No. 80-69
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN
THE STATE O MONTANA, F
P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,
VS . CLIFFORD LaMERE ,
D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d F o r t h e County o f C a s c a d e . H o n o r a b l e J o h n McCarvel, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
S a n d r a K. W a t t s a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
F o r Respondent:
H o n o r a b l e Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana S h e r i K. S p r i g g a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana J . F r e d Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana C a r r o l l Blend a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
Submitted: November 1 0 , 1980
~ecided: DEG 1 7 1 9 m ~iled: DEC I 7 1980 Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Cl i f f o r d LaMere a p p e a l s from a j u r y v e r d i c t f i n d i n g him g u i l t y of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 4 5 - 5 - 2 0 2 ( 1 ) ( ~ ) ,MCA. On t h e a f t e r n o o n of August 2 9 , 1 9 7 9 , t h e manager of A l b e r t s o n ' s grocery s t o r e in Great F a l l s noticed defendant removing numerous p l a s t i c bags from a r o l l i n t h e s t o r e . The manager asked d e f e n d a n t t o l e a v e . Defendant l e f t t h e s t o r e , h u t remained o u t s i d e t h e s t o r e , l o o k i n g i n . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , t h e complaining w i t n e s s , C h r i s Cal k i n s , a new bagboy a t t h e s t o r e , a c c i d e n t l y bumped i n t o d e f e n - d a n t on h i s way back i n t o t h e s t o r e . Defendant t u r n e d t o him w i t h a l a r g e k n i f e and held i t c l o s e t o t h e b a g b o y ' s stomach, s a y i n g , " I ' m going t o k i l l t h a t l i t t l e s . 0 . b . and I ' l l k i l l you i f you d o n ' t g e t t h a t mother f - - - - r . " The v i c t i m brushed by t h e d e f e n d a n t and walked q u i c k l y i n t o t h e s t o r e t o g e t Kimble W i l e y , " t h e l i t t l e s t p e r s o n " he c o u l d s e e . T a l k i n g r a p i d l y , he t o l d Wiley what had happened o u t s i d e . One of t h e c h e c k e r s i n t h e s t o r e o v e r h e a r d t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n between t h e v i c t i m and Wiley, and c a l l e d t h e manager. The d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d l a t e r t h a t day and charged with a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . He was c o n v i c t e d by a j u r y and t h e judge s e n t e n c e d him t o t e n y e a r s i n Montana S t a t e p r i son. Defendant p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s t o t h i s C o u r t . ( 1 ) Did t h e S t a t e s u s t a i n i t s burden of proving a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e v i c t i m d i d not t e s t i f y t o b e i n g i n immediate f e a r ? ( 2 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t judge e r r by not a l l o w i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t o ask p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s whether re1 a t i v e s o r f r i e n d s had e v e r been v i c t i m s of an a s s a u l t ? ( 3 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e ' s r e p e a t e d i n t e r r u p t i o n s of d e f e n s e counsel so p r e j u d i c e t h e r i g h t s of t h e d e f e n d a n t t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o a new t r i a l ?
T h e d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 5 - 5 - 2 0 2 ( 1 ) ( c ) ,
MCA, w h i c h p r o v i d e s i n p a r t :
" A person commits t h e o f f e n s e o f aggravated a s s a u l t i f he p u r p o s e l y o r k n o w i n g l y c a u s e s :
" ( c ) reasonable apprehension o f serious b o d i l y i n j u r y i n a n o t h e r b y u s e o f a weapon . . ." D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e S t a t e d i d n o t show t h a t t h e
v i c t i m was p l a c e d i n " r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n ," and t h e r e f o r e t h e
S t a t e d i d not prove t h a t element o f t h e crime. The t e s t i m o n y o f
t h e v i c t i m shows t h a t he was " s h o c k e d " a t the time of the
i n c i d e n t , b u t t h a t he was n o t a c t u a l l y c o n s c i o u s o f a n y f e a r
u n t i l a f t e r he w a l k e d away f r o m t h e d e f e n d a n t and r e a l i z e d w h a t
h a d happened. Defendant asks t h i s Court t o f i n d t h a t u n l e s s t h e
v i c t i m t e s t i f i e s t o an i m m e d i a t e f e a r o f b o d i l y i n j u r y t h a t t h e
d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t be c o n v i c t e d u n d e r M o n t a n a l a w .
A t t h e o u t s e t , we n o t e t h a t s e c t i o n 4 5 - 5 - 2 0 2 ( 1 ) ( c ) , MCA,
m a k e s no m e n t i o n o f t h e n e e d t o show t h a t an i m m e d i a t e f e a r was
aroused i n t h e v i c t i m . But defendant c a l l s t h i s Court's atten-
t i o n t o t h e e a r l y M o n t a n a c a s e o f S t a t e v. Barry (1912), 45 Mont.
598, 124 P. 7 7 5 , i n w h i c h t h i s C o u r t a p p r o v e d t h e c h a r g e t o t h e jury:
" [ A l n a s s a u l t i s any u n l a w f u l p h y s i c a l f o r c e p a r t l y o r f u l l y put i n motion which creates a reasonable apprehension o f immediate physical injury . . ." S t a t e v. B a r r y , s u p r a , 4 5 M o n t . a t 6 0 3 , 1 2 4 P. a t 7 7 6 - 7 7 7 .
" I m m e d i a t e f e a r i ' was n o t a t i s s u e i n t h a t c a s e . What was
i n q u e s t i o n was w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t c o u l d be f o u n d g u i l t y o f a s s a u l t when t h e v i c t i m d i d n o t e v e n k n o w t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was
p o i n t i n g a gun a t h i m . The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e v i c t i m was
never i n fear, and t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e r e c o u l d n o t be a n a s s a u l t ,
g a v e t h e c o u r t an o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e
assault statutes. The c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a i m i s t o
p r e v e n t b r e a c h e s o f t h e p e a c e , f o r when a v i c t i m i s p u t i n a p o s i t i o n o f k n o w i n g t h a t he may r e c e i v e a b l o w u n l e s s he s t r i k e s
i n self-defense, t h e n t h e v i c t i m may be p r o v o k e d i n t o b r e a c h i n g
t h e peace. S t a t e v. B a r r y , 45 Mont. a t 602-3, 1 2 4 P. a t 776.
S e e a l s o C. E. Torcia, W h a r t o n ' s C r i m i n a l Law, $ 1 8 0 ( 1 4 t h ed.
1979).
T h e B a r r y c o u r t f o u n d t h a t an u n l o a d e d g u n , as we1 1 as a
l o a d e d gun, c o u l d be u s e d t o c o m m i t an a s s a u l t b e c a u s e t h e
offense i s committed a t the time t h a t t h e
"party assaulted believces] i n the r e a l i t y of the attack. ..The t r u e r u l e i s t h a t t h e r e m u s t be some a d a p t a t i o n o f t h e means t o t h e e n d , and i t i s e n o u g h i f t h i s a d a p t a t i o n be a p p a r e n t , so a s t o impress o r alarm a person o f o r d i n a r y reason." S t a t e v. B a r r y , 4 5 M o n t a t 6 0 3 , 1 2 4 P. a t 776.
T h i s C o u r t does r e q u i r e t h e S t a t e t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t o
show t h e v i c t i m ' s s t a t e o f m i n d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a l l e g e d
assault. Without such evidence, it i s impossible f o r the j u r y t o
determine whether defendant's conduct placed t h e v i c t i m i n reaso-
nable f e a r o r apprehension o f serious b o d i l y i n j u r y . See S t a t e
v. Merseal (1975), 167 Mont. 412, 416, 5 3 8 P.2d 1366, 1368; State
v. Sanders (1971), 158 Mont. 1 1 3 , 1 1 7 , 4 8 9 P.2d 371, 373.
B u t t h i s C o u r t has n e v e r h e l d t h a t a showing o f i m m e d i a t e
f e a r i s t h e o n l y way t o p r o v e " r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n . " We
recognize that, as i n c i v i l a s s a u l t , "apprehension i s not the
same t h i n g as f e a r , " W. P r o s s e r , Law o f T o r t s $ 1 0 ( 4 t h ed 1 9 7 1 ) ,
a n d we a l s o r e c o g n i z e t h a t a v i c t i m may be p u t i n a p o s i t i o n ,
s u c h as t h e v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d t o h e r e , o f b e i n g so s t a r t l e d , or
shocked, or afraid, t h a t h i s r e a c t i o n i s a d e l a y e d one. The
" r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n " may be a r e s p o n s e t h a t t h e v i c t i m i s
n o t i n s t a n t l y aware o f , b u t h i s a c t i o n s may c l e a r l y show t h a t he
apprehends t h e r e a l i t y o f t h e attack. Here t h e v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d
t h a t he b r u s h e d o f f t h e d e f e n d a n t and h u r r i e d b a c k i n t o t h e
s t o r e , d o i n g j u s t as t h e d e f e n d a n t t o l d h i m . Kimble Wiley
t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e v i c t i m came r u n n i n g u p t o h i m and t h a t " h e was
talking a l i t t l e rapidly. You know, t r y i n g t o get it a l l out a t o n c e , y o u know." The v i c t i m h i m s e l f t e s t i f i e d t o t h e t y p e o f
r e a c t i o n t h a t he h a d :
"Q. T h a t i s what you t o l d M i s s Watts, i s t h a t r i g h t ? A. That I wasn't scared a t the time.
"Q. Yes. A. Yes.
"Q. What w e r e y o u f e e l i n g a t t h e t i m e ? A. I was j u s t r e a c t i n g , I w a s n ' t f e e l i n g r e a l l y nothing. Just t h a t I reacted.
"Q. A f t e r y o u d i d have a r e a c t i o n , what r e a c - t i o n was t h a t ? A. T h a t I c o u l d have g o t h u r t or killed.
"Q. O r killed? A. Yes.
"Q. When d i d y o u h a v e t h a t r e a c t i o n ? A. Right a f t e r I l e f t t h e person w i t h t h e k n i f e .
" Q . And y o u w e n t t o w a r n K i m b l e ? A. Yes."
On t h e b a s i s o f t h i s e v i d e n c e , we f i n d t h a t t h e j u d g e
c o r r e c t l y denied defendant's motion t o dismiss, and p r o p e r l y sub-
m i t t e d t h e case t o t h e j u r y . From t h e t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e
v i c t i m ' s n o n v e r b a l r e s p o n s e s and t h e v i c t i m ' s own t e s t i m o n y c o n -
cerning his reactions, t h e j u r y was a b l e t o make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n
t h a t t h e v i c t i m was r e a s o n a b l y a p p r e h e n s i v e o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y
injury. W w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h a t f i n d i n g b e c a u s e we f i n d t h a t e
i t i s supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. S t a t e v. Merseal , supra, 167 Mont. a t 415, 5 3 8 P.2d a t 1368.
The a p p e l l a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o a
f a i r t r i a l may h a v e b e e n p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e e x c l u s i o n o f a p a r -
t i c u l a r l i n e o f questions during v o i r dire. Defense counsel
asked t h e j u r o r s , "Have any o f you e v e r been a v i c t i m o f a
crime?" A l l j u r o r s w e r e p e r m i t t e d t o a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n and
discuss i t w i t h counsel. N e x t , c o u n s e l asked, "Any o f you e v e r
h a d f r i e n d s o r r e l a t i v e s who h a v e b e e n t h e v i c t i m of an a s s a u l t ? "
A f t e r two persons answered t h e q u e s t i o n , t h e t r i a l judge
interrupted:
"Iw i l l ask y o u now t o - - some o f t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s and a c e g e t t i n g s o b r o a d t h a t we c o u l d be h e r e a l l d a y f i n d i n g r e 1 a t i v e s o r a c q u a i n t a n c e s o f somebody who h a s been i n v o l v e d i n c r i m i n a l law. I w i l l ask y o u now t o c o n f i n e y o u r q u e s t i o n s t o t h e t h i n g s t h a t h a v e t o do w i t h t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r j u r o r s . " Counsel o b j e c t e d t o t h i s l i m i t a t i o n , and a b a n d o n e d t h e
l i n e of questioning. She now a r g u e s t h a t t h i s c a s e m i g h t h a v e
g o n e t o t h e j u r y w i t h a s i t t i n g j u r o r who h a d a c l o s e f r i e n d o r
r e l a t i v e who was t h e v i c t i m o f a n a s s a u l t , perhaps making i t
i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h a t j u r o r t o be o b j e c t i v e .
We f i n d t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e u n n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t e d v o i r
dire, b u t under t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case, we do n o t f i n d r e v e r s i b l e
error.
T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l o v e r r i d i n g p r i n c i p l e s t h a t m u s t be t a k e n
i n t o account i n assessing t h e e f f e c t o f t h e judge's r e f u s a l o f
questions during v o i r dire. The d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o an
i m p a r t i a l j u r y and t h e p u r p o s e o f v o i r d i r e i s t o e x p o s e a n y
possible biases. H a y n e s v. Missoula County (1973), 163 Mont.
270, 287-88, 5 1 7 P.2d 370, 380. I n c h o o s i n g an i m p a r t i a l j u r y ,
c o u n s e l must have wide l a t i t u d e i n q u e s t i o n i n g d u r i n g v o i r d i r e .
Y e t t h e t r i a l j u d g e m u s t a l s o be a b l e t o s e t r e a s o n a b l e l i m i t s on
voir dire. See B o r k o s k i v. Yost (1979), Mont. , 5 9 4 P.2d
688, 690, 3 6 St.Rep. 809, 812.
S e v e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s have c o n s i d e r e d t h e i s s u e r a i s e d by
appellant. D e s p i t e d i f f e r i n g c o n c l u s i o n s r e a c h e d as t o t h e
e x t e n t o f t h e q u e s t i o n s t h a t m u s t be a l l o w e d , t h e c o u r t s con-
s i d e r i n g t h e m a t t e r u n i f o r m l y agree t h a t t h e t r i a l judge should
m i n i m a l l y a l l o w a q u e s t i o n as t o w h e t h e r a n y p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r
has been a v i c t i m o f t h e c r i m e charged. U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Bradley
(2d C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) , 447 F.2d 224, 226; C o m m o n w e a l t h v. Davis (1978),
Pa. , 4 0 0 A.2d 1320, 1321.
Many c o u r t s h a v e f o u n d t h a t i t i s a l s o r e l e v a n t t o i n q u i r e
i n t o experiences of the j u r o r s ' i m m e d i a t e f a m i l y members w i t h
r e s p e c t t o t h e crime charged. Beyond t h a t l i m i t , it i s discre-
t i o n a r y w i t h t h e t r i a l j u d g e as t o w h e t h e r t o a l l o w q u e s t i o n s
about f r i e n d s , r e l a t i v e s o r c r i m e s o t h e r t h a n t h e one c h a r g e d .
U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Poole (3rd C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) , 4 5 0 F.2d 1082, 1083-1084.
We f i n d t h i s v i e w t o be p e r s u a s i v e . A p e r s o n who h a s h i m - self b e e n a v i c t i m o f t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d o r who h a s e x p e r i e n c e d
t h e c r i m e t h r o u g h a f a m i l y member's e x p e r i e n c e i s l i k e l y t o have
v e r y s t r o n g f e e l i n g s t o w a r d a d e f e n d a n t accused o f t h a t c r i m e ,
a n d a n y p o s s i b l e b i a s s h o u l d be e x p l o r e d d u r i n g v o i r d i r e .
However, i t i s not necessary f o r the t r i a l j u d g e t o a1 l o w
q u e s t i o n s as t o f r i e n d s and a c q u a i n t a n c e s . The t r i a l j u d g e d i d
n o t abuse h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e s t r i c t i n g q u e s t i o n s d i r e c t e d t o w a r d
jurors' f r i e n d s , b u t counsel s h o u l d have been a b l e t o q u e s t i o n
a b o u t i m m e d i a t e f a m i l y members as v i c t i m s o f a n a s s a u l t .
We n o t e t h a t c o u n s e l n e v e r posed a q u e s t i o n d i r e c t e d o n l y
a t t h e j u r o r s t h e m s e l v e s and t h e i r f a m i l i e s , n o r does c o u n s e l
b r i n g a n y e v i d e n c e t o t h i s C o u r t s h o w i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t was p r e -
j u d i c e d by t h e j u d g e ' s r e s t r i c t i o n s . T h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t presume
prejudice. If it d i d exist, i t i s i n c u m b e n t on d e f e n d a n t t o
b r i n g t h e e v i d e n c e o f p r e j u d i c e b e f o r e us. K u c h a n v. Harvey
(19781, Mont. , 5 8 5 P.2d 1298, 1301, 35 St.Rep. 1547, 1550. W f i n d no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n t h e j u d g e ' s e limitation.
A p p e l l a n t n e x t p r e d i c a t e s e r r o r on t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s
i n t e r r u p t i o n s d u r i n g v o i r d i r e and h i s i n t e r r u p t i o n s o f h e r
o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t and c l o s i n g argument. Counsel f o r appel l a n t
a r g u e s t h a t t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t o f t h i s c o n d u c t may h a v e b e e n
t o make t h e j u r y l o o k u n f a v o r a b l y u p o n t h e d e f e n d a n t , although
s h e a d m i t s t h a t t h e j u d g e was n o t o p e n l y h o s t i l e o r i n t e n t i o n a l l y
attempting t o p r e j u d i c e t h e defendant.
J u d i c i a l conduct o f a t r i a l can a f f e c t t h e s u b s t a n t i v e
r i g h t s o f a defendant. Annot., 6 2 ALR2d 1 6 6 . But t h e c o u r t a l s o
has a duty t o conduct t h e t r i a l i n a s p e e d y a n d f a i r m a n n e r and
h a s w i d e l a t i t u d e i n so d o i n g . S t a t e v. P i p p i (1921), 59 Mont.
1 1 6 , 1 2 3 , 1 9 5 P. 556, 558-59.
Among t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n s o f w h i c h d e f e n d a n t c o m p l a i n s a r e
several instances during v o i r dire. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e
t r i a l judge i n t e r r u p t e d both counsel several times, admonishing
t h e i r use o f " l a w s c h o o l q u e s t i o n s " w i t h t h e j u r y . The o t h e r i n s t a n c e was d i s c u s s e d a b o v e a n d i n v o l v e d t h e j u d g e ' s limitation
o f w h a t he f e l t t o be an o v e r l y - b r o a d question. A b s e n t an a b u s e
o f discretion, which i s n o t a l l e g e d here, t h e t r i a l judge has
great latitude i n controlling voir dire. Borkoski , supra,
Mont. , 5 9 4 P.2d a t 690, 36 St.Rep. a t 812.
The j u d g e a l s o i n t e r r u p t e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l d u r i n g h e r
opening statement, w a r n i n g h e r n o t t o argue t h e case. Although
a judge should not i n t e r r u p t the opening, so as t o p r e v e n t
defendant from o u t l i n i n g h i s defense, t h e t r i a l judge can stop
c o u n s e l f r o m g i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s o r a r g u i n g t h e case. S t a t e v.
Martinez (1980), Mont. , 6 1 3 P.2d 974, 982, 37 S t . R e p . 982,
991. Here t h e judge p r o p e r l y i n t e r r u p t e d counsel.
The l a s t i n t e r r u p t i o n o c c u r r e d a b o u t 2:30 p.m. during
c l o s i n g arguments. The j u d g e a s k e d c o u n s e l i f she w o u l d l i k e t o
t a k e t h e a f t e r n o o n recess o r c o n t i n u e t o argue. This interrup-
t i o n may h a v e b r o k e n t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f h e r a r g u m e n t , but it
a p p e a r s t h a t t h e j u d g e was o n l y a t t e m p t i n g t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e
t r i a1 . A l t h o u g h t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s numerous i n t e r r u p t i o n s o f
d e f e n d a n t ' s case, t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t m o s t o f t h e
i n t e r r u p t i o n s were warranted. C o u n s e l d o e s n o t a1 l e g e , and t h e
r e c o r d d o e s n o t show, t h a t t h e j u d g e ' s c o n d u c t o f t h e t r i a l was
m e a n t t o do a n y t h i n g b u t e x p e d i t e and f a c i l i t a t e t h e t r i a l . The
d e f e n d a n t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a new t r i a l .
The c o n v i c t i o n i s a f f i r m e d .
Chief Justice
/" We concur":