State v. Lozeau

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: September 9, 1982
• Docket: 82-132
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 82-132 IN THE SUPRE1,IECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . HERBERT RICHARD LOZEAU, Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lake Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge re siding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant:

K. M. rid ens tine, Polson, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Richard P. Heinz, County Attorney, Polson, Montana

Submitted on briefs: August 26, 1982 D!ecided: September 9, 1982 Filed: "P J @* ! ;

Y Clerk iqr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l delivered t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. D e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d and c o n v i c t e d of t h e crime of

a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l , and j u d g m e n t was entered thereon. Following d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r

a new t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s . W affirm. e

Although defendant phrases the issues on appeal in

t h r e e p a r t s , t h e b a s i c i s s u e p r e s e n t e d is t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e conviction--more specifically,

t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence t o support a finding t h a t t n e d e f e n d a n t was t h e a s s a u l t e r . Defendant Herbert Richard Lozeau was drinking at a

t a v e r n i n Ronan, Montana, on t h e e v e n i n g o f J u n e 5 , 1980. Several regular customers of the bar were there that evening: Donna "Chicken" Houle, Linda Stewart, Ignace C o u t u r e , George M i t c h e l l , John Saloway, Jeff Dance, Dennis Webster, Vonnie W e b s t e r , Gerald Cooper, and d e f e n d a n t R i c k Lozeau. D e f e n d a n t and Donna B o u l e , a l t h o u g h u n m a r r i e d , are

t h e p a r e n t s of a d a u g h t e r . D u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of the e v e n i n g , Gerald Cooper, the

a s s a u l t v i c t i m , became i n t o x i c a t e d . Cooper t o o k Donna H o u l e o u t t h e back d o o r o f t h e b a r i n t o t h e a l l e y a t t e m p t i n g t o g e t h e r t o g o o u t w i t h him, b u t s h e r e f u s e d and t h e y b o t h reentered the bar. At that time, the victim, Cooper, as-

s a u l t e d t h e two women, Donna Houle a n d L i n d a S t e w a r t . Donna l o s t c o n s c i o u s n e s s and f e l l t o t h e f l o o r , and L i n d a b e n t down on t h e f l o o r a t t e n d i n g t o h e r . Immediately after Cooper struck the women, Ignace C o u t u r e g r a b b e d C o o p e r ' s s h o u l d e r and t o o k him o u t t h e f r o n t door of t h e b a r . Saloway and t h e b a r t e n d e r f o l l o w e d them.

The bartender watched while Saloway and Cooper argued. C o u t u r e s t o o d i n f r o n t of Cooper t h e whole time w i t h h i s h a n d s on C o o p e r ' s s h o u l d e r s .

J u s t before the stabbing, the bartender, S t e v e iiloon,

saw t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p r o a c h i n g t h e g r o u p o u t s i d e . H e thought

the d e f e n d a n t was u p s e t t h a t h i s g i r l f r i e n d had b e e n s t r u c k

i n t h e b a r s o h e t o l d him t o t a k e i t e a s y . The b a r t e n d e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d h e t h o u g h t h e saw t h e d e f e n d a n t g o i n b e t w e e n J o h n S a l o w a y and G e r a l d Cooper who w e r e s t a n d i n g t h e r e a r g u - ing. He t h o u g h t t h e d e f e n d a n t was g o i n g t o h i t Cooper and

t h e n saw t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s arm move t o w a r d C o o p e r ' s s t o m a c h . J o h n S a l o w a y a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e saw a hand come i n

just b e f o r e Cooper grabbed h i s stomach s a y i n g , "I've been stabbed." The v i c t i m , C o o p e r , t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e e x p e r i e n c e d

a s h a r p p a i n w h i l e C o u t u r e was h o l d i n g h i s s h o u l d e r s and t a l k i n g t o him i n f r o n t of t h e b a r .

Saloway and t h e b a r t e n d e r saw t h e d e f e n d a n t g o b a c k i n t o tne bar. George M i t c h e l l , who h a d remained inside,

s a i d t h a t a f t e r R i c k went o u t t h e f r o n t d o o r t o where t h e g r o u p had g a t h e r e d , t h e n e x t t h i n g h e remembered was some-

body c h a r g i n g i n s a y i n g Cooper g o t s t a b b e d . After Cooper was stabbed, Couture took him to the hospital. The b a r t e n d e r closed the bar. Defendant walked home s e v e n o r e i g h t b l o c k s and p a s s e d o u t .

Cooper, the victim, testified that he was pretty i n t o x i c a t e d during t h e e v e n t s of t h a t e v e n i n g and d i d n o t remember a n y t h i n g t h a t h a p p e n e d i n s i d e t h e b a r w i t h r e s p e c t t o Donna Houle o r L i n d a S t e w a r t , n o r d i d h e remember a r g u i n g w i t h J o h n S a l o w a y o u t s i d e on t h e s i d e w a l k . H e d i d remember

experiencing a sharp pain in his s i d e while Couture was h o l d i n g h i s s h o u l d e r s and t a l k i n g t o him. No e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s t a b b e d C o o p e r .

The weapon was n e v e r f o u n d .

Based on f a c t s g a t h e r e d d u r i n g t h e p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a -

tion, d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e o f f e n s e o f aggravated

assault. He pled not guilty. Following trial, the jury

r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . Defen-

dant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with six

years suspended and credited with time served prior to

conviction.

D e f e n d a n t moved for a new t r i a l w h i c h was d e n i e d on

the ground that reasonable men might conclude the State

p r o v e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n beyond a reason-

a b l e doubt. This appeal followed.

W hold t h a t t h e evidence is s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e e

conviction. A conviction cannot be overturned when the

e v i d e n c e , viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u -

tion, would a l l o w any rational trier of fact t o find the

e s s e n t i a l elements of t h e c r i m e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t .

S t a t e v . Doney ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 636 P.2d 1377, 1383,

38 S t . R e p . 1 7 0 7 , 1 7 1 3 , and c a s e s t h e r e i n c i t e d . The S t a t e

is a i d e d by a s t r o n g p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r o f t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of the judgment. State v. Shurtliff (1981), Mont . , 635 P.2d 1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 6 , 38 S t . R e p . 1 7 9 8 , 1800. On a p p e a l

we v i e w a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e

State to determine whether it constitutes "such relevant

e v i d e n c e a s a r e a s o n a b l e mind m i g h t accept a s adequate to

support a conclusion" of guilt. S t a t e v. Wilson (1981),

Plont. , 6 3 1 P.2d 1273, 1278, 38 St.Rep. 1040,

1047. I n t h i s c a s e t h e S t a t e was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e beyond a reasonable doubt t h a t t h e defendant purposely or knowingly

c a u s e d s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y t o G e r a l d Cooper o r n e g l i g e n t l y c a u s e d b o d i l y i n j u r y w i t h a weapon. Section 45-5-202(1)(a) and ( b ) , MCA. The e l e m e n t of " p u r p o s e l y and k n o w i n g l y " was

established t h r o u g h t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e v o l u n t a r y m o t i o n

o f d e f e n d a n t ' s arm t o t h e v i c t i m ' s abdomen a n d s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e o f m o t i v e i n t e s t i m o n y f u r n i s h e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s drinking buddies and his girlfriend, Donna Houle, about Cooper s t r i k i n g Donna u n c o n s c i o u s j u s t m i n u t e s b e f o r e b e i n g

stabbed. The e l e m e n t o f " s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y " was s u p - plied by Dr. McDonald's testimony as to the gravity of

C o o p e r ' s wound and t h a t t h e wound was c a u s e d by a k n i f e w i t h a b l a d e a t l e a s t o n e and o n e - h a l f inches long.

Since there were no eyewitnesses who actually saw defendant s t a b Cooper in the abdomen and the weapon was

n e v e r f o u n d , c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o e s t a b - l i s h t h a t d e f e n d a n t s t a b b e d Cooper. W i t n e s s e s S t e v e Moon, George M i t c h e l l , J o h n S a l o w a y and I g n a c e C o u t u r e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e a s s a u l t i n f r o n t

of the bar. S t e v e Moon, t h e b a r t e n d e r , saw t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s

drm move t o w a r d C o o p e r ' s abdomen. J o h n S a l o w a y saw a hand

come i n q u i c k l y j u s t b e f o r e t h e v i c t i m g r a b b e d h i s s t o m a c h saying he had been stabbed. George Mitchell said that

s h o r t l y a f t e r d e f e n d a n t l e f t t h e b a r someone r a n b a c k i n t o the bar saying Cooper had been stabbed. Dr. McDonald t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of C o o p e r ' s i n j u r y a n d g a v e his e x p e r t m e d i c a l o p i n i o n t h a t t h e wound was c a u s e d by a knife. From t h i s t e s t i m o n y , c o n s i d e r e d c o l l e c t i v e l y , t h e j u r y c o n c l u d e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s t a b b e d Cooper w i t h a k n i f e . Sec- tion 26-1-501, MCA, permits the jury to make such inferences based on the facts proved. "The jury is not bound to blindly accept defendant's version of the facts. It is free to pick and choose the evidence it wishes to believe." State v. Sorenson (1980), Mont . , 619 P.2d 1185, 1194, 37 St.Rep. 1834, 1845. Defendant's contention that his conviction was based on speculation, conjecture or probability because no witness testified that he saw him stab Cooper is without merit. As we stated in State v. Shurtliff (1981), - Mont. , 635 P.2d 1294, 1297, 38 St.Rep. 1798, 1801, a case involving the assault of a prison guard with a dart in the back where no one saw the defendant throw the dart but motive and opportunity were established and his fingerprint was found on the dart, we said: "Defendant's contention that an eyewit- ness is necessary to uphold a conviction is without merit. Indeed, the criminal justice system would be hard pressed to have an eyewitness present at the scene of every crime."

Defendant also argues that the circumstances of the case demonstrate a number of credible theories other than the guilt of the defendant. He states that the circumstan- tial evidence applies with equal force against Couture, Saloway, Moon, Houle and Stewart. This is not correct. The evidence shows the motion of defendant's arm to the victim's abdomen and shows motive insofar as defendant is concerned, all of which is not true as to these other individuals. The issue of the sufficiency of the evidence boils down to the credibility of the State's circumstantial evi- dence versus the defendant's testimony. The jury by its verdict resolved this conflict in favor of the State. See, S t a t e v. Johnson ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - Mont . -, 6 4 1 P.2d 462, 466,

39 St.Rep. 419, 423, q u o t i n g S t a t e v. C o r s ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont.

3 2 3 , 396 P.2d 86. The j u r y ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t h e l d

a knife i n h i s hand when h e moved t o w a r d Cooper is a ra-

tional f i n a i n g of fact, b a s e d on t h e d i r e c t e v i d e n c e t h a t

d e f e n d a n t a p p r o a c h e d Cooper e x t e n d i n g h i s arm q u i c k l y t o w a r d

Cooper's abdomen; Cooper said, "I've been stabbed"; that

defendant immediately turned and left the scene of the

assault; and that Cooper's bodily injury was a serious,

p e n e t r a t i n g k n i f e wound i n t h e abdomen. When a l l t h e f a c t s

a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e examined c o l l e c t i v e l y , there i s sub-

s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , viewed i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e

S t a t e , p r o v i n g d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t .

Defendant's arguments t h a t h i s motion f o r d i s m i s s a l o r

acquittal at the close of the State's case and that the

t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e g r a n t e d h i s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l

o r f o r judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t k e v e r d i c t a r e a n s w e r e d by

the foregoing discussion and our finding of sufficient

evidence t o support the conviction.

Af f i r m e d .

Chief ~ u s t i c e \