State v. Baugh

No. 13547

I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF M N A A
O T N

1977

THE STATE O F MONTANA,

P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

-vs-

RANDALL C R A I G BAUGH,

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

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l
District,
Honorable Robert Sykes, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record:

For Appellant:

Donald L. S h a f f e r argued, Libby, Montana

For 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
A l l e n B. C h r o n i s t e r a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y
G e n e r a l , I-lelena, Montana
W i l l i a m A. D o u g l a s a r g u e d , C o u n t y A t t o r n e y ,
L i b b y , Montana

Submitted: September 29, 1977

Decided: YO\I i 5 ]gn
Filed: lU\( ,S :~fl
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

I n August 1975, t h e body of ~ a v i d s c c a
was discovered

i n an i s o l a t e d a r e a of Lincoln County, Montana. Sometime a f t e r

t h a t , warrants of a r r e s t were issued f o r Randall Craig Baugh,

defendant h e r e i n , and William Beechman. William Beechman has

never been found. I n November 1975, Randall Craig Baugh turned

himself i n t o t h e a u t h o r i t i e s . Defendant was arraigned and

plead n o t g u i l t y t o t h e charge of d e l i b e r a t e homicide i n t h e

D i s t r i c t Court, Lincoln County.

P r e t r i a l motions were made by t h e s t a t e and t h e defense.

Among t h e s e was a motion by t h e s t a t e t o amend the Information

a s t o the alleged d a t e o f t h e crime and motions f o r discovery

made by defendant. Two prospective witnesses were a r r e s t e d

by t h e s t a t e f o r t h e d e l i b e r a t e homicide of D a v i d m c c a . One,

Randy Jacobsen, was a r r e s t e d before t h e defense could t a l k t o

him and held over n i g h t . I t was a week a f t e r t h i s i n c i d e n t

t h a t Jacobsen consented t o an interview by t h e defense. The

o t h e r w i t n e s s , William P h i l l i p S t u a r t , was a r r e s t e d i n N w Mexico
e

and then released. The defense requested t h e c o u r t t o h e l p

locate Stuart.

The c o u r t ordered t h e Lincoln County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e t o

cooperate with t h e Lincoln County public defender's o f f i c e i n

l o c a t i n g S t u a r t because t h e Lincoln County p u b l i c defender has

no budget o r personnel t o pursue such matters. The Lincoln

County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e located S t u a r t i n N w Mexico, d i d n o t
e

inform t h e public defender, but i n s t e a d informed t h e Lincoln

County a t t o r n e y , who then flew t o N w Mexico, interviewed S t u a r t ,
e

a r r e s t e d him, gave him a polygraph examination, r e l e a s e d him,
flew back t o Montana, and then informed t h e defense and t h e c o u r t

of t h e whereabouts of S t u a r t .

T r i a l was had i n Lincoln County, Montana, s t a r t i n g on

May 1 7 , 1976. The j u r y was interviewed p r i o r t o v o i r d i r e by

Hon. Robert C . Sykes, because of a controversy t h a t e x i s t e d a t

t h a t e x i s t e d a t t h a t time between t h e Lincoln County s h e r i f f

and t h e county a t t o r n e y , William Douglas. Evidence began on

May 18, 1976.

O May 21, 1976, t h e defense made two motions f o r a m i s t r i a l .
n

The f i r s t motion was made because defendant had been brought t o

c o u r t on t h e morning of May 21 i n handcuffs, and t h o e h a n d c u f f s

were unlocked i n f r o n t of t h e j u r y before t h e t r i a l commenced.

The reason f o r t h e handcuffs, according t o t h e deputy s h e r i f f ,

was t h e defendant's bickering.

The o t h e r motion was because a j u r o r , Sandy Kolar, had

evidence of t h e matter acquired o u t s i d e of t h e t r i a l . In fact,

Kolar was p r e s e n t with Douglas when videotape of t h e exhumation

of t h e body of D a v i d p c c a had been shown. Douglas was f u l l y

aware Kolar was p r e s e n t a t t h i s videotape showing.

Both motions f o r m i s t r i a l were denied; Kolar was excused

and an a l t e r n a t e j u r o r was seated. A f u r t h e r motion f o r m i s -

t r i a l was made and a motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t .

Defendant was found g u i l t y and sentenced t o 75 years i n

t h e Montana s t a t e prison. Defendant appeals from t h e judgment,

and p r e s e n t s four i s s u e s on appeal:

1. Whether a defendant charged with d e l i b e r a t e homicide

has a r i g h t t o a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n on mitigated d e l i b e r a t e homi-

cide?
 2. Whether t h e a r r e s t of p o t e n t i a l defense witnesses

deprives a defendant of due process and a f a i r t r i a l ?

3. Whether it i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r an accused t o

appear i n handcuffs before a j u r y ?

4. Whether t h e replacing of a j u r o r who i s a personal

f r i e n d of t h e prosecutor and has personal knowledge of evidence

of the. c a s e i s e r r o r , i f replaced by an a l t e r n a t e j u r o r p r i o r

t o t h e time t h e jury goes i n t o d e l i b e r a t i o n s ?

I s s u e 1. I s a defendant charged with d e l i b e r a t e homicide

e n t i t l e d t o a jury i n s t r u c t i o n on mitigated d e l i b e r a t e homicide

even though no evidence i s presented on t h a t i s s u e . Under s e c t l o n

94-5-103, R.C.M. 1947, d e l i b e r a t e homicide i s mitigated i f committed

"under t h e influence of extreme mental o r emotional s t r e s s f o r

which t h e r e i s reasonable explanation o r excuse." A s ascertained

from t h e record, defendant's theory i s t h a t he did n o t k i l l

the deceased and had no knowledge of who d i d . A t t r i a l , defendant's

a t t o r n e y , i n h i s opening statement s t a t e d :

"* * * 'Now,-,Randy w i l l take t h e stand and I w i l l t e l l
you e s s e n t i a l l y what he w i l l say. He has no knowledge
o r information a s t o how ~ a v i d G c c a met h i s death, he
could speculate and t h a t i s a l l i t would be i s pure
s p e c u l a t i o n , he doesn' t know, ** *"
This Court reaffirmed t h e Montana r u l e on t h e requirement

f b r an i n s t r u c t i o n on mitigated d e l i b e r a t e homicide i n S t a t e v .

Buckley , Mont , , 557 P.2d 283, 33 St.Rep. 1204, 1207

(1976) and s e t out t h i s t e s t :

"* ** t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s must cover
every i s s u e o r theory having support i n t h e evidence,
and t h e inquiry of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t must only be
whether o r not any evidence e x i s t s i n t h e record t o
warrant an i n s t r u c t i o n on mitigated d e l i b e r a t e homicide .''
557 P.2d 285.
 The United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n Keeble v. United S t a t e s ,

412 U.S. 205, 93 S.Ct. 1993, 36 L ed 2d 844 (1973), s t a t e d t h a t

t h e defendant i s ' e n t i t l e d t o i n s t r u c t i o n on a l e s s e r included

o f f e n s e , i f evidence would permit t h e j u r y r a t i o n a l l y t o f i n d

him g u i l t y of t h e l e s s e r offense and a c q u i t him of t h e g r e a t e r .

I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e r e was no evidence i n t h e record t o

show m i t i g a t i o n a s required by s e c t i o n 94-5-103. In fact,

defendant's theory throughout t h e t r i a l was t h a t he d i d n o t

murder t h e victim. I n S t a t e v. McDonald, 5 1 Mont. 1, 16, 149

P. 279 (1915), i t was s a i d :

"* * * I n many i n s t a n c e s , however, t h e evidence i s such
a s t o show t h a t t h e defendant i s e i t h e r g u i l t y of t h e
o f f e n s e charged o r i s e n t i t l e d t o an a c q u i t t a l . I n
such cases t h e c o u r t may not be put i n e r r o r f o r r e f u s i n g
o r f a i l i n g t o i n s t r u c t a s t o t h e lower degree o r t h e
included offense ."
This r a t i o n a l e a p p l i e s t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t

a c t e d properly i n not g i v i n g t h e a l t e r n a t e i n s t r u c t i o n on m i t i -

gated homicide.

I s s u e 2, concerns t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s a r r e s t i n g and

holding *itnesses Jacobsen and S t u a r t and a f t e r questioning

r e l e a s i n g them. Defendant a l l e g e s t h i s p r e j u d i c i a l l y impaired

t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of defense c o u n s e l f s e f f o r t s t o interview

t h e s e same witnesses. This Court i n S t a t e v. Gangner, 73 Mont.

187, 194, 235 P. 703 (1925) s t a t e d :

"Whatever t h e popular notion may be, i t i s
n e i t h e r t h e duty nor t h e r i g h t of t h e s t a t e , a c t i n g
through i t s p u b l i c o f f i c e r s , t o secure t h e convic-
t i o n of one of i t s c i t i z e n s by any a v a i l a b l e means,
f a i r o r f o u l . The C o n s t i t u t i o n guarantees t o everyone
accused of crime a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l ***
and t h e s t a t e had no more r i g h t t o deny defendant's
counsel access t o a witness m a t e r i a l t o t h e defense
then i t would have had t o s e c r e t e t h e witness t o prevent
t h e defendant using him ** *.I'
 I n t h e i n s t a n t case while defense counsel was a b l e t o

t a l k t o t h e s e witnesses, defendant contends t h e prosecution

so intimidated them t h a t t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e interviews

was s u b s t a n t i a l l y diminished. Yet, t h e r e i s no showing how

t h e prosecution intimidated these witnesses o r t h a t i t i n -

s t r u c t e d them n o t t o cooperate with t h e defense a t t o r n e y , o r

t h a t i t otherwise attempted t o d i r e c t l y impede t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s

of defense counsel. The record shows t h a t a t t h e time t h e s e

witnesses were interviewed and a r r e s t e d , they were p o t e n t i a l

defendants i n t h i s case. There i s extensive d i s c u s s i o n in1 t h e

record concerning t h e s e witnesses. I t i s c l e a r from t h a t

d i s c u s s i o n t h e c o u r t took every a c t i o n p o s s i b l e t o provide

t h e defense access t o them.

While defense counsel may have had d i f f i c u l t y i n l o c a t i n g

and interviewing witnesses Jacobsen and S t u a r t , t h e r e i s nothing

i n t h e record t o show l a c k of due process, which could be a t t r i -

buted t o the s t a t e ' s i n v e s t i g a t o r y procedure.

Issue 3. O t h e morning of May 21, 1975, defendant was
n

escorted i n t o t h e courtroom i n handcuffs by a deputy s h e r i f f .

Apparently t h e handcuffs were removed once defendant was i n t h e

courtroom. Counsel f o r defendant contends defendant having been

seen by t h e jury i n handcuffs i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . When t h e

handcuff i n c i d e n t occurred, defense counsel moved i n chambers

f o r a m i s t r i a l and was denied. Ruling, however, on t h e m i s t r i a l

was reserved i n order t o give t h e c o u r t opportunity t o question

t h e j u r o r s a f t e r t h e v e r d i c t was i n t o determine whether t h e

j u r o r s were influenced by t h e handcuff i n c i d e n t . This was done

a f t e r t h e j u r y reached i t s v e r d i c t , b u t before i t was announced.

This exchange took place between t h e c o u r t and j u r o r s :
 "THE COURT: N w before presenting t h i s v e r d i c t t o
o
.me, I would l i k e t o ask t h e j u r o r s some questions.
Did any of t h e j u r y observe t h e defendant during
t h e course of t h e t r i a l being brought i n t o t h e
courtroom i n handcuffs?

"THE JURY: Yes s i r .

"THE COURT: Now, d i d t h a t i n any way a f f e c t any of
you i n your d e l i b e r a t i o n s a s t o h i s g u i l t o r innocence?

''THE JURY: No.

"THE COURT: It did n o t , any of you?

The b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system i s

t h a t an accused, whatever h i s p a s t record, i s presumed innocent

u n t i l proven g u i l t y beyond a reasonable doubt. Coffin v.

United S t a t e s , 156 U.S. 432, 15 S.Ct. 394, 39 L ed 481 (1895).

I t follows t h a t t h e accused i s a l s o e n t i t l e d t o t h e i n d i c i a

of innocence. I n t h e presence of t h e j u r y , he is o r d i n a r i l y

e n t i t l e d t o be r e l i e v e d of handcuffs, o r o t h e r r e s t r a i n t s , s o

he w i l l not be m d e d a s an obviously bad person o r t o suggest

t h a t t h e f a c t of h i s g u i l t i s a foregone conclusion. United

S t a t e s v. Samuel, 431 F.2d 610, 614 (4th C i r . 1970).

The Montana case c l o s e s t i n point i s S t a t e v. Bentley, 155

Mont. 383, 472 P.2d 864 (1970). There t h i s Court h e l d t h e

defendant was n o t prejudiced by having t o wear j a i l c l o t h i n g

during t h e t r i a l . However, t h e Ninth C i r c u i t Court i n Bentley

v. C r i s t , 469 F.2d 854 (1972), reversed t h e Montana holding

and held t h a t compelling t h e accused t o wear prison c l o t h i n g

mag deny him t h e presumption of innocence.

I n S t a t e v. Sawyer, 60 Wash.2d 83, 371 P.2d 932 (1962), -

t h e defendant was handcuffed i n t h e courtroom upon adjournment,

much l i k e t h e i n s t a n t case wherein t h e defendant was brought

i n t o c o u r t handcuffed and then unlocked. The c o u r t found no
prejudicial error. Sawyer r e l i e d upon Way v. United S t a t e s ,

285 F.2d 253, 254, (10th C i r . 1960) where, a s h e r e , t h e

defendant was brought i n t o t r i a l handcuffed, without o r d e r

of t h e c o u r t , and t h e handcuffs were then removed. I n Way
t h e c o u r t held t h a t " i n t h e absence of an i n d i c a t i o n of pre-

j u d i c i a l consequences, such an occurrence does Inot warrant

t h e g r a n t i n g of a new t r i a l . " It i s incumbent upon defendant

t o demonstrate a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e , which he has n o t done here.

The Ninth C i r c u i t i n United S t a t e s v. Kress, 451 F.2d 576 (1971),

held t h a t an appearance before t h e jury during t r i a l by a

defendant i n shackles i s n o t i n h e r e n t l y p r e j u d i c i a l .

The majority r u l e i s t h a t , absent unusual circumstances,

a p r i s o n e r brought i n t o c o u r t f o r t r i a l i s e n t i t l e d t o appear

f r e e from a l l bonds o r shackles, t h i s r i g h t being an important

component of a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l . However, i n S t a t e

v. Jones, 130 N.J.Super. 596, 328 A.2d 41 (1974), t h e c o u r t

h e l d defendant's r i g h t t o be f r e e of shackles during t r i a l need

n o t be extended t o t h e r i g h t t o be f r e e of shackles while being

taken back and - f o r t h between t h e courthouse and t h e j a i l . Most

c o u r t s now agree with Sawyer t h a t a defendant i s n o t denied a

f a i r t r i a l and i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a m i s t r i a l s o l e l y because he

was momentarily and i n a d v e r t e n t l y seen.:in handcuffs by j u r y

members.

I n t h e i n s t a n t case counsel f o r defendant admits t h e j u r y

was w e l l aware of t h e f a c t defendant was i n custody and n o t

f r e e on b a i l . There i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h i s occurrence was pre-

judicial. I n t h e absence of an i n d i c a t i o n of p r e j u d i c i a l conse-

quences, such an occurrence does n o t warrant t h e g r a n t i n g of a

new t r i a l .

- 8 -
 Issue 4 . On May 21, 1976, f i v e days a f t e r t h e t r i a l

commenced i t came t o t h e c o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n t h a t j u r o r Kolar,

along with t h e county a t t o r n e y and h i s wife had, s e v e r a l months

p r i o r t o t r i a l , viewed a videotape of t h e exhumation o f t h e

deceased. This f a c t was unknown t o t h e c o u r t and counsel f o r

t h e defendant p r i o r t o t h a t time. Z t was immediately apparent

t o the court that:

"* * * under t h e s e circumstances, M i s s Kolar
was n o t q u a l i f i e d nor should have been made p a r t
of t h i s jury unless t h i s was known t o defendant's
a t t o r n e y p r i o r t o t h i s time. 11

P r i o r t o determining a course of a c t i o n , t h e c o u r t c a l l e d j u r o r

Kolar i n t o chambers and i n t h e presence of counsel and defendant,

the following t r a n s p i r e d :

"THE COURT: So would you have t h e b a i l i f f,:aBki h e r
t o come i n here. The l a s t time I asked, I t h i n k
I asked Mrs. Hunt t o come i n here and I scared t h e t a r
o u t of h e r . Well,- I don' t want t o s c a r e the t a r o u t
of you. I t has j u s t come t o m a t t e n t i o n and con-
y
firmed by M r . Douglas t h a t p r i o r t o t h e time of t h i s
t r i a l , i n h i s .presence, you d i d observe and s e e t h e
videotaping t h a t had been conducted of t h e exhumation
of t h e body.

"MISS KOLAR: Yes.

"THE COURT: Well, now i t i s m opinion t h a t t h a t
y
should have i n i t s e l f d i s q u a l i f i e d you from p a r t i c i -
p a t i n g i n t h i s t r i a l , because you have observed p a r t
of t h e process of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n and i n v e s t i g a t i o n
of t h i s case and t h a t could a f f e c t your d e l i b e r a t i o n s
fiossibly and t h i s information, n o t being known t o M r .
Shaffer prevented him from possibly e x e r c i s i n g t h e
r i g h t of a peremptory challenge t h a t he might have
exercised o r might n o t have. Now, what I am concerned
with i s whether o r n o t during t h e course of t h i s t r i a l
have you a t any time discussed t h i s f a c t with any
o t h e r member of t h e j u r y ?

"MISS
KOLAR: No, I have n o t .

"THE COURT: And t h e r e h a s n ' t been any j u r o r t h a t
knows f r o m you t h a t you saw any of t h i s videotaping
o r anything?

"MISS KOLAR: No ."
I t was f u r t h e r developed upon questioning by defense counsel

t h a t j u r o r Kolar was a f r i e n d of t h e county a t t o r n e y , and "more
 so" of h i s wife and t h e videotape was viewed p r i o r t o going

t o s e e a movie. The c o u r t then f u r t h e r questioned j u r o r Kolar:

"THE COURT: Well, j u s t one thing. A s i t p e r t a i n e d
t o your p a r t i c i p a t i n g on t h e jury and i n t h e v o i r
d i r e , you f e l t t h a t viewing t h a t had n o t i n any way
a f f e c t e d your opinion a s t o t h e g u i l t o r innocence
of M r . Baugh?

"MISS KOLAR: No. s i r .

"THE COURT: And you f e l t t h a t s i n c e t h i s was j u s t a
viewing of t h e exhumation t h a t t h a t i n no way would
a f f e c t your d e l i b e r a t i o n s ?

"MISS KOLAR: No, it would n o t .

"THE COURT: Now, d i d you f e e l t h a t your f r i e n d s h i p
with Mrs. Douglas and your knowledge of M r . Douglas would
.
,.. ! . i n - any way a f f e c t your d e l i b e r a t i o n s ?

MISS KOLAR: No, sir."

The c o u r t then excused j u r o r Kolar from f u r t h e r s e r v i c e
and even though t h i s v i n f o r m a t i o n "should have been d i s c l o s e d

by M r . Douglas during t h e v o i r dire" t h e c o u r t f e l t t h e t r i a l

could proceed by s e a t i n g one of t h e a l t e r n a t e j u r o r s . The

c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t no prejudice had r e s u l t e d i s c l e a r from

t h e d e n i a l of defendant's motion f o r a m i s t r i a l .
I I n open c o u r t , t h e j u r y , with t h e a l t e r n a t e s i t t i n g f o r

Kolar, was admonished:

':'THE COURT: JC ** M r . Smith, a t t h i s time, you should
take t h e jury box and i n so doing, although t h e Court
knows o r makes t h i s assumption, t h e reasons f o r Miss
Kolar's n o t p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n any f u r t h e r proceedings
should n o t and w i l l h o t a f f e c t t h e r e s t of you j u r o r s
p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s case and t h a t we a r e proceeding
with t h e t r i a l . That was one of t h e reasons we have
a l t e r n a t e j u r o r s i f c e r t a i n circumstances do a r i s e .
Now, a t t h i s time, having reconvened, M r . Douglas, c a l l
your next witness ."
A t t h e conclusion o f t h e t r i a l , a f t e r t h e j u r y had reached

i t s v e r d i c t , b u t before t h a t , v e r d i c t was announced, t h e c o u r t

questioned t h e jury:
 "THE COURT: During t h e time t h a t Miss Kolar was
a member of t h e j u r y , d i d she d i s c u s s with any of
you any of t h e evidence on t h e t r i a l ?

"THE JURY :' No.

"THE COURT: Let t h e record show t h a t a l l of t h e
j u r y answer no t o t h a t question. That t h e previous
q u e s t i o n , they s t a t e d t h a t t h e b r i n g i n g of t h e
defendant i n handcuffs i n t o t h e courtroom i n t h e i r
presence d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s and t h e
presumption of t h e defendant's innocence u n t i l proven
g u i l t y . Now, t h e f a c t t h a t Miss Kolar was removed
from t h e jury and M r . Smith replaced h e r , d i d t h a t
i n any way a f f e c t your d e l i b e r a t i o n s on t h i s c a s e ?

"THE JURY: N .I1
o

Defendant was n o t prejudiced by t h e occurrence involving

j u r o r Kolar. While s e r i o u s prejudice may have a r i s e n i f j u r o r

Kolar had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e v e r d i c t , those problems were

thus a r r e s t e d by replacing h e r with an a l t e r n a t e j u r o r and t h e

f u r t h e r safeguards taken by t h e t r i a l judge.

The v e r d i c t and judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s affirmed.

Concur
.---We 1 :