State v. Dupre

No. 81-227
IN THE SUPWME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1982

STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS.

MICHAEL CHARLES DUPRE,
Defendant and Appeliant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Missoula
Honorable James 3 . Wheelis, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appeilant:
Anthony F. Keast argued, Missouia, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Mike Greeiy, Attorney General, Heiena, Montana
Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, argued,
Missoula, Montana

Submitted: June 22, 1982
Decided: September 3, 1982

Filed:sEp - 3 1982
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f
t h e Court.
D e f e n d a n t M i c h a e l Dupre was c o n v i c t e d of o n e c o u n t o f

d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e and t h r e e c o u n t s 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 by a j u r y i n t h e M i s s o u l a County D i s t r i c t C o u r t .

From t h e s e c o n v i c t i o n s , Dupre a p p e a l s .
I n t h e e a r l y a f t e r n o o n of J u l y 8 , 1 9 8 0 , M i c h a e l Dupre

secreted a . 2 2 c a l i b e r semi-automatic p i s t o l i n some weeds
in t h e downtown M i s s o u l a alley that runs behind Connie's

Bar. T h a t e v e n i n g Dupre b e g a n v i s i t i n g M i s s o u l a t a v e r n s .
H e was d r e s s e d i n Levi's, a short-sleeved s h i r t unbuttoned

t o the waist, and t h o n g s , a n d was w e a r i n g s e v e r a l t u r q u o i s e

n e c k l a c e s and b r a c e l e t s and numerous r i n g s . He wore the
jewelry, some h i s and some h i s m o t h e r ' s , i n an attempt t o
f i n d b u y e r s f o r it i n t h e b a r s .
A f t e r c o n f r o n t i n g o n e p a t r o n of C o n n i e ' s by f l a s h i n g
t h e r i n g s under t h e man's nose, Dupre was t o l d t o " h i t t h e
road" and t h e man a s k e d if Dupre would like to be taken

outside to have the rings removed. Dupre left Connie's
without responding, retrieved the pistol, placed it behind

his belt buckle, and went to several other bars before
returning t o Connie's. He then reapproached the man in
Connie's, asking "Where the hell you been? I 've been
w a i t i n g o u t s i d e f o r h a l f an hour." Dupre was a g a i n t o l d t o

l e a v e t h e p a t r o n a l o n e and t o " h i t t h e r o a d . "
During the time between picking up the pistol and
returning to Connie's, Dupre had the first of three
e n c o u n t e r s w i t h a g r o u p o f young p e o p l e i n f r o n t of L a r k e n ' s
F u r n i t u r e s t o r e , which f a c e s H i g g i n s Avenue and s i t s on t h e
alley that runs behind Connie's. On each occasion, the

members of t h e g r o u p made r e m a r k s and g e s t u r e s i n d i c a t i n g
t h a t t h e y t h o u g h t Dupre was a h o m o s e x u a l . Dupre r e s p o n d e d

each time by cussing at the individuals (at least once
c a l l i n g them p u n k s ) , and by i n v i t i n g them t o f i g h t .

A f t e r h i s second run-in w i t h t h e g r o u p , Dupre a g a i n
r e t u r n e d t o C o n n i e ' s B a r , removed h i s j e w e l r y , and p l a c e d i t

i n a s a c k w i t h h i s name on i t . H e l e f t i t i n t h e b a r t e n d e r ' s
care.

D u p r e ' s f i n a l e n c o u n t e r w i t h t h e g r o u p began w i t h a

v e r b a l e x c h a n g e which d e v e l o p e d i n t o a p h y s i c a l c o n f r o n t a -
t i o n when he o n c e more i n v i t e d them t o f i g h t . T h i s exchange

was p r i m a r i l y b e t w e e n Dupre and R i c k M i k e s e l l . Dupre e n t e r e d
t h e a l l e y f o l l o w e d by R i c k and L y l e M i k e s e l l , Bob G e r s t e n -

b e r g e r , a n d , some d i s t a n c e b e h i n d , Gary W i l l i a m s . Two o t h e r
y o u t h s began t o g e t o u t of a nearby c a r t o watch t h e f i g h t

t o b e h e l d b e t w e e n Dupre and R i c k M i k e s e l l . As the Mikesell

group rounded the corner into the alley, someone n o t i c e d

Dupre p u l l i n g s o m e t h i n g f r o m h i s s h i r t . Fearing a knife,
R i c k M i k e s e l l b r o k e a b e e r b o t t l e t o u s e f o r h i s own weapon.

Dupre was a substantial distance from t h e g r o u p when h e
turned, removed the gun from his shirt, aimed it, and
w i t l ~ o u tw a r n i n g e m p t i e d i t i n t o t h e g r o u p c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e
two M i k e s e l l s , G e r s t e n b e r g e r and W i l l i a m s . A s he f i r e d , t h e

g r o u p t u r n e d and r a n a r o u n d t h e c o r n e r of Larken's t o t h e
sidewalk. Dupre p r o c e e d e d down t h e a l l e y , turned p a s t t h e

1Yissoula C i t y P o l i c e s t a t i o n , and e v e n t u a l l y w e n t home.
The following day, Dupre called Connie's Bar and
asked t h e bartender t o c a l l a t a x i and t o h a v e i t d e l i v e r
.the s a c k of jewelry to h i s mother's home, where he was

staying. Missoula police officers investigating the
shooting incident had determined that a man fitting the
general d e s c r i p t i o n of the individual involved i11 the
s h o o t i n g had l e f t j e w e l r y a t Connie's t h e n i g h t of J u l y 8
a n d had a s k e d t o be i n f o r m e d o f any a t t e m p t t o c l a i m it.
The b a r t e n d e r notified t h e p o l i c e of Duprels request, and

two d e t e c t i v e s were d i s p a t c h e d t o t h e a d d r e s s t h a t had b e e n
given t o the bartender. When t h e y a r r i v e d and i d e n t i f i e d
themselves, the detectives asked Dupre if he had called
about the jewelry. He answered that he had, and the
o f f i c e r s a s k e d him t o accompany them t o p o l i c e h e a d q u a r t e r s

t o i d e n t i f y t h e jewelry.

When t h e y a r r i v e d a t t h e s t a t i o n , t h e o f f i c e r s ex-
p l a i n e d t h a t t h e p e r s o n who had l e f t t h e j e w e l r y a t C o n n i e ' s
matched t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the person involved in

the s h o o t i n g t h e n i g h t b e f o r e and t h a t t h e y would l i k e t o
t a l k t o him a b o u t t h e s h o o t i n g . They t h e n a s k e d him i f h e
knew a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e s h o o t i n g . H e answered, "Yes." At

that point, Dupre was r e a d h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s ( M i r a n d a v.
Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1 6 L.Ed.2d
6 9 4 ) , t h e y were f u l l y e x p l a i n e d t o him, and h e s a i d t h a t h e

wanted t o t a l k t o t h e d e t e c t i v e s . He then signed a w r i t t e n

waiver. H e i n i t i a l l y w r o t e "No" i n t h e b l a n k t h a t a s k e d i f

he wanted to talk to the detectives. When one of the
o f f i c e r s pointed out t h a t the "No" m e a n t t h a t h e d i d n o t

want t o make a s t a t e m e n t , h e i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e had made a
mistake, changed his answer to "Yes," and initialed the
change. A f t e r making a s t a t e m e n t t o t h e d e t e c t i v e s , h e t h e n
r e p e a t e d h i s s t a t e m e n t i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n o r d e r t o make a
tape recording. F u l l N i r a n d a w a r n i n g s w e r e a g a i n g i v e n and
explained in d e t a i l , and Dupre a g a i n waived those rights.

The taped statement was admitted into evidence without
o b j e c t i o n a s P l a i n t i f f ' s E x h i b i t No. 8.

Bob Gerstenberger was struck by a bullet which
e n t e r e d h i s c h e s t c a v i t y u n d e r h i s r i g h t a r m p i t and l o d g e d
just under t h e s k i n on h i s l e f t side. He died from t h e
r e s u l t i n g i n j u r i e s on J u l y 1 0 , 1 9 8 0 . R i c k M i k e s e l l was h i t

w i t h two b u l l e t s , o n e e n t e r i n g and e x i t i n g t h e t o p o f the

b a c k of h i s r i g h t s h o u l d e r . The o t h e r e n t e r e d t h e t o p o f
his shoulder near his neckline, traveled three or four
inches, and lodged at the base of his skull, where it

remains. Mikesell recovered from h i s injuries. Duprel s
convictions followed.
On a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s h e was d e n i e d e f f e c t i v e

a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l i n t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s p e c t s : (1) f a i l u r e

of c o u n s e l t o p r o t e c t h i s p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a -
tion; ( 2 ) f a i l u r e of counsel t o a d e q u a t e l y cross-examine an
e x p e r t w i t n e s s , D r . Henneford; and ( 3 ) f a i l u r e of c o u n s e l t o

o b j e c t t o i m p r o p e r and p r e j u d i c i a l s t a t e m e n t s by t h e p r o s e -
c u t o r i n c l o s i n g argument.

The s t a n d a r d t h a t t h i s C o u r t u s e s t o d e t e r m i n e whe-

ther a defendant received e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel
was s e t f o r t h i n S t a t e v . Rose ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. , 608
P.2d 1 0 7 4 , 37 S t . R e p . 642:

"The new t e s t is known a s t h e ' r e a s o n a b l y
e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e ' t e s t and may b e s t a t e d
a s follows:
"Persons accused of crime a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e
reasonable a s s i s t a n c e of counsel a c t i n g
w i t h i n t h e r a n g e of c o m p e t e n c e demanded o f
attorneys i n criminal cases." 608 P.2d a t
1080-1081, 3 7 S t . R e p . a t 649-650.

An examination of the record reveals that Dupre's
public defender, an experienced criminal attorney, dili-
g e n t l y p u r s u e d t h e t h e o r y of s e l f - d e f e n s e which Dupre a g a i n
a s s e r t s on a p p e a l . C o u n s e l f i l e d numerous p r e t r i a l m o t i o n s ,

including: a motion for s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge; n o t i c e s of
both t h e d e f e n s e s of i n a b i l i t y t o form t h e r e q u i s i t e mental
state and of self-defense; motions for production of
witnesses, rebuttal witnesses, and evidence; motions to
r e q u e s t a p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n and t o r e q u e s t t h e s e r v i c e s
of an independent i n v e s t i g a t o r ; and a motion i n l i m i n e t o

exclude testimony that would tend to connect Dupre with
other crimes, whether charged or not. Finally, defense

counsel c a l l e d f i v e witnesses, including the defendant, to
t e s t i f y on D u p r e ' s b e h a l f . W w i l l consider i n t u r n each
e

alleged error on t h e p a r t of d e f e n s e c o u n s e l which Dupre
raises.

Dupre r a i s e s a s a f i r s t i s s u e t h a t h e was d e n i e d h i s

constitutional right against self-incrimination because h i s
N i r a n d a r i g h t s w e r e n o t v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y w a i v e d
and t h a t h i s c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o c h a l l e n g e t h e a d m i s s i b i l -
i t y of h i s statement t h u s c o n s t i t u t e s i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e

of counsel. H e specifies three reasons t h a t h i s statement

was not voluntarily and i n t e l l i g e n t l y given. He argues,
first, that h i s Miranda w a r n i n g s were g i v e n a f t e r h e had
a l r e a d y made a n a d m i s s i o n a g a i n s t i n t e r e s t t h a t amounted t o

a confession; second, t h a t t h e "No" marked on t h e w r i t t e n
waiver of his Miranda rights t h a t was then changed to a

"Yes" d e m o n s t r a t e s c o n f u s i o n on h i s p a r t that supports a
t h e o r y o f t r i c k e r y o r c a j o l e r y by t h e p o l i c e ; a n d , f i n a l l y ,
he argues that he could not knowingly and intelligently
w a i v e h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s when a t t h e t i m e h i s s t a t e m e n t was
made h e was w i t h o u t a c t u a l knowledge t h a t a n y o n e was i n j u r e d
i n the shooting.
 Dupre c o n t e n d s that a t the point D e t e c t i v e s Weaver
and L e w i s a r r i v e d a t h i s m o t h e r ' s home and l e a r n e d t h a t h e
c l a i m e d ownership of t h e j e w e l r y and t h a t h e f i t t h e g e n e r a l

d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s h o o t i n g s u s p e c t , h e became t h e f o c u s o f
t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and s h o u l d h a v e t h e n b e e n g i v e n M i r a n d a
warnings. H e m a i n t a i n s t h a t h i s "Yes" a n s w e r t o t h e q u e s -

t i o n o f w h e t h e r h e knew a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e s h o o t i n g i n c i d e n t

is a n a d m i s s i o n a g a i n s t i n t e r e s t made p u r s u a n t t o a n uncon-

s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n and t h a t it amounts t o a c o n f e s -
sion.
A c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r i n g Miranda

w a r n i n g s is n o t c r e a t e d s i m p l y b e c a u s e a n i n d i v i d u a l i s t h e

focus of an investigation. Beckwith v. United States
( 1 9 7 6 ) , 425 U.S. 3 4 1 , 96 S . C t . 1 6 1 2 , 48 L.Ed.2d 1. Nor a r e
ivliranda w a r n i n g s necessary simply because the questioning

t a k e s p l a c e a t t h e s t a t i o n h o u s e when t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n
t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n i n g took p l a c e i n a c o n t e x t where freedom
t o d e p a r t was i n a n y way r e s t r i c t e d . Oregon v . Mathiason
( 1 9 7 7 ) , 429 U . S . 492, 97 S . C t . 7 1 1 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714.

We have held that the test of admissibility is
whether t h e w a i v e r w a s v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y g i v e n

in the l i g h t of a l l circumstances, considering such per-
t i n e n t f a c t o r s as " t h e a g e o f the accused, h i s education,

h i s knowledge of t h e n a t u r e o f h i s F i f t h Amendment r i g h t s ,
h i s mental capacity, his previous experience with the
criminal justice system, and h i s e x p e r i e n c e i n the adult
world." S t a t e v. B l a k n e y ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - Mont . , 6 4 1 P.2d
1 0 4 5 , 1 0 5 0 , 39 S t . R e p . 436, 441.
D e f e n d a n t was t w e n t y - f o u r years old a t the t i m e he
made his statement, had a ninth grade education, had
received h i s G.E.D., and had completed a Utah Job Corps
c a r p e n t r y program. The t a p e d w a i v e r o f h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s
demonstrates a c l e a r understanding of t h e n a t u r e of Fifth

Amendment rights and what he was waiving, and there is
a b s o l u t e l y no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t h i s m e n t a l c a p a c i t y is s u c h

that i t would i n v a l i d a t e h i s waiver. H e h a s had p r e v i o u s

contact with the criminal justice system, having been
convicted of a t h e f t charge i n Arizona and h a v i n g s e r v e d
e l e v e n months on t h a t conviction. He has lived i n Cali-

fornia f Washing t o n , Germany, Arizona and Montana and h a s
e a r n e d h i s l i v e l i h o o d by w o r k i n g a t c a r p e n t r y , bricklaying,
o i l r i g g i n g and f i s h i n g .

The f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e r e l a t i n g t o d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e -
ment c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l t h e s i t u a t i o n w e examined i n S t a t e v .
Graves ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 622 P.2d 203, 38 S t . R e p . 9.

I n G r a v e s , a b l a c k s u s p e c t began w a l k i n g down A i r p o r t Road
Eroin Mr. Lucky's lounge i n Helena a f t e r a stabbing a t the

bar. Within minutes of the incident, a black man was

a p p r o a c h e d on A i r p o r t Road by i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s and was
a s k e d i f he was i n v o l v e d i n t h e a l t e r c a t i o n and i f a k n i f e
was involved. He answered "Yes" to both questions and

turned the knife over to the patrolman, who t h e n n o t i c e d
b l o o d on t h e s u s p e c t ' s h a n d s , p l a c e d him u n d e r a r r e s t , and

g a v e him M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s . Here, a s i n Graves, t h e s u s p e c t
had not been d e p r i v e d of his freedom in any significant

manner a t t h e p o i n t a t which t h e s t a t e m e n t was made.
I n a n y e v e n t , d e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i r m a t i o n of knowledge o f
t h e s h o o t i n g d o e s n o t amount t o a " c o n f e s s i o n , " which t h i s
C o u r t h a s d e f i n e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner:
"A ' c o n f e s s i o n ' i n a l e g a l s e n s e i s r e s t r i c t -
e d t o a n acknowledgement o f g u i l t , made by a
 p e r s o n a f t e r an o f f e n s e h a s been committed,
and d o e s n o t a p p l y t o a mere s t a t e m e n t o r
d e c l a r a t i o n of an i n d e p e n d e n t f a c t from which
s u c h g u i l t may be i n f e r r e d . (Citation
omitted.)" S t a t e v . S t e v e n s ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 60 Mont.
390, 402, 1 9 9 P. 256, 259.
Dupre's s t a t e m e n t w a s n o t even an independent fact
f r o m w h i c h g u i l t may h a v e b e e n i n f e r r e d . Dupre d i d n o t m a k e
a n a d m i s s i o n t h a t h e had b e e n i n v o l v e d i n t h e s h o o t i n g u n t i l
a f t e r h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s were w a i v e d . The s i m p l e a f f i r m a t i o n

of knowledge of t h e i n c i d e n t might e a s i l y have been based
upon t h e news r e p o r t s w h i c h h a d b e e n p u b l i s h e d a n d b r o a d c a s t
after the altercation. Nor had t h e f o c u s of t h e i n v e s t i g a -

t i o n y e t b e g u n t o s h i f t t o Dupre b e f o r e h e g a v e t h a t r e -
sponse. S t a t e v. Lucero ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 531, 537, 445

P.2d 7 3 1 , 734. While he d i d f i t t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of
the suspect, t h a t d e s c r i p t i o n was v e r y g e n e r a l : "average
h e i g h t of a b o u t f i v e t e n o r s o ; medium b u i l d ; m u s t a c h e a n d
h a i r l e n g t h down t o t h e e a r s , a n d a l i g h t s h i r t u n b u t t o n e d
t o t h e m i d d l e of t h e c h e s t . " Miranda warnings were c l e a r l y
not required prior to his statement that he did know

something about t h e s h o o t i n g .
Neither does the record support a finding that the

w a i v e r was t h e r e s u l t o f t r i c k e r y o r c a j o l e r y as e v i d e n c e d
by t h e c h a n g e o f t h e "No" t o "Yes." Dupre s i g n e d t h e w a i v e r

and made t h e f i r s t s t a t e m e n t w i t h i n m i n u t e s o f a r r i v i n g a t
the station. The l a p s e o f t i m e b e t w e e n t h e o r i g i n a l s t a t e -

ment of rights and the tape recording is only fourteen
minutes. Both Dupre and D e t e c t i v e Weaver t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e
defendant gave a statement to the officers during that
period and that he then agreed to give a more detailed
statement on tape. The taped statement and defendant's
t e s t i m o n y b o t h i n d i c a t e t h a t he d e f i n i t e l y wanted t o t a l k t o
the detectives and that he voiuntar i l y and intelligently

waived h i s r i g h t t o h a v e c o u n s e l p r e s e n t w h i l e h e d i d s o .
D e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h i s w a i v e r c o u l d n o t be

v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y waived i f h e was n o t a w a r e o f
the injuries that resulted from the incident is without
merit. He c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s proposition. The
printed "Advice of Rights" which Dupre signed and w a i v e d

plainly indicated that "[alnything [he] [said] [ c o u l d ] and
[ w o u l d ] be u s e d a g a i n s t [ h i m ] ." (Emphasis added.) To p r e -

clude the prosecution from u s i n g statements t h a t were
clearly given voluntarily based upon a theory that the

d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d b e t o l d o f d e t a i l s o f t h e crime a n d o f a l l
potential crimes that could be charged would hamstring

p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s where u n e x p e c t e d i n f o r m a t i o n is o f t e n
p r o v i d e d t h a t s h e d s l i g h t on o t h e r o f f e n s e s . Finally, this

Court has previously addressed and soundly rejected this
argument. L u c e r o , s u p r a , 1 5 1 Mont. a t 5 4 0 , 445 P.2d a t 7 3 6 .

Our s t a n d h a s n o t c h a n g e d .
Counsel's failure to object to admission of the

statement did not constitute ineffective assistance of
counsel. In f a c t , t h e statement provided a c o n s i s t e n t rein-
f o r c e m e n t of D u p r e ' s c l a i m of s e l f - d e f e n s e .
The s e c o n d m a j o r i s s u e r a i s e d by Dupre is t h a t h e was

denied effective assistance of counsel by his public
d e f e n d e r ' s f a i l u r e t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e e x p e r t w i t n e s s D r . J. R.
Henneford, the pathologist, regarding the possible presence
o f r i c o c h e t marks on t h e b u l l e t removed f r o m t h e d e c e a s e d ' s
body. H e contends t h a t t h i s r e s u l t e d i n a m a t e r i a l l a c k of

e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e j u r y t h a t could have provided an

alternate explanation for the location of the parties'
injuries. However, d e f e n a a n t d o e s n o t e v e n a r g u e t h a t s u c h

e v i d e n c e was a v a i l a b l e .

The S t a t e n o t e s t h a t the bullet is still i n p o l i c e

custody and that it is presumable that defense counsel

examinea it p r i o r t o t r i a l . I n l i g h t of d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s

vigorous attempt to develop the theory that Dupre was

s h o o t i n g a t t h e g r o u n d and t h a t t h e b u l l e t s r i c o c h e t e d i n t o

the victims, it is probable that had such evidence been

a v a i l a b i e , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l would h a v e u t i l i z e d i t .

Defense counsel cross-examined the individuals who

were I n t h e a l l e y d u r i n g t h e s h o o t i n g t o e l i c i t t e s t i m o n y o f

s p a r k s and r i c o c h e t i n g s o u n d s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l

p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y of a g u n e x p e r t t h a t seemed d e s i g n e d t o

s u p p o r t t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e g u n was f i r e d a t t h e g r o u n d a n d

t h a t t h e b u l l e t s r i c o c h e t e d and, a l t e r n a t e l y , that the gun's

r e c o i l may h a v e b e e n a f a c t o r i n c a u s i n g t h e s h o t s t o h i t

higher. Finally, Dupre was a p p o i n t e d a n e x p e r i e n c e d inde-

pendent i n v e s t i g a t o r who was a l l o w e d t o e x a m i n e a l l of the

physical evidence. D e f e n d a n t is e n g a g i n g i n w i l d s p e c u l a -

tion. T h i s argument, too, is without m e r i t .

The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d by Dupre is t h a t h e was d e n i e d

effective assistance of counsel by the public defender's

f a i l u r e t o o b j e c t t o improper a r g u m e n t by the prosecutor.

It i s t o o l a t e on a p p e a l t o r a i s e o b j e c t i o n t o a r g u m e n t by
t h e p r o s e c u t i o n when n o o b j e c t i o n was r a i s e d below. Hawkins

v. Crist (1978), 1 7 8 Mont. 206, 210, 583 P.2d 396, 398,

cert. denied, 4 3 3 U.S. 957, 99 S . C t . 359, 58 L.Ed.2d 350.

W e c o n s i d e r t h i s srgument only because it forms a b a s i s f o r

a f i n d i n g o f i n e i f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l . This Court

requires, however, that in a criminal case, i f p r e j u d i c e is
a l l e g e d , i t w i l l n o t be p r e s u m e d , b u t i t m u s t be e s t a b l i s h e d
f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t was d e n i e d . State
v . W a t k i n s ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 1 5 6 Mont. 4 5 6 , 464, 4 8 1 P.2d 6 8 9 , 693.

Here, d e f e n d a n t c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h r e e arguments i n t h e
p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c l o s i n g as p r e j u d i c i a l : f i r s t , t h a t t h e p r o s e -

cuting attorney drew improper and conclusory inferences
unsupported by f a c t s presented to the jury; second, that

remarks made by the prosecutor in closing argument in
r e f e r e n c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t were s e l f - o p i n i o n a t e d , demeaning

and condoned a derogatory attitude toward Dupre; and,
finally, Dupre contends that the prosecutor's closing

remarks confused the jury as to the " r e a s o n a b l e man"
standard of self-defense.

W e have recognized t h a t :

"'Generally, t h e g r a v i t y of the crime
c h a r g e d , t h e volume o f e v i d e n c e , c r e d i b i l i t y
o f w i t n e s s e s , i n f e r e n c e s t o be drawn f r o m
various phases of evidence, and l e g a l
p r i n c i p l e s i n v o l v e d , t o be p r e s e n t e d i n
instructions t o the jury, are a l l matters
w i t h i n t h e proper scope of argument . .
.'
( C i t a t i o n s omitted. ) " S t a t e v. Thompson
( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 1 5 0 , 1 5 7 , 576 P.2d 1 1 0 5 ,
1109.
S e e a l s o , S t a t e v . Musgrove ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 8 Mont. 1 6 2 , 582 P.2d

1246. D u p r e ' s o b j e c t i o n t o improper and c o n c l u s o r y i n f e r -
e n c e s i s b a s e d upon s t a t e m e n t s by t h e p r o s e c u t o r that the

two p a r t i e s who were wounded were a t t e m p t i n g t o f l e e f r o m
the alley. The e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n s u b -

stantially supports these inferences. Rick Mikesell was
s n o t i n t h e back a n d G e r s t e n b e r g e r was s h o t s i d e w a y s t h r o u g h
t h e c h e s t w i t h no i n j u r y t o e i t h e r arm. H i s r i g h t arm m u s t

h a v e b e e n r a i s e d when t h e b u l l e t e n t e r e d and h e was s i d e w a y s
t o t h e l i n e of f i r e . Additionally, Lyle Mikesell t e s t i f i e d
t h a t h e t u r n e d and r a n when t h e s h o o t i n g s t a r t e d , and G a r y
Williams testified that after freezing for a moment he, too,
turned and fled. The prosecutor's comments were proper.
Defendant next argues that the prosecutor Is comments
as he described defendant's appearance, and the average
person's possible reaction to it, condoned a prejudicial and
discriminatory community attitude toward defendant that
implied that harassment of him was proper.
Comments by the prosecutor that indicated an under-
standing of how someone might think that Dupre was a "little
strange" based upon his appearance were consistently
preceded and interspersed by emphatic condemnations of the
group's harassment of Dupre. Counsel repeatedly stated that
he could not condone or justify their actions and that "to a
certain extent they deserved getting tromped on. " Defendant
has not demonstrated substantial prejudice.
Finally, we are not convinced that the prosecutor's
closing remarks, which asked the jury whether a reasonable
person would continue to provoke verbal exchanges and
harassment by returning to the corner repeatedly, confused
the jury as to the reasonable man standard of self-defense.
While the use of the term "reasonable man" could
cause confusion when it is used in a different context than
as the self-defense standard, no likelihood of con£usion
based upon use of the words has been demonstrated. Here,
Jury Instruction Nos. 20, 21 and 26 precisely set out the
statutory self-defense standard. Sections 45-3-101, -102
and -105, MCA. Additionally, both defense counsel and the
prosecutor explained the self-defense instructions and gave
examples of the extent of force permissible to use in
standing one's ground in given situations. And, they
explained t h a t an aggressor has t h e d u t y , if possible, to

withdraw or escape before t h e use of f o r c e t h a t is l i k e l y t o
cause 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 .
The thrust of the prosecutor's comments goes to a
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether Dupre, r a t h e r than one or more of

the group members, was the aggressor in the altercation.

They do not amount t o p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r .
Defendant was not denied effective assistance of
counsel.
Affirmed.

%&4,$4&LCIPQQ,
Chief J u s t i c e

W concur:
e
/'