State v. Lozeau

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 \