State v. Smith

No. 84-199

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN

1985

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-

R N L ALLEN SMITH,
O AD

Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .

APPEAL FROM: District Court of t h e Eleventh 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 F l a t h e a d ,
The H o n o r a b l e M i c h a e l Keedy, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

COUNSEL O RECORD:
F

For Appellant:

Gary G. Doran a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , 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
James S c h e i e r a r g u e d , A s s t . A t t y . G e n e r a l , H e l e n a
Ted 0. Lympus, County A t t o r n e y , K a l i s p e l l , Montana

Submitted: June 2 5 , 1985

Decided: September 1 0 , 1985

Skp i o 1985
Filed:
M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.

The defendant, Ronald Allen Smith, was convicted of

aggravated kidnapping, two c o u n t s , and d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e ,

two counts. The defendant was convicted of each count

pursuant t o p l e a s o f g u i l t y entered i n t h e District Court of

Flathead County, State of Montana. The defendant was

sentenced t o death. The j u d g m e n t a n d s e n t e n c e w e r e a f f i r m e d

by t h i s Court in S t a t e v. Ronald A l l e n S m i t h (Mont. 1985),

P.2d. , 42 S t . R e p . 463.

T h i s C o u r t i s a g a i n a s k e d t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e r e c o r d and

remand t h e m a t t e r f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n o f

d e f e n d a n t and a r e h e a r i n g o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e , b a s e d

upon a United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t c a s e o f Ake v. Oklahoma

(19851, U.S. , 105 S.Ct. 1 0 8 7 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53, which

came down a f t e r a r g u m e n t i n t h i s c a s e .

On August 4, 1982, defendant kidnapped and killed

H a r v e y Mad Man, Jr., and Thomas R u n n i n g R a b b i t , Jr., a t a

remote location near U.S. Highway 2, west of the eastern

b o r d e r o f F l a t h e a d County. On A u g u s t 3 , 1982, t h e defendant

and two companions, Andre Fontaine and Rodney Munro, had

d e p a r t e d from A l b e r t a , Canada. The t h r e e e n c o u n t e r e d t h e t w o

victims, Mad Man and Running Rabbit, at a bar in East

G l a c i e r , Montana. While a t t h e b a r , t h e t h r e e s h o t p o o l and

d r a n k b e e r w i t h Mad Man a n d R u n n i n g R a b b i t . The t h r e e l e f t

t h e b a r i n E a s t G l a c i e r a n d h i t c h h i k e d w e s t a l o n g Highway 2.

There had been discussion between the defendant and Andre

F o n t a i n e a b o u t s t e a l i n g a c a r and t h e need t o e l i m i n a t e a n y

witnesses t o the theft. Shortly thereafter, t h e t h r e e men

w e r e p i c k e d u p b y Mad Man a n d R u n n i n g R a b b i t . The men d r o v e

f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w e n t y m i n u t e s a n d s t o p p e d t o a l l o w Mad Man
and Running R a b b i t t o r e l i e v e t h e m s e l v e s . When t h e two men

got back into the car, the defendant pulled a sawed-off

single-shot bolt action .22 rifle, brought illegally into

t h i s country, and p o i n t e d it a t t h e d r i v e r . Munro d i s p l a y e d

h i s k n i f e t o t h e passenger. The d e f e n d a n t and Munro marched

t h e two v i c t i m s i n t o t h e t r e e s . The d e f e n d a n t s h o t Harvey

Mad Man i n t h e back o f t h e head a t p o i n t - b l a n k range. He

reloaded the rifle, walked several feet to where Thomas

Running R a b b i t had f a l l e n t o t h e ground upon b e i n g s t a b b e d by

Munro, and s h o t him i n t h e t e m p l e a t p o i n t - b l a n k r a n g e . Both

men w e r e k i l l e d i n s t a n t l y . The d e f e n d a n t and t h e o t h e r two

t h e n s t o l e t h e v i c t i m s ' c a r and p r o c e e d e d t o C a l i f o r n i a . The

c a r was l a t e r r ~ c o v e r e dwhen F o n t a i n e and Munro w e r e a r r e s t e d

f o r armed r o b b e r y i n C a l i f o r n i a . The d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d

i n Wyoming.

An i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d charging t h e defendant with

two counts of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of

deliberate homicide. An arraignment hearing was held on

November 1, 1982, a t which t i m e t h e d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a p l e a

of "not guilty" t o a l l charges. O F e b r u a r y 24,
n 1983, t h e

d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a change o f p l e a . The d e f e n d a n t a d m i t t e d

s h o o t i n g b o t h v i c t i m s i n t h e head. The c o u r t was a p p r i s e d o f

t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e n t i o n t o seek t h e d e a t h penalty.

A t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g on March 21, 1983, t h e c o u r t

and parties reviewed t h e presentence r e p o r t and, a f t e r one

minor correction, t h e c o u r t admitted it without o b j e c t i o n .

At t h e hearing, t h e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e had been i n

p r i s o n f o r e i g h t o f t h e l a s t t e n y e a r s , and t h a t h e had l i v e d

by p e t t y t h e f t and s e l l i n g d r u g s when h e was n o t i n p r i s o n .

He testified in detail about the sixteen prior offenses

l i s t e d i n t h e presentence report. He testified t o the facts
of the killing. H e s t a t e d t h a t Munro was a w a r e o f h i s i n t e n t

to kill t h e victims because he intended t o s t e a l t h e i r c a r

and wished t o l e a v e no w i t n e s s e s . He stated t h a t in addition

t o h i s d e s i r e t o eliminate t h e witnesses t o t h e c a r t h e f t , he

had had a "morbid f a s c i n a t i o n t o f i n d o u t w h a t it w o u l d b e

like t o k i l l somebody." He t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e h a d consumed

t w o o r t h r e e b e e r s on t h e n i g h t o f t h e crime b u t that his

ability to understand his actions were not impaired. He

testified he sought the death penalty because a prolonged

p e r i o d o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n would b e o f n o b e n e f i t t o h i m s e l f o r

society and because he foresaw problems with the Indian

population at the prison. He testified that he felt no

remorse for the killings, that he considered himself a

violent person, and t h a t he f e l t he could k i l l again. He

stated that he had no desire to change his lifestyle.

Following e x t e n s i v e q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e c o u r t , t h e defendant

denied being under the influence of drugs, intoxicants or

extreme stress and stated that he knew of no mitigating

circumstances.

On March 2 1 , 1983 a t t h e conclusion o f t h e hearing t o

determine the existence and nature of any aggravating or

mitigating circumstances, the court imposed a sentence of

d e a t h upon t h e d e f e n d a n t .

Subsequently, t h e defendant filed a motion t o seek a

reconsideration of the death penalty and a motion for a

psychiatric examination. The c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on the

motions on May 3, 1983. At the hearing, the defendant

t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s f a m i l y h a d i n d u c e d him t o c h a n g e h i s mind

and s e e k a lesser p e n a l t y t h a n d e a t h . He testified that his

earlier desire for the d ~ a t hp e n a l t y was the product of

depression which had resulted from the long period of
solitary confinement in t h e Flathead County J a i l following

his arrest. He further testified t h a t he had d e s i g n e d h i s

earlier testimony to induce the court to s e n t e n c e him to

death, and that he had concealed a potential mitigating

factor--his u s e o f d r u g s and a l c o h o l . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he

and Munrn had u s ~ d h r e e o r f o u r h u n d r e d " h i t s " o f LSD d u r i n g
t

the period of t i m e immediately p r i o r t o t h e i r e n t r y t o t h e

United S t a t e s , ending t h e day b e f o r e t h e murders. He further

testified that on the day of the crime he had consumed

a p p r o x i m a t e l y twelve b e e r s .

On June 10, 1983 the court granted the defendant's

motion f o r psychiatric evaluation. The c o u r t a p p o i n t e d a

p s y c h i a t r i s t , D r . W i l l i a m S t r a t f o r d , t o examine t h e d e f e n d a n t

and report to the court as to: (1) w h e t h e r he could

d e t e r m i n e which o f t h e v e r s i o n s g i v e n by t h e d e f e n d a n t was

credible; and ( 2 ) w h a t was t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n

on August 4, 1982. The defendant requested the court to

amend its order deleting t h e investigative function of D r .

Stratford. The court amended i t s o r d e r and d i r e c t e d Dr.

S t r a t f o r d t o assume t h e t r u t h o f d e f e n d a n t ' s second v e r s i o n

of t h e f a c t s i n performing h i s examination.

The court held a hearing on defendant's motion for

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c e on December 1, 1983. A t the

hearing, Dr. Stratford testified t h a t he found n o e v i d e n c e

that the use of drugs o r alcohol affected the defendant's

capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct,

conform h i s conduct t o the requirements of law, or form a

criminal intent. H e b a s e d h i s c o n c l u s i o n s on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s

t e s t i m o n y and s t a t e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g h i s e x t e n s i v e u s e o f LSD

a n d h i s c o n d u c t on t h e d a y o f t h e crime. According t o D r .

S t r a t f o r d , a f t e r t h r e e o r f o u r c o n s e c u t i v e d a y s o f h e a v y LSD
usage the user develops a tolerance for the drug. As a

result, l a r g e d o s e s have little or no effect. Given the

defendant's history of heavy LSD u s a g e f o r a p e r i o d o f one

month o r more prior t o the crime, Dr. Stratford concluded

t h a t t h e u s e o f e i g h t o r n i n e , o r e v e n a s many a s f i f t y d o s e s

o f LSD would n o t h a v e a f f e c t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l s t a t e

when h e committed t h e h o m i c i d e s .

Rodney Munro, the defendant's accomplice also testi-

fied a t t h e hearing. Munro s t a t e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e

crime, h e was experiencing confusion, f l a s h e s of l i g h t and

h a l l u c i n a t i o n s , h a v i n g i n g e s t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same amount

of d r u g s and alcohol a s t h e defendant. He also testified

t h a t h e had s t a b b e d Running R a b b i t o n c e b e f o r e t h e d e f e n d a n t

s h o t him, and t h a t i t was p o s s i b l e Running R a b b i t was a l r e a d y

dead b e f o r e h e was s h o t .

On December 12, 1983, t h e d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s motion

for an additiona 1 psychiatric evaluation . The d e f e n d a n t ' s

m o t i o n was d e n i e d .

In reviewing defendant ' s motion for reconsideration,

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

support i t s o r i g i n a l sentence. The c o u r t found t h a t beyond a

r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h e a g g r a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g s c o m m i t t e d by t h e

defendant resulted in t h e death of h i s victims, satisfying

the statutory aggravating circumstance stated in section

46-18-303, MCA. -
u 4 L-- v
We

the
L C
a
n-
UC

a -.- -.. A >
. AY .A.'
-*. ,
-t-.tn ",.,-,t.
"L. " I - l

'3
-'I M3k The c o u r t found beyond a reasonable doubt

that no m i t i g a t i n g circumstances w e r e present. The court

found t h a t w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s consumption o f
alcohol and drugs was voluntary, and did not impair or

o t h e r w i s e a f f e c t h i s s t a t e o f mind, h i s c a p a c i t y t o r e c o g n i z e

and a p p r e c i a t e t h 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 h i s a b i l i t y
~

to control his actions and to conform his conduct to the

r e q u i r e m e n t s o f law. The c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t

made a c r > n s c i o u s and v o l u n t a r y c h o i c e t o k i l l the victims

notwithstanding his use of drugs and alcohol, and that

i n t o x i c a t i o n was n o t a s u f f i c i e n t m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e t o

c a l l f o r leniency.

The d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l e d from t h e s e n t e n c e imposed. We

affirmed. S t a t e v. Ronald A l l e n S m i t h , s u p r a .

Defendant's p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i s b a s e d on Ake v.

Oklahoma (1985), U.S. , 105 S . C t . 1 0 8 7 , 84 L.Ed.2d

53. Our p r o v i n c e on t h e a p p e a l i s t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e

d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a n a d d i t i o n a l p s y c h i a t r i c exam u n d e r

Ake,
- supra. The defendant argues that the Ake
- decision

established a constitutional r i g h t f o r defendant's access t o

competent psychiatric assistance where such assistance is
essential to the effective defense of the case. The

defendant argues t h a t in l i g h t of the - decision,
Ake he is

entitled to an additional psychiatric examination. We

disagree. W e find t h e - decision lacks d i r e c t application
Ake

t o M o n t a n a ' s c a p i t a l s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e e d i n g and t o t h e p r e s e n t

case.

I n Ake v. Oklahoma, supra, an i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t was

charged with first-degree murder. At his arraignment the

t r i a l j u d g e o r d e r e d him t o b e examined by a p s y c h i a t r i s t d u e

t o h i s b i z a r r e behavior. The d e f e n d a n t was i n i t i a l l y found

i n c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l , b u t s i x weeks l a t e r h e was found

comp~tent so long as he continued to be sedated with

anti-psychotic drugs. The defendant raised the insanity
d e f e n s e and r e q u e s t e d a p s y c h i a t r i c evaluation t o determine

h i s mental s t a t e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e . The t r i a l c o u r t

d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r s u c h an e v a l u a t i o n . The U n i t e d

S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d and h e l d t h a t when a d e f e n d a n t

h a s made a p r e l i m i n a r y showing t h a t h i s s a n i t y a t t h e t i m e o f

t h e offense i s l i k e l y t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a t t r i a l . ,

the constitution requires t h a t t h e s t a t e provide access t o a

psychiatrist's assistance on this issue, if the defendant

cannot o t h e r w i s e a f f o r d one.

We f i n d t h e - d e c i s i o n r e a d i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from
Ake

the case a t bar. First, the psychiatric testimony i n -
Ake

raised the issue of the defendant's f u t u r e dangerousness,

which in Oklahoma is a statutory aggravating factor in a

capital sentencing proceeding. Oklahoma Stat., Title 21,

S152 (1981). In Montana, future dangerousness is not a

s t a t u t o r y aggravating circumstance under t h e s t a t e ' s c a p i t a l

sentencing scheme. Section 46-18-303, MCA. Unlike the

s i t u a t i o n t h a t e x i s t e d i n - t h e s t a t e d i d n o t r e l y upon o r
Ake,

present psychiatric evidence to establish any aggravating

factors a t sentencing. F u r t h e r , i n t h i s c a s e , a t no t i m e d i d

the S t a t e attempt to elicit from D r . S t r a t f o r d an opinion

concerning f u t u r e dangerousness o f t h e dependant.

Second, in Ake
- there was a trial. The defendant's

sanity was a significant factor in his defense. In the

present matter, t h e defendant p l e a d g u i l t y t o t h e homicide

and aggravated kidnapping offenses.

Third, in the United States Supreme Court decision,

t h e r e was no e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y f o r e i t h e r s i d e on A k e ' s s a n i t y

at the time of the offense. Ake,
- 105 S.Ct. at 1091.

However, i n Smith, supra, Dr. Stratford, the psychiatrist,
gave e x t e n s i v e t e s t i m o n y a s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e o f mind

a t t h e t i m e of the offense including:

( a ) t h e e f f e c t o f a l c o h o l and d r u g s on
t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e o f mind;

(b) whether t h e defendant a c t e d under
e x t r e m e m e n t a l o r e m o t i o n a l stress;

(c) whether t h e defendant ' s c a p a c i t y 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 conduct
to the requirements of law was
s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r e d ; and

(d) a diagnosis of the defendant's
mental condition. S t a t e v. S m i t h , 4 2
St.Rep. a t 4 7 9 .

Fourth, in -
Ake, the trial court denied defense

counsel ' s r e q u e s t f o r a p s y c h i a t r i c examination o f defendant

with respect to his mental condition at the time of the

offense. In the present case, the trial court granted

defendant 's i n i t i a 1 request f o r the psychiatric evaluation.

F o l l o w i n g t h e e x a m i n a t i o n and t h e p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s conclusion

r e g a r d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e o f mind, t h e d e f e n d a n t f i l e d

a motion for an additional psychiatric evaluation. The

second motion was d e n i e d . Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we f i n d

the -
Ake decision readily distinguishable and without

precedential m e r i t t o t h i s case.

The d e f e n d a n t a l s o a r g u e s t h a t h e was n o t p r o v i d e d w i t h

a competent psychiatrist. The defendant repeats his

contention raised i n t h e i n i t i a l appeal t h a t D r . Stratford's

r o l e was c o n t a m i n a t e d by t h e i n v e s t i g a t i v e f u n c t i o n imposed

by the District Court. This contention raised by the

d e f e n d a n t i n h i s b r i e f s and argument is i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t i n

t h e f i r s t a p p e a l , S t a t e v . Ronald A l l e n S m i t h , s u p r a .

We h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e argument n o t o n l y i n l i g h t of

t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l a p p e a l , b u t a l s o on t h e -
Ake

decision. The United State Supreme Court in -
Ake, noted:
 T h i s i s n o t t o s a y , o f c o u r s e , -t - tha the

-
i n d i g e n t defendant has a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
r i a h t t o choose a ~ s v c h i a t r i s t o f h i s
p e r s o n a l l i k i n g o r i o L receive f u a s - i E;
hire his own. Our c o n c e r n i s
t h a t t h e i n d i g e n t defendant have a c c e s s
- - competent p s y c h i a t r i s t f o r t h e
to a
p u r p o s e w e h a v e d i s c u s s e d , and a s i n t h e
case of t h e provision of counsel we leave
t o t h e S t a t e t h e d e c i s i o n on how t o
implement t h i s r i g h t . (Emphasis a d d e d . )
Ake, s u p r a , 1 0 5 S.Ct. a t 1097.
-
The basic tenent of the -
Ake decision was to assure an

indigent defendant's a c c e s s t o a competent p s y c h i a t r i s t f o r

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

We f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t was a f f o r d e d t h i s r i g h t . The r e c o r d

clearly reflects Dr. S t r a t f o r d ' s e d u c a t i o n a 1 and p r o f e s s i o n a 1

qualifications. Dr. S t r a t f o r d i n t e r v i e w e d t h e d e f e n d a n t on

two o c c a s i o n s a t t h e Plontana S t a t e P r i s o n a n d c o n s i d e r e d t h e

t r a n s c r i p t s of t h e p r i o r proceedings, t h e presentence report

and witness statements provided by the defendant. Dr.

Stratford a l s o interviewed Rodney Munro and Andre Fontaine

and s e c u r e d a p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o f i l e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t from D r .

Herman W l t e r s .
a

Dr. Stratford's conclusion was that Smith had the

capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and

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

on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e o f mind. The r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t e s

that Dr. S t r a t f o r d was a n e u t r a l p s y c h i a t r i s t who examined

Smith a s t o h i s sanity a t the t i m e of the offenses. Dr.

Stratford testified t o the f o r e g o i n g a t t h e h e a r i n g and it

was on that basis that this Court found no additional

p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n was n e c e s s a r y .

Accordingly, we find that Ronald Allen Smith is not

e n t i t l e d t o a second p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s e v a l u a t i o n .
We concur:
,.-.f

Justices