May 25 2010
DA 09-0594
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2010 MT 118N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
COLTER EPLER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. CDC 2009-198
Honorable Kathy Seeley, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Wendy Holton, Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Hon. Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General, Sheri K. Sprigg,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Leo Gallagher, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Tara Harris,
Deputy County Attorney, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 12, 2010
Decided: May 25, 2010
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in
this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
Montana Reports.
¶2 Colter Joseph Epler (Epler) appeals an order of the District Court affirming his
conviction in the Lewis and Clark County Justice Court for endangering the welfare of a
child, a misdemeanor in violation of § 45-5-622(1), MCA. We reverse Epler’s
conviction.
¶3 On August 29, 2008, Lewis and Clark County Sheriff’s Deputy Dennis Nyland
received a report which resulted in his investigation of Epler. The investigation
concerned allegations that Epler had tied his two-year-old daughter to her bed by the
ankle in order to prevent her from leaving her bed and harming her younger sister.
Apparently, the two-year-old daughter had been climbing into her younger sister’s crib at
night and biting and throwing heavy toys on her. Deputy Nyland interviewed Epler.
Epler did not try to conceal what he had done and admitted to tying his daughter to the
bed with the rope. Epler told Deputy Nyland that he came to realize the dangers of this
action after their discussion. Epler told the deputy that he made an honest mistake and
that he was not trying to punish or hurt his two-year-old.
2
¶4 Epler was subsequently charged with the misdemeanor offense of endangering the
welfare of a child. The case was tried in a Justice Court bench trial. Deputy Nyland and
a child protective services worker testified at trial. A recording of the interview between
Epler and Deputy Nyland was also admitted at trial. Justice of the Peace Wallace A.
Jewell determined that Epler was guilty of the charged offense. Judge Jewell noted that
Epler argued that he and Danielle Morrison, the mother of the child, were new parents
who simply made a mistake. Judge Jewell conceded that this was “probably true and
they are extremely fortunate this incident did not result in some horribly serious injury
and fatality.” However, Judge Jewell determined that there were options available to the
parents, such as rearranging the furniture in the room, other than tying their daughter to
her bed. Accordingly, Judge Jewell determined that Epler knowingly violated the welfare
of his child by violating a duty of care or protection. Epler’s conviction was affirmed by
the District Court.
¶5 Epler now appeals his conviction. Epler argues that the State failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly endangered the welfare of his child. We
review appeals from a lower court of record as if they were filed as a direct appeal from a
district court. Stanley v. Lemire, 2006 MT 304, ¶ 26, 334 Mont. 489, 148 P.3d 643. “We
review the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction to determine whether, after
reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Morrisey, 2009 MT 201, ¶ 86, 351 Mont. 144, 214 P.3d 708.
3
¶6 Section 45-5-622(1), MCA, provides as follows: “A parent, guardian, or other
person supervising the welfare of a child less than 18 years old commits the offense of
endangering the welfare of children if the parent, guardian, or other person knowingly
endangers the child’s welfare by violating a duty of care, protection, or support.” Even
viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that the
State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Epler
knowingly endangered the welfare of his daughter in this case. Accordingly, we reverse
Epler’s conviction.
¶7 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of
our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, which provides for
memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the record before us that the State failed to
present sufficient evidence for any rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable
doubt that Epler knowingly committed the offense of endangering the welfare of a child.
Reversed.
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
We concur:
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
4