NO. 95-268
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1996
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DAVID SYLVESTER GONZALES,
Defendant and Appellant
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Big Horn,
The Honorable Maurice R. Colberg, Jr., Judge
presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
James L. Vogel, Hardin, Montana
For Respondent:
Honorable Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General;
Pamela Collins, Assistant Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
Christine A. Cooke, Big Horn County Attorney,
Hardin, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August 29, 1996
Decided: October 24, 1996
Filed:
Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Defendant David Gonzalez appeals the Thirteenth Judicial
District Court, Big Horn County, jury verdict which found him
guilty of felony assault against Ronald Thompson. We affirm.
The following two issues are raised on appeal:
1. Did the District Court properly instruct the jury on the
affirmative defense of justifiable use of force?
2. Did the jury properly reject the defendant's affirmative
defense of justifiable use of force?
BACKGROUND
The following facts come from the State's case-in-chief. On
August 7, 1994, David Gonzales went to the Wagon Wheel Bar in Miles
City, Montana, at about 11:30 p.m. with his ex-wife, Marta Bergman.
Also at the bar that evening was Ronald Thompson, an older man who
was "acting strange," telling people he was a karate expert and a
Vietnam veteran. While Gonzales and Bergman were dancing to music
performed by Randy McCallister, Thompson started dancing between
them, making shadowboxing moves, but not saying anything or making
any aggressive motions towards them.
Because Thompson was shadowboxing and "acting strange" around
McCallister's band equipment, McCallister told Thompson to behave.
Thompson stopped what he was doing and repeatedly apologized.
According to Jan Small, the owner of the Wagon Wheel, she received
no complaints about Thompson.
After McCallister warned Thompson to behave around the band
equipment, Gonzales approached McCallister and tried to stick up
2
for Thompson. McCallister responded that it was not any of
Gonzales ' business. Gonzales then hit McCallister, who hit him
back. Richard Duncan, an acquaintance of McCallister, broke up the
fight. McCallister went back on stage and prepared to resume
playing with the band. Gonzales exited the bar after Jan Small
asked him to leave.
Approximately five minutes later, Gonzales reentered the bar
carrying something silver in his hand. He headed back to confront
McCallister, and in McCallister's direction, yelled, "Hey, bitch.
You want to do it right. LetIs go outside." At the same time,
Thompson was sitting alone in the bar and watching the crowd. He
got out of his chair, did an about-face, and hit Gonzales in the
face. Duncan observed Gonzales, standing, slash Ronald Thompson
with a carpet knife. Thompson grabbed Gonzales, who tried to stab
Thompson in the back with the knife. Duncan approached the melee
and grabbed Gonzales' wrist, ordering him to drop the knife.
Duncan hit Gonzales in the forehead and he dropped the knife.
Duncan then knocked Thompson and Gonzales to the ground. When the
three fell, Gonzales was on the bottom, Thompson in the middle, and
Duncan on top.
When the three got up, Thompson was bleeding profusely from a
deep laceration on his left arm. He also suffered smaller
lacerations to his lower chest and back. Gonzales was uninjured
except for a black eye. Immediately thereafter, deputies from the
Big Horn County Sheriff's Department arrived at the scene and
3
arrested Gonzales. They also administered first aid to Thompson
before transporting him to the hospital.
Thompson could not be found at the time of trial and was
unavailable to testify. Sheriff's deputies testified that Thompson
did not appear to be dangerous and they did not feel threatened by
him, although he did appear confused. TWO officers also testified
that the injury to Thompson's left arm appeared to be a defensive-
type wound.
At trial, Gonzales testified on his own behalf. He claimed
that during one of the band's breaks, McCallister made a derogatory
comment to him about his ex-wife. Gonzales poked McCallister in
the stomach. As Gonzales stood up to leave, McCallister hit him
from behind. Gonzales then headed towards the front door of the
bar, but before reaching it, he decided to find out why McCallister
had hit him. Gonzales faced the band where McCallister was playing
and yelled, "Hey bitch. You want to do it right. Let's go
outside."
According to Gonzales, McCallister noticed him and nodded to
Thompson. Thompson headed toward Gonzales, doing karate moves.
Gonzales was afraid because Thompson was fifty pounds larger than
he, he had just been beaten by McCallister, and he had been told
that Thompson was a Vietnam veteran and a karate expert. Gonzales
had a carpet knife in his wallet. He removed it as a warning for
Thompson to stay away. Thompson punched Gonzales in the eye.
Gonzales admitted at trial, that at that point, he could have
turned around and run out the back door of the bar. After hitting
4
GOnZaleS , Thompson tackled him, and the two fought on the floor
until Duncan separated them.
Gonzales was charged by information with felony assault
pursuant to § 45-5-202(Z) (a), MCA. He pled not guilty. Following
a jury trial, Gonzales was found guilty. The District Court
sentenced him to a term of eight years in the Montana State Prison,
plus two years consecutively for the use of a weapon. Gonzales
appeals.
1. Did the District Court properly instruct the jury on
Gonzales t affirmative defense of justifiable use of force?
Gonzales asserts that the District Court committed reversible
error at trial because it did not properly instruct the jury
regarding his affirmative defense of justifiable use of force. He
contends that the jury was instructed that the defense was not
available to an aggressor, but that the jury was not instructed on
the exceptions to the "no aggressor" rule contained in § 45-3-
lOS(2) (a) and (b), MCA.
Section 45-3-105(2) (a) and (b), MCA, provides:
Use of force by aggressor. The justification described
in 45-3-102 through 45-3-104 is not available to a person
who: (2) purposely or knowingly provokes the use of force
against himself, unless: (a) such force is so great that
he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of
death or serious bodily harm and that he has exhausted
every reasonable means to escape such danger other than
the use of force which is likely to cause death or
serious bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) in good
faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the
assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he
desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force but
the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
During settlement of jury instructions, the State offered
State's proposed instruction number 15, which restates 5 45-S-
105(Z) (a), MCA. Proposed instruction number 15 stated:
The use of force in defense of a person is not available
to a person who purposely or knowingly provokes the use
of force against himself unless such force is so great
that he reasonably believes that he has exhausted every
reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use
of force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily
harm to the assailant.
Defense counsel objected to the State's proposed instruction
number 15, stating that there had been no evidence presented at
trial to support it, and that it implied that Gonzales had provoked
Thompson. Defense counsel admitted there was evidence that
Gonzales provoked McCallister, but not Thompson. The District
Court initially accepted the State's proposed instruction 15, and
allowed the defense to argue that there was no evidence that
Gonzales was the aggressor. Gonzales then offered defense proposed
instruction number I, which stated, "No person has a duty to
retreat from the use of unlawful force against him." The State
objected to this instruction because it conflicted with its
proposed instruction number 15 and was an incorrect statement of
the law.
The District Court then decided not to accept either proposed
instruction. Instead, it gave the following instructions regarding
justifiable use of force:
INSTRUCTION NO. 8
The defense of justifiable use of force is an
affirmative defense and the defendant has the burden of
producing sufficient evidence on the issue to raise a
reasonable doubt of his guilt.
6
If you find that he was justified in the use of
force, you must find him not guilty.
INSTRUCTION NO. 9
A person is justified in the use of force or threat
to use force when and to the extent that he reasonably
believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself
against the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person is justified in the use of force
which is intended or likely to cause death or serious
bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such
force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious
bodily harm to himself.
INSTRUCTION NO. 10
The defendant has pleaded justification in the use
of force in this case. As such he has the burden of
producing sufficient evidence of justification in the use
of force to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt. YOU
are to consider the following requirements of the law in
determining whether the use of force claimed by defendant
was justified:
1) The defendant must not be the aggressor;
2) The danger of harm to the defendant must be a
present one [and not merely threatened at a future time
and not made by a person without the present ability of
carrying out a threat];
3) The force threatened against the defendant must
be unlawful;
4) The defendant must actually believe that the
danger exists, that is, use of force by him is necessary
to avert the danger and that the kind and amount of force
which defendant uses is necessary;
5) The defendant's belief, in each of the aspects
described, is reasonable even if he is mistaken.
You are further advised that even if you determine
that the use of force by defendant was not justified, the
state still has the duty to prove each of the elements of
the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Bracketed material in original.)
This Court reviews jury instructions in a criminal case to
determine whether the instructions, as a whole, fully and fairly
instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case. State v.
7
Leyba (Mont. 19961, 915 P.2d 794, 797, 53 St.Rep. 7, g. District
courts have broad discretion in formulating jury instructions.
State v. Ross (1995), 269 Mont. 347, 358, 889 P.2d 161, 167. While
a defendant is entitled to have instructions on his theory of the
case, he is not entitled to an instruction concerning every nuance
of his argument. ~,
Ross 889 P.2d at 167.
Gonzales failed to object to or offer other instructions
regarding the "no aggressor" rule contained in instruction number
10. He stated that he did not want the jury instructed on the
exceptions to the "no aggressor" rule because his theory of the
case was that Gonzales was not the aggressor. Because Gonzales did
not raise an objection before the District Court, he is barred from
raising the issue on appeal. See 5 46-20-104, MCA. State v.
Santos (1995), 273 Mont. 125, 133, 902 P.2d 510, 514-15.
Gonzales states in his reply brief that even though he did not
object to the District Court's failure to instruct the jury on the
"no aggressor" rule, this Court should review the issue as plain
error. Gonzales claims this error prevented him from receiving a
fair trial because it inhibited his ability to use the defense of
justifiable use of force.
We recently clarified the common law plain error rule in State
v. Finley (Mont. 1996), 915 P.2d 208, 53 St.Rep. 310. We held that
we would review claimed errors that implicate a criminal defen-
dant's fundamental constitutional rights under the plain error rule
only sparingly and only where failing to do so might result in a
manifest miscarriage of justice, leave the question of the
8
fundamental fairness of the proceedings unsettled, or compromise
the integrity of the judicial process. Finley, 915 P.2d at 215.
Here, we conclude that declining to review Gonzales' challeng-
es to the District Court's failure to submit alternative jury
instructions on the "no aggressor" rule does not rise to the level
of a manifest miscarriage of justice, will not leave unsettled the
question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings,
nor will it compromise the integrity of the judicial process. See
Finley,,915 P.2d at 215; Seyferth v. State (Mont. 1996), P.2d
_, 53 St.Rep. 698.
Accordingly, we decline to address the issue of whether the
District Court erred when it refused to submit the State's proposed
jury instruction number 15 and defense jury instruction number 1 as
alternative jury instructions to the "no aggressor" rule, an issue
which Gonzales raises for the first time on appeal.
As an additional argument, Gonzales argues that his counsel
was ineffective for declining an instruction on the exceptions to
the "no aggressor" rule. This Court reviews claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel based on the two-part test adopted in
Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80
L.Ed.2d 674. The defendant must first establish that counsel's
performance was deficient in that counsel did not act within the
range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.
Walker v. State (1993), 261 Mont. 1, 6, 862 P.2d 1, 4. To satisfy
the second prong of the test, the defendant must also establish
that the deficient performance prejudiced him such that he was
9
deprived of a fair trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct.
at 2064. The defendant must prove both prongs of this test and
bears a heavy burden when he desires that his conviction be
reversed on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.
.Levba, 915 P.2d at 796.
Acts of counsel must stem from neglect or ignorance rather
than from informed, professional deliberation in order to be
ineffective assistance. State v. Paulson (1991), 250 Mont. 32, 44,
817 P.2d 1137, 1144-45. When defense counsel decides, as a
tactical decision, to decline a jury instruction that is not
consistent with the defense, this Court,will not find that counsel
was ineffective. State v. Sheppard (1995), 270 Mont. 122, 890 P.Zd
754, 758. This Court will not second-guess trial tactics and
strategy. Leyba, 915 P.2d at 797.
The record demonstrates that Gonzales' defense at trial was
that Thompson was the initial aggressor and that Gonzales used the
amount of force that he reasonably believed was necessary to defend
himself against Thompson. No witness for either the prosecution or
defense testified that Gonzales was the aggressor in the fight
between Thompson and himself. Witnesses testified that Thompson
told people at the bar that he was a karate expert. After hearing
Gonzales yell threats at McCallister, Thompson approached Gonzales
and hit him in the face. Thompson was fifty pounds larger than
Gonzales. Gonzales testified that he was frightened of Thompson
and held up the knife in an effort to scare him. When Thompson
10
grabbed Gonzales and the two fell to the floor, Thompson was on
top.
The evidence presented at trial is consistent with Gonzales'
defense theory that Thompson was the aggressor. Defense counsel
argued in both his opening and closing that Thompson, not Gonzales,
was the aggressor. The decision to forego the jury instruction on
the exceptions to the "no aggressor" rule was a trial strategy
based on informed professional deliberation and was not the result
of neglect or ignorance. The fact that this strategy proved
unsuccessful does not mean that counsel was ineffective.
We therefore conclude that defense counsel's performance was
not deficient. Because Gonzales has failed to meet the first prong
of the Strickland test, we do not address the second.
2. Did the jury reasonably reject Gonzales' affirmative
defense of justifiable use of force?
Gonzales argues that his conviction must be reversed because
there was no evidence presented at trial on which the jury could
find that he was the aggressor towards Thompson. This is contrary
to Gonzales' first position that his conviction should be reversed
because the court failed to instruct the jury on the exceptions to
the "no aggressor" rule. Gonzales argues that if he was not the
aggressor, then his use of the knife was reasonable and reasonable
doubt had to be created in the minds of the jury by this defense.
The standard of review for sufficiency of evidence in a
criminal conviction is whether, after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
11
reasonable doubt. State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 146,
875 P.2d 307, 318.
The defense of justifiable use of force is an affirmative
defense and the defendant has the burden of producing evidence
sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt. See § 45-3-
115, MCA; State v. Grady (1975), 166 Mont. 168, 175, 531 P.2d 681,
684. To establish a defense of justifiable use of force, the
defendant must prove: (1) that the defendant was not the aggressor;
(2) that the defendant reasonably believed that he was in imminent
danger of unlawful harm; and (3) that the defendant used reasonable
force necessary to defend himself. Arlinaton, 875 P.2d at 318.
Whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances is a
factual determination within the province of the jury. Arlinston,
875 P.2d at 314.
Based on the evidence presented at trial, Gonzales does not
meet the third prong for the defense of justifiable use of force.
When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, the jury, as a rational trier of fact, could reason-
ably conclude that the force Gonzales used against Thompson was
unreasonable. Thompson suffered a deep laceration which extended
the length of his lower arm. The jury heard evidence that this
wound was a defensive-type injury. Thompson also suffered several
lacerations to his lower chest and back. Gonzales was not injured
after his confrontation with Thompson, other than having a black
eye. The jury reasonably concluded that the force Gonzales used
against Thompson was excessive.
12
In summary, we hold that the District Court did not err when
it instructed the jury on the defense of justifiable use of force
according to Gonzales' theory of the case--that is, that Thompson
was the initial aggressor. Defense counsel was not ineffective for
declining an instruction on the exceptions to the "no aggressor"
rule, which was consistent with Gonzales' theory of the case.
Finally, the jury could properly find, based on all the evidence
presented, that Gonzales did not meet all three requirements for
the affirmative defense of justifiable use of force because he did
not use reasonable force to defend himself.
Appellant's conviction is affirmed.
We concur:
Justices
13
Justice Terry N. Trieweiler dissenting.
I dissent from the majority's conclusion that the attorney for
David Sylvester Gonzales was not ineffective when he objected to
the State's proposed instruction #15 which was essential to the
jury's complete understanding of the law related to justifiable use
of force.
Gonzales's defense was based on his assertion that he was not
the aggressor in his altercation with Ronald Thompson. However, it
was the State's theory that Gonzales was the aggressor toward Randy
McCallister and that his altercation with Thompson was the result
of that act of aggression.
There was evidence from which the jury could find in favor of
either the defendant's theory or the State's theory. It was,
therefore, necessary for the jury to be fully instructed on the law
that pertained to justifiable use of force, and in particular, that
part of the law which provides a defense to a person who is
initially the aggressor, but exhausts every reasonable means to
escape danger presented by someone who responds to his aggression.
The majority opinion suggests that to instruct the jury
regarding the law which was applicable in the event it found that
Gonzales was the aggressor would have been inconsistent with
Gonzales's defense that he was not the aggressor. I disagree.
It was perfectly consistent to argue that even though Gonzales
was not the aggressor, if the jury found otherwise he was still
entitled to assert justifiable use of force as a defense under
limited circumstances. In fact, I conclude that the normal range
14
of competence demanded of criminal defense attorneys required that
Gonzales's attorney be prepared to argue both scenarios. In other
words, while it was Gonzales's position that he was not the
aggressor, a reasonable defense required that the jury be informed
that if they disagreed with his argument and accepted the State’s
argument, it was still entitled to acquit him, in spite of that
fact, if it found that there was no reasonable means by which he
could have escaped from the danger that Thompson presented.
In this case, the jury was not fully instructed on the law
related to the reasonable use of force and there is no way to know
whether a complete and correct instruction would have produced a
different result. It is sufficient to note that the law provided
Gonzales with a defense, whether the jury found that he was the
aggressor or was not the aggressor, and he was denied that defense
based on his counsel's objection to the appropriate and necessary
statement of law.
I conclude that that objection constituted ineffective
representation of counsel, and for that reason would reverse the
judgment of the District Court and remand for a new trial with
correct instructions on the law.
For these reasons, I dissent from the majority opinion.
15
October 24, 1996
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the following certified order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the
following named:
James L. Vogel
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 525
Hardin, MT 59034-0525
Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General
Pamela Collins, Assistant A.G.
Justice Building
Helena, MT 59620
Christine A. Cooke
Big Horn County Attorney
Drawer H
Hardin, MT 59034
ED SMITH
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF MONTANA
BY: &%&!&+/jr-U
Deputy