No. 82-154
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F
1982
THE STATE O F MONTAKA,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
VS .
EMIL LONGNECK,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Twelfth 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 H i l l
Honorable Bernard W. Thomas, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For P l a i n t i f f :
Mike G r e e i y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana
Ronald Smith, County A t t o r n e y , Havre, Montana
For Defendant:
M o r r i s o n , E t t i e n , Barron & Young; J . Chan E t t i e n ,
Havre, Montana
S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : August 1 2 , 1982
Decided : - 8
Filed: [ikC < - 1982
.
,@
Clerk
M r . 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 of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s c a s e was b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on a p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n , S t a t e
v. Longneck, 38 St.Rep. 2160, 640 P.2d 436. A t that t i m e we
reversed the District Court which acquitted the defendant of
aggravated a s s a u l t d e s p i t e the jury's v e r d i c t of g u i l t y on t h a t
charge. On r e m a n d , t h e District Court of the Twelfth J u d i c i a l
District, H i l l County, sentenced the defendant to two ( 2 ) years
imprisonment, defendant appeals his conviction and sentence.
W e w i l l now b r i e f l y s u m m a r i z e t h e f a c t s f o r a more c o m p l e t e
r e c i t a t i o n , see S t a t e v. Longneck, s u p r a .
The c h a r g e s i n t h i s case stem from i n c i d e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d
early in the morning of August 7, 1980. The victim, Curtis
A l e x a n d e r , h i s s i s t e r , K a r e n , and a f r i e n d , D a r y l K i r k a l d i e were
i n Lee I s Tavern i n Havre . Shortly before closing t i m e Kirkaldie
a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t g o t i n t o a s h o r t s c u f f l e o u t s i d e of L e e ' s . In
the course of this scuffle the d e f e n d a n t was knocked to the
ground.
Immediately af ter t h e a l t e r c a t i o n , K i r k a l d i e , Karen Alexander
a n d t h e v i c t i m l e f t L e e ' s on f o o t . The d e f e n d a n t g o t up and p r o -
c e e d e d down a n a l l e y , where h e found a s t i c k l y i n g i n t h e r o a d -
way and d e c i d e d t o g e t e v e n w i t h K i r k a l d i e . He p i c k e d up t h e
s t i c k and p r o c e e d e d i n t h e d i r e c t i o n t h a t t h e v i c t i m and his com-
panions had gone. He approached the three from t h e r e a r and
s t r u c k C u r t i s a s i n g l e blow to t h e back of the head with the
stick apparently thinking him to be Kirkaldie. Karen and
Kirkaldie pursued the d e f e n d a n t b u t were unable t o c a t c h him.
Upon r e t u r n i n g t o t h e s i t e o f t h e a s s a u l t t h e y found C u r t i s s t i l l
on t h e ground. He was lying f l a t on h i s b a c k . They a s s i s t e d
him to h i s f e e t . He appeared u n i n j u r e d and a t t h a t t i m e s t a t e d
h e was a l l r i g h t . A short time later though, he expressed a
d e s i r e t o go t o t h e h o s p i t a l . At t h a t p o i n t he l e f t h i s corn-
p a n i o n s and p r o c e e d e d i n t h e g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n of the hospital .
L e s s t h a n a n h o u r l a t e r he w a s f o u n d d e a d a s h o r t d i s t a n c e from
w h e r e he l e f t h i s c o m p a n i o n s .
It is clear that Curtis was the victim of two separate
assaults that morning. State v. Longneck, supra. The first
o c c u r r e d w h i l e he was w i t h h i s sister and f r i e n d and was n o t t h e
c a u s e of d e a t h . The o t h e r m u s t h a v e o c c u r r e d w h i l e h e w a s a l o n e
and caused h i s d e a t h . The S t a t e n e v e r c o n n e c t e d L o n g n e c k w i t h
t h e h o m i c i d e or s e c o n d a s s a u l t b u t p r o v e d t h e f i r s t a s s a u l t a t
t r i a l , S t a t e v. Longneck, supra. T h i s is t h e c h a r g e on which he
was c o n v i c t e d . S t a t e v . Longneck, s u p r a .
L o n g n e c k raises s e v e r a l i s s u e s on a p p e a l :
1. W h e t h e r t h e j u r y c o n v i c t e d Longneck on a c h a r g e of a g g r a -
v a t e d a s s a u l t n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e i n £ ormat i o n ?
2. Whether Longneck's fifth and sixth amendment rights,
u n d e r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n were v i o l a t e d b y c o n v i c t i n g
him o f a n u n c h a r g e d o f f e n s e ?
3. Whether Longneck's r i g h t s u n d e r A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 1 7 ,
2 0 , 24 and 2 5 o f t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n were v i o l a t e d ?
4. W h e t h e r t h i s C o u r t h a s t h e power to c h a n g e a j u r y ' s ver-
d i c t and c o n v i c t i o n on a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d c h a r g e t o t h a t of g u i l t y
o n t h e u n i n c l u d e d s e p a r a t e and u n r e l a t e d c h a r g e ?
5. W h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t was p r o p e r l y a r r a i g n e d u n d e r sec-
t i o n 46-12-202, MCA?
6. Whether a d i r e c t e d verdict should have been g r a n t e d at
t h e close of the state's case-in-chief o r a t the close of the
testimony?
7. Whether t h e j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d on t h e s e p a r a t e aggra-
vated assault?
8. W h e t h e r t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to c o n v i c t Longneck
of aggravated a s s a u l t ?
The f i r s t four of the above i s s u e s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e claim
t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was f o u n d g u i l t y of an uncharged o f f e n s e a r e
e a s i l y disposed o f . Our d e c i s i o n i n S t a t e v. Longneck, supra,
where w e found t h a t t h e information coupled w i t h t h e f a c t s set
o u t i n t h e m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e it were s u f f i c i e n t to c h a r g e
t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e n o n f a t a l f i r s t a s s a u l t , is t h e l a w o f t h e
case. W h a v e p r e v i o u s l y s e t down t h e r u l e t o be f o l l o w e d when
e
d e a l i n g w i t h l a w of t h e case i n E n g l u n d v . Englund (1979), .-
Mont . -- -- -- - . - , 6 0 3 P.2d 1048, 36 S t . R e p . 2211, and cases cited
t h e r e i n w h e r e we s t a t e d :
" 'The r u l e is w e l l e s t a b i s h e d and l o n g a d h e r e d
t o i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t w h e r e , upon a n a p p e a l ,
t h e Supreme C o u r t , i n d e c i d i n g a c a s e p r e -
s e n t e d s t a t e s i n i t s o p i n i o n a p r i n c i p l e or
r u l e of l a w n e c e s s a r y t o t h e d e c i s i o n , such
p r o n o u n c e m e n t becomes t h e law o f t h e case , and
m u s t be a d h e r e d t o t h r o u g h o u t i t s s u b s e q u e n t
p r o g r e s s , b o t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t and upon
subsequent appeal; ...C a r l s o n v. N o r t h e r n
P a c . R. C o . 8 6 Mont. 7 8 , 2 8 1 P . 9 1 3 , 9 1 4 . "
6 0 3 P.2d a t 1 0 4 9 .
Thus, these first four issues are taken care of by our
h o l d i n g i n t h e p r e v i o u s c a s e , which is t h e l a w of t h e case and
must be followed. Eng 1und v. Eng 1und , supra.
Appellant a l s o raises the q u e s t i o n of w h e t h e r L o n g n e c k was
i m p r o p e r l y a r r a i g n e d u n d e r s e c t i o n 46-12-202, MCA. That section
requires that the defendant be advised by the court "of the
n a t u r e of t h e crime c h a r g e d a g a i n s t him" and " t h e p u n i s h m e n t s e t
f o r t h by s t a t u t e f o r t h e crime c h a r g e d . "
I t appears t h a t a t t h e t i m e of h i s a r r a i g n m e n t t h e a p p e l l a n t
was only informed of the deliberate homicide charge and the
punishment f o r it. However, it is c l e a r from t h e d e f e n s e p u t on
t h a t h e was a w a r e t h a t he was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e f i r s t a g g r a v a t e d
assault. In the examination of witnesses by the defendant's
attorney, he tried to show that the stick used in the first
a s s a u l t was n o t a weapon, and t h a t t h e r e w a s no s e r i o u s b o d i l y
i n j u r y as a r e u s l t o f t h e f i r s t a s s a u l t . These f a c t o r s , coupled
with our p r i o r decision holding t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n viewed in
c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e it were s u f f i c i e n t
t o charge the defendant with aggravated assault, show t h a t the
d e f e n d a n t had s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n to know w h a t he w a s c h a r g e d
with, and that he indeed knew he was charged with the first
aggravated a s s a u l t .
The p u r p o s e s of arraignment, set out i n s e c t i o n s 46-12-101
and 46-12-202, MCA, t o call t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t o c o u r t to answer
t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him and to i n f o r m him o f c e r t a i n r i g h t s , were
w a i v e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t when he p r o c e e d e d t o t r i a l and d e f e n d e d
a g a i n s t the aggravated a s s a u l t charge.
A r r a i g n m e n t may be so w a i v e d w i t h o u t a n y v i o l a t i o n of t h e d u e
p r o c e s s c l a u s e " s o l o n g a s t h e a c c u s e d had s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e of
the a c c u s a t i o n and an adequate o p p o r t u n i t y t o defend himself ."
G a r l a n d v . W a s h i n g t o n ( 1 9 1 4 ) , 232 U.S. 6 4 2 , 6 4 5 , 34 S . C t . 456, 58
772.
L.Ed. %. The d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s c a s e w a i v e d h i s a r r a i g n m e n t by
p r o c e e d i n g t o t r i a l and d e f e n d i n g a g a i n s t t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e of
aggravated a s s a u l t .
Also, i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f a p p e l l a n t claims t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o
a r r a i g n him c o n s t i t u t e s d o u b l e j e o p a r d y . H e c o n t e n d s t h a t a con-
v i c t i o n on e i t h e r t h e d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e c h a r g e or o n e of its
l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e s would n o t h a v e p r e v e n t e d a s e c o n d p r o s e -
cution on the first aggravated assault charge because he was
never arraigned. However, t h i s would not be the case. The
d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e f i r s t a s s a u l t , S t a t e v . Longneck,
supra, and w e n t to trial and defended a g a i n s t t h a t charge, as
p o i n t e d o u t above, t h e r e b y waiving h i s arraignment. A f t e r such a
t r i a l t h e S t a t e would n o t a g a i n be a l l o w e d to c h a r g e t h e d e f e n -
d a n t w i t h t h e same crime, m e r e l y b e c a u s e of a t e c h n i c a l d e f e c t ,
s u c h as i m p r o p e r a r r a i g n m e n t , which as - - r l a n d p o i n t s o u t , may be
Ga
-
waived. Any s u c h a t t e m p t to r e - t r y t h e d e f e n d a n t would c o n s t i -
t u t e double jeopardy and is s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o h i b i t e d by A r t i c l e
11, S e c t i o n 25 o f t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n .
A p p e l l a n t also c o n t e n d s t h a t a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t should have
been granted at the close of the States case-in-chief, or at
l e a s t a t t h e c l o s e of a l l of the evidence. However, as p o i n t e d
o u t by s e c t i o n 46-16-403, MCA, i t is w i t h i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s
discretion whether to dismiss an action at the close of the
S t a t e s case o r a l l t h e e v i d e n c e . "Further , a directed verdict
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 t h e j u r y
could base a conviction. Paulson, supra, State v. Thompson
( 1 9 7 8 ) r 576 P.2d 1 1 0 5 , 35 S t . R e p . 343." S t a t e v. W h i t e ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,
6 0 5 P.2d 1 9 1 , 1 9 4 , 37 S t . R e p . 84.
I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e r e is e v i d e n c e on which a j u r y c o u l d
base a conviction. T h e r e was testimony from the victims com-
panions t h a t he was s t r u c k from b e h i n d , f e l l t o the ground, was
slow t o g e t up and a s h o r t t i m e l a t e r s a i d he was g o i n g to t h e
hospital. They a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y h e a r d a l o u d "thump" or
" t h u d " and saw t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h a n e i g h t e e n t o t w e n t y - f o u r inch
long, round object in his hand. T e s t i m o n y of other witnesses
corroborates their testimony a s to the sound, i t s l o u d n e s s and
t h e a p p r o x i m a t e s i z e and s h a p e of t h e o b j e c t which t h e d e f e n d a n t
held. Also, t h e d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e weapon a s a
"light stick."
Appellant next contends t h a t the j u r y was n o t i n s t r u c t e d on
t h e s e p a r a t e c h a r g e o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t stemming from t h e f i r s t
assault. He predicates e r r o r on the rule enunciated by this
Court t h a t " [ i l t is a b a s i c rule in this state t h a t the trial
c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s m u s t c o v e r e v e r y i s s u e o r t h e o r y h a v i n g sup-
p o r t i n the evidence." S t a t e v. Gopher ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 6 3 3 P.2d 1 1 9 5 , 38
St.Rep. 1521; S t a t e v. Buckley ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 238, 557 P.2d
283; S t a t e v. Taylor ( 1 9 7 3 ) r 1 6 3 Mont. 1 0 6 , 515 P.2d 695; State
v. Thomas (19661, 147 Mont . 325, 413 P.2d 315.
However, t h e a b o v e c i t e d cases a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e
p r e s e n t one. I n t h o s e c a s e s i n s t r u c t i o n s were e i t h e r g i v e n and
t h e n w i t h d r a w n o r r e f u s e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , w h i l e i n t h e pre-
s e n t case, no i n s t r u c t i o n was o f f e r e d by e i t h e r s i d e d r a w i n g a
c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t o t a l l y s e p a r a t e f i r s t a s s a u l t of
which t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d , S t a t e v. Longneck, s u p r a , and
the lesser i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of aggravated a s s a u l t i n connect i o n
w i t h t h e d e l i b e r a t e homicide charge. T h i s Court has set o u t the
g e n e r a l r u l e c o v e r i n g s u c h a s i t u a t i o n i n t h e c a s e s of S t a t e v.
B a s h o r ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 614 P.2d 4 7 0 , 37 S t . R e p . 1 0 9 8 ; and S t a t e v. Harvey
( 1 9 7 9 ) , 6 0 3 P.2d 6 6 1 , 36 S t . R e p . 2035. I n t h o s e two cases it was
held " t h a t e r r o r may n o t be p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e f a i l u r e t o g i v e
an i n s t r u c t i o n when the i n s t r u c t i o n was n o t o f f e r e d . S t a t e v.
Harvey (1979), 36 St.Rep. 2035, 2038. Failure to offer the
i n s t r u c t i o n removes t h e c a u s e o f e r r o r . . ." S t a t e v. Bashor,
614 P.2d a t 487.
This Court has previously placed t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of pro-
v i d i n g a n y s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e p a r t y d e s i r i n g t h e m , b a s e d
o n s e c t i o n 46-16-401, MCA, S t a t e v. Harvey, supra. This s t a t u t e
h a s b e e n c o n s t r u e d as m a n d a t o r y i n t h e H a r v e y d e c i s i o n , and cases
cited therein, thus, i f t h e d e f e n d a n t d e s i r e d a d i s t i n c t i o n made
between the separate assault and that of the lesser included
offense he should have o f f e r e d an instruction to that effect.
The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t is w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e
w a s s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n v i c t him o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . He contends
that the State failed to prove use of a weapon capable of
i n f l i c t i n g d e a t h or s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y as r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n s
45-2-lOl(71) and 45-5-202(1), MCA.
I n s u p p o r t of t h i s c o n t e n t i o n he c i t e s t h e c a s e of S t a t e v.
Deshner ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 5 Elont. 175, 5 7 3 P.2d 172. In t h a t case w e
h e l d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t to s u p p o r t a c o n v i c t i o n
on aggravated assault charges as it was not proven that the
s l i n g s h o t and p r o j e c t i l e were a weapon. The d e f e n s e t h e n a r g u e s
that s i n c e t h e r e w a s no a p p a r e n t mark l e f t o n t h e v i c t i m a f t e r
the assault, t h e r e is n o t e v i d e n c e as to t h e c o m p o s i t i o n of the
stick and since the victim initially stated that he was all
right, there is no proof that a weapon was used.
However, it s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e t r i e r of f a c t need n o t
have the weapon before it in order to convict of aggravated
a s s a u l t when t h e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s a weapon w a s
used by the assailant, State v. Lozeau, 39 St.Rep. 1729.
This is p r e c i s e l y the case w e a r e f a c e d w i t h h e r e , b e c a u s e
despite t h e weapon never being found there is e v i d e n c e i n the
record t h a t would allow t h e t r i e r of f a c t t o c o n c l u d e a weapon
was used. First, it should be noted that all the witnesses
testified the object, which t h e d e f e n d a n t used t o s t r i k e C u r t i s
was e i g h t e e n to t w e n t y - f o u r i n c h e s i n l e n g t h and r o u n d i n s h a p e .
K i r k a l d i e s t a t e d t h a t when h e saw t h e d e f e n d a n t a f t e r C u r t i s was
hit that the d e f e n d a n t was in a bent over position with both
h a n d s on t h e o b j e c t . The v i c t i m was knocked t o t h e g r o u n d and
r e m a i n e d t h e r e f o r a p e r i o d of time. The t h u d from t h e blow was
audible f o r some d i s t a n c e away. Also, despite Curtis' initial
s t a t e m e n t s t h a t he w a s a l l r i g h t , he s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t
e x p r e s s e d h i s w i s h t o go to t h e h o s p i t a l and l e f t h i s c o m p a n i o n s
to do so. Finally, i t s h o u l d be noted the defendant himself
characterized the object as a stick. His exact words were a
"light stick."
When a l l t h e e v i d e n c e is viewed 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 , t h e 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 w h e r e s u c h e v i -
d e n c e would a l l o w a r a t i o n a l t r i e r of f a c t t o f i n d a l l t h e ele-
ments of t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . S t a t e v. Lozeau,
39 S t . R e p . a t 1 7 3 1 , and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . I n t h i s case, t h e
c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e d e s c r i b e d above p r o v i d e s 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 r e n d e r e d b y t h e j u r y and t h e r e f o r e
i t m u s t s t a n d ; S t a t e v. W h i t e , 605 P.2d a t 195.
The j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i
'iJe c o n c u r : /'
1,
C h l e f Justice