State v. Day

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Day

DecidedOctober 22, 1981

Docket80-401

StatusPublished

This text of State v. Day (State v. Day) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Day, (Mo. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 80-401 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . HAZEL LEE DAY, Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth ~udicial~istrict, In and for the County of Missoula Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge.presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hirst, Dostal & Withrow, Missoula, Montana John Dostal argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Mary Troland argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Ed McLean argued, Deputy County Attorney, Missoula, Montana

- - pp

Submitted: September 14, 1981 Decided: October 22, 1981 Filed: OCT 2 2 598t

Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

his i s an a p p e a l by t h e d e f e n d a n t , Hazel Lee Day, from

an order of the D i s t r i c t Court, f o r t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l

~ i s t r i c t ,denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o withdraw h e r p l e a of

guilty. W e affirm.

On December 1 7 , 1979, d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d i n Missoula

County w i t h having committed a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t by s h o o t i n g

h e r former husband i n t h e c h e s t , s h o u l d e r and f a c e w i t h a

C o l t . 3 2 c a l i b e r weapon. Counsel was a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t

t h e d e f e n d a n t and on J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1980, a f t e r c o n s u l t i n g w i t h

c o u n s e l , t h e d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a p l e a of g u i l t y t o t h e

o f f e n s e charged. Defendant was s e n t e n c e d t o a t e r m of two

y e a r s i n p r i s o n w i t h t h e recommendation t h a t s h e b e t r a n s f e r r e d

t o t h e L i f e S k i l l s Training Center i n B i l l i n g s ; she i s

c u r r e n t l y on p a r o l e .

I n May 1980, d e f e n d a n t moved t o withdraw h e r p l e a based

upon t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t , a t t h e t i m e of e n t e r i n g h e r g u i l t y

p l e a , t h e d e f e n d a n t was i g n o r a n t of t h e p o t e n t i a l d e f e n s e of

j u s t i f i a b l e u s e of f o r c e . The t r i a l c o u r t a d m i t t e d l y d i d

n o t advise defendant with r e s p e c t t o the defense. The

a t t o r n e y who r e p r e s e n t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e t i m e of t h e

e n t r y of p l e a , f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t s t a t i n g t h a t he had d i s c u s s e d

t h e d e f e n s e w i t h d e f e n d a n t and t h a t s h e u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e

d e f e n s e was a v a i l a b l e t o h e r b u t c h o s e t o p l e a d g u i l t y .

Hazel Day i s a 64-year-old woman, b o r n i n W e s t V i r g i n i a ,

t o a c o a l mining f a m i l y . She was t h e o l d e s t of s e v e n c h i l d r e n

and q u i t s c h o o l i n t h i r d g r a d e t o h e l p c a r e f o r t h e r e s t of

h e r f a m i l y . When s h e was f o u r t e e n , h e r mother d i e d of t u b e r -

c u l o s i s and a t f i f t e e n h e r f a t h e r d i e d i n a c o a l mining

accident. A t sixteen, t h e defendant married, adopted f o u r o f h e r b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s , and u l t i m a t e l y r e a r e d f i v e of

h e r own c h i l d r e n .

I n 1959, d e f e n d a n t d i v o r c e d h e r f i r s t husband and

r e m a r r i e d . H e r second husband d i e d i n 1966, when s t r u c k by a

c a r a l l e g e d l y d r i v e n by t h e d e f e n d a n t . Defendant p l e a d e d

g u i l t y t o m a n s l a u g h t e r and was s e n t e n c e d t o s i x y e a r s i n t h e

Maryland S t a t e P r i s o n . H e r c r i m i n a l r e c o r d from 1954 t o

1970, a l s o c o n t a i n s f o u r s e p a r a t e misdemeanor e v e n t s of

minor t h e f t s and d i s o r d e r l y c o n d u c t .

I n March of 1976, d e f e n d a n t m a r r i e d A t h o l "Ted" Day;

t h e y w e r e s e p a r a t e d a month l a t e r and d i v o r c e d i n March

1979. During t h e t h r e e y e a r s of m a r r i a g e , they cohabitated

f o r a b o u t t h r e e months. Ted had problems w i t h a l c o h o l

abuse. Defendant d e s c r i b e d him as seldom s o b e r and when

d r u n k , a v e r i t a b l e w i l d man. H e was p h y s i c a l l y a b u s i v e t o

defendant. I n 1977, Ted Day s t r u c k t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h e

back w i t h a t e l e p h o n e w i t h s u f f i c i e n t f o r c e t o c a u s e n e r v e

damage i n h e r r i g h t hand n e c e s s i t a t i n g s u r g e r y . I n t h e same

y e a r he a t t e m p t e d t o p u l l d e f e n d a n t ' s tongue from h e r mouth

requiring surgery. On a n o t h e r o c c a s i o n he threw a k n i f e a t

t h e defendant.

A f t e r t h e d i v o r c e Ted Day c o n t i n u e d t o c o n t a c t t h e de-

f e n d a n t , h a r a s s i n g h e r and t h r e a t e n i n g h e r . On Monday,

November 27, 1979, d e f e n d a n t came home from work a t a b o u t

4:00 p.m. and found h e r former husband a t h e r t r a i l e r home.

H e p e r s u a d e d d e f e n d a n t t o d r i v e him t o L o l o , Montana, f o r

t h e p u r p o s e of t r a n s a c t i n g some b u s i n e s s . On t h e r e t u r n

t r i p from Lolo, he p u r c h a s e d some b e e r a n d , a f t e r p u s h i n g

d e f e n d a n t from t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t , motored t o t h e R a t t l e s n a k e

a r e a n o r t h of M i s s o u l a , Montana. They remained t h e r e u n t i l

approximately 1 1 ~ 3 0 p.m. Ted drank a l l of t h e b e e r and t h e n

d r o v e t o a Missoula m o t e l where he o b t a i n e d a room. H e was drunk and t h e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e asked t o go home.

Ted pushed h e r up t h e s t a i r s t o t h e m o t e l room. She was

frightened. I n t h e m o t e l room he became v e r y a b u s i v e and

t o l d h e r t o remove h e r c l o t h e s . According t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s

v e r s i o n , Ted t o r e o f f most of h e r c l o t h e s . When h e saw

d e f e n d a n t was n o t d r i n k i n g w i t h him, he began throwing food

and b e e r c a n s a l l o v e r t h e room. Ted t h e n took a p i s t o l

from d e f e n d a n t ' s p u r s e and, a c c o r d i n g t o d e f e n d a n t , r e q u e s t e d

h e r t o s h o o t him. H e t h e n l a i d t h e p i s t o l down on t h e n i g h t

t a b l e and began throwing d e f e n d a n t up a g a i n s t t h e w a l l . She

s t a t e d t h a t a f t e r s h e was h u r t s h e r e a c h e d f o r t h e p i s t o l

and p o i n t e d i t a t Ted t e l l i n g him n o t t o come c l o s e r .

Defendant s t a t e d t h a t he grabbed f o r h e r a g a i n and s h e s h o t

him s e v e r a l t i m e s . Ted was t a k e n t o t h e h o s p i t a l and

u l t i m a t e l y recovered.

A p u b l i c d e f e n d e r was a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e d e f e n d a n t .

She t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e t a l k e d t o h e r a t t o r n e y a p p r o x i m a t e l y

t h r e e t i m e s and t h a t he a d v i s e d h e r t o p l e a d g u i l t y . She

s t a t e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t remember h e r a t t o r n e y t a l k i n g t o h e r

about self-defense, b u t t h i s was d i s p u t e d by a n a f f i d a v i t

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI