State v. Herron

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: January 22, 1976
• Docket: 12948
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 12948

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN

THE STATE OF MONTANA,

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

JERRY ALLEN HERRON,

Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R o b e r t Keller, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record:

For Appellant :

D a n i e l J. Shea a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana

F o r Respondent :

Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , Helena, Montana R o b e r t L. Deschamps, 111 a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , Montana

Submitted : November 1 2 , 1975

Filed: ' ' 6 ', 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 o f t h e Court.

Defendant a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n of attempted second degree murder and t h e 25 y e a r s e n t e n c e imposed i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Missoula County. O October 20, 1972, a teen-age g i r l was r i d i n g h e r n bicycle on t h e highway n e a r Clearwater J u n c t i o n . She was s h o t by a shotgun f i r e d from a p a s s i n g v e h i c l e . Defendant J e r r y Allen Herron was a r r e s t e d t h e same day and was u l t i m a t e l y t r i e d f o r f o u r a l t e r n a t i v e crimes: 1 ) Attempted second degree murder.

2) F i r s t degree a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l . 3) F i r s t degree a s s a u l t w i t h a t t e m p t t o commit a f e l o n y . 4) Second degree a s s a u l t . The f i r s t t r i a l on t h e s e charges was h e l d i n June 1973. The j u r y was given t h e s e two i n s t r u c t i o n s , among o t h e r s : 11 I n s t r u c t i o n No. 20, The crimes charged a g a i n s t t h e Defendant a r e a l l f e l o n y o f f e n s e s . T h e r e f o r e , a l l twelve of your number must a g r e e i n o r d e r t o r e t u r n a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y o r n o t g u i l t y , and a l l twelve of your number must a g r e e i n o r d e r t o d e c i d e any ques- t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o b e decided i n a r r i v i n g a t a v e r d i c t on a crime. 11 It i s n e c e s s a r y t h a t you c o n s i d e r t h e crime of attempted murder f i r s t , and f i n d t h e defendant e i t h e r g u i l t y o r n o t g u i l t y of t h a t charge. "1n t h e event you f i n d t h e defendant g u i l t y of attempted murder you need go no f u r t h e r a s you w i l l have reached a v e r d i c t i n t h i s c a s e . "In t h e event you f i n d t h e defendant n o t g u i l t y of attempted murder, then you must c o n s i d e r t h e crime o f A s s a u l t i n t h e F i r s t Degree w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l a s embodied i n a l t e r n a t i v e Count I1 of t h e Information. You must f i n d t h e defendant e i t h e r g u i l t y o r n o t g u i l t y of A s s a u l t i n t h e F i r s t Degree w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l . I n t h e event you f i n d t h e defendant g u i l t y of t h a t charge, you have reached a v e r d i c t and need go no f u r t h e r . "In t h e event you f i n d t h e defendant n o t g u i l t y of A s s a u l t i n t h e F i r s t Degree w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l , you must c o n s i d e r t h e a l t e r n a t i v e Count Number I11 of t h e Information which i s A s s a u l t i n t h e F i r s t Degree w i t h i n t e n t t o commit a f e l o n y . I n t h e event you f i n d t h e defendant g u i l t y o f t h a t c h a r g e , you have reached a v e r d i c t and need go no f u r t h e r . "1n t h e event you f i n d t h e defendant n o t g u i l t y of A s s a u l t i n t h e F i r s t Degree under both Counts I1 and 111, you must t h e n c o n s i d e r t h e l e s s e r included o f f e n s e of A s s a u l t i n t h e Second Degree. You must f i n d t h e Defendant g u i l t y o r n o t g u i l t y o f t h i s c h a r g e , x and when you do s o , ou have reached a v e r d i c t and need n o t proceed f u r t h e r . It I n s t r u c t i o n No. 24 When you r e t i r e t o t h e j u r y room, you s h a l l s e l e c t one of your number t o a c t a s foreman, who w i l l p r e s i d e over your d e l i b e r a t i o n s . I n o r d e r t o r e a c h a v e r d i c t , a l l twelve j u r o r s must a g r e e t o t h e d e c i s i o n . As soon a s you have agreed upon a v e r d i c t , you s h a l l have i t d a t e d and signed by your foreman and then s h a l l r e t u r n w i t h i t t o t h i s room." The j u r y was provided w i t h e i g h t forms of v e r d i c t . The j u r y d e l i b e r a t e d one e n t i r e n i g h t , r e t u r n e d t o c o u r t a t 5 : 4 0 a.m. and announced i t s f a i l u r e t o r e a c h a v e r d i c t , and was discharged. Three days l a t e r a member of t h e j u r y telephoned d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y f o r t h e s t a t e d purpose of informing him what had a c t u a l l y occurred d u r i n g t h e n i g h t of j u r y d e l i b e r a t i o n s . According t o t h e a f f i d a v i t of t h i s j u r o r , which was f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y , t h e j u r y had a c t u a l l y voted unani- mously t o a c q u i t defendant of attempted second degree murder, f i r s t degree a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l , and f i r s t degree a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o commit a f e l o n y . The j u r y was deadlocked only on d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t o r innocence o f second degree a s s a u l t . ~ e f e n d a n t ' scounsel c o n t a c t e d t h e j u r y foreman by phone who s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o r r o b o r a t e d t h e s e e v e n t s and f u r t h e r explained t h e r e a s o n why no v e r d i c t forms had been signed t o r e f l e c t t h e verdict. According t o t h e foreman's a f f i d a v i t , t h e j u r y was con- fused by two i n s t r u c t i o n s , No. 20 and No. 24, h e r e t o f o r e quoted. The j u r o r s asked t h e b d i f f t o convey a q u e s t i o n t o t h e p r e s i d i n g judge a s t o whether they should s i g n t h e f i r s t v e r d i c t form b e f o r e proceeding t o t h e n e x t charge. N r e c o r d e x i s t s concerning what o t h e b a i l i f f asked t h e judge o r what t h e judge r e p l i e d t o t h e b a i l i f f , a s no c o u r t r e p o r t e r was i n a t t e n d a n c e and no a t t e m p t was made t o n o t i f y e i t h e r c o u n s e l of t h e j u r o r s ' confusion. The a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e d t h e b a i l i f f t o l d t h e j u r y foreman t h a t t h e j u r y was t o a r r i v e a t only one v e r d i c t i n t h e c a s e and t h e r e f o r e should s i g n o n l y one form. These e v e n t s were c o r r o b o r a t e d by t h e a f f i d a v i t s of t h e other jurors. T h e i r v e r s i o n of e v e n t s was never q u e s t i o n e d by t h e s t a t e i n i t s b r i e f o r o r a l argument on appeal. The second t r i a l of defendant was h e l d i n December 1973. Defendant was t r i e d on t h e same c h a r g e s , w i t h one e x c e p t i o n ; t h e charge of f i r s t degree a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l was dismissed. The j u r y was unable t o r e a c h a v e r d i c t on t h e remaining t h r e e charges a t t h e second t r i a l . A t h i r d t r i a l was h e l d i n June 1974, on t h e same charges

a s i n t h e second t r i a l . Defendant was c o n v i c t e d of attempted second degree murder and sentenced t o 25 y e a r s imprisonment i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n , where he i s p r e s e n t l y i n c a r c e r a t e d . A t t h e second and t h i r d t r i a l s defendant maintained t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r y him a g a i n on c h a r g e s of attempted second degree murder o r f i r s t degree a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o commit a f e l o n y , because he had been a c q u i t t e d of both charges a t t h e f i r s t t r i a l . His c l a i m i s based on t h e double jeopardy p r o v i s i o n of t h e F e d e r a l and S t a t e C o n s t i t u t i o n s . They provide : Amendment 5 , United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n : 'I* **n o r s h a l l any person be s u b j e c t f o r t h e same o f f e n s e t o be twice put i n jeopardy of l i f e or limb *$< Y<. I'

A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 25, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n : "* * * No person s h a l l be a g a i n put i n jeopardy f o r t h e same o f f e n s e p r e v i o u s l y t r i e d i n any j u r i s d i c t i o n , 11 The double jeopardy p r o v i s i o n of t h e United S t a t e s Consti- t u t i o n p r o h i b i t s being twice placed on t r i a l , a s w e l l a s twice punished f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . It does n o t p r o h i b i t r e t r i a l f o r t h e same o f f e n s e i f t h e f i r s t t r i a l r e s u l t s i.n a hung j u r y . We f i n d no reason t o c o n s t r u e t h e double jeopardy p r o v i s i o n of M o n t a ~ a ' s C o n s t i t u t i o n otherwise. The u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n on a p p e a l i s whether t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e d i s c l o s e s an a c q u i t t a l o r a hung j u r y a t t h e f i r s t t r i a l on t h e charge of attempted murder. T h i s i s s u e must s t a n d o r f a l l on t h e answer t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s : 1. The , e f f e c t of t h e o r a l communication between t h e j u r y and t h e c o u r t i n t h e absence of c o u n s e l ? 2. Whether j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s can b e used t o supply proof of a c t u a l e v e n t s t h a t occurred d u r i n g j u r y d e l i b e r a t i o n ? I n view of t h e f a c t t h i s defendant was t r i e d t h r e e times b e f o r e c o n v i c t i o n and defense counsel r a i s e d t h e i s s u e s we are about t o d i s c u s s a t t h e second and t h i r d t r i a l s , t h i s Court i s a t a l o s s t o understand why, upon d i s c o v e r i n g t h e f a c t s a f t e r t h e f i r s t t r i a l , he d i d n o t a p p l y t o t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y control. H i s f a i l u r e t o do s o caused t h e expense of two n e e d l e s s t r i a l s , along w i t h unnecessary trauma t o h i s c l i e n t . The o r a l communication between t h e j u r y and t h e c o u r t v i a t h e b a i l i f f c l e a r l y v i o l a t e s s e c t i o n 95-1913(d), R.C.M. 1947: "(d) A f t e r Retirement, May Return i n t o Court f o r Information. A f t e r t h e j u r y has r e t i r e d f o r d e l i b e r - a t i o n i f t h e r e be any disagreement among them a s t o t h e testimony, o r i f they d e s i r e t o be informed on any p o i n t of law a r i s i n g i n t h e c a u s e , they must r e q u i r e t h e o f f i c c t o conduct them i n t o c o u r t . Upon b e i n g brought i n t o c o u r t , t h e information r e q u e s t e d may be given i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t ; i f such information i s given i t must be given i n t h e presence of t h e county a t t o r n e y and t h e defendant and h i s counsel." It a l s o v i o l a t e s t h e p r o s c r i p t i o n a g a i n s t o r a l j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n . S t a t e v. Beesskove, 34 Mont. 41, 85 P. 376; S t a t e v. Wakely, 43 Mont. 427,437, 117 P. 95; S t a t e v. Asher, 63 Mont. 302,306, 206 P. 1091; S t a t e v. Gies, 77 Mont. 62,64, 249 P. 573. A s a general r u l e additional instructions t o the jury must comply w i t h t h e law and f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w t h e law c o n s t i t u t e s reversible error. The v i c e o f t h e s i t u a t i o n h e r e i s t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y was n o t n o t i f i e d n o r p r e s e n t and had no way t o p r o t e c t h i s c l i e n t from t h e j u r y ' s confusion. This i s patently p r e j u d i c i a l . Had t h e j u r y convicted defendant of t h e charge of attempted murder a t t h e f i r s t t r i a l , t h e v e r d i c t would have had t o be s e t a s i d e because of r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r , chargeable t o t h e s t a t e . Can j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s be used t o prove what occurred during jury deliberations? The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , p r i o r t o t h e second t r i a l , h e l d t h a t t h e y could n o t on t h e ground t h a t j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s cannot be used t o impeach j u r y v e r d i c t s i n Montana. This h o l d i n g i s e r r o r . I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s were n o t used t o impeach t h e j u r y v e r d i c t , because t h e j u r y d i d n o t r e t u r n a v e r d i c t of any kind. The a f f i d a v i t was used t o show t h a t because of o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e s on t h e j u r y d u r i n g i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s , a v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l on t h r e e o f t h e charges was a c t u a l l y rendered by t h e j u r y b u t was n o t r e t u r n e d t o t h e c o u r t due t o t h e confusion over jury instructions. The s t a t e does n o t deny t h i s . J u s t i c e compels t h e u s e of j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s t o prove what a c t u a l l y occurred. For t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n of attempted second degree murder i s vacated. The cause i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r r e t r i a l on t h e remaining charge o f second degree a s s a u l t . M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison and M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s t dissenting : W dissent. e The o r d e r d e c l a r i n g a m i s t r i a l a s a r e s u l t of a deadlocked j u r y was made on June 29, 1973. It was n o t u n t i l December 2 , 1973, t h a t t h e e f f o r t t o , i n e f f e c t , impeach a j u r y v e r d i c t was made. I n t h e t r a n s c r i p t of proceedings taken b e f o r e Judge K e l l e r on December 3 , 1973, Judge K e l l e r i n q u i r e d s p e c i f i c a l l y a s t o Judge ~ u s s a u l t ' sr e c o l l e c t i o n s ; c o u n s e l had n o t even i n q u i r e d . Nor was t h e b a i l i f f questioned. Judge K e l l e r c a r e f u l l y i n q u i r e d and f i n a l l y r u l e d . Judge K e l l e r s t a t e d i n p a r t : " M R .SHEA: For t h e r e c o r d , Your Honor could t h e Court s t a t e t h e grounds f o r denying t h e motion? "THE COURT: Yes. This i s an e f f o r t t o i n essence impeach a v e r d i c t of a j u r y o r v i r t u a l l y t o b r i n g o u t what a t r u e v e r d i c t was, one i n open Court b e f o r e t h e j u r y announced t h a t t h e y cannot a g r e e upon a v e r d i c t and t h e j u r y was discharged a t t h a t time f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t t h e y could n o t a g r e e upon a verdict and n o t h i n g f u r t h e r was done a t t h a t time. * * k ; The motion i s denied f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t t h i s j u r y has been discharged and t h i s e f f o r t t o f i n d o u t what t h a t j u r y d i d comes i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e some days a f t e r - - - t h e f i r s t Motion f o r A c q u i t t a l was f i l e d some days a f t e r t h e j u r y had been discharged and w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p a r t t h a t t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e Court had m i s i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y , t h a t comes months a f t e r t h e j u r y had been discharged and i n both c a s e s w e l l a f t e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y f o r t h e j u r y t o be c o n t a c t e d by o t h e r persons could have occurred. ** "The f i r s t motion i s t o i n s t r u c t t h e Defendant and h i s c o u n s e l and a s f a r a s t h e Court i s concerned, i t means a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e Defendant and h i s c o u n s e l , n o t t o i n d i c a t e i n any way t h a t t h e j u r y p r e v i o u s l y impaneled i n t h i s c a s e was a t one p o i n t i n t h e d e l i b e r a - t i o n s 1 t o 1 f o r complete a c q u i t t a l . + 1 :** In a s f a r a s v o i r d i r i n g t h i s j u r y panel i s concerned, t h e y cannot go i n t o what t h e a l l e g e d v o t e was of t h a t j u r y . 9 :* *" Then l a t e r t h e following exchange appears: "MR. SHEA: For t h e r e c o r d , Your Honor, I would r e q u e s t s o t h a t a l l t h e f a c t s may be brought out b e f o r e t h e Court and I have no o b j e c t i o n . I n f a c t , I make t h e r e q u e s t t h a t t h e Court i n q u i r e of both b a i l i f f s - - t h e y a r e both h e r e today a s I understand i t t h e communications were made from t h e j u r y t o them t o --- as t o what t h e judge and back t o them and back t o t h e j u r y a g a i n . And a l s o I would be w i l l i n g t o go i n t o a s k t h e Court t h a t presided a t t h a t time a s t o any r e c o l l e c t i o n s he may have o f t h e circumstances. "THE COURT: D you want m t o i n q u i r e ? o e "MR. SHEA: Yes s i r , s o a r e c o r d can b e made. "THE COURT: N w a r e you done w i t h your motion and o ready t o go? "I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t what you a r e doing i n t h i s c a s e , t h e main r e a s o n , a s f a r a s I am concerned, i s t h a t your Motion f o r A c q u i t t a l i s denied, t h a t t h e s a l i e n t p o i n t , i f i t i s s a l i e n t , t h a t comes up, comes up i n December and t h i s c a s e was t r i e d i n June. Is that correct? "MR. DESCHAMPS: Yes, t h a t i s c o r r e c t . "MR.SHEA: The l a s t of June, yes s i r , Your Honor. "THE COURT: And f r a n k l y I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h a t i s something t h a t you should have a s c e r t a i n e d r i g h t a f t e r t h i s c a s e was over and i f t h e r e was any v a l i d i t y t o your motion t h a t i t would have been a s a r e s u l t of d i l i g e n t work on your p a r t . The only reason t h a t I say t h a t i s because I want you t o b e aware of what m f e e l i n g s a r e , M r . Herron. I want you t o b e s a t i s - y f i e d now when I a s k you, a r e you s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e s e r v i c e s rendered by your c o u n s e l , your c o u n s e l t h a t i s going t o r e p r e s e n t you i n t h i s c a s e . I I The m a j o r i t y opinion s t a t e s t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t s were n o t used t o impeach a j u r y v e r d i c t . But c l e a r l y t h e Court i s a l l o w i n g , by a f f i d a v i t of one j u r o r of r e c o l l e c t i o n s f i v e months l a t e r , t h e impeachment of t h e j u r y ' s deadlock o r f a i l u r e t o r e a c h a verdict. To do t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y i s d i s r e g a r d i n g t h e h e a r i n g

t r a n s c r i p t where Judge K e l l e r noted t h a t t h e r e was no r e c o r d of any communication between t h e Judge, t h e b a i l i f f , and t h e j u r y . Now, f i v e months l a t e r , t h i s i s attempted t o b e shown by r e c o l l e c - t i o n s of t h e j u r y foreman. W would a f f i r m t h e judgment i n a l l p a r t i c u l a r s . e '., C '- '-.,//$Y 9 -: / ; 2 . pl +>. % '1 # , sv~tdL.:db* -;.,t*~-+#-.As*~~* :/ -",***s/

Chief J u s t i c e ./'

% - i

- stice 'g Ju - 8 F . r

v: