State v. N. Stillsmoking ( 2020 )

06/16/2020
DA 18-0111
Case Number: DA 18-0111
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2020 MT 154
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
NATHAN LEE STILLSMOKING,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. BDC 17-355
Honorable Elizabeth Best, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Haley Connell Jackson, Assistant
Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Jeremiah Langston, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Joshua A. Racki, Cascade County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 22, 2020
Decided: June 16, 2020
Filed:
cir-641.—if
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Defendant and Appellant Nathan Lee Stillsmoking (Stillsmoking) appeals the
Sentencing Order and Judgment issued by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade
County, on December 21, 2017, following his conviction of Assault on a Peace Officer, a
felony, in violation of § 45-5-210(1)(b), MCA.
¶2 Stillsmoking raises three issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:
1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Stillsmoking of assault on a
peace officer.
2. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by conceding
that Stillsmoking used a weapon.
3. Whether the district court erred when it did not clarify a jury question.
¶3 We reverse on issue one and therefore do not address the other issues appealed by
Stillsmoking.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶4 Stillsmoking is friends with James Parker (Parker). Stillsmoking and Parker like to
mess around and pull pranks on each other by occasionally shooting slingshots and BB
guns at each other. On May 21, 2017, Parker shot Stillsmoking with a BB gun.
Stillsmoking was not hurt. The next evening, Stillsmoking was at home in his apartment
in Great Falls, waiting for Parker to pick him up. Stillsmoking had borrowed a broken BB
gun1 from a friend because he wanted to pull a prank on Parker when he arrived.
1
The parties alternately describe this as a “BB gun” and a “CO2 pellet gun” in their briefing. For
clarity, we refer to it as a BB gun throughout this opinion.
2
¶5 Earlier in the day on May 22, 2017, Stillsmoking had been at the Holiday Casino in
Great Falls. While at the casino, he spoke with Renae Beerman (Beerman), an employee
of the casino. Stillsmoking told Beerman that a couple of people in the casino owed him
money and he would return to the casino with a gun to collect from them. After
Stillsmoking left the casino, Beerman called the police and asked them to inform
Stillsmoking that he had been trespassed from the casino and was no longer welcome there.
Great Falls Police Sergeant Smail and Officers Garner and Wilberding responded to the
call. After the officers identified Stillsmoking on the casino’s surveillance footage, they
went to Stillsmoking’s apartment intending to inform him that he had been trespassed from
the casino.
¶6 Stillsmoking—unaware that he had been trespassed from the casino or that police
were on the way to his house—sat watching TV in his apartment and waited to pull his
prank on Parker. It was dark outside and Stillsmoking’s back was to the door. The front
door was open, but the screen door was shut. Stillsmoking heard someone approach the
front door, and, assuming it was Parker, stood up, grabbed the BB gun, spun around, aimed
the broken BB gun out the door, and yelled “come get you some!” Parker was not the
person outside the door, however, as it was actually Sergeant Smail coming to tell
Stillsmoking that he had been trespassed from the casino. Officers Garner and Wilberding
were also outside of Stillsmoking’s apartment but did not approach the door.
¶7 Sergeant Smail, seeing what appeared to be a gun pointed at him from inside of the
apartment, yelled to the other officers that there was a gun and retreated from the door,
3
fearing for his life. Sergeant Smail then called for backup. Stillsmoking ran away from
the apartment and was discovered hiding outside of a nearby residence by Sergeant Smail
a short time later. Stillsmoking stood up, read Sergeant Smail’s badge, and said, “[y]ou
got me, Smail.” Stillsmoking was arrested and charged with one count of assault on a
peace officer, one count of obstructing justice, and one count of disorderly conduct. The
charges of obstructing justice and disorderly conduct were dismissed before trial. After
arresting Stillsmoking, officers searched his apartment and discovered the broken BB gun
Stillsmoking had pointed at Sergeant Smail.
¶8 In November 2017, the matter went to trial on the single charge of assault on a peace
officer. Both Stillsmoking and Officer Wilberding testified that the BB gun was broken
and nonfunctional on May 22, 2017. Though it was uncontested that the BB gun did not
work, Stillsmoking’s counsel did not contest that Stillsmoking used a weapon during the
incident, instead focusing his defense on Stillsmoking not knowing he was pointing the BB
gun at a police officer because he was expecting it to be Parker outside of the door. The
jury found Stillsmoking guilty of assault on a peace officer. The District Court sentenced
him to eight years at the Montana State Prison with no time suspended. Stillsmoking
appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶9 This Court reviews de novo whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction. State
v. Daniels, 2019 MT 214, ¶ 27, 397 Mont. 204, 448 P.3d 511 (citing State v. Polak, 2018
MT 174, ¶ 14, 392 Mont. 90, 422 P.3d 112). There is sufficient evidence to support a
4
conviction if, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. Michelotti, 2018 MT 158, ¶ 9, 392 Mont. 33, 420 P.3d 1020
(citing State v. Clark, 2008 MT 419, ¶ 14, 347 Mont. 354, 198 P.3d 809).
DISCUSSION
¶10 1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Stillsmoking of assault on a
peace officer.
¶11 On appeal, Stillsmoking argues the State did not, and could not, present sufficient
evidence to convict him of assault on a peace officer because he did not use a “weapon”
during the incident. The State concedes Stillsmoking used “a nonfunctioning CO2 pellet
gun,” but argues Sergeant Smail only needed to have a reasonable apprehension
Stillsmoking had a weapon to meet the “use of a weapon” element in the assault on a peace
officer statute. We agree with Stillsmoking that use of an actual weapon is required for a
conviction pursuant to § 45-5-210(1)(b), MCA, and the non-operational BB gun does not
qualify as a “weapon” under the facts of this case.
¶12 In 1997, the Legislature created the new offense of assault on a peace officer or
judicial officer, separating it from the offense of felony assault. Section 45-5-210, MCA
(1997) (1997 Mont. Laws ch. 433, § 1). The 1997 felony assault statute provided that “[a]
person commits the offense of felony assault if the person purposely or knowingly causes:
(a) bodily injury to another with a weapon; or (b) reasonable apprehension of serious bodily
injury in another by use of a weapon.” Section 45-5-202(2), MCA (1997). “Weapon” was
5
statutorily defined as an “instrument, article, or substance that, regardless of its primary
function, is readily capable of being used to produce death or serious bodily injury.”
Section 45-2-101(76), MCA (1997). The assault on a peace officer or judicial officer
statute provided:
A person commits the offense of assault on a peace officer or judicial officer
if the person purposely or knowingly causes:
(a) bodily injury to a peace officer or judicial officer;
(b) reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury in a peace officer or
judicial officer by use of a weapon;
(c) bodily injury to a peace officer or judicial officer with a weapon; or
(d) serious bodily injury to a peace officer or judicial officer.
Section 45-5-210(1), MCA (1997). The assault on a peace officer statute has not been
amended since coming into force on April 29, 1997.
¶13 In the case of In re R.L.S., 1999 MT 34, 293 Mont. 288, 977 P.2d 967, R.L.S., a
minor, was charged in Youth Court with one count of misdemeanor disorderly conduct and
five counts of felony assault for causing reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in
another by use of a weapon for placing “a device which appeared to be a bomb” under a
sink in a restroom of his middle school. In re R.L.S., ¶ 3. The device was seen by five
people who believed it to be a real bomb and were concerned for their safety. The device
was not an actual bomb, however, but a fake bomb which R.L.S. intended as a practical
joke. In re R.L.S., ¶ 3. R.L.S. moved to dismiss the felony assault charges, asserting the
facts alleged in the State’s petition did not constitute the offense of felony assault because
6
the petition did not allege the device was a “weapon” as defined by § 45-2-101(76), MCA
(1997).2 In re R.L.S., ¶¶ 4, 6. The Youth Court denied R.L.S.’s motion to dismiss the
felony assault charges. In re R.L.S., ¶ 4.
¶14 On appeal, we reversed the Youth Court’s denial of R.L.S.’s motion to dismiss the
felony assault charges because he did not use a “weapon” as statutorily defined. We
concluded the statutory definition of “weapon” “clearly and unambiguously requires that
the device at issue actually be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.” In re
R.L.S., ¶ 18. Because R.L.S. did not use a “weapon,” he could not be convicted of an
offense which, by its plain language, required the use of a “weapon.” Though the State
argued that “a device constitutes a weapon if the victim is reasonably apprehensive that the
device is a weapon” in In re R.L.S., we disagreed and noted the “reasonable apprehension
of the victim pertains to whether the victim reasonably believes he or she will be seriously
bodily injured, not whether he or she subjectively believes that the device or instrument
used by the assailant is actually a weapon.” In re R.L.S., ¶¶ 13-14. The State makes much
the same argument in the present case, arguing that because Sergeant Smail believed the
broken BB gun was in fact a real gun, it constituted a “weapon” under the assault on a
peace officer statute. We give the same answer in this case that we did in In re R.L.S.—an
2
The statutory definition of “weapon” is now found in § 45-2-101(79), MCA. “Weapon” is still
defined as an “instrument, article, or substance that, regardless of its primary function, is readily
capable of being used to produce death or serious bodily injury.”
7
offense which requires the use of a “weapon,” by its plain language, must be committed
with a “weapon.”
¶15 Shortly after we decided In re R.L.S., the Legislature renamed the offense of “felony
assault” to “assault with a weapon” and modified its language:
A person commits the offense of assault with a weapon if the person
purposely or knowingly causes:
(a) bodily injury to another with a weapon; or
(b) reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury in another by use of a
weapon or what reasonably appears to be a weapon.
Section 45-5-213(1), MCA (1999) (emphasis added) (1999 Mont. Laws ch. 432, § 7). The
Legislature did not modify the language of the assault on a peace officer or judicial officer
statute. “In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and
declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been
omitted or to omit what has been inserted.” Section 1-2-101, MCA. “Where the statutory
language is plain, unambiguous, direct and certain, the statute speaks for itself and there is
nothing left for the court to construe.” State v. Running Wolf, 2020 MT 24, ¶ 15, 398 Mont.
403, 457 P.3d 218 (internal quotations and citations omitted). As such, while a person can
be convicted of assault with a weapon pursuant to § 45-5-213(1)(b), MCA, for using “what
reasonably appears to be a weapon,” a conviction for assault on a peace officer pursuant to
§ 45-5-210(1)(b), MCA, still clearly and unambiguously requires the “use of a weapon[.]”
¶16 Similar to the argument it made regarding the felony assault statute in In re R.L.S.,
the State now argues, “it would be illogical to examine ‘serious bodily injury’ based on the
8
victim’s reasonable apprehension and not do the same for ‘use of a weapon.’” The State
cites to State v. Steele, 2004 MT 275, 323 Mont. 204, 99 P.3d 210, and State v. Kirn, 2012
MT 69, 364 Mont. 356, 274 P.3d 746, for this contention; however, neither case provides
support for the State’s position that the “weapon” element of the assault on a peace officer
statute can be satisfied by an officer’s reasonable apprehension of a weapon when no
“weapon” exists. Both Steele and Kirn involved challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence after a conviction for assault on a peace officer pursuant to § 45-5-210(1)(b),
MCA. See Steele, ¶ 31; Kirn, ¶ 12. Both cases involved the “reasonable apprehension”
element of the offense when the assaulted officers did not actually see the weapon in
question.
¶17 In Steele, officers received information Steele was in possession of drugs and
firearms. Police obtained a search warrant for Steele’s residence, but attempted to get
Steele outside so they could search his residence peacefully. Steele fled from his residence,
pursued by Officer Baumann, until Steele turned, reached into his waistband, and a gunshot
rang out—Steele accidentally shot himself in the calf. Officer Baumann then saw Steele
drop a pistol. Officer Baumann tackled Steele and another pistol fell to the ground. Steele,
¶¶ 5-9. After his conviction, Steele challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing
Officer Baumann’s testimony at trial only supported that he feared serious bodily injury by
what reasonably appeared to be a weapon, because he did not see the pistol before the
gunshot rang out. Steele, ¶ 31. We held that the officer “did not actually have to see the
pistol Steele had on his person in order to feel threatened by use of the pistol.” Steele, ¶ 40.
9
The crucial difference between Steele and the present case is that the pistol used by Steele
met the statutory definition of a “weapon” pursuant to Montana law—“an instrument,
article, or substance that, regardless of its primary function, is readily capable of being used
to produce death or serious bodily injury.” Section 45-2-101(78), MCA (2001). The
broken BB gun used by Stillsmoking does not.
¶18 In Kirn, Billings Police Officers Keightley and Dierenfield responded to a noise
complaint at an apartment building in Billings. After speaking to the complainant, who
told the officers that loud television noises were coming from the apartment downstairs,
the officers went to Kirn’s apartment to speak with him about the noise. Kirn immediately
became agitated upon opening his door and seeing the officers and refused to turn the
volume on his TV down. Inside Kirn’s apartment, Kirn pushed Officer Keightley and then
walked away into a bedroom. Officer Keightley told Officer Dierenfield he thought Kirn
was going to get a gun. Kirn then reappeared in a “bladed stance” showing his left side
while obscuring his right hand. The officers believed Kirn had left to get a gun, so they
drew their weapons and shouted at Kirn to raise his hands. Kirn refused to raise his hands
until Officer Keightley warned Kirn he would shoot him. Kirn then raised his hands and
dropped a loaded shotgun. Kirn, ¶¶ 2-6. Kirn moved to dismiss the case for lack of
sufficient evidence, which the district court denied. Kirn, ¶ 7.
¶19 On appeal, Kirn argued the officers “could not have had reasonable apprehension
of serious bodily injury by use of a weapon because the officers did not see the shotgun
until Kirn dropped it in the chair” and “there was not sufficient evidence to prove
10
reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury, an essential element of the charge.” Kirn,
¶ 12. We upheld the district court’s denial of Kirn’s motion to dismiss for insufficient
evidence, finding “Officers Keightley and Dierenfield did not have to personally see the
weapon in order to experience reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury.” Kirn,
¶ 16. Just like in Steele, the crucial difference between Kirn and the present case is that
Kirn involved the use of a “weapon” as defined by the law of Montana—a loaded
shotgun—while Stillsmoking’s case does not. While there is no doubt that Sergeant Smail
reasonably believed he faced death or serious bodily injury when he was facing down what
appeared to be a gun held by Stillsmoking, that subjective fear cannot change the objective
fact that Stillsmoking’s broken BB gun was not a “weapon.” Accordingly, Stillsmoking
cannot be convicted of a violation of § 45-5-210(1)(b), MCA, because the statute, by its
plain language, requires the use of a weapon.
¶20 Finally, the State argues the In re R.L.S. “framework” is somehow not applicable in
light of our decision in State v. Smith, 2004 MT 191, 322 Mont. 206, 95 P.3d 137, where
we held:
[I]t is not technically correct that “use of a weapon” (or, presumably, what
appears to the victim to be a weapon) is a requisite element of the offense.
The crime of assault with a weapon may be established: (1) if a person uses
a weapon, or what reasonably appears to be a weapon, to cause reasonable
apprehension of serious bodily injury in the victim, or (2) if a person causes
reasonable apprehension that the victim will sustain serious bodily injury
from a weapon, if it reasonably appears to the victim that a weapon is
involved, whether actually seen or not.
11
Smith, ¶ 26. Beyond the simple fact that this Court’s In re R.L.S. “framework” involved
reading the statute and not inserting words which were not there—a practice which is not
only still applicable, it is one statutorily required by § 1-2-101, MCA—Smith is entirely
inapplicable to the present case as it involved this Court harmonizing its decisions
regarding the assault with a weapon statute, which contains the “reasonably appears to be
a weapon” language. The assault on a peace officer statute does not contain the “reasonably
appears to be a weapon” language, and this Court did not address the assault on a peace
officer statute in Smith at all. This Court’s analysis in Smith is simply not applicable to the
present case.
¶21 Just as we did in In re R.L.S., we conclude the § 45-2-101(79), MCA, “definition of
‘weapon’ clearly and unambiguously requires that the device at issue actually be capable
of producing death or serious bodily injury.” In re R.L.S., ¶ 18. If the Legislature intended
for the language of “what reasonably appears to be a weapon” to be found in the assault on
a peace officer statute it could have put it there. It did not. Because the broken BB gun
used by Stillsmoking in the incident was not actually capable of producing death or serious
bodily injury, he did not use a “weapon,” and, accordingly, cannot be convicted of assault
on a peace officer pursuant to § 45-5-210(1)(b), MCA. As no reasonable fact finder could
find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, Michelotti, ¶ 9,
Stillsmoking’s conviction must be vacated and the assault on a peace officer charge
dismissed. Because this issue is dispositive, we do not address Stillsmoking’s other
appealed issues.
12
CONCLUSION
¶22 Stillsmoking did not use a “weapon” pursuant to Montana law, and thus he cannot
be convicted of assault on a peace officer pursuant to § 45-5-210(1)(b), MCA.
Stillsmoking’s conviction for assault on a peace officer is therefore vacated and the case is
remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the charge with prejudice.
¶23 Reversed and remanded.
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
13