NO. 81-466
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1983
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS.
D O N O V A N LaVALLEY,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth 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 of Missoula
Honorable Douglas Harkin, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of ~ e c o r d :
For Appellant:
Ian Christopherson argued, Missoula, 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 , M o n t a n a
Mark M u r p h y , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d ,
H e l e n a , Montana
R o b e r t L . Deschamps 111, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d ,
M i s s o u l a , Montana
Submitted: February 28, 1 9 8 3 ,
Decided: A p r i l 1 4 , 1983
Filed:
P
&*
,c
/;
-. ;(
,'7 <,2 - M
Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e O p i n i o n of the
Court.
D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n s o f d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e
and a g g r a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the
F o u r t h 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 C o u n t y o f M i s s o u l a .
D e f e n d a n t s h o t and k i l l e d W i l l i a m H o m e r Rock, 111, o n A p r i l
1 0 , 1980, a t t h e N a u d i t t r e s i d e n c e , s o u t h of L o l o , Montana. The
events leading up to the shooting are as follows. Defendant
m a r r i e d Penny N a u d i t t i n t h e summer o f 1 9 7 9 . D e f e n d a n t and Penny
N a u d i t t had a s t o r m y m a r r i a g e which p r e c i p i t a t e d numerous f i g h t s
and s e p a r a t i o n s . I n December 1 9 7 9 , Penny o b t a i n e d a d i v o r c e from
d e f e n d a n t i n a Missoula D i s t r i c t Court. I n January 1980, defen-
d a n t and Penny b e g a n l i v i n g t o g e t h e r a g a i n . However, t h e r e u n i o n
was s h o r t - l i v e d and t h e y s o o n s e p a r a t e d .
A f t e r b e i n g away f o r a few w e e k s , d e f e n d a n t r e t u r n e d to Lolo
on o r a b o u t A p r i l 8 , 1980. On t h a t d a y d e f e n d a n t s a w Penny a t
t h e Lolo p o s t o f f i c e . They t a l k e d w i t h o u t i n c i d e n t . On A p r i l 9,
d e f e n d a n t and Penny had l u n c h t o g e t h e r a t t h e C o u n t r y K i t c h e n i n
Missoula. Penny t e s t i f i e d t h e m e e t i n g was o n l y t o s e t t h i n g s
s t r a i g h t s o t h e y could have a c l e a n break. She claims s h e d i d
n o t i n t e n d to see d e f e n d a n t a g a i n . D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h e y had
l u n c h and a g r e e d t o meet l a t e r t h a t e v e n i n g when P e n n y g o t o f f
work. P e n n y t h e n went t o work a t h e r f a t h e r ' s bar, t h e Golden
Goose i n L o l o . When P e n n y f i n i s h e d w o r k i n g , she stayed a t the
G o l d e n Goose t o d r i n k w i t h some f r i e n d s . Defendant c a l l e d the
G o l d e n Goose when P e n n y d i d n o t come t o meet him b u t s h e would
n o t t a k e h i s calls.
A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 9:30 p.m., Penny c a l l e d W i l l i a m Homer Rock,
111, f r o m t h e G o l d e n Goose and a s k e d him if he would like to
babysit her. Rock came t o t h e G o l d e n Goose and d r a n k w i t h Penny
u n t i l a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1:00 a . m . At t h a t t i m e Penny and Rock l e f t
t h e b a r i n s e p a r a t e v e h i c l e s , and d r o v e t o t h e N a u d i t t r e s i d e n c e
w h e r e Penny was s t a y i n g . P e n n y ' s p a r e n t s , t h e N a u d i t t s , were o u t
o f town and Penny claims s h e a s k e d Rock t o s t a y w i t h h e r f o r p r o -
tection. When t h e y a r r i v e d a t t h e N a u d i t t ' s r e s i d e n c e , Penny and
Rock smoked m a r i j u a n a , t h e n went to bed t o g e t h e r .
A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2:00 a.m. , d e f e n d a n t d e c i d e d to d r i v e t o t h e
Nauditt residence to c h e c k on P e n n y . When he a r r i v e d at the
residence, he found Rock's pickup truck, which he did not
r e c o g n i z e , parked i n t h e driveway. D e f e n d a n t opened t h e hood on
Rock's pickup truck and removed the distributor cap. He
testified h e was concerned about Penny's safety and w a n t e d to
p r e v e n t a p o s s i b l e i n t r u d e r 's escape while defendant entered the
house t h r o u g h a d o w n s t a i r s window. When Penny and Rock h e a r d
defendant open the d o w n s t a i r s window, they got out of bed to
investigate. Penny obtained her father's .22 caliber pistol
which was sitting on the headboard bookcase. As defendant
e n t e r e d t h e h o u s e t h r o u g h t h e window and came up t h e s t a i r w a y , he
disconnected a phone which was ringing. When h e reached the
bedroom d o o r h e f o u n d P e n n y and Rock standing together. Both
were n a k e d . D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d Rock p o i n t e d t h e gun a t him and
defendant reacted b y s t r i k i n g Rock. D e f e n d a n t and Rock had a
brief s t r u g g l e i n t h e bedroom, and d e f e n d a n t t o o k t h e gun from
Rock. D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h e gun f i r e d d u r i n g t h e s t r u g g l e b u t
admitted he had obtained possession of it. Penny testified
d e f e n d a n t had t a k e n t h e gun from Rock and fired i t as s h e and
Rock b a c k e d away. The bullet s t r u c k Rock in the abdomen and
exited just below t h e main hipbone. The b u l l e t d i d n o t s t r i k e
a n y major o r g a n s b u t d i d s e v e r t h e r i g h t i l i a c v e i n and c r e a t e d
a large hole in the r i g h t i l i a c artery. A t trial, Dr. John P f a f f
testified Rock d i e d from loss of blood but probably lived at
l e a s t t e n to f i f t e e n minutes a f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g .
After Rock w a s shot, d e f e n d a n t k i c k e d Rock i n t h e head to
k e e p him f r o m g e t t i n g a n o t h e r g u n . Defendant t h e n unplugged t h e
u p s t a i r s phone and l e f t w i t h P e n n y . Defendant testified Penny
came w i l l i n g l y , Penny claims d e f e n d a n t f o r c e d h e r to go w i t h him.
P e n n y t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t f o r c e d h e r to l a y on t h e f l o o r of h i s
pickup truck while they drove toward Hamilton. She t e s t i f i e d
d e f e n d a n t p u l l e d o f f t h e highway and s t o p p e d on t h e T r a p p e r C r e e k
Road where he proceeded to beat and rape her. Defendant
testified t h e y s t o p p e d a t T r a p p e r C r e e k t o t a l k and t h a t Penny
w a n t e d t o make l o v e b u t he r e f u s e d . W h i l e t h e y were a t T r a p p e r
C r e e k , t h e p i c k u p became s t u c k i n mud on t w o s e p a r a t e o c c a s i o n s .
Each t i m e d e f e n d a n t g o t o u t of t h e t r u c k to p u s h and Penny d r o v e .
P e n n y d i d n o t a t t e m p t to e s c a p e on e i t h e r o c c a s i o n , b u t s h e d o e s
n o t r e c a l l why. A f t e r t h e y g o t t h e p i c k u p u n s t u c k , d e f e n d a n t and
Penny d r o v e t o Salmon, Idaho, and g o t a motel room. Defendant
t e s t i f i e d he knew he was i n t r o u b l e b u t d e f e n d a n t wanted t o w a i t
f o r a few d a y s u n t i l he c o u l d t a l k t o h i s l a w y e r .
D e f e n d a n t r e g i s t e r e d a t t h e m o t e l u n d e r a f a l s e name. After
registering, D e f e n d a n t and Penny went to t h e m o t e l room to r e s t .
A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2:00 p.m. o n A p r i l 1 0 , Penny r e q u e s t e d d e f e n d a n t
t o retrieve some a s p i r i n from h i s p i c k u p which he d i d . Later
t h e y proceeded t o go downtown. D e f e n d a n t went i n t o a c l o t h i n g
store and bought clothes for Penny while she waited in the
pickup. D e f e n d a n t t h e n went to a d r u g s t o r e t o by i n s u l i n a s he
is a d i a b e t i c . A g a i n , Penny w a i t e d i n t h e p i c k u p . A f t e r defen-
d a n t f i n i s h e d s h o p p i n g , t h e y p u r c h a s e d f o o d a t an A & W drive-in
and r e t u r n e d t o t h e motel.
E a r l y i n t h e e v e n i n g t h e m o t e l m a n a g e r c a l l e d and t o l d d e f e n -
d a n t someone had c o l l i d e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s p i c k u p . When d e f e n -
d a n t went o u t s i d e , he was s u r r o u n d e d b y Salmon p o l i c e o f f i c e r s
and a r r e s t e d . The Salmon p o l i c e had b e e n a l e r t e d b y t h e M i s s o u l a
Sheriff I s o f f ice. The p o l i c e found t h e . 2 2 p i s t o l i n t h e b a c k of
d e f e n d a n t ' s p i c k u p i n a box of c l o t h i n g . The p o l i c e found Penny
i n t h e motel room. From h e r c o n d i t i o n , it a p p e a r e d s h e had b e e n
b e a t e n a b o u t t h e mouth and h e a d . She a l s o had c l u m p s of hair
t o r n from h e r h e a d . They s o u g h t m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t f o r b o t h Penny
a n d d e f e n d a n t and p l a c e d them i n t o t h e c u s t o d y of the Missoula
County S h e r i f f s o f f ice.
When d e f e n d a n t was r e t u r n e d to M i s s o u l a , t h e M i s s o u l a County
Attorney's o f f ice filed an Information charging defendant with
d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e and a g g r a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g . A j u r y t r i a l com-
menced i n District Court on A p r i l 20, 1981. During t h e pro-
c e e d i n g , d e f e n d a n t fs c o u n s e l , among o t h e r t h i n g s : stipulated to
t h e admission of a c o l o r photograph of the victim; called six
w i t n e s s e s w h i c h h e had n o t s p o k e n w i t h to t e s t i f y a b o u t P e n n y ' s
reputation, none o f which had a n y o p i n i o n or p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e
of Penny's reputation; d i d n o t p r e s e n t a n i n s t r u c t i o n on s e l f -
defense, and objected to the introduction of a self-defense
i n s t r u c t i o n by t h e S t a t e ; and s t a t e d t o t h e j u r y d u r i n g c l o s i n g
arguments t h a t t h i s was n o t a case o f mitigated deliberate or
negligent homicide and requested the jury to find defendant
g u i l t y o f d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e or a c q u i t . On A p r i l 2 4 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e
j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e s of deliberate
h o m i c i d e and a g g r a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g . Defendant appeals.
Defendant raises several issues for review. We find one
i s s u e t o be d i s p o s i t i v e ; w h e t h e r t h e o m i s s i o n s and d e f i c i e n c i e s
of d e f e n s e c o u n s e l amount t o a d e n i a l o f defendant's constitu-
t i o n a l r i g h t t o e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l as g u a r a n t e e d b y
t h e S i x t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and by Sec-
t i o n 2 4 , A r t i c l e I1 o f t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n .
We note other i n s t a n c e s of ineptness i n the record which,
although have less substantial nature than the issues above,
i n d i c a t e a g e n e r a l l a c k o f s k i l l and p r e p a r a t i o n from t h e p a r t of
the defense counsel. I n e v a l u a t i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l 's r e p r e s e n -
tation, it is n o t o u r f u n c t i o n t o s e c o n d - g u e s s t r i a l t a c t i c s and
the strategy. S e e , U n i t e d S t a t e s v. D e C o s t e r ( D . C . C i r c u i t ) , 487
F.2d 1197. They n o t e d t h a t : "We ... p r e s u m e t h a t t h e trial
c o u n s e l , a p p o i n t e d or r e t a i n e d , c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y s e e k , w i t h i n t h e
limits of preparation, ability, and knowledge of the law, and
skill at trial, to accomplish a successful result for his
client." W e n o t e t h a t r e a s o n a b l y e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l d o e s n o t mean
t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t is c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y guaranteed such a s s i s t a n c e
of c o u n s e l as w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y result in his acquittal. See,
S t e w a r Q v . P e o p l e ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 7 9 C o l o . 3 1 , 498 P.2d 9 3 3 .
Historically, i n Montana and e l s e w h e r e , t h e burden h a s been
h e a v y o n o n e who s e e k s t o r e v e r s e a j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d s of
incompetency of counsel.
I n S t a t e v. Rose ( 1 9 8 0 ) f -- .- .-
. Mont . - , 6 0 8 P.2d 1 0 7 4 , 37
S t .Rep. 642, this Court adopted the "reasonably effective
a s s i s t a n c e t e s t " as s t a t e d by t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t C o u r t of A p p e a l s
in Cooper v. Fitzharris (Ninth Cir. 1978), 586 F.2d 1325:
" P e r s o n s a c c u s e d o f crime a r e e n t i t l e d to t h e
e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l a c t i n g w i t h i n
t h e r a n g e o f c o m p e t e n c e demanded o f a t t o r n e y s
i n criminal cases." S t a t e v . R o s e , 608 P.2d
a t 1081.
Until t h a t case, t h e t e s t i n t h i s S t a t e had b e e n o n e which
established t h e s t a n d a r d a s being t h a t of "bad faith, sham, o r
farcical representations."
This standard has since been applied in State v. Kubas
(1982) I --- .- Mon t .- -- , 6 4 2 P.2d 1 4 7 , 39 S t . R e p . 456, and
F i t z p a t r i c k v. S t a t e (1981), -- - Mont . - ---- , 638 P.2d 1 0 0 2 , 38
St.Rep. 1448. Here, defendant bases h i s claim o f ineffective
a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l upon s p e c i f i c a c t s and o m i s s i o n s a t t r i a l .
Again, c i t i n g - oper,
Co
- supra, t h i s Court s t a t e d i n Rose, supra:
"Where t h e claim o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of
c o u n s e l rests upon s p e c i f i c a c t s and o m i s s i o n s
o f c o u n s e l a t t r i a l , as it d o e s i n t h i s c a s e ,
r e l i e f w i l l be g r a n t e d o n l y i f it a p p e a r s t h a t
t h e d e f e n d a n t was p r e j u d i c e d b y c o u n s e l 's
conduct." S t a t e v. R o s e , 6 0 8 P.2d 1 0 8 1 .
Generally, t h e r a t i o n a l e of these e a r l y i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of
counsel cases was b a s e d s o l e l y on due p r o c e s s m o t i o n s . See,
B a z e l o n --- .-- e f e c t -i v e- --s i s t a n c e -o f
The D -
As Counsel,
.- 42 U n i v e r s i t y of
C i n c i n n a t i Law Review, p. 1. W i t h t h e l a n d m a r k c a s e of G i d e o n
#Pldweqfff
v. a n e w r l g h t ( 1 9 6 2 ) . 372 U.S. 335, #83 S.Ct. 7 9 2 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799,
however, t h e r i g h t t o c o u n s e l was r e c o g n i z e d a s s t a n d i n g o n i t s
own as o n e of t h e f u n d a m e n t a l human r i g h t s e s s e n t i a l to a f a i r
trial. S e e McMann v. R i c h a r d s o n ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 3 9 7 U.S. 7 5 9 , 90 S . C t .
1 4 4 1 , 25 L.Ed.2d 7 6 3 , w h e r e i n t h e c o u r t e l u c i d a t e d o n and g a v e a
renewed emphasis to this right when it s t a t e d that: "if the
r i g h t t o c o u n s e l g u a r a n t e e d by t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n is to s e r v e i t s
purpose, defendants cannot be left to t h e i r mercies o f incm-
p e t e n t counsel .. .'I I n a s i m i l a r v e i n , M r . J u s t i c e S c h a f f e r of
the Illinois Supreme C o u r t noted: "of a l l the r i g h t s t h a t an
a c c u s e d p e r s o n h a s , t h e r i g h t to be r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l , is by
f a r t h e most p e r v a s i v e , f o r it a f f e c t s h i s a b i l i t y to a s s e r t any
o t h e r r i g h t s he may h a v e . " S e e , S c h a f f-- , - e r a l i s -- a n d - S t a t e
er Fed m -
- riminal
C P -- e d u-, 70 Har .Law .Rev.
r o c -r e 1.
Recognizing the constitutional guarantee of assistance of
counsel is a g u a r a n t e e w i t h a p u r p o s e -- t h a t purpose being t o
a s s u r e t h a t o u r a d v e r s a r y system of justice is r e a l l y a d v e r s a r y
and r e a l l y d o e s j u s t i c e -- we w i l l not paper over the cracks in
t h e house t h a t G i d e o n b u i l t by h e s i t a t i n g to p r o v i d e a n ample,
m e a n i n g f u l s t a n d a r d i n c a s e s of a n a l l e g e d i n c o m p e t e n c y o f c r i m i n a l
defense counsels.
In the present case, we find defendant was p r e j u d i c e d by
counsel 's conduct. Numerous e x a m p l e s of p r e j u d i c i a l c o n d u c t a r e
contained i n the record. The f i r s t e x a m p l e involves counsel's
f a i l u r e t o i n t e r v i e w s i x c h a r a c t e r w i t n e s s e s which he c a l l e d t o
t e s t i f y a t the t r i a l . C o u n s e l had not s p o k e n w i t h any of the
witnesses prior to trial. Although c o u n s e l was attempting to
a t t a c k t h e c h a r a c t e r of Penny N a u d i t t , none of t h e w i t n e s s e s had
a n y o p i n i o n a s t o Penny N a u d i t t ' s c h a r a c t e r . Had t h e s e w i t n e s s e s
b e e n a b l e t o a t t a c k Penny N a u d i t t ' s character, t h e y m i g h t have
damaged the State's case. Instead , t h e i r testimony merely
demonstrated counsel 's lack of investigation and preparation
prior to trial.
The n e x t e x a m p l e i n v o l v e s c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o p r e s e n t com-
petent jury instructions to the District Court. Again, this
d e m o n s t r a t e s a c o m p l e t e l a c k of p r e p a r a t i o n . As a result, coun-
sel did not present to the jury any logical defenses to the
charges. In t h i s case, t h e S t a t e , i n a n a t t e m p t to p r o t e c t t h e
record, introduced the i n s t r u c t i o n on s e l f - d e f e n s e and counsel
argued against t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , he f a i l e d t o a r g u e
t h e r e were a n y m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. During c l o s i n g argu-
ments, counsel argued defendant d i d not a c t i n s e l f - d e f e n s e :
" S o , i m p l y i n g t h a t he had t h e g u n , he p r o b a b l y
pulled the trigger in self-defense, i f you
w i l l b e l i e v e t h a t g a r b a g e you w i l l b e l i e v e
a n y t h i n g . You m i g h t a s w e l l c o n v i c t him."
And, c o u n s e l s t a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g a b o u t n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e :
" t h e n , i f you d o n ' t l i k e t h a t , t h e n you c a n go
o n down t o n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e and what t h a t
m e a n s , I h a v e no i d e a . T h e r e was nobody t h a t
was n e g l i g e n t t h a t n i g h t . T h e r e was no a c c i -
dent a t a l l . T h e r e was no a c c i d e n t . "
These statements by counsel left the jury with only one
option -- c o n v i c t i o n of d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e . A r e a s o n a b l y com-
p e t e n t a t t o r n e y a c t i n g a s a d i l i g e n t c o n s c i e n t i o u s a d v o c a t e would
n o t h a v e made s u c h errors. A s s u c h , w e f i n d d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d
his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.
Therefore, we hold the convictions of d e l i b e r a t e homicide and
a g g r a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g m u s t be r e v e r s e d and o r d e r t h i s c a u s e be
remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a new t r i a l .
R e v e r s e d and remanded.
4
We concur:
?h-e&Q&@
Chief Justice