State v. Cook

No. 81-374

I N T E SUPREME COURT O TI-IE STATE O MONTANA
H F F

1982

T E STATE O MONTANA,
H F

P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,

-VS-

KENNETH E . COOK, SR. ,
Defendant 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 Seventh 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 Dawson, The H o n o r a b l e
L. C. G u l b r a n d s o n , 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:

J e r r y D. Cook, G l e n d i v e , 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
R i c h a r d A. Simonton, County A t t o r n e y , G l e n d i v e ,
Montana

- -

Submitted on B r i e f s : A p r i l 1 5 , 1982

Decided: J u n e 1 0 , 1982

Filed: Jufi 10 1982
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .

Kenneth E. Cook, Sr., appeals his conviction of

negligent homicide following a jury trial in the District

Court of the Seventh Judicial District, in and for the

C o u n t y o f Dawson.

On August 25, 1 9 8 0 , d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d by i n f o r m a -

t i o n with n e g l i g e n t homicide i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 45-5-

1 8 4 , MCA. The d e f e n d a n t p l e a d n o t g u i l t y , and a j u r y t r i a l

was h e l d on December 8, 1980. The j u r y returned a guilty

verdict, and t h e c o u r t sentenced defendant t o seven y e a r s '

imprisonment at t h e Montana State Prison. The c o u r t sus-

pended two y e a r s o f t h e s e n t e n c e on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t t h e

d e f e n d a n t s u b m i t t o a l c o h o l c o u n s e l i n g w h i l e on p a r o l e . T h i s

appeal followed.

On August 1 9 , 1 9 8 0 , b e t w e e n 8: 30 and 9:00 p.m., Susan

Dufner was s t r u c k and k i l l e d by a v e h i c l e w h i l e w a l k i n g o r

jogging with her dog on Anderson Avenue i n Glendive, Mon-

tana. An a u t o p s y r e v e a l e d t h a t s h e d i e d a l m o s t i n s t a n e o u s l y

from m a s s i v e s k u l l f r a c t u r e s e x t e n d i n g from t h e t o p and back

of t h e head down t h r o u g h t h e b a s e o f t h e s k u l l and a c r o s s

the ear canals. The evidence revealed that the injuries

were caused by a severe blunt force. Also, the injuries

w e r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h b e i n g s t r u c k by t h e f r o n t g r i l l a r e a o f

a 1 9 6 7 Ford p i c k u p t r u c k . The a p p e l l a n t was d r i v i n g a 1 9 6 7

Ford p i c k u p on t h e n i g h t o f Susan D u f n e r ' s d e a t h .

E x p e r t t e s t i m o n y and r e a l e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e

trial revealed that it had been appellant's pickup that

struck and killed Susan Dufner. Shattered fragments of

h e a d l i g h t g l a s s found a t t h e a c c i d e n t s c e n e matched b r o k e n

pieces of headlight glass from a p p e l l a n t ' s pickup. Paint
p a r t i c l e s t a k e n from t h e c l o t h i n g worn by t h e v i c t i m on t h e

n i g h t of t h e a c c i d e n t matched t h e p a i n t s a m p l e s froro a p p e l -

l a n t ' s pickup. H a i r , r e c o v e r e d from a s p o n g e t h a t a p p e l l a n t

used to wipe off his pickup, matched hair samples of the

victim. The s p o n g e a l s o c o n t a i n e d dog h a i r s t h a t matched

t h o s e of the victim's dog. Finally, a large dent, similar

to one expected to be made when a body slams against a

v e h i c l e , was found on a p p e l l a n t ' s p i c k u p ,

Appellant testified he had begun drinking at 10:00

a.m. on t h e morning of A u g u s t 1 9 , 1 9 8 0 , and t h a t he had con-

t i n u e d t o d r i n k u n t i l he l e f t t h e S o u t h s i d e T a v e r n t o r e t u r n

home a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8:30 p.m. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had

consumed more than twelve beers. This was, by his own

admission, about two and one h a l f t i m e s what he normally

would d r i n k .

Witnesses at the bar testified that appellant had

consumed b e e r a l l day long. One w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d s h e had

observed the appellant staggering to the bathroom and he

appeared t o be d r u n k . Another witness t e s t i f i e d that she

had l e f t t h e b a r a t t h e same t i m e a s t h e a p p e l l a n t and t h a t

he was " w o b b l i n g . " She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e saw a p p e l -

lant get into his vehicle, swing a U-turn i n the middle of

the street, drive away in t h e wrong l a n e of traffic, and

s w e r v e t o a v o i d oncoming t r a f f i c . These o b s e r v a t i o n s t o o k

p l a c e w i t h i n a s h o r t d i s t a n c e of t h e a c c i d e n t s c e n e .

The a p p e l l a n t ' s nephew, who l i v e d w i t h him, t e s t i f i e d

t h a t a p p e l l a n t a r r i v e d home a t a b o u t 8 : 5 0 p.m. on t h e n i g h t

of the accident. The nephew t e s t i f i e d that the appellant

was d r u n k , that he was s t a g g e r i n g and t h a t h i s s p e e c h was

slurred.
 The o n l y i s s u e on a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e was

s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e j ury' s v e r d i c t t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t

committed t h e o f f e n s e of negligent homicide a s defined by

s e c t i o n 45-5-104, MCA.

A p p e l l a n t ' s b a s i c c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was

not sufficient to f i n d t h a t he c o n s c i o u s l y d i s r e g a r d e d the

risk that his drunk driving could cause the death of a

pedestrian walking along Anderson Avenue after dark. He

argues that his a c t i o n s do not constitute a violation of

section 45-5-1634, MCA, because the result of his actions

was n o t f o r e s e e a b l e and t h a t h i s i n t o x i c a t i o n a l o n e i s n o t

s u f f i c i e n t t o "obviate a necessary conscious disregard."

T h i s Court h a s r e i t e r a t e d t h e standard f o r reviewing

t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence t o support a conviction i n

numerous cases. In the recent n e g l i g e n t homicide c a s e of

S t a t e v. Rumley (1981), Mont . , 634 P.2d 446, 38

St.Rep. 1351A, we a d d r e s s e d t h e s t a n d a r d for reviewing the

e v i d e n c e and s t a t e d :

" I t is t h e p r e r o g a t i v e of t h e j u r y t o d e c i d e
t h e f a c t s , and t h i s C o u r t m u s t u p h o l d s u c h
f i n d i n g s when t h e y a r e s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n -
t i a l evidence. A s we s t a t e d i n S t a t e v .
K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 283, 587 P.2d
1 2 9 8 , 1 3 0 5 , 35 St.Rep. 1532, 1539, ' [ t l h e
j u r y i s t h e f a c t - f i n d i n g body and i t s d e c i -
s i o n is c o n t r o l l i n g ... Given t h e r e q u i r e d
l e g a l minimum o f e v i d e n c e , we w i l l n o t sub-
s t i t u t e o u r d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e f a c t s f o r
t h a t of t h e j u r y . . . If s u b s t a n t i a l evi-
d e n c e i s found t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , i t
w i l l stand
P.2d a t 449.
... (Citations omitted.)" 634

A p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h i s a c t i o n s do n o t show a

"conscious disregard" a s d e f i n e d by s e c t i o n 45-5-104, MCA,

is without m e r i t . I n S t a t e v. Bier (1979), lvlont . I

591 P.2d 1 1 1 5 , 36 S t . R e p . 466, we h e l d :

"Defendant contends t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o prove
 t h e r e q u i r e d m e n t a l s t a t e and c a u s a t i o n e l e -
ments f o r a prima f a c i e c a s e of n e g l i g e n t
homicide. Concerning t h e mental element,
defendant argues t h a t h i s conduct d i d not
evidence a conscious disregard f o r h i s wife's
life. N e g l i g e n t homicide is d e f i n e d by
s t a t u t e a s follows:

" (1) C r i m i n a l h o m i c i d e c o n s t i t u t e s n e g l i g e n t
h o m i c i d e when i t is c o m m i t t e d n e g l i g e n t l y .

" I ( 2 ) A p e r s o n c o n v i c t e d o f n e g l i g e n t homi-
c i d e s h a l l be imprisoned i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n
f o r a n y term n o t t o e x c e e d t e n ( 1 0 ) y e a r s . '
S e c t i o n 95-6-104, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n
45-5-184, MCA.

"Negligence is d e f i n e d a s f o l l o w s :
II I . . . [A] p e r s o n a c t s n e g l i g e n t l y w i t h
respect t o a r e s u l t or t o a circumstance
d e s c r i b e d by a s t a t u t e d e f i n i n g an o f f e n s e
when h e c o n s c i o u s l y d i s r e g a r d s a r i s k t h a t
t h e r e s u l t w i l l occur o r t h a t t h e circum-
s t a n c e e x i s t s o r i f he d i s r e g a r d s a r i s k of
which h e s h o u l d be aware t h a t t h e r e s u l t w i l l
occur or t h a t the circumstance e x i s t s . The
r i s k must be of s u c h a n a t u r e and d e g r e e t h a t
Lo d i s r e g a r d i t i n v o l v e s a g r o s s d e v i a t i o n
from t h e s t a n d a r d of c o n d u c t t h a t a r e a s o n -
a b l e p e r s o n would o b s e r v e i n t h e a c t o r ' s
situation. G r o s s d e v i a t i o n means a d e v i a t i o n
t h a t is c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r t h a n l a c k o f
ordinary care. Relevant terms such a s "negli-
g e n t " a n d " w i t h n e g l i g e n c e " h a v e t h e same
meaning.' (Emphasis added.) S e c t i o n 94-2-
1 0 1 ( 3 1 ) , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 45-2-
1 0 1 ( 3 1 ) , MCA.

"In S t a t e v . K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , [ I 7 9 Mont.
2831, 587 P.2d 1 2 9 8 , 1 3 0 4 , 3 5 S t . R e p . 1 5 3 2 ,
1538, t h i s Court explained t h a t ' [ u l n l i k e
d e l i b e r a t e homicide, which r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e
o f f e n s e be committed p u r p o s e l y o r Itnowingly,
n e g l i g e n t homicide d o e s n o t r e q u i r e such pur-
pose o r knowledge. Negligent homicide o n l y
r e q u i r e s a g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from a r e a s o n a b l e
standard of care.' A g r o s s d e v i a t i o n under
t h e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n is analogous t o
g r o s s negligence i n t h e law of t o r t s . Al-
t h o u g h somewhat n e b u l o u s i n c o n c e p t , g r o s s
n e g l i g e n c e is g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t o f a l l
s h o r t o f a r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o r conse-
q u e n c e s and is s a i d t o d i f f e r from o r d i n a r y
n e g l i g e n c e o n l y i n d e g r e e , n o t i n kind . . ."
5 9 1 P.2d a t 1 1 1 7 - 1 1 1 8 . (Emphasis added.)

Finally, appellant's contention t h a t h i s intoxication

alone cannot be the basis for a conviction of negligent
h o m i c i d e is n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e l a w o r t h e e v i d e n c e . This

Court held in the negligent homicide case of State v.

K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 283, 587 P.2d 1298, t h a t :

" C r i m i n a l n e g l i g e n c e can a r i s e a s a r e s u l t of
i n t o x i c a t i o n . Defendant's mental s t a t e a t t h e
t i m e he was d r i v i n g h i s c a r was n o t i n i s s u e .
I s s u e was w h e t h e r t h e d r i v i n g o f a c a r w h i l e
i n t o x i c a t e d was a g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from t h e
standard of reasonable c a r e ...

". . . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t
d e f e n d a n t was d r i v i n g h i s c a r w h i l e i n t o x i -
c a t e d and i t was b e c a u s e o f h i s i n t o x i c a t i o n
t h a t the accident occurred resulting in t h e
d e a t h of Douglas Schaf f e r . This constitutes
s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supporting d e f e n d a n t ' s
conviction.'' 587 P.2d a t 1304-1305.

See a l s o , S t a t e v . Engstrom ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 79 Wash.2d 469, 487 P.2d

The e v i d e n c e i n t h e p r e s e n t case constitutes suffi-

c i e n t evidence t o support t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s conviction. The

evidence i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was intoxicated to

s u c h a d e g r e e t h a t i t was c l e a r l y i n " g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from

the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would

observe in the a c t o r ' s situation."

Appellant admitted consuming in excess of twelve

b e e r s , o v e r t w i c e h i s normal l i m i t ; he was o b s e r v e d s t a g g e r -

i n g i n t h e b a r ; h e was o b s e r v e d w o b b l i n g t o h i s v e h i c l e ; he

was observed swerviny and driving in the wrong lane of

traffic minutes before the accident; and he was observed

staggering and slurring his speech shortly after the

accident.

The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .

Justice /
We c o n c u r :

3 4d 4.Pgw4
Chief Justice
-