April 7 2009
DA 06-0624
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2009 MT 114
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JEREMIAH C. GREEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lake, Cause No. DC-05-21
Honorable Deborah Kim Christopher, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Cathleen O. Sohlberg, Office of Public Defender; Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Hon. Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; John A. Paulson,
Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Montana
Mitchell A. Young, Lake County Attorney; Polson, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 21, 2007
Decided: April 7, 2009
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Appellant Jeremiah C. Green was convicted of two counts of deliberate homicide
by accountability, and one count of tampering with evidence after a jury trial in the
Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County. Green appeals the District Court’s
judgment and commitment. We affirm.
¶2 We address the following issues on appeal:
¶3 1. Did Green’s trial counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to request that
the jury be instructed to view accomplice testimony with distrust?
¶4 2. Did the District Court err by admitting evidence of Green’s prior statement that
he would like to kill the victim?
¶5 3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by overruling Green’s objection to
the prosecutor’s offering a personal opinion on the credibility of a witness during closing
argument?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶6 In the early morning hours of February 3, 2005, Troy McDonald shot and killed
Gerald Sirucek and Catherine Madplume. Testimony elicited at Green’s trial indicated
that the previous day, Gerald Gardipee was staying at Green’s father’s house in rural
Ronan when Green showed up in his jeep with Sirucek, Madplume, and Madplume’s
brother. They hung around for awhile drinking beer and shooting a .22 caliber pistol
Green had with him, having stolen it from his cousin several weeks before. When the
beer ran out in the early afternoon, the group left and returned to Ronan for more beer,
2
dropping off Madplume’s brother and picking up McDonald. They returned to the house
and drank for several hours more, at which point Green, Sirucek and Gardipee drove back
to Ronan for more beer. After returning to the house and drinking that 18-pack,
Gardipee, Sirucek, and McDonald left again to get another 24-pack of beer. Green stayed
behind at the house with Madplume.
¶7 According to testimony from Gardipee, when the three men returned to the house
with more beer, Sirucek remained in the jeep, passed out drunk. Gardipee testified that
the door to the house was locked when they arrived, but that Green, wrapped in a sheet,
eventually opened the door before returning to the back bedroom with Madplume.
Gardipee then sat in the living room drinking beer alone for a couple of hours until he
heard gunshots outside the house. Gardipee testified that when he stepped out of the
house, he saw McDonald standing near the jeep, holding Green’s pistol. McDonald had
shot Sirucek nine times. Gardipee testified at trial that he then went back inside the
house to tell Green and Madplume what he had seen. However, in contrast to his trial
testimony, Gardipee told police shortly after his arrest that Green had been standing
outside with McDonald, holding the gun, when Gardipee went outside. Regardless,
McDonald then asked Gardipee to help him move Sirucek’s body. The men lifted it out
of the jeep and placed it behind a trailer home behind the house. Gardipee then returned
to the house only to hear more gunshots from outside the house a few minutes later.
Gardipee testified that he then passed out drunk, waking up the next morning to find
Sirucek and Madplume’s bodies lying outside on the ground near the trailer.
3
¶8 McDonald testified at Green’s trial, admitting that he shot both Sirucek and
Madplume. The issue at trial was whether Green had aided McDonald in the killings.
McDonald’s description of the events differed significantly from Gardipee’s story.
According to McDonald, about two weeks before the shootings Green had told him that
Sirucek had money and that he wanted McDonald’s help in robbing Sirucek. On the
night of the shootings, after McDonald returned from the final beer run, McDonald and
Green allegedly discussed a plan in which McDonald would kill Sirucek and Green
would kill Madplume. Green retrieved the gun from his jeep, opened the back door, and
handed the gun to McDonald. McDonald testified that, with Green beside him,
McDonald shot Sirucek nine times as he lay passed out in the back of Green’s jeep.
Green then stabbed Sirucek several times in the throat to make sure he was dead, then
took Sirucek’s wallet and took the gun from McDonald. The State Medical Examiner
testified that the knife marks were not stab wounds and did not cause or contribute to
Sirucek’s death.
¶9 McDonald further testified that he and Green returned to the house after shooting
Sirucek, at which time Madplume started asking questions about Sirucek’s whereabouts.
McDonald and Green once again exited the house and developed a plan to lure
Madplume into the trailer behind the house to kill her, eliminating her as a potential
witness to their previous murder that evening. Green gave the gun back to McDonald
and allegedly threatened to kill McDonald if he backed out. McDonald then shot
Madplume several times in the back of the head as she looked for Sirucek in the trailer.
4
McDonald and Green returned to the house, at which time Gardipee allegedly helped the
men move Sirucek’s body from the jeep to behind the trailer. They also removed the rear
seat from Green’s jeep and left it by the trailer.
¶10 At about 6:30 a.m., Green left for Ronan to clean out his jeep while the other two
men stayed behind to sleep, agreeing to deal with the bodies later. Green drove to his
Uncle Roy’s house, then to his Aunt Betty’s. After Green gave his aunt a cursory
explanation of what happened, she took him to the Tribal Law and Order office to speak
with a tribal officer. On the way, Green admitted making the knife marks in Sirucek’s
throat, but claimed McDonald had forced him to do so while pointing a gun at his head.
Green met with Tribal Officer Ben Asencio and told him that two people had been killed
at his father’s house, and that one of them was shot in the back of Green’s jeep. Officer
Asencio contacted the Lake County Sherriff’s Office. Green retrieved the clothes he was
wearing from his Aunt Betty’s house and consented to a blood draw, search of his jeep,
and search of his father’s residence. Upon arriving at the house, police saw the two
bodies behind the trailer and found McDonald and Gardipee inside the house. Both were
arrested without incident, and both subsequently entered plea agreements with the State
prior to Green’s trial, agreeing to testify against Green. Gardipee received a ten-year
suspended sentence for the offense of tampering with the evidence. McDonald was
sentenced to the Department of Public Health and Human Services after the parties
stipulated that he was developmentally disabled and was unable to conform his behavior
to the requirements of the law. Green rejected the plea agreement offered by the State,
5
and chose to go to trial on the count of tampering with the evidence and both counts of
deliberate homicide by accountability.
¶11 Green’s trial began on May 8, 2006, and continued for four days. In addition to
the testimony of McDonald and Gardipee, Michael Pierce testified that he lived with
Green and Green’s father for a period of time in 2000 and 2001, approximately four years
prior to the shootings. Pierce testified that during the time he was living with Green,
Green made threats against Sirucek and solicited Pierce to help beat up Sirucek, though
the two never did. Green also told Pierce that he would kill Sirucek someday if he had
the chance. Shortly thereafter Pierce left Montana. The District Court admitted this
testimony over defense counsel’s objection.
¶12 The jury found Green guilty of the two deliberate homicide charges and the
tampering with evidence charge. The District Court sentenced Green to two consecutive
life sentences on the two deliberate homicide convictions, and to a consecutive term of
ten years on the tampering with evidence conviction. Green’s sentences give him no
opportunity for parole.
¶13 Green appeals. Additional facts will be discussed herein as necessary.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶14 Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel present mixed questions of law and fact
that we review de novo. State v. St. Germain, 2007 MT 28, ¶ 14, 336 Mont. 17, 153 P.3d
591. We review a district court’s ruling regarding the admission of evidence of other
crimes, wrongs, or acts for an abuse of discretion. State v. Buck, 2006 MT 81, ¶ 71, 331
6
Mont. 517, 134 P.3d 53; State v. Aakre, 2002 MT 101, ¶ 8, 309 Mont. 403, 46 P.3d 648.
We also review a district court’s ruling on an objection to closing arguments for an abuse
of discretion. State v. Ford, 278 Mont. 353, 361-62, 926 P.2d 245, 250 (1996).
DISCUSSION
¶15 Did Green’s trial counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to request
that the jury be instructed to view the accomplice testimony of McDonald with
distrust?
¶16 Both the Montana Constitution and the Sixth Amendment guarantee a person the
right to effective assistance of counsel. When reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel
claims, this Court applies the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2025 (1984). The burden is on the defendant to show that defense
counsel’s performance “fell short of the range of competence required of attorneys in
criminal cases and that his counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial to his case.”
State v. Hendricks, 2003 MT 223, ¶ 6, 317 Mont. 177, 75 P.3d 1268; see also Whitlow v.
State, 2008 MT 140, 343 Mont. 90, 183 P.3d 861 (clarifying that the appropriate standard
for ineffective assistance claims is not one of neglect or ignorance, but whether counsel’s
conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness). “There is a strong
presumption with regard to the first prong of the Strickland test that trial counsel’s
performance was based on sound trial strategy and falls within the broad range of
reasonable professional conduct.” State v. Upshaw, 2006 MT 341, ¶ 32, 335 Mont. 162,
153 P.3d 579 (citing Hendricks, ¶ 7); Whitlow, ¶ 21.
7
¶17 However, before reaching the merits of an ineffective assistance claim we must
first determine whether the claim is properly before the Court on appeal. Upshaw, ¶ 33.
“The test to determine if an ineffective assistance claim is properly brought on direct
appeal is whether the record contains the answer as to ‘why’ counsel took, or failed to
take, action in providing a defense.” Upshaw, ¶ 33 (citation omitted). If the record does
not document the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the claim is not
properly raised on appeal, but may be pursued in a petition for postconviction relief.
Hagen v. State, 1999 MT 8, ¶ 12, 293 Mont. 60, 973 P.2d 233. If a merely “plausible”
(but not necessarily “actual”) justification exists for counsel’s conduct, postconviction
proceedings are appropriate and the appeal should be dismissed without prejudice.
Upshaw, ¶ 35 (citation omitted). “Situations when no justification will exist for counsel’s
action are ‘relatively rare.’” State v. Herman, 2008 MT 187, ¶ 16, 343 Mont. 494, 188
P.3d 978 (quoting State v. Kougl, 2004 MT 243, ¶ 15, 323 Mont. 6, 97 P.3d 1095).
¶18 Green’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on § 26-1-303(4), MCA,
which provides that “[t]he jury is to be instructed by the court on all proper occasions that
. . . the testimony of a person legally accountable for the acts of the accused ought to be
viewed with distrust,” known as an “accomplice instruction.” Green’s trial counsel did
not request an accomplice instruction based upon § 26-1-303(4), MCA, that McDonald’s
and Gardipee’s testimony should be viewed with distrust. We have explained “[w]hether
a witness for the prosecution is an accomplice is generally a question for the jury, unless
the fact is undisputed,” State v. Rose, 1998 MT 342, ¶ 13, 292 Mont. 350, 972 P.2d 321,
8
(citation omitted), but here it is undisputed that Green was being prosecuted as
McDonald’s and Gardipee’s accomplice. However, we have recognized that requesting
this instruction is not required in all cases. There may be tactical reasons that defense
counsel does not want an accomplice instruction given, such as when the instruction
would be inconsistent with the defendant’s theory in the case. State v. Johnson, 257
Mont. 157, 163, 848 P.2d 496, 499 (1993).
¶19 In Johnson, the defense theory was that the defendant was not present at the
scene of the crime. We held that the accomplice instruction could have been considered
inconsistent with that defense and, thus, under those circumstances defense counsel’s
decision was tactical and did not amount to ineffective assistance. Johnson, 257 Mont. at
163, 848 P.2d at 499. In contrast, when determining to reverse in Rose, we noted that
there was “no indication that counsel made a tactical decision not to request an
instruction on accomplice testimony.” Rose, ¶ 18. The State had acknowledged in Rose
that such an instruction would have been appropriate. We observed that no plausible
explanation existed for failing to request an accomplice instruction under § 26-1-303(4),
MCA, when “the accomplice testifies that the accused came up with the idea for the
burglary, identified the items to be taken, provided the tools with which to commit the
offense, and provided transportation to the scene.” Rose, ¶ 18.
¶20 Here, one of the two alleged accomplices actually provided favorable testimony
for the defense. Although McDonald claimed Green was with him during the shootings,
Gardipee testified that Green was in the bedroom when both victims were shot.
9
Considering Gardipee’s favorable testimony, Green’s counsel may have decided to
withhold a “viewed with distrust” instruction in order to prevent the casting of any
unwanted doubt upon the testimony of a witness who supported the defense theory that
Green had not actively participated in either murder.
¶21 Additionally, Green initially indicated he would rely on the affirmative defense
of compulsion. See § 45-2-212, MCA. Asserting a compulsion defense could be
incompatible with the notion that Green was an “accomplice” in the crimes, and could
explain why he did not request the instruction. Potentially inconsistently, however,
Green’s counsel did request an accomplice-related instruction under § 46-16-213, MCA,
requiring McDonald’s testimony to be “corroborated by other evidence that in itself . . .
tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense” in order to convict
Green. Once again, there is no indication why defense counsel requested only this
accomplice instruction, although Green’s counsel could have believed the jury would
view this instruction as placing an additional burden on the State to corroborate
McDonald’s testimony.
¶22 Because “plausible” justifications, discussed above, exist for counsel’s conduct,
it is not appropriate to address this issue on appeal, where the record does not flush out
the factual questions surrounding counsel’s actions. Upshaw, ¶ 35. Consequently, we
dismiss Green’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without prejudice to raising the
claim in postconviction relief proceedings, so the reasons for counsel’s failure to request
the accomplice instruction can be determined.
10
¶23 Did the District Court err by admitting evidence of Green’s prior statement
that he would like to kill the victim?
¶24 On December 23, 2005, the State filed notice that it intended to introduce evidence
that Green stole the .22 caliber pistol used in the homicides, had solicited Pierce to beat
up Sirucek, and had stated that he would kill Sirucek someday if he had the opportunity.
Defense counsel objected to the introduction of this evidence, specifically asserting that
Green’s statements were too remote in time to be admissible. Although Green’s
statements to Pierce were made in 2001, the State responded they were evidence of
Green’s intent and preparation, and thus were admissible pursuant to M. R. Evid. 404(b).
The District Court overruled Green’s objection, and Pierce was allowed to testify at trial.
¶25 The admissibility of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is controlled by M. R. Evid.
404(b), which provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the
character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It
may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of
mistake or accident.
A district court has broad discretion when determining whether other crimes evidence is
admissible under M. R. Evid. 404(b). State v. Ayers, 2003 MT 114, ¶ 72, 315 Mont. 395,
68 P.3d 768. A court’s decision to admit such evidence is guided by the Modified Just
Rule, which requires four elements be met before the evidence is allowed:
(1) The other crimes, wrongs or acts must be similar.
(2) The other crimes, wrongs or acts must not be remote in time.
11
(3) The evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the
character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity with such
character; but may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake
or accident.
(4) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the
issues, misleading of the jury, considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or
needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Ayers, ¶ 73 (citing Aakre, ¶ 9); State v. Matt, 249 Mont. 136, 142, 814 P.2d 52, 56
(1991); State v. Just, 184 Mont. 262, 602 P.2d 957 (1979) (overruled on other grounds
State v. Swann, 2007 MT 126, 337 Mont. 326, 160 P.3d 511); M. R. Evid. 404(b). When
such evidence is introduced, the trial court must “explain to the jury the purpose of such
evidence and shall admonish it to weigh the evidence only for such purposes.” Ayers, ¶
77 (citation omitted).
¶26 Green argues that neither the second nor the fourth requirement of the Modified
Just Rule was satisfied here. According to Green, the four-year gap between his
statements and the shooting requires exclusion on remoteness grounds because there is no
evidence that he engaged in a continuing course of conduct with respect to his threats.
Citing State v. Hansen, 187 Mont. 91, 608 P.2d 1083 (1980), Green argues that an event
taking place three years prior to the crime charged is too remote unless the acts engaged
in constitute a “continuing course of conduct.” Under the fourth requirement, Green
argues the evidence was “highly prejudicial and clearly violated the historical purposes
for the rule[,] which include protecting the presumption of innocence and limiting the
trial evidence to the act alleged.”
12
¶27 In Hansen, we held that evidence of the defendant’s prior rape of another woman
two-and-a-half years prior should have been excluded because the circumstances of that
charge were not sufficiently similar to those of the defendant’s current rape charges and
were too remote. Hansen, 187 Mont. at 98, 608 P.2d at 1087. We also noted that,
“[a]though a three year interval between a prior act and the charged crime is close to the
limit of being too remote, other acts occurring three years prior to the crime have been
held admissible when the acts engaged in by the defendant constitutes a continuing
course of conduct.” Hansen, 187 Mont. at 97, 608 P.2d at 1087. Contrary to what Green
urges, however, this statement was not intended to create a bright-line rule requiring the
exclusion of evidence of all prior acts occurring more than three years prior to the
charged crime unless there is evidence of a continuing course of conduct. In State v.
McKnight, 250 Mont. 457, 463, 820 P.2d 1279, 1283 (1991), for example, we held that a
three-year period between incidents was not too remote because the incidents in question
were sufficiently similar. “Moreover, we consistently have declined to set arbitrary time
limits defining the remoteness factor.” State v. Brogan, 272 Mont. 156, 167, 900 P.2d
284, 291 (1995).
¶28 In the present case, while there may not be clear evidence that Green engaged in a
“continuing course of conduct” between his statements in 2001 and the homicides in
2005, there is no dispute that Green’s statement that he would like to kill Sirucek, and the
ultimate killing of Sirucek, involve the same parties. More than being merely “similar,”
the prior act was a threat to carry out the very crime against the identical victim which
13
ultimately occurred. The fact that Green’s statements and the charged offenses were
separated by a three to four year period is offset by the connected nature of these events.
A threat to kill an individual is compelling, specific evidence with respect to charges for
the subsequent killing of that same individual. The two events cannot be logically
separated merely by the passage of a few years between the threat and the actual act.
¶29 Pierce and Green had a falling out soon after Green made the statements, and
Pierce moved to another state shortly thereafter. There is no evidence of further efforts
by Green to solicit help to commit an offense against Sirucek until several weeks before
the killing, when he stole a gun from his cousin and allegedly realized he could
manipulate McDonald into robbing and killing Sirucek with the gun. The fact that Green
told Pierce he wanted to kill Sirucek if he had the opportunity, and that Sirucek was
indeed killed four years later with a weapon Green had stolen only weeks before, is
simply too similar to reject as being too remote under the Modified Just Rule. Moreover,
the strength in the similarity or connectedness of these facts demonstrates that their
probative value was not “substantially outweighed” by the danger of unfair prejudice,
under the fourth factor of the Rule. We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its
discretion by admitting Green’s prior statements to Pierce under M. R. Evid. 404(b).
¶30 Green also argues that the District Court erred by failing to instruct the jury, at the
time the other crimes evidence was introduced, as to the purpose of the evidence and how
to weigh it. See Ayers, ¶ 77. Indeed, the court did not give the jury such an instruction
until after the State Medical Examiner had testified and the court had recessed for lunch.
14
At that time, counsel for both parties met in chambers, at which time the State presented
the court with its proposed Rule 404(b) jury instruction. The court asked both counsel if
they objected to the reading of the instruction at that time, and neither did. While counsel
for the State suggested the court tell the jury that the instruction ordinarily would have
been read at the time the other crimes evidence was introduced, defense counsel preferred
a general statement that “this is the proposed time for me to give you this instruction . . .
.” The Court instructed the jury in accordance with defense counsel’s request. Because
defense counsel did not object to this procedure, this issue has been waived for purposes
of appeal. Section 46-20-104(2), MCA.
¶31 Did the District Court abuse its discretion by overruling Green’s objection to
the prosecutor’s offering a personal opinion on the credibility of a witness during
closing argument?
¶32 During closing argument, the prosecution discussed the fact that Gardipee had first
told the investigating officer that he had seen Green standing beside McDonald after
Sirucek was shot, but had later testified that Green was with Madplume inside the house
when the shooting occurred. The prosecutor stated:
You heard from a number of witnesses. Only two of them were present and
know firsthand what happened. [I’m] going to start with Glen Gardipee.
You might wonder why I had Glen testify. Well, I’ll tell you why. There’s
two responses. One, I had some faint hope that being under oath and being
in a trial situation and facing some sort of pressure he might actually blurt
out the truth. The closest he came was admitting to you that he changed his
story in order to remove himself as a witness in this case. Well, I didn’t
hold out much hope for that one.
Green argues on appeal that this constituted an improper comment on Gardipee’s
credibility, although Green’s trial counsel did not object at the time the statement was
15
made. Rather, when the prosecutor later argued about Green’s own credibility, defense
counsel objected, stating “it sounds to me like [the prosecutor] is interjecting his own
personal opinion as to the credibility of the witnesses and that’s the exclusive province of
the jury.” The District Court overruled the objection, and Green does not appeal the
court’s decision as it applied to the prosecutor’s statements about Green. Instead, Green
contends that the objection should have been sustained with respect to the prosecutor’s
statements about Gardipee. The State responds that Green waived his right to appellate
review by failing to contemporaneously object when Gardipee’s credibility was
challenged, but that even if Green’s objection is considered timely, the prosecutor’s
statements were not improper. We agree.
¶33 During closing argument, a prosecutor may comment on “the gravity of the crime
charged, the volume of evidence, credibility of witnesses, inferences to be drawn from
various phases of evidence, and legal principles involved, to be presented in instructions
to the jury . . . .” State v. Staat, 251 Mont. 1, 10, 822 P.2d 643, 648 (1991) (quotations
omitted). While it is generally improper for the prosecution to offer personal opinions as
to the credibility of the accused or the witnesses, State v. Stringer, 271 Mont. 367, 380,
897 P.2d 1063, 1071 (1995), “it is proper for a prosecutor to comment on conflicts and
contradictions in testimony, as well as to comment on the evidence presented and suggest
to the jury inferences which may be drawn therefrom.” State v. Gladue, 1999 MT 1, ¶
15, 293 Mont. 1, 972 P.2d 827.
16
¶34 Here, the prosecutor was primarily reminding the jury of the inconsistency
between Gardipee’s statement to the police after his arrest and his later testimony. In the
first instance, Gardipee told investigators that Green had been outside the house with
McDonald when Sirucek was shot. Later, Gardipee testified that Green was inside the
house with Madplume. The prosecutor was entitled to point out the inconsistencies and
to allow the jury to infer that Gardipee changed his story after having time to think about
the consequences. The prosecutor was likewise entitled to argue which of the two
versions provided by Gardipee was the truth. While that discussion lapped over into
“why” the prosecutor had called Gardipee as a witness, a prosecutor is entitled to some
latitude in his argument about a witness’s credibility. See State v. Hanson, 283 Mont.
316, 326, 940 P.2d 1166, 1172 (1997). We conclude the prosecutor’s statements do not
require reversal.
¶35 Affirmed.
/S/ JIM RICE
We concur:
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
17
Justice James C. Nelson, dissenting.
¶36 I respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision as to Issue 1. I would reverse and
remand for a new trial on this issue and, therefore, would not address Issues 2 and 3.
¶37 It is well-settled that proving an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires
the defendant to show (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient, i.e., that it fell below
an objective standard of reasonableness measured under prevailing professional norms
and in light of the surrounding circumstances, and (2) that counsel’s errors were so
serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, i.e., a trial whose result is reliable.
Whitlow v. State, 2008 MT 140, ¶¶ 10, 20, 343 Mont. 90, 183 P.3d 861 (citing Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)). I first address the
performance prong of this test.
¶38 The premise of the Court’s Opinion is that there may be “plausible” justifications
for defense counsel’s failure to request the “view with distrust” instruction required by
§ 26-1-303(4), MCA, and that these supposed justifications should be fleshed out in
postconviction proceedings. Opinion, ¶¶ 17, 22. Ordinarily, I would agree with this
approach. In the present case, however, the record establishes that Green’s counsel
rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to request the “view
with distrust” instruction. Accordingly, under our caselaw, reversal is required.
¶39 Section 26-1-303(4), MCA, states that “[t]he jury is to be instructed by the court
on all proper occasions that . . . the testimony of a person legally accountable for the acts
of the accused ought to be viewed with distrust” (paragraph break omitted). On one
18
hand, the Court speculates that Green’s counsel might not have requested this instruction
because it would have been inconsistent with Green’s theory in the case, Opinion, ¶ 18,
or with his asserted defense of compulsion,1 Opinion, ¶ 21, or because he did not want to
cast doubt on the testimony of a potentially favorable witness, Opinion, ¶ 20. On the
other hand, however, the Court acknowledges that counsel did, “[p]otentially
inconsistently,” request an accomplice-related instruction under § 46-16-213, MCA,
which states that a person may not be found guilty of an offense on the testimony of one
responsible or legally accountable for the same offense (here, the testimony of
McDonald) “unless the testimony is corroborated by other evidence that in itself . . . tends
to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.” Opinion, ¶ 21.
¶40 I submit that defense counsel’s action is more than just “potentially inconsistent.”
It is illogical and even “implausible” to assume that counsel wanted the jury to be
instructed that McDonald’s testimony must be corroborated by other evidence
independently connecting Green to the crimes but did not want the jury to view
1
The Court states that Green’s compulsion defense “could be incompatible with
the notion that Green was an ‘accomplice’ in the crimes, and could explain why [defense
counsel] did not request the [‘view with distrust’] instruction.” Opinion, ¶ 21. I disagree.
As a matter of fact, this defense does not explain counsel’s action at all, since counsel
withdrew the compulsion defense with respect to Counts I and II (the homicide charges)
in the midst of settling jury instructions. See Reporter’s Transcript on Appeal at 12
(May 11, 2006). As a result, the court, the prosecutor, and defense counsel then engaged
in further discussion as to how the language of the compulsion instruction should be
modified to reflect that it applied only to Count III (the tampering with evidence charge).
See Transcript at 12-14. Assuming, arguendo, that defense counsel initially did not
request the “view with distrust” instruction because it would have been incompatible with
Green’s compulsion defense, that rationale was mooted once counsel withdrew this
defense to Counts I and II. Yet, counsel did not then request the “view with distrust”
instruction, which he should have done, as explained below.
19
McDonald’s testimony with distrust in the first place. Rather than having some tactical
or even conscious purpose in mind, as the Court surmises, it is more likely that Green’s
counsel was simply unaware of the requirement in § 26-1-303(4), MCA, and our caselaw,
discussed below, that the “view with distrust” instruction must be given where the State’s
case is grounded on accomplice testimony.2
¶41 The District Court’s instructions bear this out. First, the jurors were told in
Instruction No. 4 that they were “the sole judges of the credibility, that is the
believability, of all the witnesses testifying in this case, and of the weight, that is the
importance, to be given their testimony.” Furthermore, the jurors were told that they
were “not bound to decide any fact based upon the testimony of a larger number of
witnesses whose testimony does not convince you against the testimony of a smaller
number of witnesses (or against a presumption), or other evidence which does convince
you.” Indeed, the jurors were told that “[t]he evidence presented by one witness whom
you believe is sufficient for the proof of any fact in this case.” Thus, under Instruction
No. 4, if the jurors believed McDonald, his testimony was sufficient to establish Green’s
guilt of deliberate homicide by accountability.
¶42 Yet, under Instruction No. 17, the jurors were told that
[a] person may not be found guilty of an offense on the testimony of one
responsible or legally accountable for the same offense unless the testimony
is corroborated by other evidence that in itself and without the aid of the
2
The placement of the “view with distrust” instruction in Title 26, as opposed to
Title 46, of the MCA may be problematic for some inexperienced criminal defense
counsel. That, however, does not absolve counsel from his or her obligation to research
and request jury instructions appropriate to the defendant’s theory and defense.
20
testimony of the one responsible or legally accountable for the same
offense tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.
Thus, under Instruction No. 17, McDonald’s testimony was insufficient to establish
Green’s guilt. It had to be corroborated by other evidence tending to connect Green with
the commission of the offense. In short, without the “view with distrust” instruction, the
jurors were left with apparently conflicting instructions on whether McDonald’s
testimony itself was sufficient to prove a fact at issue.
¶43 In this connection, the corroboration instruction presumes that there was an
accomplice, while the “view with distrust” instruction requires the jury to view that
person’s testimony with distrust. It is logical that a jury would consider the accomplice’s
testimony and view it with distrust before even reaching the requirement of
corroboration. That is why the accomplice’s testimony must be corroborated—because it
is to be viewed with distrust by the jury in the first instance and because accomplice
testimony (especially where, as here, codefendants cut deals with the State) is simply not
reliable. If the jurors, as they are required, first view the accomplice’s testimony with
distrust and then find that corroborative evidence is lacking or weak, then the State may
well be unable to convince the jury of the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If
the State’s case hangs on the credibility of the accomplice, then the State may be unable
to convict if the jurors do not find the accomplice’s testimony credible.
¶44 Here, McDonald was an accomplice as a matter of law. McDonald and Green
were both charged in connection with the Sirucek and Madplume homicides, and we have
held that the State’s charging one person for the same crime for which the defendant is
21
tried constitutes an acknowledgement by the State that the person is an accomplice. State
v. Johnson, 276 Mont. 447, 451-52, 918 P.2d 293, 295-96 (1996). Indeed, Green was
charged as McDonald’s accomplice. McDonald admitted killing Sirucek and Madplume
and testified against Green as part of his plea agreement with the State. The State’s case
hinged to a great extent on McDonald’s testimony.
¶45 In State v. Rose, 1998 MT 342, 292 Mont. 350, 972 P.2d 321, on facts similar to
those here, we observed that there was “no indication that counsel made a tactical
decision not to request an instruction on accomplice testimony.” Rose, ¶ 18. We
concluded that defense counsel had nothing to lose by asking for this instruction, and we
reversed, holding that there was no reasonable tactical or strategic reason for failing to
provide an instruction on the jury’s consideration of an accomplice’s testimony when the
accomplice testifies that the accused came up with the idea for the crime and provided the
tools with which to commit the offense. Rose, ¶ 18.
¶46 Likewise, in the case at bar, McDonald testified that Green came up with the idea
for killing Sirucek and Madplume and that Green then provided McDonald with the
means for doing so (the gun Green stole from his cousin). Gardipee’s testimony that
Green was in the house at the time of the shootings was of dubious credibility, given his
admissions on the witness stand that he had not been honest with the police and that he
had given a conflicting account of the incident 12 hours after the shootings. Thus,
McDonald’s credibility was critical to the State’s case, and Green’s defense hinged to a
great extent on the jury not believing McDonald. Yet, Green’s counsel did not request
22
the one instruction that would have required the jury to view McDonald’s testimony with
distrust. The jury “should have been specifically instructed that it should view the
testimony of [McDonald], an accomplice, with distrust.” Rose, ¶ 19.
¶47 In State v. Kougl, 2004 MT 243, 323 Mont. 6, 97 P.3d 1095, we followed our
decision in Rose and found deficient performance by defense counsel because counsel
failed to request the “view with distrust” instruction. Kougl, ¶ 21. Kougl had been
charged with felony operation of an unlawful clandestine laboratory. As in the instant
case, Kougl’s accomplices testified against him at trial as part of their plea agreements
with the State. Kougl, ¶ 7. In closing argument, defense counsel pointed out to the jury
that the testimony of the accomplices should be viewed with suspicion because of their
criminal conduct and the deals two of them had cut with the State. Kougl, ¶ 9.
Notwithstanding, defense counsel did not ask for the “view with distrust” instruction
under § 26-1-303(4), MCA. Kougl, ¶ 9. Consistently, defense counsel also did not
request the corroboration instruction pursuant to § 46-16-213, MCA. Kougl, ¶ 9.
¶48 On appeal, Kougl raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which we held
was properly before us on direct appeal, as opposed to requiring him to raise it in a
postconviction proceeding. Kougl, ¶ 22. We stated that “[g]enerally, in addressing
ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we ask ‘why’ counsel did or did not perform as
alleged and then seek to answer the question by reference to the record.” Kougl, ¶ 14.
We then explained that “[s]ometimes, however, it is unnecessary to ask ‘why’ in the first
instance.” Kougl, ¶ 15. An example of this “is when counsel is faced with an obligatory,
23
and therefore non-tactical, action. Then the question is not ‘why’ but ‘whether’ counsel
acted, and if so, if counsel acted adequately.” Kougl, ¶ 15 (citation omitted). Another
example, which is present here, “is the relatively rare situation where there is ‘no
plausible justification’ for what defense counsel did.” Kougl, ¶ 15. We stated that
“[w]hether the reasons for defense counsel’s actions are found in the record or not is
irrelevant. What matters is that there could not be any legitimate reason for what counsel
did.” Kougl, ¶ 15. We cited Rose as falling within this latter example, observing that
defense counsel in Rose “had nothing to lose in asking for the [‘view with distrust’]
instruction, and if counsel had asked for the instruction the trial court would have been
obligated to grant the request.” Kougl, ¶ 17.
¶49 As with Rose, we observed that there was no reason for Kougl’s counsel not to ask
for the “view with distrust” instruction, given that the parties had agreed that the
“accomplices” were, in fact, accomplices and given that the State’s case against Kougl
was based largely on the credibility of these witnesses. Kougl, ¶ 20. Indeed, we noted
that counsel had “nothing to lose” in asking for this instruction, while Kougl, “however,
risked losing his liberty.” Kougl, ¶ 21. We determined that “[b]y failing to ask the court
to tell the jurors that the law demands they view the accomplices’ testimony with distrust,
trial counsel failed to use the law to strike at the heart of the State’s case.” Kougl, ¶ 20.
Thus, we concluded that we could rule on the merits of Kougl’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claim without asking “why” counsel had not requested the instruction. Kougl,
24
¶ 22. It was enough that she had not, and we held that her performance was deficient.
Kougl, ¶ 24.
¶50 These precedents are controlling here. In Rose, we held that defense counsel
rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to request the “view with distrust”
instruction. Rather than referring the case to a postconviction proceeding, we held on
direct appeal that Rose’s defense was prejudiced. Rose, ¶¶ 19-20. Similarly, in Kougl,
we held that Kougl’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be decided on direct
appeal and that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to
request the “view with distrust” instruction. Kougl, ¶¶ 22, 24, 27.
¶51 Likewise here, by failing to request the “view with distrust” instruction required
by § 26-1-303(4), MCA, defense counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness measured under the prevailing professional norms established by our
caselaw. Whitlow, ¶ 20. Counsel did not request the instruction although there was no
plausible or legitimate justification for this course of action and although he had nothing
to lose in asking the District Court to give it. McDonald was an accomplice as a matter
of law; he testified against Green; and the State’s case against Green was based almost
entirely, if not exclusively, on McDonald’s credibility as a witness. Therefore, as we
determined in Rose and Kougl, Green’s counsel made errors so serious that he was not
functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed Green by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24 of the Montana Constitution.
Whitlow, ¶ 10.
25
¶52 Turning, then, to the prejudice prong of the analysis, we stated in Rose that “[t]o
support the prejudice element of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant
need not demonstrate that he would have been found not guilty had his counsel taken
different action”; rather, he “must establish only that there is a reasonable probability that
but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been
different.” Rose, ¶ 19 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068). In
considering whether counsel’s failure to request the “view with distrust” instruction
prejudiced Rose’s defense, we observed that “the distinction between what the jury was
told and what it should have been told is significant.” Rose, ¶ 19. The jury had been
instructed “only in general terms relative to the weight to be given the testimony of
witnesses,” though it “should have been specifically instructed that it should view the
testimony of [the accomplice] with distrust.” Rose, ¶ 19. We further observed that a
“view with distrust” instruction “would have gone to the heart of the defense that [the
accomplice] was not telling the truth when he said Rose was involved with him in the
burglary.” Rose, ¶ 19. Having made these observations, we held that counsel’s failure to
request the instruction was prejudicial to Rose’s defense. Rose, ¶ 20.
¶53 Similarly, in Kougl, we determined that Kougl “established prejudice because the
[‘view with distrust’ and corroboration] instructions would have conveyed to the jurors
that the law commanded them to view the State’s crucial evidence with distrust such that
there is a reasonable probability they would have arrived at a different outcome.” Kougl,
¶ 26. We noted that it is particularly important that the trial judge instruct the jurors in
26
this regard, as opposed to the jurors hearing the law through argument by counsel. We
explained that “what the judge tells the jury necessarily carries the force of law, while
what the adversarial counsel tells the jury does not.” Kougl, ¶ 26. Moreover, written jury
instructions may be “read, reread, and reflect[ed] on while in deliberation.” Kougl, ¶ 26.
¶54 In the present case, the jury was instructed in general terms relative to the weight
to be given the testimony of witnesses and was told that “[t]he evidence presented by one
witness whom you believe is sufficient for the proof of any fact in this case.” The jury
was also told, however, that McDonald’s testimony had to be corroborated in order to
convict Green on the basis of that testimony, without any indication as to why such
corroboration was necessary. The missing link was that McDonald’s testimony had to be
“viewed with distrust” from the outset, which the jury should have been told. Section
26-1-303(4), MCA. A “view with distrust” instruction would have gone to the heart of
the defense that McDonald was not telling the truth when he said that Green was
involved with him in the shootings. Rose, ¶ 19. A “view with distrust” instruction would
have conveyed to the jurors that the law commanded them to view the State’s crucial
evidence with distrust. Kougl, ¶ 26. There is a reasonable probability, therefore, that but
for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of Green’s trial would have been different.
Rose, ¶ 19.
¶55 As we held in Rose and Kougl, therefore, I conclude that defense counsel’s failure
to request the “view with distrust” instruction prejudiced Green’s defense and draws into
question the reliability of the result of his trial. There are no substantive differences
27
between the case at bar and the cases we decided in Rose and in Kougl. We should
follow our precedent in this case.
¶56 Accordingly, I would reverse on Issue 1 and remand for a new trial. I respectfully
dissent from our failure to do so.
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
Justice Patricia O. Cotter joins the Dissent of Justice James C. Nelson.
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
28
State v. Jeremiah Green
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Date filed: 2009-04-07
Citations: 2009 MT 114, 350 Mont. 141
Copy CitationsCombined Opinion