State v. Howell

No. 97-243

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1998MT2~

STATE OF MONTANA,
~"'H PO
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHARLES HOWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
In and for the County of Silver Bow,
The Honorable James E. Purcell, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Deirdre Caughlan, Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana

F or Respondent:

Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General; Cregg Coughlin,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Robert M. McCarthy, County Attorney;
Samm Cox Deputy, County Attorney, Butte, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: January 15,1998

Decided: February 9, 1998
Filed:

Cllrk
Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

~1 Appellant Charles Howell (Howell) was convicted of attempted deliberate homicide

and appeals from the Second Judicial District Court's findings of fact, conclusions of law,

judgment and order. We affirm.

~2 We address the following issues on appeal:

~3 1. Did the District Court err in refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of attempted

mitigated deliberate homicide?

~4 2. Did the District Court err in refusing to instruct the jury on the offenses of

aggravated and felony assault?

Factual and Procedural Background

~5 On April 1, 1996, Howell and his roommate, Gary Cargle (Cargle) were at their

residence in Butte, Montana. At about 5:30 p.m., Jim Oliver (Oliver) and his girlfriend

Amanda Stanwood (Stanwood) stopped by to visit Howell. Oliver and Stanwood had been

drinking at several casinos earlier that afternoon and brought a gallon jug of wine and some

beer with them to Howell's. Howell, Cargle, Oliver, and Stanwood proceeded to drink and

socialize for several hours.

~6 Later in the evening, Howell went into the kitchen and began fixing dinner. Howell

testified that after putting some chicken in the oven, he went upstairs and got in the shower.

2
In the meantime, Cargle, Oliver, and Stanwood became involved in a conversation about

religion. At this point, the parties' versions of events differ.

~7 Stanwood and Oliver testified that Cargle became upset at a comment that Stanwood

made about religion, walked over to Stanwood, and punched her in the mouth. Cargle was

unavailable at trial, but his tape-recorded statement was admitted into evidence. Cargle

stated that it was Oliver, not he, who punched Stanwood. Cargle claimed that Oliver began

pushing Stanwood and that he tried to get between Oliver and Stanwood. All parties agree

that Oliver jumped on top of Cargle and began hitting him.

~8 Howell testified that while he was in the shower, he heard Cargle screaming for help.

He opened the shower door, put on a pair of cut-offs, and ran down to the living room. He

stated that he found Oliver on top of Cargle, "beating the hell out of him." Cargle is a

disabled veteran and does not have full use of one of his arms. Howell testified that he saw

Oliver beating Cargle and was afraid that Cargle had no way to defend himself. Howell

testified that he tried to shove Oliver off of Cargle, but that Cargle knocked him against the

wall.

~9 Howell testified at trial that he then went into the kitchen and grabbed a knife. He

admitted that he returned to the living room with the knife and came up behind Oliver.

Howell testified at trial, "I put the knife to his throat and told him to get off." However, later

in his testimony, Howell stated that Oliver had attacked him and that he fell to the floor with

3
Oliver on top of him. He stated that he had the knife in his hand and when he pulled his arm

away, Oliver may have been cut.

~1 0 Stanwood testified at trial that Howell was sitting in the living room at the time the

altercation began. She stated that after Oliver and Cargle began fighting, Howell came up

behind Oliver with a knife. She stated that Howell pulled Oliver's head back and cut him ear

to ear. Stanwood grabbed Oliver, put her hand over his throat, and drove him to the

emergency room.

~11 At the emergency room, Oliver was treated by Dr. Richard Gould. Dr. Gould testified

that Oliver had lacerations on his hand and fingers. The laceration on Oliver's neck extended

from ear to ear through the layers of skin, fat, and muscle. The cut was of uniform depth and

came within one millimeter of Oliver's carotid artery and jugular vein. The cut on Oliver's

neck had to be stapled closed.

~12 After receiving a report of the altercation, two police officers were dispatched to

Howell's residence. They noticed blood on the sidewalk outside of the house and on the front

door. After the officers knocked on the door several times, Howell answered. Inside, the

officers found blood on the walls and door and a large pool of blood on the living room floor.

Cargle had blood on his shirt, pants, and shoes. Howell did not have any blood on him.

~13 In the kitchen, an officer found a large kitchen knife on the counter, which was later

found to have blood on it consistent with Oliver's. There were no signs that food was being

prepared. In the bathroom the officers noticed blood on the toilet bowl and sink and a bucket

4
of ammonia water and rags on the floor. The officers also testified that when they arrived,

there was a load of laundry in the washing machine.

~14 Howell told the officers that Oliver and Stanwood had gotten into an argument and

that he had asked them to leave. When questioned further, Howell stated that Oliver had

assaulted Cargle and that he had tried to push Oliver off of Cargle. Howell told the officers

that he was not sure whether Oliver had been cut, but that he thought Stanwood may have

cut Oliver.

~15 Howell was charged by information with attempted deliberate homicide in violation

of §§ 45-4-103(1) and 45-5-102(1)(a), MCA. Prior to trial, the District Court granted

Howell's motion for a psychological examination. Howell was examined by Dr. Bernard

Peters, who testified at trial. Dr. Peters testified that Howell suffers from depressive

disorder, but that no signs or symptoms of the depressive disorder appeared to be manifest

at the time of the crime. Dr. Peters concluded that Howell's consumption of alcohol was the

main factor in the incident.

~16 A jury found Howell guilty, and he was sentenced to 25 years, plus 2 years,

suspended, for the use of a weapon. He appeals from this judgment.

Standard of Review

~17 A criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on each issue or theory that

is supported in the evidence. State v. Gopher (1981), 194 Mont. 227, 229, 633 P.2d 1195,

1196. This Court reviews jury instructions in criminal cases to determine whether the

5
instructions as a whole fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case. State v.

Brandon (1994), 264 Mont. 231, 870 P.2d 734.

Discussion

~18 1. Did the District Court err in refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of attempted
mitigated deliberate homicide?

~19 Under Montana law, a criminal defendant "may be found guilty of an offense

necessarily included in the offense charged or of an attempt to commit either the offense

charged or an offense necessarily included in the offense charged." Section 46-16-607(1),

MCA. The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense when one

of the parties requests it and when the record contains evidence from which the jury could

rationally find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense and acquit of the greater. Section

46-16-607(2), MCA; State v. Castle (Mont. 1997),948 P.2d 688, 54 St.Rep. 1194.

~20 A person commits the offense of deliberate homicide if he or she "purposely or

knowingly causes the death of another human being." Section 45-5-102(1), MCA. The

defendant is guilty of mitigated deliberate homicide when he or she "purposely or knowingly

causes the death of another human being but does so under the influence of extreme mental

or emotional stress for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse." Section 45-5-

103(1), MCA. Thus, mitigated deliberate homicide is not a lesser included offense of

deliberate homicide in the traditional sense, but rather is an affirmative defense that must be

proven by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 45-5-103(2), MCA;

see State v. Goulet (Mont. 1997),938 P.2d 1330, 54 St.Rep. 482. We have held that for a

6
defendant accused of deliberate homicide to be entitled to an instruction on mitigated

deliberate homicide, the defendant must put forth some evidence demonstrating that he or

she acted under extreme mental or emotional stress for which there is reasonable explanation

or excuse. State v. Heit (1990), 242 Mon~88, 492, 791 P.2d 1379, 1382. ------
~21 Howell argues that the District Court erred by refusing his proposed jury instruction

on attempted mitigated deliberate homicide as the record contains sufficient evidence for a

jury to convict him of this offense rather than of attempted deliberate homicide. Specifically,

he argues that his testimony and that of Dr. Peters presented evidence that he was acting

under the influence of extreme mental or emotional stress for which there was a reasonable

explanation. We determine that the record is void of any such evidence.

~22 After examining Howell, Dr. Peters testified that Howell had been hospitalized as a

teen for personality disorder and aggression and that he still suffers from a depressive

disorder. He testified that Howell's disorder caused him to be hypersensitive to the behavior

of others and to become easily irritated and angered. However, Dr. Peters concluded that

"[ a]t the time of the offense it did not appear that signs or symptoms of the depressive

disorder were manifest." He also noted that he found no evidence of psychotic-type thinking,

hallucinations, or delusions. Dr. Peters concluded that "by using alcohol, [Howell]

disinhibited his controls."

~23 This Court has repeatedly held that simply being intoxicated or angry does not support

a finding of extreme mental or emotional stress for which there is a reasonable explanation

7
or excuse. Goulet, 938 P.2d at 1332-33; State v. Williams (1993), 262 Mont. 530,541, 866

P.2d 1099, 1106. Dr. Peters testified that while Howell does suffer from a personality

disorder, his use of alcohol caused him to lose control and was the main, overriding factor

in the incident.

,-r24 Howell testified that he was afraid of Oliver because he knew him to be an aggressive

drunk. He stated that when he saw Oliver attacking his defenseless friend, he felt he had to

intervene. However, Howell's anger or fear, without more, does not support a finding of

extreme mental or emotional. stress for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse.

Williams, 866 P.2d at 1106. Therefore, we hold that the District Court did not err in refusing

Howell's proposed instruction on attempted mitigated deliberate homicide.

,-r25 2. Did the District Court err in refusing to instruct the jury on the offenses of
aggravated and felony assault?

,-r26 Howell argues that he was entitled to instructions on aggravated and felony assault.

One commits the offense of aggravated assault "if the person purposely or knowingly causes

serious bodily injury to another." Section 45-5-202(1), MCA. A person commits the offense

of felony assault "if the person purposely or knowing causes bodily injury to another with

a weapon." Section 45-5-202(2)(a), MCA. Assault is a lesser included offense of the crimes

of deliberate homicide and attempted deliberate homicide. See State v. Sellner (Mont. 1997),

_ P.2d _,54 St.Rep. 1464; Castle, 948 P.2d at 691.

,-r27 In Castle, the defendant was charged with deliberate homicide. The testimony at trial

established that the defendant punched the victim three times in the jaw and once on the side

8
of the head, but that another man stabbed the victim several times and kicked the victim in

the head. Castle, 948 P .2d at 691. The pathologist who examined the victim testified that

the causes of death were stabbing and severe blunt force injuries to the head. He stated that

the type of blows that caused this injury were not simple punches or even the type of punch

that would normally be inflicted by a boxer. Castle, 948 P .2d at 691.

,-r28 The district court refused the defendant's request for jury instructions on assault. On

appeal, we held:

Although this Court holds that assault is an included offense, that does not
mean that an instruction on this offense must be given every time a defendant
is charged with deliberate homicide. Rather, there must be some basis from
which ajury could rationally conclude that the defendant is guilty of the lesser,
but not the greater offense.

Castle, 948 P .2d at 691. We determined that the testimony and medical evidence were

consistent with the defense theory that, although the defendant punched the victim, those

blows only amounted to assault and did not cause his death. We held that the district court

erred in not instructing the jury on assault. Castle, 948 P.2d at 692.

,-r29 In contrast, there is no evidence in this case that any person other than Howell caused

Oliver's injuries. Howell admitted that he came up behind Oliver and put a knife to his

throat. However, Howell stated that Oliver fell on top of him and was cut accidentally when

Howell pulled his arm away. Stanwood testified that she saw Howell pull Oliver's head back

and slit his throat. Thus, all parties agree that Howell cut Oliver, and the only disputed issue

9
is whether the record contains any evidence that Howell intended to inflict bodily injury

rather than death.

~30 A similar challenge was raised in Sellner, 54 St.Rep. at 1464. In that case, Sellner

was convicted of attempted deliberate homicide in the shooting of a police officer. Police

officers went to Sellner's home to investigate a reported assault. As the police officers were

driving away, they spotted Sellner riding in a vehicle and proceeded to pull that vehicle over.

Sellner, 54 St.Rep. at 1464. Sellner jumped out of the vehicle and ran into the woods. An

officer followed and shouted for Sellner to stop, but Sellner turned and shot the officer in the

chest with a .41 caliber handgun. The officer, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, survived

the shooting. Sellner, 54 St.Rep. at 1465.

~31 At trial, Sellner admitted that he shot at the officer several times, aiming at the

officer's chest. Sellner, 54 St.Rep. at 1466. Sellner testified that he had heard a voice telling

him that the officer was wearing a vest and that ifhe shot him in the chest he would not hurt

him. A physician testified at trial that the officer's injuries would likely have been fatal had

he not been wearing the bulletproof vest. Sellner, 54 St.Rep. at 1466.

~32 The district court refused to instruct the jury on assault, and Sellner was convicted of

attempted deliberate homicide. Sellner, 54 St.Rep. at 1466. On appeal, this Court held:

"From the evidence presented at trial, it would be irrational to conclude that Sellner's

shooting of Parcell in the chest with a large caliber soft-point bullet was done with any intent

other than to cause a person's death." Sellner, 54 St.Rep. at 1466. We determined that

10
Sellner's testimony, that voices had assured him the officer would not be hurt, if believed,

would support an acquittal, not a conviction for assault. Sellner, 54 St.Rep. at 1466.

,-r33 Likewise, in this case, the testimony in the record and the medical evidence do not

support an instruction on aggravated or felony assault. The injuries inflicted were nearly

fatal. The laceration on Oliver's neck extended through skin, fat, and muscle and was within

one millimeter of Oliver's carotid artery and jugular vein. Dr. Gould testified: "You could

not get [a] more uniform [cut] without trying."

,-r34 The record contains no evidence that Howell intended to inflict bodily injury rather

than to cause the death of Oliver. Howell admitted to threatening Oliver with a knife and

testified at trial:

I was behind him but I put the knife to his throat and told him to get off, I
hadn't used the knife. Listen, I like Jim Oliver, but when you threaten, you
threaten, you show him you mean it or he's going to get up and kick the shit
out of me.

Howell then stated that he did not intend to injure Oliver, but cut him accidentally. This

theory, if accepted, would support an acquittal, not a conviction for assault. Therefore, we

hold that the District Court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on aggravated or felony

assault.

,-r35 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the decision of the District Court.

Justice

11
We concur:

12