State v. Johns

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: November 9, 1982
• Docket: 81-456
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 81-456 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . RORY RAYMOND JOHNS, Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula Honorable John Henson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Anthony F. Keast, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana

Submitted on briefs: September 21, 1982 Decided: Povember 9, 1982 Filed: Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of the Court.

Defendant-appellant was a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d w i t h d e l i b e r a t e homicide a f t e r shooting his b r o t h e r on December 2 , 1980. On

March 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t was found g u i l t y of d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e by jury verdict in the Fourth Judicial District, County of Missoula . Defendant a p p e a l s . D e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d w i t h a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a t e

homicide after shooting his brother, Larry Peter Johns, on

December 2 , 1 9 8 0 . Defendant s h o t L a r r y a t t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e

i n t h e p r e s e n c e of M y r s t a J o h n s , t h e s i s t e r , and S a r a J o h n s , the mother. L a r r y d i e d a f t e r t h e a t t e m p t e d c h a r g e had b e e n f i l e d . D e f e n d a n t and L a r r y had a h i s t o r y o f constant fighting and

bickering. The two made t h r e a t s upon e a c h o t h e r ' s l i v e s o v e r a

period of years. The M i s s o u l a c i t y p o l i c e had b e e n c a l l e d to b r e a k up d o m e s t i c d i s p u t e s b e t w e e n d e f e n d a n t , L a r r y and M y r s t a o n

a regular basis. D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t L a r r y had a t t e m p t e d to kill him in the p a s t although the a t t e m p t s were u n s u c c e s s f u l . Most o f t h e d i s p u t e s arose o u t of t h e need f o r d r u g s or money.

D e f e n d a n t and L a r r y owned a n ample s u p p l y o f w e a p o n r y which

was con£ i s c a t e d by t h e p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t f o r a p e r i o d of time. A t the t i m e of the shooting, t h e bedroom o f the brothers could

h a v e armed a s t r i k e f o r c e of t h e l o c a l p o l i c e . D e f e n d a n t , L a r r y , M y r s t a and S a r a J o h n s a l l h a v e a h i s t o r y o f

drug abuse and psychological problems. Defendant admits to h a v i n g b e e n a d d i c t e d t o d r u g s s i n c e he was e l e v e n o r t w e l v e y e a r s of age. L a r r y and M y r s t a h a v e had a s i m i l a r h i s t o r y w i t h d r u g s . On t h e Saturday before the s h o o t i n g d e f e n d a n t and Myrsta, ( t h e s i s t e r ) , v i s i t e d t h e r e s i d e n c e of t h e i r b r o t h e r and sister- in-law in Missoula. The defendant told his sister-in-law, Marlynn J o h n s , t h a t s o m e t h i n g had t o be d o n e b e c a u s e he c o u l d n ' t

l i v e w i t h L a r r y anymore. Marlynn J o h n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t

t o l d h e r h e w a s g o i n g t o k i l l L a r r y and s t a t e d , "AR, L a r r y AR. I

a g o i n g t o g e t you t h i s time m ." M a r l y n n d i d n o t know w h a t "AR" meant but did not get concerned at the time because s h e was

accustomed to the usual rambunctions of the two brothers. On

December 21 1980, defendant shot Larry with an AR-15, semi-

automatic r i f l e . The e v e n t s l e a d i n g up to t h e s h o o t i n g were d e s c r i b e d o n l y by

defendant. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t L a r r y , h i m s e l f and t h r e e o t h e r s had

b e e n working a t odd jobs i n Lewiston, Idaho. On December 2 ,

1 9 8 0 , t h e g r o u p d e c i d e d t o l e a v e L e w i s t o n and r e t u r n t o M i s s o u l a . Apparently, Larry did n o t want to leave Lewiston, but rather,

wanted to s t a y and make some more money. This precipitated another dispute between the brothers and defendant tes t i £ i e d Larry stated he was going to kill him when they returned to Missoula . Defendant claims although t h e t w o r e t u r n e d t o Missoula

i n d i f f e r e n t v e h i c l e s , L a r r y c o n t i n u e d t o make t h r e a t s to d e f e n - d a n t o v e r a CB r a d i o . When one v e h i c l e r a n o u t of g a s on Lolo Pass, d e f e n d a n t went into a bar to wait and consumed a p p r o x i - m a t e l y two s i x p a c k s of b e e r and took several drugs including Demerol, N e b u t o l , Parest, Soma, V a l i u m and T r a x s e n e . Defendant t e s t i f i e d he t o o k t h e a l c o h o l and d r u g s b e c a u s e he was i n a v e r y

e x i c t e d s t a t e af t e r L a r r y ' s t h r e a t s . Concerning the events a f t e r the brother's arrived a t their home i n M i s s o u l a , t w o d i f f e r e n t stories develop--that of d e f e n -

d a n t and t h o s e of t h e m o t h e r and sister. Defendant testified t h a t L a r r y and he f i r s t e n t e r e d t h e h o u s e c a r r y i n g some of t h e i r luggage. D e f e n d a n t t h e n r e t u r n e d to g e t t h e r e s t of h i s l u g g a g e a n d when he returned t o t h e house L a r r y c o n f r o n t e d him w i t h a knife in one hand and a .357 magnum pistol in the other. Defendant a t t e m p t e d to r u n b u t L a r r y blocked h i s e s c a p e . After a brief scuffle i n t h e k i t c h e n , d e f e n d a n t r a n t o t h e bedroom and r e t r i e v e d t h e AR-15 r i f l e from t h e w a l l . Defendant c l a i m s they struggled i n t h e bedroom and o u t i n t o t h e k i t c h e n . Then L a r r y

ran into the mother's bedroom and defendant followed. After another struggle, defendant turned and saw L a r r y p o i n t i n g the

.357 p i s t o l a t him. D e f e n d a n t c l a i m s L a r r y s t a t e d , " T h i s time I a m b l o w i n g you away." D e f e n d a n t r a n t o t h e l i v i n g room and s h o t

L a r r y who w a s s t i l l s t a n d i n g i n t h e bedroom. Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t Myrsta then sheathed Larry's knife and returned the ,357

p i s t o l to its h o l s t e r i n t h e k i t c h e n . N o f i n g e r p r i n t s were e v e r

t a k e n f r o m t h e ,357 p i s t o l . M y r s t a and S a r a J o h n s h a v e a d i f f e r e n t e x p l a n a t i o n of what

t r a n s p i r e d when t h e b r o t h e r s a r r i v e d home. They t e s t i f i e d t h a t

the brothers came i n t o g e t h e r and L a r r y s t a t e d h e was h u n g r y . L a r r y t o o k a d o u g h n u t from a b r e a d b o x and s a t down to e a t it i n

t h e l i v i n g room. D e f e n d a n t went i n t o t h e bedroom and r e t u r n e d with the .357 pistol stating, "this is for self-defense." D e f e n d a n t t h e n p l a c e d t h e p i s t o l on a t a b l e n e a r t h e k i t c h e n and

returned t o t h e bedroom and t o o k t h e AR-15 r i f l e from t h e w a l l . When L a r r y saw d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e r i f l e he f l e d to t h e m o t h e r ' s bedroom. Defendant followed t o t h e doorway o f t h e l i v i n g room

a n d s h o t him. Myrsta and Sara Johns admit their recollection of the s h o o t i n g is n o t c o m p e t e l y c l e a r . S a r a was i n p o o r p h y s i c a l and

mental health at the t i m e of the s h o o t i n g and w e n t i n t o shock thereafter. M y r s t a a d m i t s to h a v i n g b e e n u n d e r t h e i n £ l u e n c e of d r u g s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e s h o o t i n g and had b e e n u n d e r g o i n g t r e a t -

m e n t f o r h e r d r u g p r o b l e m a t W a r m S p r i n g s a t t h e t i m e of trial. A f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g , M y r s t a c a l l e d t h e 9-1-1 e m e r g e n c y number

f o r an ambulance. T h i s c a l l was r e c o r d e d and d e p i c t s a n u n s a v o r y

scene a t t h e Johns' house. Myrsta is y e l l i n g h y s t e r i c a l l y i n t o t h e phone and d e f e n d a n t c a n be h e a r d i n t h e b a c k g r o u n d shouting p r o f a n i t i e s and f i r i n g t h e r i f l e . An o f f -duty ambulance driver , Thomas Ziegler, heard the a m b u l a n c e c a l l on h i s s c a n n e r and d r o v e t o t h e s c e n e to a s s i s t . When h e a r r i v e d , Sara was i n f r o n t of t h e house screaming f o r

help. A s Z i e g l e r s t e p p e d o u t of h i s car he saw d e f e n d a n t s t e p i n t o t h e doorway o f t h e h o u s e and p o i n t a r i f l e a t him. Ziegler t h e n r a n t o a n e i g h b o r ' s home t o warn t h e a m b u l a n c e d r i v e r n o t to

s t o p a t t h e Johns' r e s i d e n c e u n t i l t h e h o u s e was s e c u r e d . The ambulance d i d n o t s t o p a t the house, b u t parked a b o u t o n e and one-half b l o c k s f u r t h e r down t h e s t r e e t . When deputy sheriff Larry Jackson arrived, Myrsta was

s h o u t i n g from t h e doorway and J a c k s o n c o u l d see d e f e n d a n t i n t h e background holding the AR-15 rifle . Jackson cautiously a p p r o a c h e d d e f e n d a n t and a s k e d him to p u t t h e gun down. By t h a t

time a second officer, Scott Graham, had arrived and was approaching behind Jackson. E v e n t u a l l y d e f e n d a n t unloaded the gun and turned it over to the police officers . L a r r y was attended to at the s c e n e and l a t e r died a t St. Patrick's Hospital as a result of the gunshot wounds. The c o r o n e r ' s r e p o r t showed L a r r y r e c e i v e d s i x g u n s h o t wounds. The

AR-15 r i f l e was f i r e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o u r t e e n times. Some of t h e bullets were found lodged in the walls and ceilings. After

L a r r y ' s d e a t h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was amended c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t w i t h

d e l i b e r a t e homicide. During the trial, the court admitted the 9-1-1 tape into e v i d e n c e and a l l o w e d i t t o be p l a y e d t o t h e j u r y on f o u r s e p a r a t e

occasions. On March 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e j u r y found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of d e l i b e r a t e homicide. Defendant a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n . The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e a s f o l l o w s :

1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g t h e 9-1-1 tape i n t o evidence? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g t h e p r o s e c u -

tion to make comments concerning the trajectory of the fatal b u l l e t s during closing statements? 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g t h e t e s ti- mony o f t h e m o t h e r and t h e s i s t e r when it was r e v e a l e d t h e y s u f - f e r e d from m e n t a l , e m o t i o n a l and d r u g - r e l a t e d illnesses. D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h e a d m i s s i o n of t h e 9-1-1 t a p e was i n e r r o r

i n t h a t t h e t a p e was i n f l a m m a t o r y and t h a t i t s a d m i s s i o n was pre-

judicial. Rule 403, M.R.Evid., states, " [a]lthough relevant,

e v i d e n c e may be e x c l u d e d i f i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e is s u b s t a n t i a l l y

o u t w e i g h e d by t h e d a n g e r of unfair prejudice, c o n f u s i o n of the issues, or m i s l e a d i n g the jury, o r by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of undue delay, waste of time, or n e e d l e s s p r e s e n t a t i o n of cumulative

evidence. " Here, the trial court ruled that the tape was a d m i s s i b l e b e c a u s e i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e o u t w e i g h e d t h e d a n g e r of u n f a i r p r e -

judice. Under o u r r u l e s of e v i d e n c e t h e t r i a l j u d g e h a s a l a t i - tude of discretion in passing on the admissibility of such evidence. S t a t e v. P e n d e r g r a s s ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 1 0 6 , 5 8 6 P.2d

691; S t a t e v. Bain ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 23, 5 7 5 P.2d 919. The

f o u n d a t i o n f o r a d m i s s i o n of e v i d e n c e is a s h o w i n g b y t h e S t a t e to e s t a b l i s h i t s s u b s t a n t i a l n e c e s s i t y or i n s t r u c t i v e v a l u e . State

v. Pendergrass, supra; S t a t e v. Newman ( 1 9 7 3 ) 1 6 2 Mont. 450,

5 1 3 P.2d 258. I n t h e p r e s e n t case t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n

to exclude the tape s t a t i n g , "I believe that their [ M y r s t a and Sara Johns] cred i b i l i t y concerning the events t h a t occurred af ter t h e s h o o t i n g h a s , i n e f f e c t , b e e n used t o q u e s t i o n t h e i r c r e d i b i - l i t y as t o t h e a c t u a l e v e n t s of t h e s h o o t i n g . " Defendant argued

at the trial that he shot h i s brother in self-defense. The t e s t i m o n y o f M y s t r a and S a r a J o h n s showed t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d

n o t act in self-defense, but rather, was the aggressor in the confrontation. D e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s a f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g which were recorded i n t h e 9-1-1 c a l l were q u i t e v i o l e n t . D e f e n d a n t con-

t i n u e d t o f i r e t h e r i f l e and he c a n be h e a r d commanding E.lyrsta, " d o n o t move!" as s h e was c a l l i n g f o r a n a m b u l a n c e . A t the trial

the State argued that these actions were not consistent with d e f e n d a n t ' s claim o f s e l f - d e f e n s e . For t h a t reason t h e p r o b a t i v e value of the tape outweighed the chance of prejudice to the defendant. Defendant argues Pendergrass, supra, is controlling. However, - ndergrass P- e is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h e case a t h a n d .

I n -- n d e r g r a s s t h e t r i a l c o u r t a d m i t t e d a r a p e v i c t i m ' s c a l l f o r Pe --

assistance. There the tape was admitted for the purpose of

s h o w i n g t h a t a rape had b e e n c o m m i t t e d . However, the defendant had n e v e r d i s p u t e d t h a t a r a p e had o c c u r r e d . Defendant claimed

h e was e l s e w h e r e a t t h e t i m e of t h e crime and thus h i s defense

was a l i b i . T h e r e f o r e , t h e a d m i s s i o n of t h e t a p e had no p r o b a t i v e

v a l u e and was h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . The S t a t e had

o v e r w h e l m i n g e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e t h a t a r a p e had o c c u r r e d and t h e

admission of t h e t a p e o n l y induced a f e e l i n g of o u t r a g e a g a i n s t

the defendant. Here, as s t a t e d a b o v e , t h e t a p e was a d m i t t e d t o

g i v e c r e d i b i l i t y to t h e s i s t e r and m o t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y and thus

was a d m i s s i b l e . D e f e n d a n t claims t h e S t a t e ' s comment d u r i n g c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s

t h a t o n e p a r t i c u l a r wound had t o h a v e b e e n i n f l i c t e d w h i l e L a r r y

was l y i n g on h i s b a c k c o n s t i t u t e s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . Defendant

a r g u e s s i n c e t h e r e was no e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y d u r i n g t r i a l as to t h e

nature of t h e wound t h e comment was p r e j u d i c i a l . Defendant did

n o t o b j e c t t o the statement during c l o s i n g arguments. I t is w e l l

s e t t l e d t h a t o b j e c t i o n s t o c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s , made f o r t h e f i r s t

t i m e on appeal, come too late. Hawkins v . Crist (1978)r 178

Mont. 2 0 6 , 5 8 3 P.2d 396.

Defendant's l a s t claim is 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 b y

allowing the t e s t i m o n y of t h e m o t h e r and t h e s i s t e r when it was

revealed they suffered from m e n t a l , emotional and drug-related

illnesses. Defendant argues the trial court should have

disqualified the witnesses upon i t s own m o t i o n . Defendant did

n o t move t o disqualify the witnesses a t trial. This Court has

repeatedly held t h a t we w i l l not c o n s i d e r q u e s t i o n s of claimed

error not previously raised or presented to the trial court.

Northern Plains Resource C o u n c i l v. Board of Natural Resources

( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 1 Mont. 500, 521, 594 P.2d 297, 309; Hayes v . J.M.S.

Const. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 5 1 3 , 579 P.2d 1225.

J u d g m e n t is a£ f i r m e d . f We concur: