State v. Perry

No. 12213

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA
F

1972

THE STATE O MONTANA,
F

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

-VS -
FRED LEE PERRY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Truman G. Bradford, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant :

Ralph Randono argued, Great F a l l s , Montana.

For Respondent:

Hon. Robert L , Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,
Montana.
J. C. Weingartner, Deputy Attorney General, argued,
Helena, Montana.
J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, argued, Great F a l l s ,
Montana.
Arthur G. Matteucci, Deputy County Attorney, Great
F a l l s , Montana,

Submitted: November 28, 1972

Decided: JISN 1 (J 1973
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.

Defendant Fred Lee Perry a p p e a l s from a judgment of c o n v i c t i o n
of second degree murder and l i f e sentence i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n .
He was t r i e d by a j u r y i n t h e e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county
of Cascade, t h e Hon. Truman Bradford, judge p r e s i d i n g .
The body of Vicki R.enville, a t e e n a g e r , was discovered by
a m o t o r c y c l i s t on a county road n e a r Great F a l l s , Montana on
February 24, 1971. Immediate i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n s t i t u t e d by t h e
s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e of Cascade County l e a d t o t h e a r r e s t and con-
v i c t i o n i n s e p a r a t e proceedings of two men, defendant and Michael
Stillings.
A f t e r making an on-the-spot i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e murder
s i t e , t h e s h e r i f f had t h e body examined by D r . J a c k Henneford, a
resident pathologi-st. A s a r e s u l t of h i s examination D r , Henne-
f o r d t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i e d from m u l t i p l e blows t o t h e l e f t
s i d e of h e r head, f r a c t u r e s of t h e s k u l l , and from e x t e n s i v e
bleeding within the c r a n i a l c a v i t y , He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h e body
showed two small r e c e n t t e a r s of t h e hymen; t h a t in h i s opinion
t h e g i r l had been dead a t l e a s t e i g h t h o u r s ; and, t h a t she had
l i v e d an hour o r more a f t e r t h e blows had been i n f l i c t e d .
During t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a deputy s h e r i f f i n t e r v i e w e d
defendant t h e day a f t e r t h e body was found, a s t o h i s whereabouts
on t h e n i g h t of t h e murder. Defendant informed t h e deputy he was a t
h i s t r a i l e r a l l evening, watched TV and went t o bed. This s t a t e -
ment was given i n t h e presence of two o t h e r d e p u t i e s , O March
n
6 , 1971, some two weeks a f t e r t h e murder, t h e s h e r i f f r e c e i v e d
word from defendant, t h e n confined i n t h e Missoula County j a i l
on an u n r e l a t e d c h a r g e , t h a t he wanted t o t a l k t o the sheriff
and g i v e him information concerning t h e d e a t h of Vicki R e n v i l l e .
H e t o l d t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s he wanted t o h e l p them and

t h e y obtained h i s r e l e a s e from t h e Missoula County j a i l i n t h e
custody of t h e Cascade Collnty s h e r i f f . Although i t i s n o t c l e a r
i n t h e r e c o r d , i t appears defendant i m p l i c a t e d Michael S t i l l i n g s .
S t i l l i n g s was a r r e s t e d i n S e a t t l e , Washington, where he gave
t h r e e deputy s h e r i f f s a statement t h a t he had k i l l e d Vicki Ren-
ville. Arrangements were made t o r e t u r n him t o Great F a l l s ,
where he made a n o t h e r s t a t e m e n t . Stillings told the officers
t h a t defendant had k i l l e d t h e g i r l . He t o l d them t h e s t o r y of
what happened t h e n i g h t of t h e k i l l i n g , where he and defendant
were, who they were w i t h both b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e k i l l i n g .
Accompanied by h i s a t t o r n e y , t h e county a t t o r n e y and t h r e e deputy
s h e r i f f s , h e took them t o t h e scene of t h e k i l l i n g .
The s t o r y r e l a t i n g t o t h e k i l l i n g , a s t o l d t o t h e j u r y by
S t i l l i n g s , was t h a t he and defendant picked Vicki up l a t e i n t h e
evening of February 23, 1971, and a f t e r r i d i n g around town they
took Vicki t o an a r e a known a s t h e Wadsworth Park. There
S t i l l i n g s suggested t h a t V i c k i have i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h him and
when she r e f u s e d he put a k n i f e t o h e r t h r o a t and f o r c e d h e r t o
have i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h him i n t h e back s e a t of t h e c a r . Then,
according t o S t i l l i n g s , defendant had i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h h e r .
A f t e r t h e s e two a c t s V i c k i g o t o u t of t h e c a r and h i s s t o r y of
what happened then i s :
"Q. What happened t h e n ? A. V i c k i s a i d she was going
to rat.
Q Vicki s a i d she was going t o r a t ? A. Yes.
"Q. And do you know what she meant by t h a t ? A. Yes.
"Q. What d i d she mean? A. She was going t o s q u e a l .
"Q. And what happened t h e n , i f a n y t h i n g ? A . Fred
ducked back i n t o t h e c a r and he grabbed t h e t i r e i r o n ,
and he s t a r t e d h i t t i n g h e r .
11
Q, What kind of t i r e i r o n was i t ? A, It was a - - j u s t
a s i n g l e t i r e iron. I t was a b a r t i r e i r o n .
. Did i t have a l u g wrench end on i t ? A. Yes.
Q . Did i t have a pointed end on i t ? A. Yes.
"Q. And could you s e e him s t r i k i n g h e r ? A. Not a t f i r s t .
Q Did you e v e r s e e him s t r i k i n g h e r ? A, Yes.
 ' Q 'When d i d you s e e him s t r i k i n g h e r ' ? A , When she
was l a y i n g on t h e ground.

.
Jn
And i n whac p o s i t i o n was she i n when she was l y i n g
t h e ground? A . She was l y i n g on h e r back.
"Q. And i n what p o s i t i o n was M r . Perry? A. He was
s t a n d i n g over h e r .

. How many times d i d you s e e him s t r i k e h e r , do you
r e c a l l ? A. Maybe h a l f a dozen times.

"Q, And what d i d you do t h e n , i f a n y t h i n g ? A. I
jumped out of t h e c a r and grabbed h i s arm.

'iQ. tJhat happened a f t e r you grabbed h i s arm? A , . He
dropped t h e t i r e i r o n and backed o f f . I 1

S t i l l i n g s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he picked V i c k i up and thought she
was dead. Then t h e two f l e d from t h e a r e a r e t u r n i n g t o town

w h e r e t h e y picked up f r i e n d s , so t h a t t h e y could e s t a b l i s h an

alibi, The n e x t day S t i l l i n g s changed t h e r e a r t i r e s on h i s c a r ,

c l e a n e d o f f t h e bloody t i r e i r o n , and soon t h e r e a f t e r l e f t f o r

ieattle. S t i l l i n g s t o l d t h e d e p u t i e s where he threw t h e t i r e

i-ron i n t h e s t a t e o f Washington, b u t a f t e r a thorough s e a r c h

iio t i r e i r o n was found.

k t t h e Lime h e t e s t i f i e d S t i l l i n g s had e n t e r e d a p l e a t o

second degree murder, b u t s e n t e n c e had n o t been imposed. The

d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y thoroughly cross-examined him about making a
d e a l w i t h t h e s t a t e , b u t he s a i d he "expected no leniency".

D r . Henneford i n h i s e x p e r t testimony d e s c r i b e d t h e kind
~i weapon t h a t could have i n f l i c t e d t h e blows on V i c k i , and when
shown a t i r e i r o n l i k e t h a t d e s c r i b e d by S t i l l i n g s , h e t e s t i f i e d
;hat such a weapon could have i n f l i c t e d t h e i n j u r i e s d e s c r i b e d

b y him which r e s u l t e d i n h e r d e a t h .

Defendant was defended by two a b l e c o u n s e l of t h e Bar of

Cascade County. John F. Lynch, Esq. b e f o r e e n t e r i n g p r i v a t e
p r a c t i c e served a s a c l e r k t o t h i s Court and worked f o r over a
y e a r on t h e r e v i s i o n of Montana's c r i m i n a l code. John D . Stephen-

;on, J r , h a s been i n a c t i v e p r a c t i c e f o r over t e n y e a r s and i s

a s k i l l e d , competent,qualified t r i a l lawyer. On a p p e a l , due

co a l l e g a t i o n s made about h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ap-

p o i n t e d Ralph T , Randono, a former deputy county a t t o r n e y , t o
handle the appeal. He was a s s i s t e d i n h i s p r e p a r a t i o n of t h e
a p p e l l a t e b r i e f by t h e t r i a l counsel.
Defendant s e t s f o r t h seven i s s u e s on appeal f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s
consideration :
1. Defendant was n o t provided c o u n s e l a s r e q u i r e d .
2. Defendant was questioned and h a r a s s e d by s h e r i f f ' s
d e p u t i e s a f t e r h i s counsel was appointed.
3. Defendant when provided c o u n s e l , was given c o u n s e l
w i t h o u t experience i n c r i m i n a l law.
4. Both defendant and counsel asked f o r new counsel.
5. There was a f a i l u r e of c o r r o b o r a t i o n .
6, The c o u r t e r r e d i n a c c e p t i n g a v e r d i c t of second degree
murder.
7. The c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s t t r i a l
motion t o modify t h e v e r d i c t i n accordance w i t h s e c t i o n 95-2101(c),
R.C.M. 1947.
I s s u e s 1, 3 and 4 , concern t r i a l counsel and a s such t h e
i s s u e of competency of c o u n s e l w i l l be d i s c u s s e d c o v e r i n g t h e
three issues.
F i r s t , defendant a l l e g e s t h a t between t h e time of h i s a r r e s t
and t h e appointment of c o u n s e l , he was s u b j e c t e d t o examination
by members of t h e s h e r i f f ' s and county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e s without
counsel. The f a c t s a s s e t f o r t h i n our statement of f a c t s f a i l t o
s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s charge. To t h e c o n t r a r y , defendant v o l u n t e e r e d
t o a s s i s t t h e Cascade County o f f i c i a l s i n c l e a r i n g up t h e k i l l i n g
of Vicki R e n v i l l e . He obtained r e l e a s e from t h e Missoula County
j a i l and was allowed t o r e t u r n t o Great F a l l s t o a s s i s t i n t h e
investigation. It was n o t u n t i l a f t e r he i m p l i c a t e d S t i l l i n g s

and S t i l l i n g s had made t h e a c c u s a t i o n i n v o l v i n g defendant, t h a t
any focus was d i r e c t e d t o defendant. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t
a f t e r r e t u r n i n g t o Great F a l l s h e a g a i n g o t i n t o t r o u b l e and was
p u t i n t o t h e Cascade j a i l t o s e r v e o u t t h e Missoula County sentence.
He was r e l e a s e d , l e f t t h e s t a t e , and i t was n o t u n t i l August 17,
1972, t h a t a warrant f o r h i s a r r e s t was i s s u e d . The r e c o r d and
t r a n s c r i p t f a i l t o show any s t a t e m e n t s made by defendant d u r i n g
t h e i n v e s t i g a t i v e p e r i o d , and defendant d i d n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d
t o e x p l a i n anything t h a t happened d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d . Miranda v .
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S,Ct. 1602, 16 L ed 2d 694, h a s no
application t o this fact situation.
Defendant was served by n o t one, b u t two, c o u r t appointed
a t t o r n e y s who were f a i t h f u l t o t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l ~ b l ~ g a t i o n n
is
h i s defense. Their thanks i s now t o b e charged w i t h being "in-
e f f e c t i v e counsel". These days t h i s i s n o t an unusual charge by
convicted defendants and a s t h i s Court s a i d i n S t a t e v. F o r s n e s s ,
Mont . , 495 P.2d 176, 179, 29 St.Rep. 232, 236:
II
Success i s n o t t h e t e s t of e f f i c i e n t c o u n s e l ,
f r e q u e n t l y n e i t h e r v i g o r , z e a l , n o r s k i l l can
overcome t r u t h , " See a l s o : P e t i t i o n of H e i s e r ,
148 Mont. 149, 418 P.2d 202.
Here, t h e two t r i a l counsel a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d defendant.
W have s c r u t i n i z e d t h e r e c o r d w i t h c a r e and f i n d defendant was
e
a.dequately, e f f e c t i v e l y , f a i r l y , and competently r e p r e s e n t e d .
W n e x t c o n s i d e r i s s u e 5 d i r e c t e d t o an a l l e g e d f a i l u r e of
e
corroboration. The r e c o r d s u p p l i e s c o r r o b o r a t i v e evidence, over
and above t h e testimony of accomplice S t i l l i n g s , a s i s r e q u i r e d
by s e c t i o n 94-7220, R.C.M. 1947,
There was medical evidence given by D r . Henneford t h a t
Vicki had been raped. Two young g i - r l s , C h r i s S h a t t o and Joan
Icimbell, t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y were a t d e f e n d a n t ' s t r a i l e r w i t h
defendant and S t i l l i n g s from about 9 p.m. u n t i l a f t e r 11:30 p.m.,
when defendant and S t i l l i n g s took them t o t h e home of Don Shingle-
decker. Both g i r l s i d e n t i f i e d t h e c o a t defendant wore t h a t n i g h t .
The c o a t i n q u e s t i o n wa$ i n t r o d u c e d i n evidence and an FBI a g e n t
t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t had human blood s p o t s . Mike Baldwin t e s t i f i e d
t h a t defendant and S t i l l i n g s had picked him up about 12:30 a.m.
and took him t o a Mona ~ r o w n ' sr e s i d e n c e where they s t a y e d u n t i l
a f t e r 1:30 a.m. Baldwin a l s o i d e n t i f i e d t h e c o a t defendant wore
that night. Joan Wittke, a f r i e n d of defendant, t e s t i f i e d t h a t
defendant t o l d h e r i n t h e presence of one Randy Braden t h a t a
b i g guy and a small guy had k i l l e d V i c k i , and " t h a t they threw
the t i r e s i n the river." I n a d d i t i o n , a l l witnesses who t e s t i f i e d
c c ~ r r o b o r a t e dshe 3 t i i l i n g s ' restinlony concerning 'ihe e v e n t s o f

:he n i g h t of February 23-24, 1 9 7 1 .

I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Montana t h a t t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f

t h e c o r r o b o r a t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n based on t h e

~ e s t i m o n yof an accomplice i s a m a t t e r of law. S t a t e v . Dess,

1.54 Mont. 231, 462 P.2d 186; S t a t e v . B a r i c k , 143 Hont. 273, 389
P.2d 170; S t a t e v . Moran, 142 Mont. 423, 384 P.2d 777, When t h e

t r i a l judge i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t th.e evidence i s c o r r o b o r a t i v e , h e
must submit t h e c a s e t o t h e j u r y t o determine what e f f e c t t h e

c o r r o b o r a t i o n h a s and whether i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t a con-

viction. The weight given an a c c o m p l i c e ' s testimony i s f o r t h e

jury t o d e c i d e , Here, t h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d a s t o

t h e weight t o be given an a c c o m p l i c e ' s testimony. W f i n d no
e

merit t o i s s u e 5 .

Defendant n e x t a r g u e s t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n a c c e p t i n g a second

degree murder v e r d i c t . He contends i n an i n s t r u c t i o n o f f e r e d

I ~ u rr e f u s e d , t h a t i t was e i t h e r f i r s t degree o r a c q u i t t a l and

,:ites i n s u p p o r t of t h e r e f u s e d i n s t r u c t i o n S t a t e v . M i l l e r ,

9 1 Nont. 596, 595, 9 P. 2d 474, a s e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e law on t h e
felony-murder r u l e . There, the murder was committed d u r i n g a
rubbery and t h i s Court s a i d :
II
The t r i a l c o u r t i s r e q u i r e d t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on
l e s s e r d e g r e e s of a crime c h a r g e d , o r i n c l u d e d c r i m e s ,
. m l y when t h e evidence would w a r r a n t a c o n v i c t i o n of
such o t h e r crimes + ; *
;k consequently where, a s h e r e ,
3 defendant i s e i t h e r shown t o have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a
r o b b e r y , o r attempted r o b b e r y , d u r i n g which a homicide
i s committed, o r t h e evidence f a i l s t o show t h a t f a c t
Seyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , t h e only p e r m i s s i b l e v e r d i c t
i s e i t h e r murder of t h e f i r s t degree o r a c q u i t t a l , and
t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o i n s t r u c t on murder
i n t h e second degree. I t
fn M i l l e r t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t err
i-n f a i l i n g t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y i t c o u l d f i n d t h e defendant g u i l t y

o f murder i n t h e second d e g r e e , because t h e evidence could n o t

support t h a t v e r d i c t .

Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y found, i n g i v i n g t h e i n s t r u c -

t i o n on second d e g r e e , t h a t t h e M i l l e r f a c t s i t u a t i o n was n o t
comparable t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . The homicide occurred a f t e r
t h e a l l e g e d r a p e had been committed, i t was n o t done d u r i n g t h e
perpetration of t h e r a p e . According t o S t i l l i n g s ' testimony,
Vi-cki was k i l l e d a f t e r she had been raped because she s a i d she
was going t o r a t ( s q u e a l ) .
The t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d an second d e g r e e , and
t h e j u r y so found. The c o u r t a l s o c a r e f u l l y i n s t r u c t e d on a l l
t h e elements of murder. It would appear from i t s v e r d i c t t h a t
t h e j u r y d i d n o t f i n d a l l t h e elements of f i r s t degree murder,
b u t d i d f i n d second degree and t h e r e were s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o
warrant i t s v e r d i c t .
~ e f e n d a n t ' s f i n a l i s s u e i s d i r e c t e d t o t h e c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of
d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l and m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e
judgment, and a g a i n c i t e s M i l l e r . Having h e r e t o f o r e r u l e d on
M i l l e r , we f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s i s s u e . A s previously noted,
t h e r e was s u h s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t and we
f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y denied t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l .
Where t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e r e c o r d t o support
t h e v e r d i c t , t h e a c t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d
on a p p e a l . S t a t e v. Walker, 148 Mont. 216, 419 P.2d 300.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .

- -czm--- - &.- -
v- ...- -d
- .
ociate Justice

~ s s o c i u t e ustices.
J