No. 13337
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
19 76
THE STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
DENNIS FUGER ,
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 ,
Honorable J a c k Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g
Counsel. of Record :
For Appellant:
C u r t i s C. Cook a r g u e d , Hamilton, Montana
F o r Respondent :
Hon. R o b e r t TJ. l~loodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena,
Montana
Douglas H a r k i n , County A t t o r n e y , Hamilton, Montana
Margaret A. Tonon a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y ,
Hamilton, Montana
Submitted: August 30, 1976
Decided: SEP 2 2 1976
Filed : $EP 2 j 7
. 36
M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
1975
On May 2 3 , / ~ e n n i sFuger was charged by Information i n
R a v a l l i County w i t h aggravated a s s a u l t i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n
94-5-202(1) ( a ) , R.C.M. 1947. A f t e r t r i a l by j u r y i n December
1975, he was found g u i l t y and sentenced t o t e n y e a r s i n p r i s o n
w i t h a l l of i t suspended except s i x months i n t h e R a v a l l i County
jail. He a p p e a l s .
A p p e l l a n t p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review:
1) Did t h e s t a t e produce s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o e n a b l e
t h e j u r y t o f i n d t h a t t h e v i c t i m w a s placed i n " s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k
2) Did t h e evidence show a s a m a t t e r of l a w t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s
use of f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e v i c t i m was j u s t i f i e d a s d e f e n s e of
another?
R e s o l u t i o n of t h e s e two i s s u e s w i l l determine t h e r e s u l t of
t h i s appeal. A p p e l l a n t ' s t h i r d i s s u e , whether a new t r i a l should
have been g r a n t e d o r t h e judgment modified t o f i n d him g u i l t y
of o n l y simple a s s a u l t , l a c k s m e r i t i n view of our r u l i n g on
the f i r s t issue.
The I n f o r m a t i o n charged t h a t Fuger:
"* * * purposely o r knowingly caused s e r i o u s b o d i l y
i n j u r y t o DAVE DANIELS by k i c k i n g md b e a t i n g t h e
s a i d DAVE DANIELS about t h e f a c e and upper p o r t i o n
of t h e body **
*."
T h i s charge a r o s e from a f i g h t o c c u r r i n g on t h e evening of A p r i l
26, 1975. Fuger and h i s c o u s i n Ron S n e l l were r i d i n g i n one
pickup and Dave D a n i e l s ( t h e v i c t i m ) and Diane S n e l l (Ron ~ n e l l ' s
ex-wife) were r i d i n g i n a n o t h e r pickup. The two v e h i c l e s met on
a narrow road and stopped. The f i g h t q u i c k l y followed. Fuger
t e s t i f i e d t h a t Daniels knocked him unconscious and when he came
t o he saw Daniels s i t t i n g on Ron S n e l l and heard S n e l l y e l l f o r
h e l p : "Dennis! He has g o t a knife!" Fuger s a i d he kicked Daniels
t o p r o t e c t S n e l l from t h e k n i f e . T h i s v e r s i o n of t h e f i g h t was
supported by t h e testimony of Ron S n e l l . D a n i e l s , however,
t e s t i f i e d t h a t he v o l u n t a r i l y gave up t h e k n i f e b e f o r e he was
h i t o r kicked.
Fuger contends t h e evidence was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show Daniels
faced a " s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k of death" a s r e q u i r e d f o r a c o n v i c t i o n
f o r aggravated a s s a u l t . S e c t i o n 94-5-202(1)(a), R.C.M. 1947,
provides t h a t aggravated a s s a u l t may be committed by c a u s i n g
" s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y t o another . I 1 "Serious b o d i l y i n j u r y " i s
d e f i n e d by s e c t i o n 94-2-101(54), R.C.M. 1947, a s " b o d i l y i n j u r y
which c r e a t e s a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k of death."
Daniels was f i r s t t r e a t e d i n t h e emergency room a t Daly
H o s p i t a l i n Hamilton by D r . Robert Palmer and l a t e r t r a n s p o r t e d
t o Missoula f o r f u r t h e r examination and t r e a t m e n t . Appellant
b a s e s h i s argument on D r . Palmer's testimony t h a t - r e t r o s p e c t
in -
Daniels was n o t i n " s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k of death" a t any time.
Appellant concludes t h a t t h i s testimony precluded t h e j u r y from
f i n d i n g t o t h e c o n t r a r y and t h e r e f o r e t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t f o r
aggravated a s s a u l t was n o t supported by t h e evidence.
However, D r . Palmer a l s o t e s t i f i e d on r e d i r e c t examination:
"Q. D r . Palmer, j u s t one q u e s t i o n ; was i t your
opinion a t t h e time when you examined him t h a t due
t o t h e n a t u r e of h i s i n j u r i e s he was i n a p o t e n t i a l l y
dangerous s i t u a t i o n and was a t t h a t time f a c i n g a sub-
s t a n t i a l r i s k of d e a t h ? A. Yes, 1 t h i n k he was."
The l e g i s l a t u r e has n o t defined " s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k o f death",
b u t it obviously means something more than "Bodily i n j u r y " which
s e c t i o n 94-2-101(5), R.C.M. 1947, d e f i n e s a s " p h y s i c a l p a i n ,
i l l n e s s o r any impairment of p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n and i n c l u d e s
mental i l l n e s s o r impairment . I 1 I n j u r y which c r e a t e s a "sub-
s t a n t i a l r i s k of death" i s g r a v e r and more s e r i o u s , and whether
o r n o t i t h a s been e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e evidence i s g e n e r a l l y a
q u e s t i o n of f a c t t o be determined by t h e j u r y .
Testimony a t t r i a l showed t h a t when Daniels w a s admitted
t o t h e emergency room i n Hamilton he was i n a semi-conscious
s t a t e w i t h e x t e n s i v e b r u i s e s and s w e l l i n g around t h e f a c e . F u r t h e r
examination showed Daniels s u f f e r e d a broken nose and a f r a c t u r e d
palate.
D r . Palmer a l s o t e s t i f i e d Daniels was t r a n s f e r r e d t o Missoula
because t h e f a c i l i t i e s a t Hamilton were n o t equipped " t o handle
s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d o r g r a v e l y i n j u r e d head-type cases." No
s e r i o u s complications i n f a c t developed a s a r e s u l t of D a n i e l s '
injuries. However, t h e t e s t of " s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k of death" i s n o t
whether t h e v i c t i m l i v e s o r . d i e s . People v . Martinez, Colo., 540
P.2d 1091, 1093. The evidence was s u f f i c i e n t t o e n a b l e t h e j u r y
t o f i n d t h a t D a n i e l s ' i n j u r i e s c r e a t e d a " s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k of
death" .
A p p e l l a n t ' s second i s s u e i s whether h i s use of f o r c e a g a i n s t
Daniels was j u s t i f i e d a s defense of a n o t h e r . S e c t i o n 94-3-102,
R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s :
"A person i s j u s t i f i e d i n t h e use of f o r c e o r t h r e a t
t o u s e f o r c e a g a i n s t a n o t h e r when and t o t h e e x t e n t
t h a t he reasonably b e l i e v e s t h a t such conduct i s
n e c e s s a r y t o defend himself o r a n o t h e r a g a i n s t such
o t h e r ' s imminent use of unlawful f o r c e . However, he i s
j u s t i f i e d i n t h e use of f o r c e l i k e l y t o cause d e a t h
o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm only i f he reasonably b e l i e v e s
t h a t such f o r c e i s n e c e s s a r y t o prevent imminent d e a t h
o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm t o himself o r a n o t h e r , o r t o
prevent t h e commission of a f o r c i b l e f e l o n y ."
It i s undisputed t h a t Daniels was s i t t i n g on Ron S n e l l
and h o l d i n g a k n i f e when S n e l l y e l l e d f o r h e l p . Appellant f u r t h e r
t e s t i f i e d he thought S n e l l was i n g r e a t danger of being stabbed
and he kicked Daniels only because he was a f r a i d t o use h i s bare
hands a g a i n s t t h e k n i f e . A s pointed out previously, however,
Daniels t e s t i f i e d he v o l u n t a r i l y surrendered t h e k n i f e before
he was kicked. Also, S n e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t Fuger kicked Daniels
again a f t e r t h e f i g h t was over and Daniels was l y i n g i n t h e snow
unable t o defend himself. The a n n o t a t o r ' s note t o s e c t i o n 94-
3-102, R.C.M. 1947, Montana Criminal Code, 1973, Annotated,
Montana Criminal Law Commission, Prof. William F.Crowley, p.
127, s t a t e s :
'I* ** The c l a u s e 'when and t o t h e e x t e n t he
reasonably b e l i e v e s ' p e r t a i n s t o t h e proper occasion
f o r t h e use of f o r c e which i s a question of f a c t f o r
the jury. ' I s necessary t o defend himself o r another'
r e f e r s t o t h e proper amount of f o r c e which may be used
and remain j u s t i f i e d - - - a g a i n a question t o be determined
by t h e jury. *** ''
A s t h e r e was a c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence, t h e i s s u e of s e l f -
defense was properly before t h e j u r y a s t h e t r i e r of f a c t and
Daniels' testimony, i f believed, was s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e
verdict.
The judgment i s affirmed.