State v. Graves

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

NO. 80-59 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- CHARLES HENRY GRAVES, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and For the County of Lewis & Clark, Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Jeffrey Sherlock argued, Helena, Montana W. William Leaphart argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Charles Graveley argued, County Attorney, Helena, Montana submitted: JUN 1 6 198D Decided : q qg81 Filed: alN - 7 . .- 1981 M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. D e f e n d a n t C h a r l e s H e n r y G r a v e s w a s c h a r g e d by i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h 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 a s s a u l t . H e w a s con- v i c t e d o f m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e i n t h e L e w i s and C l a r k C o u n t y D i s t r i c t C o u r t and s e n t e n c e d t o t w e n t y y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n w i t h t e n y e a r s s u p e n d e d . Defendant C h a r l e s Graves, a 20-year o l d b l a c k man w i t h a n e l e v e n t h g r a d e e d u c a t i o n , s p e n t m o s t of A p r i l 1 7 , 1 9 7 9 , d r i n k i n g b e e r w i t h f r i e n d s i n H e l e n a , Montana. T h a t e v e n i n g d e f e n d a n t and s e v e r a l f r i e n d s w e n t t o " C l u b 21" w h e r e h e had s e v e r a l more drinks. T h e r e he m e t a woman from I d a h o who t o l d him t h a t s h e was g o i n g t o "Mister L u c k y ' s . " A f t e r s h e had l e f t , C h a r l e s G r a v e s o b t a i n e d a r i d e t o Mister L u c k y ' s a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 : 0 0 a.m. o n A p r i l 1 8 , 1 9 7 9 . The d e f e n d a n t a p p r o a c h e d t h e I d a h o woman, s a t down n e x t t o h e r a t h e r t a b l e and b e g a n t a l k i n g w i t h her. The woman t o l d him t h a t s h e d i d n o t w i s h t o be w i t h him. G r a v e s l e f t t h e t a b l e and s a t a t t h e b a r and t h e woman f r o m I d a h o j o i n e d C r a i g Marlow, t h e d e c e d e n t , a t a n o t h e r t a b l e . A s h o r t w h i l e l a t e r t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p r o a c h e d Marlow's t a b l e t o a s k t h e I d a h o woman t o d a n c e . Before defendant could a s k h e r t o d a n c e , C r a i g Marlow jumped u p and t o l d t h e d e f e n d a n t t o s t o p h a s s l i n g t h e woman. The I d a h o woman t h e n t o l d d e f e n d a n t t h a t s h e d i d n o t w a n t t o d a n c e and h e r e t u r n e d t o h i s s e a t a t t h e bar. A f t e r c o n t e m p l a t i n g Marlow's a c t i o n s , G r a v e s r e t u r n e d t o t h e t a b l e t o i n q u i r e as t o why Marlow was so b e l l i g e r e n t . Marlow a l l e g e d l y jumped up and made some comments a b o u t b l a c k men t h i n k i n g t h e y c o u l d g e t a l l t h e women and s a i d t h e r e w a s n ' t e n o u g h room i n H e l e n a f o r b l a c k s . A t t h i s point defendant s a i d , "Come o u t s i d e , and I ' l l b u s t y o u r j a w . " The b a r t e n d e r came o v e r a n d t o l d them t o "Cool it ." G r a v e s t h e n b e g a n w a l k i n g away when someone y e l l e d "Take it o u t s i d e .It The d e f e n d a n t l o o k e d b a c k , and Marlow a l l e g e d l y s a i d , "Hey M o t h e r I?---- r come o u t s i d e . " D e f e n d a n t t h e n f o l l o w e d Marlow o u t s i d e . Two w h i t e men, o n e o f whom had b e e n s i t t i n g w i t h C r a i g Marlow e a r l i e r , a l l e g e d l y followed Graves o u t s i d e . When Marlow r e a c h e d t h e b o t t o m o f t h e s t a i r s , and w h i l e d e f e n d a n t was s t i l l o n t h e s t e p s , h e t u r n e d and h i t d e f e n d a n t twice on t h e h e a d . Charles Graves then stabbed C r a i g Marlow t w i c e w i t h a k n i f e , o n c e i n t h e abdomen and o n c e i n the chest. G r a v e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e was " k i n d of d r u n k " as o p p o s e d to " r e a l d r u n k , " t h a t h e was a f r a i d a l l t h r e e w h i t e men were g o i n g t o jump him and t h a t h e had s t a b b e d t h e d e f e n d a n t b e f o r e h e knew w h a t had h a p p e n e d . A f t e r t h e s t a b b i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t e m p t e d to assist o t h e r s i n l o a d i n g Marlow i n t o a v e h i c l e t o be t r a n s p o r t e d t o t h e hospital. One w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p e a r e d to b e i n a s t a t e o f s h o c k , w h i l e o t h e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e was v e r y calm and c o m p l e t e l y i n c o n t r o l o f h i m s e l f . Graves went i n t o Mister L u c k y ' s t o g e t h i s j a c k e t and t h e n b e g a n w a l k i n g down A i r p o r t Road t o w a r d H e l e n a . H e was s t o p p e d by t w o p o l i c e o f f i c e r s who were r e s p o n d i n g t o a c a l l from P e t e Hartman, a n a i r p o r t s e c u r i t y g u a r d . Hartman t o l d t h e p o l i c e t h a t a s t a b b i n g had o c c u r r e d a t Mister L u c k y ' s s a l o o n and t h a t he was f o l l o w i n g t h e b l a c k s u s p e c t down A i r p o r t Road. O f f i c e r S t u r m p r o c e e d e d t o i n t e r c e p t t h e s u s p e c t and saw t h e defendant walking near t h e S t a t e Publishing Building. Sturm p u l l e d h i s v e h i c l e up i n f r o n t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . O f f i c e r Melton a n d P e t e H a r t m a n p u l l e d t h e i r v e h i c l e s up b e h i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t . B o t h p o l i c e o f f i c e r s were u n i f o r m e d , armed and d r i v i n g marked p o l i c e cars. Hartman was a l s o armed and w e a r i n g a s e c u r i t y g u a r d uniform. O f f i c e r Melton c a l l e d o u t to t h e d e f e n d a n t to "hold i t , " and O f f i c e r S t u r m a p p r o a c h e d t h e d e f e n d a n t . Sturm asked d e f e n d a n t i f h e had b e e n i n v o l v e d i n a n a l t e r c a t i o n a t Mister Lucky's. G r a v e s r e s p o n d e d t h a t he h a d . When a s k e d i f a k n i f e was i n v o l v e d , G r a v e s s a i d " y e s " and t u r n e d t h e k n i f e o v e r t o t h e police. A t t h i s p o i n t t h e o f f i c e r n o t i c e d b l o o d on d e f e n d a n t ' s h a n d s and p l a c e d him u n d e r a r r e s t and g a v e him h i s M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s . En r o u t e t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t made s e v e r a l remarks concerning h i s involvement i n t h e i n c i d e n t . H e was booked i n t o t h e c i t y j a i l . The same morning a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 : 2 5 a.m., the defendant signed a w r i t t e n confession a t the c o u n t y j a i l a f t e r o n c e a g a i n b e i n g i n f o r m e d o f h i s r i g h t s and a f t e r s i g n i n g a s t a t e m e n t t h a t he knew and u n d e r s t o o d h i s r i g h t s . A u r i n e s a m p l e was a l s o t a k e n a t t h i s t i m e . A s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g was h e l d on A u g u s t 30, 1979. The d e f e n d a n t sought to s u p r e s s h i s o r a l c o n f e s s i o n i n t h e p o l i c e c a r , h i s w r i t t e n confession taken a t t h e county j a i l , the knife u s e d , and t h e u r i n e s a m p l e . The d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d i n t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g , b u t he d i d s u b m i t a n a f f i d a v i t . The c o u r t i n i t i a l l y r e f used to a c c e p t t h e a f f i d a v i t ; however, a t t h e u r g i n g of d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , t h e c o u r t agreed to a c c e p t t h e a f f i d a - v i t i f d e f e n s e c o u n s e l would f u r n i s h some p r e c e d e n t f o r i t s admittance. I n denying t h e motion to s u p p r e s s , t h e c o u r t d i d n o t r e v e a l w h e t h e r or n o t t h e a f f i d a v i t was c o n s i d e r e d . The d a y of t h e t r i a l t h e p r o s e c u t i o n moved t o e n d o r s e f i v e a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s e s on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e s e w i t n e s s e s were c o n n e c t e d w i t h an armed r o b b e r y which o c c u r r e d t h e n i g h t b e f o r e trial. The p r o s e c u t i o n b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n v o l v e d and t o l d t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e y would f i l e a d d i t i o n a l armed r o b b e r y c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t t h e same d a y . The c o u r t r e s e r v e d r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n . N o c h a r g e s were e v e r f i l e d , n o r were t h e additional witnesses called. G r a v e s t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l and f u l l y a d m i t t e d s t a b b i n g C r a i g Marlow. H i s o n l y d e f e n s e was s e l f - d e f e n s e . H e was con- v i c t e d o f m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e and s e n t e n c e d t o t w e n t y y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n w i t h t e n y e a r s s u s p e n d e d . G r a v e s was a l s o d e s i g n a t e d a n o n d a n g e r o u s o f f e n d e r . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l : 1. Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s , which was b a s e d on p o l i c e p r o c e - d u r e s and a l a c k o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s t ? 2. W h e t h e r t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e judgment of c o n v i c t i o n of m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide? 3. Whether t h e District C o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e error i n r e f u s i n g to g i v e d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed s e l f - d e f e n s e instruction? 4. Whether t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s p r e t r i a l conduct p r e j u d i c e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s case and j u s t i f i e s r e v e r s a l ? Defendant asserts t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n denying h i s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s b e c a u s e : (1) t h e p o l i c e f a i l e d t o c o n f o r m t o m a n d a t o r y p o l i c e p r o c e d u r e s ; ( 2 ) M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s were n o t g i v e n p r i o r t o a n y q u e s t i o n i n g ; ( 3 ) t h e a r r e s t was n o t s u p p o r t e d b y p r o b a b l e c a u s e ; ( 4 ) t h e c o n f e s s i o n s and t h e r e l i n q u i s h m e n t of t h e k n i f e were i n v o l u n t a r y as a r e s u l t o f t h e c o e r c i v e a t m o s p h e r e a n d d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l and e m o t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n ; and ( 5 ) t h e t a k i n g of t h e k n i f e c o n s t i t u t e d an unlawful w a r r a n t l e s s s e i z u r e . Defendant f i r s t contends t h a t t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s f a i l e d t o comply w i t h m a n d a t o r y p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n M o n t a n a ' s " s t o p a n d f r i s k " s t a t u t e s , s e c t i o n s 46-5-401 and 46-5-402, MCA, and t h e r e f o r e , s u p p r e s s i o n is r e q u i r e d . T h e s e s t a t u t e s and s i m i l a r s t a t u t e s i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s were e n a c t e d to c o d i f y t h e r u l e a n n o u n c e d i n t h e l a n d m a r k " s t o p and f r i s k " case of T e r r y v . Ohio ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 3 9 2 U.S. 1, 8 8 S . C t . 1 8 6 8 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889. In Terry, the p o l i c e o f f i c e r s t o p p e d and i n i t i a t e d a p a t down f r i s k o n two men who h e r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e d may be armed and d a n g e r o u s . The case h e l d t h a t u n d e r s p e c i f i e d c o n d i t i o n s , "Such a s e a r c h is a r e a s o n - a b l e s e a r c h u n d e r t h e F o u r t h Amendment, and a n y weapons s e i z e d may p r o p e r l y be i n t r o d u c e d i n e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n f r o m whom t h e y were t a k e n . " 392 U.S. a t 31, 88 S.Ct. a t 1 8 8 5 , 20 L.Ed.2d a t 911. I n s h o r t , T e r r y and t h e Montana s t a t u t e s c o d i f y i n g t h e r u l e a n n o u n c e d t h e r e i n a p p l y t o a much d i f f e r e n t f a c t s i t u a t i o n t h a n o u r p r e s e n t case. I n o u r p r e s e n t case t h e r e was no " s t o p and f r i s k w . Instead t h e d e f e n d a n t was m e r e l y s t o p p e d by t h e p o l i c e and a s k e d i n v e s t i - g a t o r y q u e s t i o n s d e s i g n e d t o i d e n t i f y him as a w i t n e s s or a s u s p e c t i n t h e r e p o r t e d crime. The d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t f r i s k e d , n o r were t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s s e a r c h i n g f o r a d a n g e r o u s weapon. A s a c o n s e q u e n c e , t h e " s t o p and f r i s k " s t a t u t e s b a s e d o n t h e r u l e announced i n T e r r y do n o t a p p l y t o t h i s s i t u a t i o n . T u r n i n g n e x t t o d e f e n d a n t ' s M i r a n d a i s s u e , it is w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Miranda d o e s n o t a p p l y u n t i l a s u s p e c t is " i n c u s t o d y " or " d e p r i v e d o f h i s f r e e d o m i n a n y s i g n i f i c a n t way." As was s t a t e d i n O r e g o n v. M a t h i a s o n ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. "Any i n t e r v i e w o f o n e s u s p e c t e d o f a crime by a p o l i c e o f f i c e r w i l l h a v e c o e r c i v e a s p e c t s to i t , s i m p l y by v i r t u e o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r is p a r t o f a law e n f o r c e m e n t s y s t e m w h i c h may u l t i m a t e l y c a u s e t h e s u s p e c t t o be c h a r g e d w i t h a crime. B u t p o l i c e o f f i c e r s a r e n o t r e q u i r e d to a d m i n i s t e r Miranda w a r n i n g s to e v e r y o n e whom t h e y q u e s t i o n . N o r is t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f w a r n i n g s t o be imposed s i m p l y because t h e q u e s t i o n i n g t a k e s p l a c e i n t h e sta- t i o n h o u s e , o r b e c a u s e t h e q u e s t i o n e d p e r s o n is o n e whom t h e p o l i c e s u s p e c t . - M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s are r e q u i r e d o n l y where t h e r e h a s been such a r e s t r i c t i o n o n a - p e r s o n ' s f r e e d o m as to r e n d e r h i m ' i n c u s t o d y . ' I t was t h a t s o r t o f c o e r c i v e e n v i r o n m e n t t o w h i c h M i r a n d a by i t s terms w a s made a p p l i c a b l e , and t o which it is l i m i t e d . " 429 U.S. a t 495, 9 7 S . C t . a t 714, 5 0 L.Ed.2d a t 719. I n o u r p r e s e n t case t h e d e f e n d a n t was d e f i n i t e l y n o t i n c u s t o d y when O f f i c e r S t u r m a s k e d him t h e t w o q u e s t i o n s . Further, a n y d e p r i v a t i o n o f f r e e d o m o c c u r r i n g was t h e r e s u l t o f t h e " c o e r c i v e aspect" i n c i d e n t a l t o any c o n v e r s a t i o n between a n a r m e d , u n i f o r m e d p o l i c e o f f i c e r and a s u s p e c t . As a result, the p o l i c e were n o t r e q u i r e d t o g i v e t h e M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s p r i o r t o the investigatory questions. The d e f e n d a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t s u p p r e s s i o n is r e q u i r e d b e c a u s e of a l a c k of p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o arrest. The f o l l o w i n g c h a i n of e v e n t s which c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s 1 knowledge o c c u r r e d p r i o r to t h e a r r e s t . The p o l i c e o f f i c e r s r e c e i v e d a c a l l from a n a i r p o r t s e c u r i t y g u a r d w h i c h r e p o r t e d t h a t a s t a b b i n g had o c c u r r e d a t Mister L u c k y ' s and t h a t t h e b l a c k s u s p e c t was h e a d i n g west on A i r p o r t Road. The s e c u r i t y g u a r d d i d n o t i n d i c a t e how h e a c q u i r e d t h e k n o w l e d g e . When t h e o f f i c e r s a p p r o a c h e d , w i t h t h e i n f o r m a n t p r e s e n t , the d e f e n d a n t a d m i t t e d t h a t he was i n v o l v e d i n a n a l t e r c a t i o n and t h a t a k n i f e was i n v o l v e d . The d e f e n d a n t t h e n handed t h e k n i f e to the police officer. A t t h i s t i m e t h e policemen observed blood o n t h e k n i f e , o n d e f e n d a n t ' s h a n d s , and o n h i s c l o t h i n g . A t this p o i n t t h e r e p o r t was f u l l y c o r r o b o r a t e d by d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e k n i f e , t h e b l o o d o n h i s h a n d s and c l o t h i n g and h i s admission t h a t h e was i n v o l v e d i n a k n i f e a l t e r c a t i o n a t Mister Lucky I s . I n a case i n v o l v i n g a p a r t i a l l y c o r r o b o r a t e d i n f o r m a n t ' s t i p , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d : " P r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t s w h e r e ' t h e f a c t s and c i r - cumstances w i t h i n [ t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s '] k n o w l e d g e and o f w h i c h t h e y had r e a s o n a b l y trustworthy information [are] s u f f i c i e n t i n t h e m s e l v e s t o w a r r a n t a man o f r e a s o n a b l e c a u t i o n i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t ' a n o f f e n s e h a s b e e n or is b e i n g committed. C a r r o l l v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 267 U.S. 1 3 2 , 1 6 2 . " D r a p e r v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 3 5 8 U.S. 3 0 7 , 3 1 3 , 79 S . C t . 3 2 9 , 3 3 3 , 3 L.Ed.2d 3 2 7 , 332. I t is o b v i o u s t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s p o s s e s s e d s u f f i c i e n t k n o w l e d g e t o w a r r a n t a b e l i e f t h a t a n o f f e n s e had b e e n c o m m i t t e d and t h a t it was c o m m i t t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t . D e f e n d a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c o n f e s s i o n s and t h e p r o - d u c t i o n o f t h e k n i f e were i n v o l u n t a r y a s a r e s u l t of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s l a c k of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . Defendant relies on S t a t e v. W h i t e ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 4 6 Mont. 2 2 6 , 4 0 5 P.2d 7 6 1 , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e a g e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , h i s l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n , and h i s l a c k of e x p e r i e n c e w i t h l a w e n f o r c e m e n t p r o c e d u r e s are f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g v o l u n t a r i n e s s . However, i n White, t h e c o n f e s s i o n of a 16-year-old who had b e e n i n t e r r o - g a t e d w i t h o u t c o u n s e l p r e s e n t f o r t h r e e h o u r s was h e l d t o be voluntary. I n White, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "The a g e o f a d e f e n d a n t m i n o r , h i s e d u c a t i o n and h i s l a c k o f p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e law a r e a l s o i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f a con£ e s s i o n . The d e f e n d a n t h e r e is 1 6 y e a r s o l d , is i n t h e n i n t h g r a d e and had n o p r e v i o u s p o l i c e r e c o r d . However, t h e s e f a c t s a l o n e d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t to f i n d t h e c o n f e s s i o n inadmissible." 1 4 6 Mont. a t 234, 4 0 5 P.2d a t 765-766. I n c o n t r a s t w i t h W h i t e , G r a v e s was 20 y e a r s o l d w i t h a n e l e v e n t h g r a d e e d u c a t i o n ; however, t h e r e w a s also t e s t i m o n y t h a t h e was e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d as a r e s u l t of t h e s t a b b i n g and had consumed a l a r g e q u a n t i t y o f a l c o h o l d u r i n g t h e day and e v e n i n g p r i o r t o t h e crime. D e f e n d a n t had a l s o b e e n r e a d h i s r i g h t s , had h i m s e l f r e a d them, a p p e a r e d t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e r i g h t s and s i g n e d a w r i t t e n w a i v e r of h i s r i g h t s . No e v i d e n c e was p r o f f e r e d w h i c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t was i n c a p a b l e of u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e rights. G r a v e s h i m s e l f t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e of t h e i n c i - d e n t h e was " k i n d o f d r u n k " as o p p o s e d t o "real d r u n k " , and t h e w r i t t e n c o n f e s s i o n was s i g n e d n e a r l y t h r e e and o n e - h a l f hours later. T h e r e a l s o was no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g c o e r c i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e atmosphere i n c i d e n t a l to any a r r e s t . I n a d d i t i o n , Graves1 p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e k n i f e and i n i t i a l i n c u l p a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s were spontaneous responses during h i s f i r s t contact with the o f f i c e r s . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h i s a r g u m e n t is a l s o l a c k i n g i n merit. D e f e n d a n t a l s o m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e k n i f e s h o u l d be s u p p r e s s e d as a r e s u l t o f a w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h and s e i z u r e without consent. I n d i s p o s i n g of t h i s i s s u e , w e p o i n t o u t t h a t no s e a r c h w a s involved. A p o l i c e o f f i c e r merely asked Graves i f a k n i f e was i n v o l v e d i n t h e a l t e r c a t i o n whereupon d e f e n d a n t s a i d " y e s " and h a n d e d t h e k n i f e t o t h e p o l i c e . The d e f e n d a n t a s s e r t s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g to a c c e p t h i s a f f i d a v i t a t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g under S t a t e e x r e l . Hansen v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 72 Mont. 245, 2 3 3 P. 126. However, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t r e f u s e to a c c e p t it. The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t it would c o n s i d e r t h e a f f i d a v i t c o n t i n g e n t upon d e f e n s e c o u n s e l f u r n i s h i n g a u t h o r i t y f o r i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . W h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c c e p t e d or r e j e c t e d t h e a f f i d a v i t is n o t a p p a r e n t f r o m t h e r e c o r d , b u t t h e p r o p e r r e s u l t was r e a c h e d i n e i t h e r e v e n t . Having a l r e a d y c o n s i d e r e d d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n - t i o n s o n t h e merits, w f i n d t h a t h e h a s n o t s u s t a i n e d h i s b u r d e n e of proof t o suppress t h e evidence. D e f e n d a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e is i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i - d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n of m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e . "On a p p e a l w e e x a m i n e t h e e v i d e n c e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e v e r - d i c t i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . I n so d o i n g , we v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e . .. S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e means s u c h r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e as a r e a s o n a b l e mind m i g h t a c c e p t as a d e q u a t e to s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n . " S t a t e v. Merseal ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 7 Mont. 412, 415-416, 538 P.2d 1 3 6 6 , 1367-68; a n d cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . Viewing t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s l i g h t , w e f i n d t h a t t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a c o n v i c - t i o n of m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide. The d e f e n d a n t c o n f e s s e d t o the stabbing. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d "I s a i d [ t o C r a i g Marlow], come o u t s i d e and 1'11 b u s t y o u r jaw." Another w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t a b l a c k man f i t t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d e s c r i p t i o n and w e a r i n g a r e d s h i r t and w h i t e v e s t a d m i t t e d a f t e r t h e s t a b b i n g , " I came out cutting. I c u t him up. T h a t ' s n o t l i k e me." Other testi- mony r e v e a l s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was t h e o n l y b l a c k man a t Mister L u c k y ' s and t h a t h e was w e a r i n g a r e d s h i r t and w h i t e v e s t . T h e r e w a s a l s o t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s u n d e r no com- p u l s i o n t o f i g h t t h e d e c e d e n t , and h e h i m s e l f a d m i t t e d t h a t h e c o u l d h a v e r e t u r n e d t o h i s s e a t a t t h e b a r a f t e r C r a i g Marlow's i n v i t a t i o n t o go o u t s i d e . I n s h o r t , t h e j u r y was p r e s e n t e d w i t h s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was g u i l t y o f m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e and t h a t h i s u s e of d e a d l y f o r c e was n o t j u s t i f i e d . Defendant n e x t contends t h a t t h e District Court s r e f u s a l t o g i v e h i s o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n on s e l f - d e f e n s e v i o l a t e s t h e Due Process Clause. The f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court: " I n s t r u c t i o n No. 6 "To s u s t a i n t h e c h a r g e of d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e , t h e S t a t e must prove t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s : "FIRST: T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , C h a r l e s Henry G r a v e s , c a u s e d t h e d e a t h of C r a i g A l a n Marlow; and "SECOND: T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d so p u r p o s e l y o r k n o w i n g l y ; and "THIRD: T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t -- j u s t i f i e d - was n o t in u s i n g - f o r c e w h i c h - -e d . the he us " I f you f i n d f r o m y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t each of t h e s e p r o p o s i t i o n s h a s b e e n p r o v e d beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , t h e n you should find the defendant guilty. ----- " I f , - -e o t h e r h a n d , you f i n d f r o m y o u r con- on t h s i d e r a t i o n - -l-h e v i d e n c e -a-a- o f t h e s e of a l t t h t ny p r o p o s i t i o n s --- p r o v e d beyond a reaso- h a s n o t been n a b l e d o u b t , -- s h o u l d -- e F e n d a n t t h e n you findthe not auiltv." (Emphasis added.) w I n s t r u c t i o n No. 7 " C r i m i n a l h o m i c i d e is m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e homi- c i d e when a h o m i c i d e which would o t h e r w i s e be d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e is c o m m i t t e d u n d e r t h e i n £ l u e n c e o f e x t r e m e m e n t a l o r e m o t i o n a l stress f o r which t h e r e is r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o r e x c u s e . The r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of s u c h e x p l a n a t i o n o r e x c u s e s h a l l be d e t e r m i n e d f r o m t h e v i e w p o i n t of a reasonable person i n t h e actor's situation." "Instruction No. 17 "A p e r s o n is j u s t i f i e d i n t h e u s e of f o r c e or 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 r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h a t such c o n d u c t is n e c e s s a r y t o d e f e n d h i m s e l f o r a n o t h e r a g a i n s t s u c h o t h e r ' s i m m i n e n t u s e of u n l a w f u l f o r c e . However, h e is j u s t i f i e d i n t h e u s e o f f o r c e l i k e l y t o c a u s e d e a t h or s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm o n l y i f h e r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h a t s u c h f o r c e is n e c e s s a r y t o p r e v e n t i m m i n e n t d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y harm to h i m s e l f or a n o t h e r o r t o p r e v e n t t h e c o m m i s s i o n of a f o r - c i b l e felony. " " I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 (in pertinent part) "To t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s p l e a d e d n o t g u i l t y , and u n d e r t h a t p l e a h e d e n i e s e v e r y m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n of t h e i n £ o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t h i m , and i n o r d e r t o c o n v i c t him o f t h e crime c h a r g e d a g a i n s t him e v e r y m a t e r i a l f a c t n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s t i t u t e s u c h crime m u s t be p r o v e d by t h e S t a t e by c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e , beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ; and i f t h e j u r y e n t e r t a i n s a n y r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t upon a n y f a c t o r e l e m e n t n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e crime c h a r g e d , it is y o u r d u t y t o g i v e t h e d e f e n d a n t t h e b e n e f i t o f s u c h d o u b t and t o a c q u i t . Defendant contends t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g proposed i n s t r u c t i o n : "Defendant's Proposed I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 3 "You are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e S t a t e m u s t p r o v e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d . n o t act i n self-defense. I f you f i n d t h a t t h e S t a t e h a s f a i l e d t o p r o v e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t did n o t act i n s e l f - d e f e n s e , you m u s t f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t n o t guilty. I n o t h e r w o r d s , i f you h a v e a reaso- n a b l e d o u b t w h e t h e r or n o t t h e d e f e n d a n t a c t e d i n s e l f - d e f e n s e , y o u r v e r d i c t m u s t be n o t guilty." T h i s C o u r t h a s b e e n f a c e d w i t h numerous cases c h a l l e n g i n g self-defense instructions in recent years. A s a r e s u l t , Montana l a w i n t h i s r e g a r d h a s become w e l l - s e t t l e d . S e c t i o n 45-3-102, MCA, d e f i n e s " j u s t i f i a b l e u s e of f o r c e ," and s e c t i o n 45-3-115, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t it is a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e . S i n c e it is a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , r a t h e r t h a n a n e l e m e n t o f d e l i b e r a t e homi- c i d e or m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e , t h e r e is no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t p l a c i n g t h e b u r d e n of p r o o f upon t h e defendant. P a t t e r s o n v. New York ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 4 3 2 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 5 3 L.Ed.2d 281. However, " [ t l h e law i n Montana is t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e burden of p e r s u a s i o n remains on t h e S t a t e , i n o r d e r t o a v a i l h i m s e l f of t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e of s e l f - d e f e n s e , the d e f e n d a n t h a s t h e burden of p r o d u c i n g s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e on t h e i s s u e s to raise a r e a s o n a b l e doubt of h i s g u i l t . " S t a t e v. Lopez ( 1 9 8 0 )I Mont. , 6 0 5 P.2d 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 , 37 S t . R e p . 36, 41; S t a t e v. C o o p e r ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 589 P.2d 1 3 3 , 1 3 6 , 3 6 St.Rep. 3 0 , 3 3 ; S t a t e v. G r a d y ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6 Mont. 1 6 8 , 1 7 5 , 5 3 1 P.2d 6 8 1 , 684. I n S t a t e v. A z u r e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mon t . , 5 9 1 P.2d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 3 0 , 36 S t . R e p . 514, 518, we s t a t e d t h a t an i n s t r u c t i o n s t a t i n g t h e p r o s e c u t i o n m u s t p r o v e t h e a b s e n c e o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t is a correct s t a t e m e n t of t h e law. P u r s u a n t to t h i s Montana l a w , i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e jury i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n i n t h e p r e s e n t case, it i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e District Court erred. I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 6 i n c l u d e s t h e a b s e n c e of j u s t i f i a b l e u s e of f o r c e as a n e l e m e n t of t h e crime of d e l i b e r a t e homicide; t h i s is a m i s s t a t e m e n t of t h e l a w . A b s e n c e of j u s t i f i - c a t i o n is a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e which r e q u i r e s t h e d e f e n d a n t t o p r o d u c e s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t is p l a c e d i n i s s u e . Although we f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t committed e r r o r i n g i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n No. 6 , o u r d i s c u s s i o n may n o t end h e r e . We m u s t d e t e r m i n e i f t h i s e r r o r was p r e j u d i c i a l o r m e r e l y h a r m l e s s a n d w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g to g i v e defendant I s p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n No. 3. I n examining s e l f - d e f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n s t h i s Court has r e p e a t e d l y s t a t e d s e v e r a l p r i n c i p l e s which g o v e r n t h e r e v i e w of challenged instructions. The i n s t r u c t i o n s m u s t be viewed as a w h o l e t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e y h a v e l i m i t e d t h e d e f e n s e from f a i r l y p r e s e n t i n g h i s t h e o r y of d e f e n s e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t need n o t g i v e r e p e t i t i o u s i n s t r u c t i o n s n o r i n s t r u c t on e v e r y nuance of a t h e o r y of d e f e n s e . S e e S t a t e v. B a s h o r ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . I 6 1 4 P.2d 470, 484, 37 S t . Rep. 1 0 9 8 , 1 1 1 3 ; S t a t e v. H a m i l t o n ( 1 9 8 0 1, Mont . , 605 P.2d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 9 , 37 S t . R e p . 70, 79; S t a t e v. Freeman ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mon t . , 599 P.2d 368, 373, 36 St.Rep. 1 6 2 2 , 1628-29; S t a t e v. A z u r e , s u p r a , 5 9 1 P.2d a t 1130, 36 S t . R e p . a t 519; S t a t e v. R e i n e r ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont . , 587 P.2d 9 5 0 , 953-954, 35 St.Rep. 1861, 1864. I t m u s t be n o t e d t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n N o . 17 is a verbatim r e c i t a t i o n o f M o n t a n a ' s " j u s t i f i a b l e u s e of f o r c e " s t a t u t e , sec- t i o n 45-3-102, MCA. I n B a s h o r , F r e e m a n , A z u r e and ~ e i n e r ,t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n was g i v e n a l o n g w i t h o m n i b u s i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f and p r e s u m p t i o n of i n n o c e n c e . This Court approved t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s s t a t i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t could f a i r l y p r e s e n t h i s t h e o r y of d e f e n s e . Azure s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t a s e p a r a t e i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f w i t h r e g a r d to s e l f - d e f e n s e would be m e r e l y r e p e t i t i v e . I n R e i n e r it was s t a t e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e to f u r t h e r e x p l a i n d e f e n d a n t ' s b u r d e n o f r a i s i n g a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t of g u i l t is n o t p r e j u d i c i a l , a n d t h a t m e r e l y r e c i t i n g s e c t i o n 45-3-102, MCA, is n o t s o m i s l e a d i n g as t o j u s t i f y a new t r i a l . A s we s t a t e d i n Reiner: " ... t h e t e s t t o be a p p l i e d when e r r o r is p r e d i c a t e d o n a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n is w h e t h e r , when t h e i n s t r u c t i o n is c o n s i d e r e d as a p a r t of t h e w h o l e body o f i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n is p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e appealing p a r t y . S t a t e v. C a r y l ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 8 Mont. 414, 430, 5 4 3 P.2d 3 8 9 , 398, s t a t e s t h e a p p l i c a b l e r u l e : "lIn d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e f f e c t o f g i v e n i n s t r u c t i o n s , a l l i n s t r u c t i o n s m u s t be con- s i d e r e d as a w h o l e , and i f t h e y f a i r l y t e n d e r t h e case t o t h e j u r y , t h e f a c t t h a t o n e i n s t r u c t i o n , s t a n d i n g a l o n e , is n o t as f u l l o r a c c u r a t e a s it m i g h t h a v e b e e n is n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . ' " 587 P.2d a t 953-954, 3 5 S t . R e p . a t 1864. Defendant's proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 3 merely r e p e a t s i n s t r u c t i o n No. 6 and t h e p r e v i o u s l y q u o t e d p o r t i o n o f i n s t r u c - t i o n No. 1, which p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e S t a t e m u s t p r o v e a n a b s e n c e o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . The o n l y d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n N o . 6 r e g a r d i n g t h e burden of proof is t h e u s e o f t h e term "self-defense" as o p p o s e d t o t h e u s e of " j u s t i f i e d i n u s i n g t h e f o r c e which he used. " I n t h i s l i g h t , instruction No. 3 is p u r e l y r e p e t i t i v e and i n no way p r e v e n t s t h e d e f e n d a n t from f a i r l y p r e - s e n t i n g h i s t h e o r y of d e f e n s e . T u r n i n g t o t h e c o u r t ' s m i s s t a t e m e n t of l a w i n i n s t r u c t i o n No. 6, we f i n d t h e e r r o r harmless. N o p r e j u d i c e was s u f f e r e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t ; i n f a c t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n as g i v e n was b e n e f i c i a l t o h i s defense. I n s t e a d of i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s t h e b u r d e n of p r o d u c i n g s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o p u t j u s t i - f i a b l e use of f o r c e i n i s s u e , t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n e f f e c t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y t h a t s e l f - d e f e n s e was i n i s s u e and m u s t be p r o v e d by t h e S t a t e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . Thus, t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e i n e s s e n c e , made a f i n d i n g of f a c t b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e d e f e n d a n t which s h o u l d h a v e b e e n made by t h e j u r y . Under no t h e o r y may t h i s be c o n s i d e r e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . F i n a l l y , t h e d e f e n d a n t a s s e r t s t h a t p r o s e c u t o r i a l miscon- d u c t p r e j u d i c e d h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e case and d e n i e d him a f a i r trial. The f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r t h i s c o n t e n t i o n is a m o t i o n s e e k i n g t h e e n d o r s e m e n t of f i v e a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s e s on t h e information. T h i s m o t i o n was made by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n on t h e f i r s t day of t r i a l . I n arguing t h e motion, t h e county a t t o r n e y e x p r e s s e d a b e l i e f t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n v o l v e d i n a r o b b e r y a t knife-point t h e e v e n i n g b e f o r e t h e t r i a l and t h a t t h e a d d i - t i o n a l w i t n e s s e s would be needed to show a c o n t i n u i n g c o u r s e of conduct. The c o u r t r e s e r v e d r u l i n g o n t h e m o t i o n s t a t i n g t h a t it p r e s e n t e d a q u e s t i o n of r e l e v a n c y and r e q u i r e d a w e i g h i n g of t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t i t s p r e j u d i c i a l i m p a c t . D e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t t h e m o t i o n was n o t made by t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y i n good f a i t h and t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was f o r c e d t o spend v a l u a b l e t i m e i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e a l l e g e d r o b b e r y and t o c h a n g e d e f e n s e t a c t i c s . However, if d e f e n s e c o u n s e l d i d spend e x t e n s i v e t i m e p r e p a r i n g to defend a g a i n s t t h i s a l l e g a t i o n h i s a c t i o n was e n t i r e l y p r e m a t u r e . The c o u r t t o o k t h e m a t t e r u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t and t h e w i t n e s s e s were n e v e r e n d o r s e d upon t h e information. Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e r e is no b a s i s f o r f i n d i n g r e v e r s i b l e error i n t h i s context. The j u d g m e n t of c o n v i c t i o n is a f f i r m e d . Chief J u s t i c e W concur: e f ................................ Justices Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, specially concurring: I concur in the result foregoing, because instruction no. 6 embodied the law of the case and denial of defendant's proposed instruction no. 3 merely avoided repetition in the instructions. Assuming, however, that in the future, prosecutors will not offer instructions such as court's no. 6, which include as an element for the State to prove that the defendant was not justified in using the force which he used, it appears that some comment is necessary as to proper instructions in a so- called self-defense case. First, I believe that merely instructing the jury, as was done in this case in instruction no. 17, in the language of the statute, section 45-3-102, MCA, respecting justified force gives the jury an abstract statement which is of little use in its determinations. In cases where the use of justified force is claimed by the defendant, the jury, at least where the evidence supports it, should be given an instruction that sets out the elements which are to be considered in determining whether the force was justified. These are: (1) the defendant must not be the aggressor; ( 2 ) the danger of harm to him must be a present one, not merely threatened at a future time, or without the present ability of carrying out a threat; (3) the force threatened must be unlawful--either criminal or tortious; (4) the person must actually believe that the danger exists, that is, use of force is necessary to avert the danger, and that the kind and amount of force which he uses is necessary; (5) his belief, in each of the aspects described, is reasonable even if it is mistaken. See, Criminal Law Commission Comment (M.C.C. 1973), section 94-3-102, R.C.M. 1947. Secondly, I believe that the jury should be instructed in a case where the defendant claims justification in the use of force that he has established his defense if he raises a reasonable doubt in the minds of the juries as to the proof by the State of the elements of the crime charged. Thirdly, I believe the jury should further be instructed that if the defendant fails to meet his burden of persuasion by raising such reasonable doubt, it remains in any event, the duty of the State to prove the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a good deal of cloudy area in the instructions which we have been approving in homicide cases where justi- fied force is claimed, not the least of which I pointed out in my dissent in State v. Bashor (19801, Mont . I 614 P.2d 470, 37 St.Rep. 1098. Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea dissents and will file a written dissent later.