State v. Mummey ( 1993 )

NO. 93-165
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
Defendant and Appellant.
i:x '~;T;,:~(:~ I:, ,,,~- .,,~, ~/ ,.,:~ ?"
li !;::$.- i:i',:,, r~ :,y~;,,
.,:,.,l,t<``':~.'*,
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventeeth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Blaine,
The Honorable Leonard H. Langen, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Patrick F. Flaherty, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Honorable Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General:
John Paulson, Assistant Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
Donald Ranstrom, County Attorney, .Chinook, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: December 2, 1993
Decided: March 17, 1994
Filed:
Honorable Dorothy McCarter, District Judge, delivered the Opinion
of the Court.
Mike Mummey (Defendant) appeals from Blaine County District
Court orders denying his motions for directed verdict, and for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict after his conviction for
felony assault. We affirm.
On December 9, 1991, Raymond Miller, Merle Darling and Wade
Hillier drove to Montana from their home in Canada to visit friends
and purchase some equipment for a hot water tank. When they
arrived in Harlem, Montana, they stopped at the Nite Train Bar to
visit with Miller's friends and have some drinks.
A few blocks from the Nite Train Bar was Kennedy's Bar, where
Defendant was drinking with Joe Mohar and Louis "Ruddy" Mount.
Defendant and Mohar became disruptive and after being rebuked by
the bartender, they left Kennedy's and proceeded to the Nite Train
Bar.
At the Nite Train Bar, Defendant noticed the three Canadian
men and made a derogatory comment to the bartender, asking if the
men were "some of your pig farmer friends from up north." Mohar
saw one of the Canadians, Wade Hillier, talking to three local
women. Mohar went over to Hillier, shoved him away and, using
profane language, told him to get out of the way and leave his
women alone. Raymond Miller went over to Mohar and asked what the
problem was. Mohar replied with profanity, telling Miller that he
2
and his Canadian friends should get out of the bar and out of the
country.
The owner of the bar intervened and told Mohar to leave.
Mohar yelled to Defendant that he did not like Canadians, and
yelled to Miller that he would take him outside and fight him.
Mohar then left the bar. Defendant purchased some beer and a
bottle of liquor and also left the bar.
Miller remained in the bar for about five minutes, then left.
Merle Darling, who had not witnessed the shoving incident and the
exchange of words between Mohar and Miller, assumed that Miller was
going to Kennedy's, and decided to go see what was happening there.
When he opened the front door of the Nite Train Bar to leave,
Darling saw Miller lying on the street on his back, being kicked by
Defendant and Mohar. Darling charged into Defendant and Mohar in
an attempt to get them off Miller. Darling was knocked to the
ground by a blow and then was kicked four or five times in the
head. One kick struck him in the mouth. When the assailants left,
Darling got up, checked Miller, and returned to the bar to get
help.
Darling was cut and bruised, and his false teeth were
shattered. Miller suffered severe facial injuries, including
injuries to his eyes. As a result of the severe beating, Miller
suffered a memory lapse and could not recall the events that led to
his injuries. Darling testified that he was hit in the teeth with
3
what felt like boots, but he did not see whose boots they were.
Defendant testified that he wore tennis shoes that night.
During the trial, Ruddy Mount and Defendant both testified
that Defendant did not participate in the beating of Miller. Mount
testified that Defendant attacked Darling as he walked out of the
bar. Defendant testified that he intercepted Darling in order to
keep him out of the fight; he stated that Mount kicked Darling and
he, Defendant, attempted to stop Mount from doing so.
Defendant was charged with two crimes: aggravated assault
(Count 1) upon Raymond Miller, and felony assault (Count 2) upon
Merle Darling. The case proceeded to trial and, at the close of
the State's case, Defendant moved for a directed verdict as to both
counts. The motion was denied. On September 23, 1992, the jury
returned its verdict, finding Defendant not guilty of aggravated
assault and guilty of felony assault. Defendant moved for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict. That motion was also denied. At the
sentencing hearing the District Court deferred imposition of
sentence for three years and placed Defendant on probation, subject
to certain conditions.
There are two assignments of error on appeal:
1. That the court erred in refusing to grant the motion for
directed verdict; and
2. That the court erred in refusing to grant the motion for
judgment N.O.V.
The issues raised in these motions are twofold:
4
1. Whether the tennis shoes worn by Defendant were a weapon
under the assault statute; and
2. Whether the language in the felony assault count of the
information precluded the jury from convicting Defendant of that
count after acquitting him of aggravated assault.
Standards of Review
Section 46-16-403, MCA, permits the district court to dismiss
a criminal action at the close of the prosecution's case when the
evidence is insufficient to support a finding or verdict of guilty.
This Court has construed this statute to mean that *"a verdict of
acquittal may be directed in favor of the defendant on@ if no
evidence exists upon which to base a guilty verdict.'" State v.
Haskins (1992), 255 Mont. 202, 210, 841 P.2d 542, 547 (quoting
State v. Christofferson (1989), 238 Mont. 9, 11, 775 P.2d 690, 692)
(emphasis in original). The Court has repeatedly stated that a
defendant is entitled to an acquittal if reasonable persons could
not conclude from the evidence taken in the light most favorable to
the prosecution that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. See State v. Doney (1981), 194 Mont. 22, 29, 636 P.2d 1377,
1381; Haskins, 841 P.2d at 547 (citing State v. Laverdure (1990),
241 Mont. 135, 785 P.2d 718).
The standard of review for a trial court's refusal to grant a
defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is whether,
after reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
5
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This is
the same standard of review used by the Court to determine the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction. State v.
Bower (1992), 254 Mont. 1, 6, 833 P.2d 1106, 1110.
The decision to direct a verdict at the close of the State's
case lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and is not
disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. See State
v. Graves (1990), 241 Mont. 533, 535, 788 P.2d 311, 313.
The statutes governing practice and procedure in criminal
proceedings do not provide for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict. cf. Rule 50(b), (c), (d), M.8.Civ.P. However, § 46-16-
702, MCA, permits a defendant to move for a new trial following a
verdict of guilty, and under this statute, the district court may
modify or change the verdict by finding the defendant guilty of a
lesser included offense or finding the defendant not guilty.
Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict will be
deemed one made under that section.
The standard of review of a district court's ruling on a
motion for new trial is whether the district court abused its
discretion. State v. Gambrel (1990), 246 Mont. 84, 91, 803 P.2d
1071, 1076.
Issue 1.
Defendant argues that the State failed to prove with
sufficient evidence that his footwear was a weapon under the felony
6
assault statute. In chambers, while arguing the motion for
directed verdict, Defendant conceded that he had been fighting with
and had committed 'Ia technical assault" on Merle Darling, but
argues that the State had failed to identify the weapon. He
further argues that the tennis shoes, which Defendant wore during
the assault, are not weapons as defined in the statute because they
are incapable of producing serious bodily injury.
Section 45-2-101(71), MCA, defines "weapon" as "any
instrument, article, or substance that, regardless of its primary
function, is readily capable of being used to produce death or
serious bodily injury." One of the elements of felony assault upon
Darling -was use of a weapon. Section 45-5-202(2)(a), MCA.
"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a
substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent
disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function or
process of any bodily member or organ. It includes serious mental
illness or impairment. Section 45-2-101(59), MCA.
Whether a weapon was used in the commission of a criminal
assault is a factual element to be determined by the jury. The
test for sufficiency of the evidence with respect to a factual
element of a crime is whether any rational trier of fact could have
found that element beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Evans
(1991) I 247 Mont. 218, 224, 806 P.2d 512, 516.
The statute defining "weapon" for purposes of the assault
statutes must be construed according to the plain meaning of the
7
language therein. See State ex rel. Woodahl v. District Court
(1973), 162 Mont. 283, 292, 511 P.2d 318, 323. When the language
of the statute is plain, unambiguous, direct and certain, the
statute speaks for itself and there is nothing left for the court
to construe. Hammill v. Young (1975), 168 Mont. 81, 85-86, 540
P.2d 971, 974. The language of f, 45-2-101(71), MCA, is broad
enough to include any instrument that although not dangerous per se
may be considered a weapon, depending on its manner of use and the
circumstances in which it is used.
Many jurisdictions have adopted this approach, when
considering shoes as weapons. See Jones v. Commonwealth (Ky.
1953), 256 S.W.2d 520 (shoes may be regarded within the term
"deadly weapon" when employed in such a manner as may be reasonably
calculated to produce great bodily injury or death); Medlin v.
United States (D.C. Cir. 1953), 207 F.2d 33, cert. denied, (1954)
347 U.S. 905 (shoes are dangerous weapons when they inflict serious
injury): United States v. Barber (D. Del. 1969), 297 F. Supp. 917,
aff'd, (3rd Cir. 1971), 442 F.2d 517; State v. Born (Minn. 1968),
159 N.W.2d 283; Hay v. State (Okla. Crim. App. 1968), 447 P.2d 447
(shoes are not dangerous weapons per se but the manner of their use
might make them so); Johnson v. State (Miss. 1970), 230 So. 2d 810;
People v. Hale (Mich. Ct. App. 1980), 292 N.W.2d 204, vacated on
other arounds, (Mich. 1980) 298 N.W.2d 421; State v. Wraggs (MO.
Ct. App. 1973), 496 S.W.2d 38, cert. denied, (1974) 414 U.S. 1160.
In Commonwealth v. Polydores (Mass. Ct. App. 1987), 507 N.E.2d
8
775, rev. denied, (Mass. 1987) 509 N.E.2d 1202, the defendant,
wearing running shoes, kicked the victim repeatedly, causing a
fractured nose, black eyes and bruises. The court held that the
evidence at trial was sufficient to support a conviction of assault
with a dangerous weapon. In State v. Munoz (La. Ct. App. 1991),
575 So. 2d 848, cert. denied, (La. 1991), 577 So. 2d 1009, the
defendant kicked the victim while wearing tennis shoes, causing
serious injuries. The tennis shoes qualified as a dangerous weapon
within the meaning of the aggravated battery statute.
Kicking with a tennis shoe clad foot presents a question for
the jury whether Defendant employed a weapon, under all the
circumstances surrounding the incident. See e-c;. Hale, 292 N.W.2d
at 205; Johnson, 230 So. 2d at 811; Polvdores, 507 N.E.2d at 776.
To rule that a tennis shoe is not a weapon as a matter of law would
deprive the jury of this important fact-finding function. The
inquiry here is not whether the tennis shoe is a weapon per se, but
whether, under the circumstances of the assault and the manner in
which it was used, it was a weapon. Accordingly, the State was
required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ordinarily
harmless footwear was used in such a way that rendered it readily
capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.
This holding is consistent with our prior decisions addressing
weapons. In State v. Evans (1991), 247 Mont. 218, 806 P.2d 512, we
affirmed the jury finding that a stun gun was a weapon. In State
v. Howard (1981), 195 Mont. 400, 637 P.2d 15, we upheld a finding
9
that pantyhose was a weapon where it was used to strangle the
victim. In State v. Klemann (1981), 194 Mont. 117, 634 P.2d 632,
a glass ashtray was properly found to be a weapon, when the victim
was struck on the head with it repeatedly. In State v. Matson
(19871, 227 Mont. 36, 736 P.2d 971, a pellet gun qualified as a
weapon when the defendant pointed it at the victims and threatened
them.
Defendant refers to State v. Deshner (1977), 175 Mont. 175,
573 P.2d 172, in urging us to declare that a tennis shoe is not a
weapon. In that case, the victim was struck in the face with a
projectile while he was in his car. He testified that he was not
aware of exactly what had hit him and was not sure if the
projectile had been propelled by a slingshot; nor did he know who
flung the projectile at him. The defendant stated that he had shot
at the victim's car, but was not sure that he had actually struck
the victim. No other witnesses were called to show that the victim
had been struck by a projectile fired from a slingshot or that
defendant had fired a projectile at the victim, even though there
were two other individuals in the victim's car at the time of the
incident. Neither the slingshot nor the projectile was introduced
into evidence. The record was barren of any testimony that the
slingshot-projectile combination was in fact a weapon capable of
producing death or bodily injury, and the victim suffered only a
bruise. We held that the testimony when taken as a whole failed to
prove that the assault was committed with a weapon "capable of
10
being used to produce death or serious bodily injury.98 Deshner,
573 P.2d at 174.
In the instant case, the victim, Merle Darling, testified that
he was kicked repeatedly with what he thought was a boot, because
it felt like one. Defendant testified that he wore tennis shoes
that night, and introduced them into evidence. Darling sustained
various facial injuries, including shattering of his dentures,
cutting of his gums and the inside of his lip, cuts above the eyes
and behind the ears, and bruised arms, shoulders and ribs. The
jury had sufficient evidence, therefore, to find that Defendant had
kicked Darling with a tennis shoe, and that based on the
circumstances of the assault and the resulting injuries sustained
by Darling, the tennis shoe was readily capable of causing serious
bodily injury.
Issue 2
Defendant asserts that the jury's verdict as to the felony
assault count should be reversed, because the language in that
count referred to the occurrence in the aggravated assault count,
of which he was acquitted. Specifically, Defendant asserts that
the jury verdict of guilty on Count 2 but not guilty on Count 1 is
inconsistent because the language in Count 2 describes the footwear
as the same used in the assault against Raymond Miller in Count 1.
The information contained the following language, which was
included in Jury Instruction Number 5:
11
Count II
The Defendant, on or about December 9, 1991,
committed the offense of Felony Assault, a Felony, in
that he did purposely or knowingly cause bodily injury to
another with a weapon, to-wit: Defendant knocked Merle
Darling to the ground and kicked him in the head with
footwear which caused pain, bruising, contusions and
broken teeth to Merle Darling. Said footwear was the
same as used on Raymond Miller and was readily capable of
being used to produce death or serious bodily injury as
evidenced by injuries caused to Raymond Miller as set
forth in Count I.
During their deliberations, the jury presented questions to
the court, one of which was:
If the defendant is found guilty on Count II do we
have to find him guilty on Count l? Since the bottom
line on Court's #5 page 1 indicates that the footwear was
the same as used on Raymond Miller.
ANSWER: No.
It is well settled that the only purpose of an information is
to let the defendant know what he is charged with having done, so
that he can prepare his defense. State v. Straight (1959), 136
Mont. 255, 263, 347 P.2d 482, 487; State v. D.B.S. (1985), 216
Mont. 234, 238, 700 P.2d 630, 633. Incorporating the information
in instructions to the jury is not error where it contains
basically statutory language that applies to the crime of which the
defendant is charged. State v. Riley (1982), 199 Mont. 413, 430,
649 P.2d 1273, 1281-82; State v. McKenzie (1980), 186 Mont. 481,
507-08, 608 P.2d 428, 444-45, cert. denied, (1980) 449 U.S. 1050.
The language of the information that was incorporated into
Instruction 5 did not redefine the elements of the crime of felony
12
assault, nor did it change the nature of the offense or the burden
of proof. It merely contained surplus language about the footwear
used by Defendant. That same instruction specifically instructed
the jury that each count in the information charged a distinct
offense, that they must decide each count separately, and that the
Defendant may be found guilty or not guilty of any or all of the
offenses charged. It also enumerated the individual elements of
each of the offenses charged, as well as the applicable
definitions.
This Court has previously held that each instruction must be
viewed in the context of the overall charge. If all instructions
reviewed as a whole, fairly and accurately present the case to the
jury, the fact that one instruction, standing alone is not as full
as it might have been is not reversible error. @-l-p.& 649 P.2d at
1281.
The jury's question concerning the surplus language in Count
2 indicated some confusion which was adequately cleared up by the
court in its answer. In view of all of the instructions given to
the jury, the surplus language contained in Count 2 of the
information did not invalidate the verdict.
Defendant refers to State v. Later (Mont. 1993), 860 P.2d 135,
50 St.Rep. 1099. In that case, the defendant was charged with
official misconduct, but the information charged the crime under
the wrong statutes. The district court submitted an instruction to
the jury that quoted the language of the correct statute. We held
13
that this amendment of the information was reversible error,
because the change was substantive to the charge, and thus deprived
the defendant of adequate notice of the crime charged and of the
opportunity to defend himself. Later, 860 P.2d at 137. In the
instant case, the language in Count 2 simply refers to footwear
used against another victim as described in Count 1. It does not
substantively affect the elements of the crime of felony assault.
In his reply brief, Defendant raised the issue of whether the
judge's answers to jury questions during the deliberations were
prejudicial and inaccurate. This issue was raised for the first
time in Defendant's reply brief, and is thus not proper for
consideration. Rule 23, M.R.App.P.
In summary, we conclude that the issue of whether the tennis
shoe used by Defendant in the assault in Count 2 was a weapon was
properly a question of fact for the jury. The jury's finding that
a weapon was used in the assault was supported by the evidence.
The surplus language in Count 2, which was given to the jury in an
instruction, did not invalidate the jury's verdict of guilty as to
that count.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
libn. Don >th$ McCarter, Diarict
Judge, sitting in place of
Justice James C. Nelson
14
We concur:
Justices
15
Justice Terry N. Trieweiler dissenting.
This case involves nothing more than a barroom argument
between two drunks which resulted in a fight outside the bar
between defendant and his accuser. No one was seriously injured in
the fight, and the purported victim was, by his own admission, the
aggressor. Yet, as a result of that fight, defendant stands
convicted of a felony for which the potential penalty is ten years
in prison and a $50,000 fine.
While the historical effort to bring law and order to the west
is commendable, this case is a classic example of judicial
acquiescence in prosecutorial overkill and should be a cause of
alarm to all Montana citizens. This "case of the deadly sneaker"
merits further discussion.
I dissent from the majority opinion for two reasons: First,
the State produced insufficient evidence to prove felony assault
pursuant to § 45-5-202(2)(a), MCA, and our prior decision in sfatev.
Deshner (1977), 175 Mont. 175, 573 P.2d 172. Second, if what
constitutes a "weapon" for the purpose of satisfying the elements
of the felony assault statute can be established on a case-by-case
basis after the act complained of was committed, and can be
construed so broadly as to include a tennis shoe, then I believe
the statute under which defendant was convicted is unconstitutional
in violation of Article I, Section 10, of the United States
Constitution which prohibits expostfacto laws, and is impermissibly
16
vague in violation of the Due Process Clauses of the Federal and
State Constitutions.
Other than the nature of the alleged VUweaponlV that was used by
defendant, the facts in this case are practically indistinguishable
from the facts which we held required reversal of the defendant's
conviction in Deshner. In that case, the defendant was charged with
aggravated assault under the same provisions which now form the
felony assault statute. In that case, the victim testified that
while he was driving his car he was struck in the jaw by some kind
of projectile. He was not aware of exactly what had hit him, nor
who had flung the projectile. The only evidence regarding his
physical condition was that he observed blood and admitted himself
to the emergency room at the hospital. The only evidence
connecting the defendant and a VVweapon'* to the incident was
testimony from an investigating officer to the effect that the
defendant confessed to him following the incident that he fired two
shots with a slingshot at the victim's automobile.
On appeal, Deshner contended that there was no proof that the
slingshot which was used was capable of producing death or serious
bodily injury, and therefore, proof was absent on an essential
element of the crime of aggravated assault. That is exactly the
nature of the proof which was required to convict defendant of
felony assault in this case, and which was not produced. As the
basis for reversing the defendantis conviction in the Deshner case,
this Court stated that:
17
The cumulative effect of the testimony offered at
trial, taken in the light most favorable to the state
does not prove that the assault was committed with a
weapon "capable of being used to produce death or serious
bodily injury." Even if we assume that the use of a
slingshot was adequately proven, the record is barren of
any testimony that the slingshot-projectile combination
was in fact a weapon capable of producing death or bodily
injury. No evidence was presented concerning the size,
weight or shape of the projectile which struck the victim
nor the velocity at which the slingshot was capable of
propelling such projectile. The evidence indicated that
VanDenBos received a bruise on the jaw requiring no
hospitalization and that no bones were broken. Such
proof falls far short of establishing an assault with a
weapon capable of being used to produce death or serious
bodily injury as required by statute.
Deslaner , 573 P.2d at 174.
In this case, the nature of proof was remarkably similar.
There were oniy three witnesses to the altercation which formed the
basis for the felony assault charge against defendant. They were
the participants in the altercation, Merle Darling and defendant,
and Louie Mount, who testified after receiving immunity from
prosecution. Mount's and defendant's accounts of what happened
were substantially different than Darling's. They described an
altercation with both men rolling around on the ground flailing at
each other with both arms and feet. While the jury was entitled to
disregard the testimony of Mount and defendant, they apparently
gave it some weight because defendant was acquitted of any assault
on Raymond Miller. That acquittal was inconsistent with the
testimony of Darling, and consistent with testimony from Mount and
defendant.
18
However, even if Darling's testimony is accepted in its
entirety, it provided no more proof than was established by the
State in Deshner.
Darling testified that prior to the altercation, he had
consumed nine or ten beers that evening, but was not sure because
he was not counting. When he came out of the Rite Train Bar he
alleged that he charged defendant and another to "clean them
characters off of Raymond." However, when he got to the fight
scene someone knocked him down, although he did not know who. He
testified that after he was on the ground he believes he was kicked
by two people, but admitted that after being knocked down he was
not 100 percent clear of what happened.
He reported sustaining bruises, several lacerations, and that
his false teeth were shattered, although he did not know who
knocked his teeth out. He testified that he did not feel any of
the injuries he sustained amounted to serious bodily injury and did
not report ever being admitted to the hospital for observation or
treatment.
He did not recall having any altercation with Louie Mount,
even though Mount admitted kicking Darling's arm free from
defendant in order to extricate defendant from the fight. He was
not sure what kind of footwear anyone was wearing.
Defendant did offer into evidence the tennis shoes he stated
he was wearing that evening, but there is no indication in the
record of their size, weight, composition, or how they were more
dangerous than a bare foot--if they were.
19
AS in Deshner, the above evidence falls "far short of
establishing an assault with a weapon capable of being used to
produce death or serious bodily injury," and therefore, falls far
short of the proof required to convict under Montana's felony
assault statute. Certainly any injuries sustained by Darling's
companion, Raymond Miller, cannot support defendant's conviction.
Furthermore, defendant was acquitted of any assault on Miller.
Deshner has never been reversed nor modified. The Deshner
decision makes good sense. It should control the outcome in this
case.
Furthermore, but just as importantly, Montana's felony assault
statute provides no notice to anyone that an article of clothing as
apparently harmless as a tennis shoe, when involved in what would
appear to be a simple misdemeanor assault, would increase the
gravity of the offense from one that would normally be punishable
by a maximum fine of $500 and imprisonment for six months under
5 45-5-201, MCA, to a felony punishable by a fine of up to $50,000
and imprisonment for a period of up to ten years. Because no
rational person would understand that the consequence of his
conduct is so markedly different depending on whether he kicked
someone with a bare foot or a foot covered with a thin layer of
canvas, any statute which allows such unexpected consequences is
impermissibly vague, and therefore, void because it violates the
Due Process Clauses of the Montana and United States Constitutions.
20
We have previously held that a statute can violate the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and
Article II, Section 7, of the Montana Constitution, if it is
unconstitutionally vague. Statev. Woods (1986), 221Mont. 17, 22, 716
P.2d 624, 627.
The issue of VaguenessVq with regard to a statute or
ordinance can be raised in two different connotations:
(1) whether it is so vague the law is rendered void on
its face; or (2) if it is vague as applied in a
particular circumstance.
The general rule is that a statute or ordinance is
void on its face if it fails to give a person of ordinary
intelligence fair noticethathis contemplated conduct is
forbidden by statute. UnitedStatesv. Harris (1954), 347 U.S.
612, 74 S. Ct. 808, 98 L. Ed. 989.
CityofChoteauv.Joslyn (1984), 208 Mont. 499, 505, 678 P.2d 665, 668.
I conclude that the combination of 55 45-5-201 and -202(2)(a),
MCA, are unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts in this
case because a person of ordinary intelligence would not know where
misdemeanor assault leaves off and felony assault begins.
According to the majority's opinion, such a distinction can only be
made on an after-the-fact, case-by-case basis.
The majority's decision says, in effect, to the public: "We
can't define exactly what felony assault is but we know it when we
see it." The problem is that with this approach no citizen will
ever know ahead of time whether by engaging in a simple barroom
fight they are exposing themselves to charges of misdemeanor
assault or felony assault. If a participant strikes someone with
his fist, can he assume that he is committing a misdemeanor? On
21
the other hand, if he wears a glove and commits the same act with
no greater damage to the victim, is he then exposing himself to
imprisonment for a period 20 times greater and a fine 100 times
greater? Why would any rational person assume those facts to be
true ahead of time?
Would striking someone with a hand constitute the use of a
weapon? If so, then what kind of assault would ever rise to the
level of a simple misdemeanor? Would it be a misdemeanor to strike
someone with a hand, but a felony to strike someone with your foot?
Would it be a misdemeanor to strike someone with a bare foot, but
a felony to strike someone in the exact same way causing no greater
harm when that same foot is covered with a lightweight pliable form
of canvas? If so, why? And, what basis would the average citizen
have for assuming these distinctions to be true?
In light of this decision, should there be a five-day waiting
period and should backgrounds be checked before a person can
purchase tennis shoes? Are tennis shoes protected by the Second
Amendment? Can we look forward to a new round of slogans such as:
"Tennis shoes don't kill people. People kill people." Should
children be allowed to wear tennis shoes, or only adults?
The majority's case-by-case, after-the-fact approach to
distinguish between the commission of a misdemeanor and a felony is
exactly what was prohibited by the United States Supreme Court in
Bouie v. City of Columbia (1964), 378 U.S. 347, 84 S. Ct. 1697, 12
L. Ed. 2d 894. In that case, several African-American citizens
entered an all-white lunch counter in Columbia, South Carolina.
22
There were no signs nor notices posted which prohibited their
entry. However, they were not served and were asked to leave.
They refused to do so and were charged with, among other things,
criminal trespass. They were convicted of that offense and their
conviction was affirmed by the South Carolina Supreme Court. The
terms of the statute pursuant to which they were convicted
prohibited "entry upon the lands of another . . . after notice from
the owner or tenant prohibiting such entry . . . .'I Bouie, 378 U.S.
at 349-50. However, the South Carolina Supreme Court construed the
statute to prohibit not only entry on the premises of another, but
also the act of remaining on the premises of another after
receiving notice to leave.
The defendants in that case appealed their conviction to the
United States Supreme Court on the grounds that the statute did not
provide fair warning to them that their conduct was a violation of
the law and that when the South Carolina Supreme Court construed
the statute as it did, they were punished for conduct that was not
criminal at the time they committed it, and therefore, their rights
under the Due Process Clause were violated. The Supreme Court
agreed. It pointed out that:
The basic principle that a criminal statute must
give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime
has often been recognized by this Court. As was said in
United States v. Harrks, 347 U.S. 612, 617,
"The constitutional requirement of
definiteness is violated by a criminal statute that
fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence
fair notice that his contemplated conduct is
forbidden by the statute. The underlying principle
23
is that no man shall be held criminally responsible
for conduct which he could not reasonably
understand to be proscribed.*'
Thus we have struck down a state criminal statute under
the Due Process Clause where it was not "sufficiently
explicit to inform those who are subject to it what
conduct on their part will render them liable to its
penalties." Conna&v. General Comt. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391.
We have recognized in such cases that "a statute which
either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms
so vaguethatmen of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application,
violates the first essential of due process of law,” ibid.,
and that "No one may be required at peril of life,
liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of
penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to
what the State commands or forbids." Lanzetta v. New Jersey,
306 U.S. 451, 453.
Bouie, 378 U.S. at 350-51 (footnote omitted).
The Supreme Court pointed out that the typical application of
the vagueness doctrine was to situations where the language of the
statute itself was either vague or over-broad. However, in
language relevant to the situation in this case, the Court pointed
out that a statute can be made vague by its judicial application.
The Court held that it was equally objectionable from a
constitutional standpoint when a statute "precise on its face" is
ll'unforeseeably and retroactively expanded by judicial construction
. . . . 1 II B o u i e , 378 U.S. at 352. The Court stated that:
There can be no doubt that a deprivation of the
right of fair warning can result not only from vague
statutory language but also from an unforeseeable and
retroactive judicial expansion of narrow and precise
statutory language. As the Court recognized in Piercev.
lhited States, 314 U.S. 306, 311, "judicial enlargement of
a criminal Act by interpretation is at war with a
fundamental concept of the common law that crimes must be
defined with appropriate definiteness."
24
Bouie , 378 U.S. at 352.
In fact, the Court pointed out that when courts unforeseeably
expand criminal liability, as the majority has done in this case by
judicial interpretation, more than the Due Process Clause is
offended. Such after-the-fact expansion of criminal liability also
violates Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution
which prohibits expostfacto laws. In that regard, the Supreme Court
stated:
Indeed, an unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a
criminal statute, applied retroactively, operates
precisely like an expostfacto law, such as Art. I, !j 10, of
the Constitution forbids. An expostfacto law has been
defined by this Court as one "that makes an action done
before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when
done, criminal: and punishes such action," or "that
aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when
committed. II Calder v.Bull, 3 Dali. 386, 390. If a state
legislature is barred by the I3 Post Facto Clause from
passing such a law, it must follow that a State Supreme
Court is barred by the Due Process Clause from achieving
precisely the same result by judicial construction. Cf.
Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553, 565. The fundamental
principle that "the required criminal law must have
existed when the conduct in issue occurred,'* Hall,
General Principles of Criminal Law (2d ed. 1960), at
58-59, must apply to bar retroactive criminal
prohibitions emanating from courts as well as from
legislatures. If a judicial construction of a criminal
statute is "unexpected and indefensible by reference to
the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in
issue," it must not be given retroactive effect. I d . , a t
61.
. . . When a similarly unforeseeable state-court
construction of a criminal statute is applied
retroactively to subject a person to criminal liability
for past conduct, the effect is to deprive him of due
process of law in the sense of fair warning that his
contemplated conduct constitutes a crime. Applicable to
either situation is this Court's statement in Brinkerhoff-
Faris[Tnlst&Sav. Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673, 6781, that "if the
25
result above stated were attained by an exercise of the
State's legislative power, the transgression of the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would be
obvious," and "The violation is none the less clear when
that result is accomplished by the state judiciary in the
course of construing an otherwise valid . . . state
statute." Id., at 679-680.
Bouie , 347 U. S. at 353-55 (footnote omitted).
Likewise, in this case, the majority’s decision was an
unforeseeable enlargement of a criminal statute. It takes an act
that any reasonable person would assume was a simple misdemeanor
assault and makes it a felony punishable by ten years imprisonment
based on a judicial decision ren'dered after the act occurred.
Had defendant and Darling engaged in a simple barroom fight
during which Darling was kicked by defendant, but from which
Darling's injuries were no greater than they were in this case,
defendant would never have been charged with felony assault, and
this Court would never have affirmed a conviction for felony
assault had he been so charged. This charge and this decision are
simply the result of accusations that defendant committed other
aggressive acts of a much more serious nature, but which were never
proven and for which defendant was acquitted. This case is a
classic example of bad facts resulting in bad law.
For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the
District Court. I would, as the majority did, construe defendant's
post-trial motion as a motion for a new trial pursuant to
5 46-16-702, MCA, and pursuant to that motion, I would modify the
verdict by finding defendant guilty of the lesser included offense