No. 80-336
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS.
JOHN KLEMANN,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Yellowstone.
Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Moses Law Firm, Billings, Montana
r
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana
Submitted on briefs: June 24, 1981
Decided: ()CT 7 18
91
Filed: o@T 6 ,3k'
"
".
fl
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
~ ee n d a n t , John Klemann, was found g u i l t y of a g g r a v a t e d
f
a s s a u l t by a j u r y i n t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t C o u r t
and s e n t e n c e d t o s e r v e 1 2 y e a r s i n p r i s o n . Defendant c l a i m s
f i r s t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y d e n i e d h i s motion f o r
a one week c o n t i n u a n c e of t h e t r i a l d a t e , and second, t h a t
an aggravated a s s a u l t conviction i s n o t j u s t i f i e d . We
a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court.
W w i l l f i r s t d i s c u s s d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a o n e
e
week c o n t i n u a n c e . The o f f e n s e took p l a c e on March 1 5 , 1980.
The i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d on March 20, f o l l o w e d by d e f e n d a n t ' s
n o t g u i l t y p l e a on March 25, 1980. The c a s e was s e t f o r
j u r y t r i a l on A p r i l 28, 1980, and was s u b s e q u e n t l y r e s e t t o
J u n e 9, 1980, and t h e n t o J u n e 1 6 , 1980, t h e n t o J u n e 1 9 ,
1980, t h e d a t e on which t r i a l commenced.
On t h e morning of t h e t r i a l , a f t e r t h e j u r y had been
c a l l e d , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u r t - a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l moved t h e
c o u r t f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e o f t h e c a s e b a s e d on t h e f a c t t h a t
d e f e n d a n t had e v i d e n c e d i n t h e l a s t c o u p l e of d a y s t h a t he
was n o t c e r t a i n t h a t h i s a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l would b e a b l e t o
h e l p him i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e t r i a l , t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had
e v i d e n c e d t h a t h i s mother had i n d i c a t e d s h e was g o i n g " t o
t r y t o o b t a i n p r i v a t e c o u n s e l " f o r him, and f o r t h e r e a s o n
t h a t d e f e n d a n t wanted f u r t h e r t i m e i n which t o c o n s i d e r a n
o f f e r by t h e S t a t e under which i f d e f e n d a n t p l e a d g u i l t y t h e
S t a t e would recommend a s e n t e n c e of 5 y e a r s w i t h a l l b u t one
y e a r suspended. Defendant's counsel requested a continuance
of one week. The p r o s e c u t i o n reviewed f o r t h e c o u r t t h e
v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s which had o c c u r r e d s i n c e t h e commission
of t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e . N a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s were p r e s e n t e d .
o
The c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion, and t h e n h e a r d t h e comments of
t h e d e f e n d a n t . The d e f e n d a n t s t a t e d t h a t he wanted a d i f f e r e n t
lawyer b e c a u s e h i s a t t o r n e y had been up t o s e e him o n l y f i v e
o r s i x t i m e s w h i l e he had been i n j a i l , and t h a t he had n o t
t a l k e d w i t h him f o r more t h a n a t o t a l of two h o u r s . He a l s o
complained t h a t h i s a t t o r n e y had t o l d him t h a t i f he d i d go
t o t r i a l , h e would b e c o n v i c t e d b e c a u s e he ( t h e a t t o r n e y )
c o u l d n ' t do a n y t h i n g a b o u t i t . The c o u r t responded by
p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t i t was t h e t a s k of h i s c o u n s e l t o g i v e an
h o n e s t a p p r a i s a l of t h e e v i d e n c e and p r o b a b l e r e s u l t s .
Defendant f u r t h e r s a i d , "My mother h a s t o l d me t h a t s h e ' l l
g e t a n o t h e r lawyer f o r m e . " The c o u r t r e p l i e d t h a t t h e c a s e
h a s been pending f o r t h r e e months and t h a t t h e j u r y was i n t h e
courtroom w a i t i n g f o r him t o be t r i e d . The d e f e n d a n t t h e n a s k e d ,
I' [ w l h a t i f I waive r i g h t t o f a s t and speedy t r i a l ? " The
c o u r t a g a i n answered t h a t when everyone i s r e a d y f o r t r i a l ,
t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d n ' t come i n and s a y he d o e s n ' t want t o go
to trial. W n o t e t h a t p r e p a r a t i o n of t h e c a s e f o r t r i a l by
e
t h e S t a t e had i n c l u d e d b r i n g i n g t h e v i c t i m from C a l i f o r n i a t o
testify.
The c a s e proceeded t o t r i a l and was completed on t h e
f o l l o w i n g day. W have reviewed t h e t r a n s c r i p t and i t
e
d i s c l o s e s a d e q u a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p o i n t e d
c o u n s e l d u r i n g t h e p r e t r i a l , t r i a l and p o s t - t r i a l p h a s e s of
the case. The t r a n s c r i p t d o e s n o t show a r e a s o n a b l e f a c t u a l
b a s i s t o s u g g e s t t h a t any r i g h t of t h e d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d
by t h e d e n i a l of t h e motion f o r c o n t i n u a n c e .
The c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e i s s e c t i o n 46-13-202, MCA,
which s t a t e s :
'I (1) The d e f e n d a n t o r t h e s t a t e may move f o r
a continuance. I f t h e motion i s made more t h a n
30 d a y s a f t e r a r r a i g n m e n t o r a t any t i m e a £ t e r
t r i a l h a s begun, t h e c o u r t may r e q u i r e t h a t i t
be s u p p o r t e d by a f f i d a v i t .
I' ( 2 ) The c o u r t may upon t h e motion of e i t h e r
p a r t y o r upon t h e c o u r t ' s own motion o r d e r a
c o n t i n u a n c e i f t h e i n t e r e s t s of j u s t i c e s o r e -
quire.
" ( 3 ) A l l motions f o r c o n t i n u a n c e a r e a d d r e s s e d t o
t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and s h a l l b e
c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e l i g h t of t h e d i l i g e n c e shown
on t h e p a r t of t h e movant. T h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be
c o n s t r u e d t o t h e end t h a t c r i m i n a l c a s e s a r e
t r i e d w i t h due d i l i g e n c e c o n s o n a n t w i t h t h e r i g h t s
of t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h e s t a t e t o a speedy t r i a l . "
S u b s e c t i o n ( 3 ) s t a t e s t h a t motions f o r c o n t i n u a n c e a r e
a d d r e s s e d t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and s h a l l be
c o n s i d e r e d i n l i g h t of t h e d i l i g e n c e shown on t h e p a r t of
t h e movant. B e f o r e a motion f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e i s g r a n t e d , t h e
movant must show t h a t he h a s employed due d i l i g e n c e t o p r o c u r e
t h a t which h e now r e q u e s t s a d d i t i o n a l t i m e t o p r o c u r e . State
v. Kuilman ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 1 1 Mont. 459, 1 1 0 P.2d 969.
1 The f a c t s
s u p p o r t t h e d e n i a l of t h e motion by t h e c o u r t i n o r d e r t h a t t h e
c a s e be t r i e d i n a manner c o n s o n a n t w i t h t h e r i g h t s of b o t h t h e
d e f e n d a n t and t h e S t a t e t o a speedy t r i a l . Waiting u n t i l
t h e day of t r i a l t o make such a motion d o e s n o t show d i l i g e n c e
on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t . The c a s e had p r e v i o u s l y been
s e t f o r t r i a l . on two o c c a s i o n s , which s h o u l d have b r o u g h t
i n t o f o c u s t h e c o n c e r n s of t h e d e f e n d a n t . Defendant u t t e r l y
f a i l e d t o show a n a t t e m p t o r a c a p a c i t y t o o b t a i n p r i v a t e
counsel. There i s a t o t a l a b s e n c e of a showing t h a t d e f e n d a n t
would have been i n a n improved p o s i t i o n had a c o n t i n u a n c e of
one week been g r a n t e d . A s u b s t i t u t i o n of a t t o r n e y f o r p u r p o s e s
of a p p e a l was n o t i n f a c t made f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t u n t i l
December17,1980, s i x months a f t e r t h e t r i a l . This does n o t
i n d i c a t e any c a p a c i t y t o c u r e t h e problem w i t h i n t h e one
week f o l l o w i n g J u n e 19.
The r u l e r e g a r d i n g c o n t i n u a n c e i n c r i m i n a l m a t t e r s i s
w e l l s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. K i r k l a n d ( 1 9 7 9 ) , -Mont. -1 -, 602
P.2d 586, 590, 36 St.Rep. 1963, 19671 where t h e c o u r t s t a t e d :
"'Motions f o r continuance a r e addressed t o t h e d i s -
c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e g r a n t i n g of a
c o n t i n u a n c e h a s n e v e r been a m a t t e r of r i g h t .
( C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . ) The d i s t r i c t c o u r t c a n n o t be
o v e r t u r n e d on a p p e a l i n a b s e n c e of a showing of
p r e j u d i c e t o t h e movant. ( C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . )
" ' D e f e n d a n t ' s argument t h e r e f o r e must s t a n d o r f a l l
on t h e i s s u e of p r e j u d i c e , f o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
c a n be s a i d t o have abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n o n l y i f i t s
r u l i n g was p r e j u d i c i a l . W e have n o t found a s i n g l e
case . .. i n which t h e d e n i a l of a motion f o r
a c o n t i n u a n c e was r e v e r s e d w i t h o u t a showing of
r e s u l t i n g p r e j u d i c e t o t h e movant. ' S t a t e v.
P a u l s o n ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 310, 538 P.2d 339."
The s t a t e m e n t s of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
s t a t e m e n t s t h e m s e l v e s do n o t show any p r e j u d i c e . The r e c o r d
d o e s n o t d i s c l o s e any p r e j u d i c e . There a p p e a r s no b a s i s f o r
a r e v e r s a l on t h i s ground under t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h i s C o u r t .
Such d e c i s i o n s a p p e a r c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e h o l d i n g of t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n Ungar v . S a r a f i t e (1964) , 376
U.S. 575, 589, 1 L.Ed.2d
1 921, 931, 84 S.Ct. 841, 850, i n
which t h e C o u r t s a i d :
" T h e r e a r e no mechanical tests f o r d e c i d i n g when
a d e n i a l of a c o n t i n u a n c e i s s o a r b i t r a r y a s t o v i o -
l a t e due p r o c e s s . The answer must be found i n t h e
circumstances p r e s e n t i n every case, p a r t i c u l a r l y
i n t h e r e a s o n s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l judge a t t h e
time t h e r e q u e s t i s denied."
The c i r c u m s t a n c e s and t h e r e a s o n s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l
c o u r t t o t a l l y f a i l t o j u s t i f y a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e d e n i a l of a
motion f o r c o n t i n u a n c e was a r b i t r a r y . W e affirm the t r i a l
c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e motion.
W e n e x t consider i f an aggravated a s s a u l t conviction
was j u s t i f i e d . The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s e x t e n s i v e e v i d e n c e w i t h
r e g a r d t o e v e n t s p r i o r t o t h e a c t u a l a s s a u l t which w e do n o t
deem i t n e c e s s a r y t o s e t o u t i n d e t a i l . The v i c t i m was a 19-
y e a r - o l d f e m a l e , 5 ' 6 " t a l l and weighing 105 pounds. The
v i c t i m had m e t t h e d e f e n d a n t o n l y a few m i n u t e s b e f o r e t h e
t i m e of t h e a s s a u l t . They were s i t t i n g i n a l i v i n g room on
a couch. The d e f e n d a n t was s i t t i n g a f e w f e e t from t h e
victim. They t a l k e d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o u r m i n u t e s , a f t e r
which t h e d e f e n d a n t made a n advance toward t h e v i c t i m and
s t a r t e d t o g r a b and p u l l h e r towards him. The v i c t i m s a i d :
"Excuse me, I ' m n o t i n t o t h a t and I d o n ' t need a n y t h i n g l i k e
that." The d e f e n d a n t t h e n s a t back and resumed t a l k i n g .
A f t e r a s h o r t a d d i t i o n a l t i m e , d e f e n d a n t a g a i n came toward
t h e v i c t i m and t r i e d t o p u l l h e r t o him and k i s s h e r . The
v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e s t o o d up and s a i d : "Excuse me, I
think you'd b e t t e r leave." The d e f e n d a n t t h e n r e a c h e d up,
grabbed t h e v i c t i m and t h r e w h e r o n t o a couch. While s h e
was l y i n g on t h e couch, he h i t h e r on t h e head w i t h a g l a s s
ashtray. H e - h i t h e r on t h e s i d e of t h e head a b o u t f i v e t i m e s .
She began screaming w h i l e t h e d e f e n d a n t t r i e d t o r o l l h e r
over. Another p e r s o n t h e n banged on t h e a p a r t m e n t d o o r ,
s e e k i n g a d m i t t a n c e , and t h e a s s a u l t t e r m i n a t e d . The e v i d e n c e
showed t h a t t h e a s h t r a y w i t h which t h e d e f e n d a n t s t r u c k t h e
v i c t i m weighed a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 1 / 2 pounds, was s q u a r e i n
s h a p e and had s h a r p edges. Besides various b r u i s e s , the victim
s u s t a i n e d a c u t a p p r o x i m a t e l i 1 1 / 2 i n c h e s l o n g which r e q u i r e d
two s t i t c h e s t o c l o s e .
The d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d under s e c t i o n 45-5-202 (1)(b),
MCA, which s t a t e s :
"A p e r s o n commits t h e 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 i f h e p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly c a u s e s : . . .
" (b) bodily i njury t o another with a weapon . . ."
P u r s u a n t t o t h e Montana s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , t h e j u r y was
i n s t r u c t e d a s f o l l o w s r e g a r d i n g weapon, b o d i l y i n j u r y and
serious bodily injury:
" I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 3
" ' B o d i l y i n j u r y ' means p h y s i c a l p a i n , o r any
impairment of p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n .
" I n s t r u c t i o n No. 14
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e t e r m 'weapon' a s
used i n t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s means any i n s t r u m e n t ,
a r t i c l e , o r s u b s t a n c e which, r e g a r d l e s s o f i t s
p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n , i s r e a d i l y c a p a b l e of b e i n g
used t o produce 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 .
" I n s t r u c t i o n No.
" ' S e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y ' means b o d i l y i n j u r y
which c r e a t e s a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k of d e a t h o r
which c a u s e s s e r i o u s permanent d i s f i g u r e m e n t o r
p r o t r a c t e d l o s s o r impairment of t h e f u n c t i o n o r
p r o c e s s of any b o d i l y member o r o r g a n . "
The e v i d e n c e shows a c u t and b r u i s e s t o t h e v i c t i m which a r e
s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e bodily injury. It is also readily
a p p a r e n t t h a t a g l a s s a s h t r a y of t h e s i z e and shape which
was h e r e i n v o l v e d c o n s t i t u t e s a weapon c a p a b l e of b e i n g used
t o produce s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y . Quite clearly, striking a
p e r s o n w i t h a n a s h t r a y of t h i s s i z e and s h a p e c o u l d r e s u l t
i n s e r i o u s permanent d i s f i g u r e m e n t , o r impairment of t h e f u n c t i o n
o f a b o d i l y member o r o r g a n . The s e c t i o n under which t h e
d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d d o e s n o t r e q u i r e proof i n f a c t of ser-
ious bodily i n j u r y a s defined i n the s t a t u t e . I t i s only
n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e show t h a t t h e weapon was used i n
s u c h a manner a t t h a t t i m e and p l a c e and on t h a t v i c t i m s o
t h a t s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y was c a p a b l e of b e i n g i n f l i c t e d .
The e v i d e n c e i s c l e a r l y s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n t h e j u r y ' s
f i n d i n g of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t on t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
W Concur:
e
Chief J u s t i c e