c l u d e d d e f e n d a n t was p r e c l u d e d b y m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t f r o m f o r m u l a t i n g a c o n s c i o u s p u r p o s e to k i l l , y e t was s t i l l c a p a b l e o f f o r m u l a t i n g a c o n s c i o u s p u r p o s e to f r i g h t e n or injure. I n S t a t e v. McKenzie ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mon t . I 6 0 8 P.2d 428, 4 5 3 , 37 S t . R e p . 325, 351, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "The p r e s c r i b e d m e n t a l s t a t e o f ' p u r p o s e l y or k n o w i n g l y v a p p l i e s t o e a c h e l e m e n t o f t h e crime o f d e l i b e r a t e homicide. S e c t i o n 9 4 - 2 - 1 0 3 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 . To be g u i l t y o f d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e , t h e r e f o r e , o n e m u s t e i t h e r h a v e t h e p u r p o s e to k i l l o r know t h a t it was h i g h l y p r o b a b l e t h a t h i s a c t i o n s would r e s u l t i n t h e d e a t h o f a n o t h e r human b e i n g . W h i l e l e g a l i n s a n i t y would h a v e c o m p l e t e l y e x o n e r a t e d d e f e n d a n t from r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h i s c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t , t h e d i m i n i s h e d c a p a c i t y d e f e n s e c o u l d be u s e d i n a c r i m i n a l h o m i c i d e case to show, f o r e x a m p l e ... t h a t a l t h o u g h d e f e n d a n t knew t h e n a t u r e and q u a l i t y of t h e act ( t h e a s s a u l t .. .) and knew t h a t i t was w r o n g v a n d so w a s n o t i r r e s p o n s i b l e u n d e r t h e l e g a l i n s a n i t y t e s t , ' h e l a c k e d m e n t a l c a p a c i t y to form t h e i n t e n t to k i l l ... A defendant then, due --e i n t e n t t o c o m m i t c r i m i n a l h o m i c i d e , m l g h t b e Z n g th -- t o m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t p r e c i u d i n g him f r o m f o r - found g u i l t y - - - r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f of the - rG vated assault. S e e , S t a t e v. Booth ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 3 0 0 r . A p p . 3 5 1 , 567 P.2d 5 5 9 , 561-62." (Emphasis added. ) W e are u n w i l l i n g to s e c o n d - g u e s s the jury in these factual matters. T h e r e w a s ample e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t a n y o f s e v e r a l f i n - d i n g s which would h a v e r e s u l t e d i n t h e v e r d i c t r e n d e r e d , w i t h o u t inconsistency. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t vs m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g v e r - d i c t o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , f o r a new t r i a l . The t h i r d i s s u e i s w h e t h e r 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 c o m m i t t h e d e f e n d a n t t o t h e c u s t o d y of t h e d i r e c t o r o f t h e Department of I n s t i t u t i o n s . The s t a t u t e s g o v e r n i n g c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c i n g r e f e r to s e v e r a l l e v e l s o f m e n t a l i m p a i r m e n t , e a c h o f which allows f o r d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n t of a defendant. Because t h e s e s t a t u t e s are e a s i l y c o n f u s e d i n t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n , and b e c a u s e t h i s case i n v o l v e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of s e v e r a l of them, we w i l l d i s c u s s them now: 1) A d e f e n d a n t who was d e m o n s t r a b l y and i n c o n t e s t a b l y i n c a p a b l e o f h a v i n g t h e m e n t a l s t a t e which is a n e l e m e n t o f t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d , w h e t h e r b e c a u s e of m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t ( s e c t i o n 46-14-1021 MCA) or b e c a u s e o f h i s i n t o x i c a t e d o r d r u g g e d c o n d i t i o n ( s e c t i o n 45-2-203, MCA) , may n o t be c o n v i c t e d o f t h e o f f e n s e charged. The S t a t e h a s f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f m e n t a l s t a t e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . A d e f e n d a n t who is a c q u i t t e d o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t , d u e t o a m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t , he c o u l d n o t h a v e a m e n t a l s t a t e which i s a n e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d , s h a l l be com- m i t t e d by c o u r t o r d e r to t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of Warm Springs S t a t e Hospital. S e c t i o n 46-14-301, MCA. This s e c t i o n , w h i c h is m a n d a t o r y i n w o r d i n g , d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e w h a t t h e c o u r t m u s t d o when a d e f e n d a n t c h a r g e d w i t h s e v e r a l crimes i s a c q u i t t e d o f o n e o r more crimes d u e t o m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t , b u t i s c o n v i c t e d o f o n e or more crimes p u n i s h a b l e by imprisonment. I f we c o n c l u d e t h a t e v e r y p a r t i a l a c q u i t t a l a t t r i - b u t a b l e t o m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t m a n d a t e s commitment t o W a r m S p r i n g s , t r i a l j u d g e s s o o n w i l l be c a u g h t b e t w e e n s t a t u t e s man- d a t i n g commitment and t h o s e m a n d a t i n g i m p r i s o n m e n t , when b o t h a r e applicable. The l e g i s l a t u r e c o u l d n o t h a v e i n t e n d e d to c r e a t e s u c h a dilemma. T h e r e f o r e , " a c q u i t t a l " w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 46-14-301, MCA, m u s t mean t o t a l a c q u i t t a l , such t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t would be r e l e a s e d b u t f o r t h e commitment p r o v i s i o n t h e r e i n . 2 ) A f t e r a d e f e n d a n t h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d , he may s e e k com- m i t m e n t t o t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e d i r e c t o r o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t of I n s t i t u t i o n s f o r a d e f i n i t e p e r i o d of t i m e n o t to exceed t h e maximum p r i s o n s e n t e n c e he c o u l d h a v e r e c e i v e d . B e f o r e s u c h com- m i t m e n t w i l l be o r d e r e d , d e f e n d a n t m u s t p r o v e to t h e s a t i s f a c - t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t t h a t " a t t h e t i m e of t h e c o m m i s s i o n of t h e o f f e n s e o f w h i c h he was c o n v i c t e d he was s u f f e r i n g from a m e n t a l d i s e a s e or 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 o f h i s c o n d u c t o r to c o n f o r m h i s c o n d u c t to t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of l a w . " S e c t i o n s 46-14-311 and 46-14-312, MCA. The s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e is n o t l i m i t e d t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f e v i - dence presented a t the trial. A d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the existence o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t u n d e r t h e s e s e c t i o n s rests w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of the s e n t e n c i n g judge. I f t h e m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 46-14-311, MCA, is f o u n d , t h e j u d g e m u s t o r d e r t h e commitment d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 46-14-312(2). Such a f i n d i n g and s u b s e q u e n t commitment a f f e c t s s e n t e n c i n g o n l y , n o t c o n v i c t i o n ; i t i n v o l v e s a s t a n d a r d o f i m p a i r m e n t and c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e v i d e n c e which are or may be d i f f e r e n t from t h o s e i n v o l v e d i n t h e c o n v i c t i o n . S e c t i o n 46-14-312(1) 1 MCA, provides t h a t i f the mental d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 46-14-311, MCA, is n o t found b y t h e s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e , d e f e n d a n t s h a l l be s e n t e n c e d a s p r o v i d e d i n T i t l e 46, c h a p t e r 18. 3 ) A f t e r d e f e n d a n t h a s b e e n found n o t to s u f f e r from a m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t , t h e e x i s t e n c e of which would h a v e r e s u l t e d i n h i s commitment, u n d e r s e c t i o n 46-14-312, MCA, the c o u r t may s t i l l c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l c a p a c i t y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e o f f e n s e was so " s i g n i f i c a n t l y i m p a i r e d " as t o b r i n g him w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n to m a n d a t o r y m i n i - mum s e n t e n c i n g p r o v i s i o n s i n s e c t i o n 46-18-222. The d e g r e e of i m p a i r m e n t c o n t e m p l a t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n is n o t s i g n i f i c a n t e n o u g h t o c o n s t i t u t e a d e f e n s e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , o r to r e q u i r e c o m m i t - ment to t h e custody of t h e Department of I n s t i t u t i o n s . I t is to b e c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y from c o n v i c t i o n and from a n y claims made u n d e r s e c t i o n s 46-14-311 a n d 46-14-312, MCA. I t is o n l y a p p l i - c a b l e to b r i n g a c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t under t h e e x c e p t i o n s set f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 46-18-222, MCA. I n t h e case a t b a r , t h e j u r y found t h a t t h e S t a t e had p r o - v e n beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e m e n t a l s t a t e s n e c e s s a r y to a c o n v i c t i o n o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t and a c o n v i c t i o n o f attempted robbery. Defendant argues t h a t , because t h e v e r d i c t o f n o t g u i l t y o f a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e m u s t h a v e b e e n due t o t h e j u r y ' s d e c i d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t 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 , d e f e n d a n t m u s t be c o m m i t t e d u n d e r s e c t i o n 46-14-301(1), MCA. A s w e have s t a t e d above, t h e r e is ample c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o support t h e not g u i l t y v e r d i c t f o r reasons o t h e r than mental disease or defect. Furthermore, defendant was - acquitted not w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 4 6 - 1 4 - 3 0 1 ( 1 ) , MCA; h e w a s c o n v i c t e d o f a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e , a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , and a s e p a r a t e o f f e n s e , attempted robbery. S e c t i o n 46-14-301(1), MCA, refers to t o t a l a c q u i t t a l d u e t o m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t . I t s p u r p o s e is t o p r e v e n t t h e i m m e d i a t e release i n t o s o c i e t y o f d e f e n d a n t s who p o s e a t h r e a t to t h e m s e l v e s or o t h e r s p e r h a p s b e c a u s e of t h e v e r y m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t which n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e i r a c q u i t t a l . S e c t i o n 46-14-301(1), MCA, d o e s n o t m a n d a t e d e f e n d a n t ' s commit- ment to t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of Warm S p r i n g s under t h e circumstan- ces o f t h i s case. Defendant m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t t h a t he be c o m m i t t e d to t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e d i r e c t o r o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f I n s t i t u t i o n s p u r s u a n t to t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n s 46-14-311 and 46-14-312, MCA. T h e r e is no merit i n d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n . I t is t r u e t h a t , i f t h e j u d g e had f o u n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s u f f e r e d from a m e n t a l disease o r d e f e c t w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 46-14-311, MCA, he would h a v e b e e n r e q u i r e d to c o m m i t d e f e n d a n t to t h e c u s t o d y of t h e d i r e c t o r of t h e Department of I n s t i t u t i o n s . But t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t d o e s s u f f e r from 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 l i e s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e , a f t e r h i s eva- l u a t i o n o f t h e t r i a l e v i d e n c e and a n y o t h e r e v i d e n c e he may deem necessary. The s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e was n o t p e r s u a d e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s u f f e r e d f r o m a m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 46-14-311, MCA. He acted w e l l within h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t t h a t h e be c o m m i t t e d p u r s u a n t to sec- t i o n 46-14-312(2), MCA. The t r i a l j u d g e was n o t i n e r r o r i n d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t t h a t he be c o m m i t t e d r a t h e r t h a n i m p r i s o n e d . Af f i r m e d . W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C. Sheehy: I concur i n the r e s u l t .