No. 12468

I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A OR F OTN

1973

STATE O MONTANA, F

P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

-vs - ROBEY HATFIELD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant :

S a n d a l l , Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana K. D. T o l l i v e r argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana

For Respondent :

. Hon. Robert L Woodahl , Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. C. Weingartner, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Diane G. Barz argued, Deputy County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana

Submitted: October 2 , 1973 Decided : DEC 7 1973 - Filed : DEc - 7 1973

I Clerk Hon. Edward T. Dussault, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

Defendant Robey N. H a t f i e l d was convicted of murder i n t h e f i r s t degree by a j u r y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Yellowstone. He was sentenced t o l i f e imprisonment. From t h i s c o n v i c t i o n , he a p p e a l s . H a t f i e l d , a 68 y e a r o l d c o l l e g e g r a d u a t e , i n t h e l a s t few y e a r s had a s s i s t e d h i s 53 y e a r old w i f e , Eva, i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of a c a f e i n B i l l i n g s . I n t h e l a t e a f t e r n o o n of A p r i l 8 , 1972, an a c q u a i n t a n c e , S t a n l e y McMillian, age 45, came t o t h e c a f e f o r a cup of c o f f e e , a s he had done many times p r e v i o u s l y . A t about 5:30 p.m. the c a f e was c l o s e d and H a t f i e l d , Eva, a male cook, and McMillian had c o f f e e t o g e t h e r a f t e r Eva had r e t u r n e d from a s h o r t shopping trip. H a t f i e l d announced he was going home t o check on t h e i r son, Robey H a t f i e l d , Jr., w i t h whom t h e p a r e n t s had had some trouble i n the l a s t year. Mrs. H a t f i e l d s a i d she was going w i t h McMillian and a s s i s t him i n f i n d i n g h i s g i r l f r i e n d , C a r o l i n e , and t h a t s h e would be home e a r l y . H a t f i e l d d i d go t o t h e i r home b u t found t h e son a b s e n t . He s t a y e d a t home, d i d some r e a d i n g , watched TV, t h e n f e l l a s l e e p . A t about 10:OO p.m. he was awakened by a telephone c a l l from one of t h e i r w a i t r e s s e s , i n q u i r i n g whether she should come t o 1

work t h e n e x t day. H a t f i e l d then dozed o f f a g a i n and l a t e r was awakened by a telephone c a l l , b u t by t h e time he answered i t t h e c a l l i n g p a r t y had hung up. He a g a i n awakened around 1 1 : O O p.m. and f i n d i n g h i s w i f e was n o t home, he d r e s s e d , put on h i s o v e r c o a t and h a t and p u t a . 2 2 c a l i b e r r e v o l v e r i n h i s overcoat pocket. I n s e a r c h of h i s w i f e and McMillian, H a t f i e l d went t o s e v e r a l b a r s , had one d r i n k on t h e way, then went t o t h e C r y s t a l Lounge, e n t e r i n g by t h e back e n t r a n c e , a r r i v i n g t h e r e about mid- night. H i s w i f e was s i t t i n g w i t h McMillian i n a booth. She n o t i c e d H a t f i e l d and waved t o him t o come over. H a t f i e l d went t o t h e booth and s a t n e x t t o h i s w i f e , f a c i n g McMillian. Harsh words were had between H a t f i k l d and h i s w i f e about h e r n o t coming home and running around w i t h M i l l i a n . There was t a l k of a divorce. McMillian asked H a t f i e l d t o come s i t b e s i d e him, a s he wanted t o t a l k t o him a s a f r i e n d . He t r i e d t o e x p l a i n what h e and M r s . H a t f i e l d were doing t o g e t h e r , and t r i e d t o convince H a t f i e l d t h a t they had attempted t o c a l l him s e v e r a l times t h a t evening. I n doing s o , McMillian grabbed h at field's arm and s a i d : "sit down, I want t o t a l k t o you a s a f r i e n d " . To which H a t f i e l d replied, "YOU a r e no f r i e n d of mine, you son-of-a-bitch, you a r e w i t h m wife." y A f t e r s e v e r a l a t t e m p t s t o g e t H a t f i e l d t o remain s e a t e d and a f t e r tugging on h i s overcoat t o t h e e x t e n t i t p a r t l y came o f f h i s l e f t s h o u l d e r , H a t f i e l d stood up a t t h e end of t h e booth t a b l e , took t h e p i s t o l from h i s pocket and f i r e d f i v e s h o t s , two h i t McMillian and k i l l e d him almost i n s t a n t l y . Hatfield then s a t down, put t h e gun on t h e t a b l e and awaited a r r i v a l of the police. Following h i s a r r e s t H a t f i e l d gave a s t a t e m e n t t o t h e p o l i c e , s t a t i n g he "intended t o k i l l him and put him o u t of h i s misery. 'I A w i t n e s s i n t h e booth n e x t t o t h a t where t h e crime occurred t e s t i f i e d he heard H a t f i e l d s t a t e he meant t o k i l l Mc- Millian. Defendant urges t h a t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e t r i a l t e s t i - mony r e v e a l e d c e r t a i n f a c t s which gave r i s e t o t h e p o s s i b l e presence of t h e defense of s e l f - d e f e n s e . He s t a t e s t h e p o s s i b l e e x i s t e n c e of s e l f - d e f e n s e was n o t a t a l l a p p a r e n t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e p r e t r i a l investigation. Accordingly, a t t h e conclusion of t h e t r i a l defense counsel offered an i n s t r u c t i o n a s t o self-defense. The county a t t o r n e y o b j e c t e d on t h e ground t h e r e was no evidence introduced and no n o t i c e of s e l f - d e f e n s e was given. The t r i a l c o u r t r e f u s e d t h e offered instruction. Defendant p r e d i c a t e s h i s a p p e a l t o t h i s Court f o r a

r e v e r s a l of h i s c o n v i c t i o n and t h e g r a n t i n g of a new t r i a l on t h e grounds t h a t t h e n o t i c e requirement of s e c t i o n 95-1803(d), R.C.M. 1947, although h e l d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , can b e a p p l i e d un- constitutionally i n certain factual situations, particularly those i n t h i s c a s e . Defendant contends t h e p r e t r i a l s t a t e m e n t s of s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s d i d n o t c o n t a i n s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o show t h e a l l e g e d II violence" and " a l t e r c a t i o n " between t h e deceased and h i m s e l f , and f o r t h a t r e a s o n he could n o t r a i s e t h e a f f i r m a t i v e defense. The statement of w i t n e s s Charles Kuchera was i n p a r t : "Wayne H y s j u l i e n a n d 1 met Wally Anderson a t t h e C r y s t a l Lounge about 11:45 p.m. Saturday n i g h t t h e 8 t h of A p r i l , 1972. ?t *9 Roby was doing most : of t h e t a l k i n g . Eva d i d n ' t y e l l and t h e o t h e r man wasn' t saying anything. b Jx ; * t h e r e is trouble i n t h e n e x t booth ** 9 r i g h t behind u s , t h e y a r e : fighting ** I heard him [ H a t f i e l d ] s a y , 'Get your hands o f f of m and l e t m g o ' . e e *** I could s e e t h a t something was going on, l i k e w r e s t l i n g . * 1 Jx *I a l s o heard him say [McMillian] t o H a t f i e l d why d o n ' t you s h u t up, s i t down and l e t m t a l k e t o you a s a f r i e n d ' ** *.I'

A t t r i a l , M r . Kuchera t e s t i f i e d i n p a r t : "Q. And when t h e y were having t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n was t h e defendant, M r . H a t f i e l d , s i t t i n g b e s i d e M r . McMillian7 A. Yes, ma'am. "Q. Did you s e e them w r e s t l i n g ? A. Never. "Q. Did you s e e M r . McMillian j e r k i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ? A. I d o n ' t t h i n k I could c l a s s i f y i t a s a j e r k i n g motion. II Q. Well, can you t e l l t h e J u r y what you d i d s e e , how i t happened? A. I-- A s I s a i d , I d i d n ' t make myself a s p e c t a c l e t o t u r n around and s t a r e a t t h e e n t i r e t y , b u t when I d i d t u r n around I was looking over m shoulder and M r . H a t f i e l d s t a r t e d t o , l i k e y he was going t o g e t up, move away, and M r . McMillian grabbed hold of h i s shoulder and s a i d , 'Come on, s i t down, I want t o t a l k t o you.' "Q. Did he a c t v i o l e n t ? A. M r . McMillian9

"Q. Yes. A. No. ' Q Was he speaking loudly? A. I d o n ' t ---Well, i t was loud enough t h a t I could h e a r i t , b u t i t was no shout. I t was nothing t h a t would have prob- x a b l caught anyone's o r t h e e n t i r e b a r ' s a t t e n t i o n , no. The statement given by w i t n e s s Walter Anderson was, i n part : I' W s a t i n a booth n e x t t o a man and woman and our e booth was j u s t west of t h e i r s . J ** : I was f a c i n g towards t h e w e s t and could s e e t h e back of t h e l a d i e s head who I have been t o l d was Eva H a t f i e l d . I could n o t s e e t h e man t h a t was s i t t i n g a c r o s s from Eva v e r y w e l l , b u t I could s e e t h a t he was wearing g l a s s e s and I could s e e h i s shoulder. *** I saw *** t h e man Roby, s e a t e d on t h e o t h e r s i d e of t h e booth along s i d e of t h e man w i t h g l a s s e s and h i s overcoat was p u l l e d o f f of one shoulder *** I n o t i c e d t h e c o a t on H a t f i e l d b e i n g p u l l e d down. *** t h e r e was going t o be t r o u b l e . lI Anderson's testimony a t t r i a l was, i n p a r t : "Q. N w what kind of t r o u b l e were you speaking o about when you t o l d t h e barmaid t h a t t h e r e i s going t o b e t r o u b l e ? A. Well, I j u s t thought t h a t t h e r e was going t o be a f i g h t o r something, I j u s t d i d n ' t know what was going t o t a k e p l a c e . "Q. When you say f i g h t , do you mean a f i s t f i g h t ? A. Well, some t r o u b l e , yes.

"Q. So what you observed i n your own mind you were concerned because t h e r e might b e p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e i n t h e booth n e x t t o you. A . Yes, s i r . I I The s t a t e m e n t given by w i t n e s s Wayne H y s j u l i e n was, i n part: 11 When t h i s man f i r s t came i n , I could t e l l t h a t he was very angry by t h e tone of h i s voice. I heard t h i s man s a y t h a t he wanted a d i v o r c e t h e n e x t day. J J 9: Then t h i s man t h a t d i d t h e s h o o t i n g : :

s t o o d up and s a i d I am g e t t i n g o u t of h e r e and t h e n t h i s man t h a t was s h o t p u l l e d him down i n t h e booth. Then t h i s o t h e r man s a i d you t a k e your hands o f f of m r i g h t now. J e : ** Then I heard t h i s man t h a t d i d t h e shooting s a y , 'Take your hands o f f of me.' I looked over t o s e e what was going on and I saw t h i s . man shoot t h r e e times b u t I d o n ' t have any i d e a where t h e t h r e e s h o t s went. I I ~ y s j u l i e n ' stestimony a t t r i a l was: "Q. Did you observe o r h e a r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s t o n e of v o i c e t h a t n i g h t ? A. Yes, i t was angry t o n e of voice. "Q. Was i t loud? A. Not o v e r l y loud. Q . But you could h e a r ? A. Yes.

I'Q. What gig you h e a r t h e defendant s a y ? A . I heard him say/%hat he was a gentleman and he kept h i s hands o f f of o t h e r women. Also, l e t ' s s e e . That he wanted a d i v o r c e t h e n e x t day o r was t o g e t one. II Q. Was h e s i t t i n g r i g h t b e s i d e Eva H a t f i e l d a t t h a t time? A . Yes. "Q. Did t h e man t h a t got s h o t , S t a n l e y McMillian, d i d he say a n y t h i n g t h a t you could h e a r ? A,. Only t h e confirmation of h e r saying t h a t she had c a l l e d him.

"Q. A t what p o i n t d i d t h e defendant s t a n d up and s i t down b e s i d e t h e v i c t i m , d i d you s e e t h a t ? A . Y e s , when he s a i d t h a t he wanted t o t a l k t o him a s a friend. "Q. S t a n l e y McMillian s a i d t h a t ? A. Yes. "Q. And d i d you s e e how he s a t down, was he p u l l e d down'! A. He was p u l l e d down.

"Q. A f t e r he was p u l l e d down b e s i d e S t a n l e y Mc- M i l l i a n , could you h e a r any more c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t went on? A. He s a i d , 'Let g o 1 . He asked him t o l e t go. "Q. Mr. Hatfield said that? A.. Yes.

"Q. Did you s e e t h e defendant g e t up and t r y and g e t away s e v e r a l times? A. Once. I1Q. You saw him g e t up only once? A. I saw him only t r y t o p u l l away once. "Q. And when he p u l l e d away what d i d h e do? A. He j u s t s a i d t o s i t down and t r i e d t o p u l l him back down i n t h e booth. "Q. Was he p u l l i n g a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o a t a t t h a t time? A. Yes, on t h e arm of h i s c o a t . 11 Q. Was he b e i n g v i o l e n t ? A. No. "Q. Did i t sound l i k e he was t h r e a t e n i n g t h e defendant? A. No. II "Q. Did you s e e them w r e s t l e ? A. No. ~ e f e n d a n t ' sp r e t r i a l statement w a s , i n p a r t : "About 10:OO p.m., I s t a r t e d g e t t i n g mad because Eva was n o t home and about 12:00 I took a .22 r e v o l v e r and loaded i t w i t h 8 rounds of high c a l i b e r magnum ammunition. A f t e r I loaded t h e gun, I put i t i n m y r i g h t h a n d overcoat pocket and went o u t looking f o r Eva. ** 9: I walked i n t o t h e C r y s t a l , I saw Eva w i t h McMillian and she waved a t m e . I went over and s a t down b e s i d e h e r ** McMillian i n t e r r u p t e d us w h i l e we were t a l k i n g and s a i d t h a t he wanted m t o s i t on h i s s i d e . I moved over and e s a t down b e s i d e McMillian Jc *9~ he grabbed me. I t o l d him t o l e t go, which he d i d 2k* * McMillian grabbed m a g a i n and r e l e a s e d m and t h e t h i r d time e e t h a t he j e r k e d me; I t o l d him i f you do t h a t a g a i n , y o u ' l l be s o r r y . I p u l l e d t h e r e v o l v e r out of m y pocket and s h o t him. I was n o t t r y i n g t o h u r t him, and I s h o t him u n t i l he was dead. I intended t o k i l l him and put him o u t of h i s misery." A t t r i a l defendant t e s t i f i e d i n p a r t : "A. * * I g o t up and s t a r t e d t o go and he s a i d , 'Why d o n ' t you s i t down over h e r e w i t h m and t a l k ? ' e * 7k So I s a t down over t h e r e and he s t a r t e d t o grab ahold of m arm and c o a t and j e r k e d me over y toward him and n o t t o o roughly, b u t rough enough s o he bothered up m c o a t , and m arm 9~ ik y y *. "Q. How d i d he j e r k you over t h e r e , M r . H a t f i e l d ? A. Well I would s a y t h a t t h e f i r s t time t h a t he j u s t took ahold of m c o a t and s l e e v e and a r m and y pulled it. *** t h e f i r s t time w a s n ' t too mild. The second time was q u i t e v i o l e n t , and I would say much more than was n e c e s s a r y a t a l l *** I said, ' I d o n ' t c a r e f o r you. **I d o i ' t want t o h e a r anything you have g o t t o say a t a l l . * * 9: There i s n o t h i n g t h a t you could p o s s i b l y t e l l m t h a t would e i n t e r e s t m f o r f i v e minutes. e ** 9~ I f you keep on b o t h e r i n g me you a r e going t o b e more than s o r r y ' , and t h e t h i r d time when he p u l l e d m over t o him e why he g o t h i s arm around m neck s o r t of i n a y t w i s t i n g ugly h o l d , you might c a l l i t , and j e r k e d me over t o him v i o l e n t l y and w e l l , you might c a l l i t roughhouse *** and p u l l e d m over t o him very e v i o l e n t l y and very c r u d e l y and I was q u i t e s u r p r i s e d . I s a i d , 'Okay, t h a t ' s t h e way you f e e l about i t , ' s o I g o t up, unlatched m c o a t , took o u t m gun and y y s h o t him. I' W f a i l t o s e e where t h e testimony a t t r i a l made a b e t t e r e c a s e f o r s e l f - d e f e n s e than d i d t h e p r e t r i a l s t a t e m e n t s . Neither '1 r e v e a l e d "violence" o r an a l t e r c a t i o n " t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t Hat- f i e l d a c t e d under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a r e a s o n a b l e f e a r t h a t someone was going t o be murdered o r s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d . There was no evidence from w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e s t a t e t h a t H a t f i e l d d i d t h e k i l l i n g i n f e a r , n o r d i d he himself t e s t i f y t h a t he a c t e d under any f e a r of harm. I n S t a t e v. Brooks, 150 Mont. 399, 410, 436 P.2d 91, t h i s Court had t h e same i s s u e b e f o r e i t . There we s a i d : "Under Montana law i f a homicide i s t o be j u s t i f i e d by s e l f - d e f e n s e t h e r e must b e evidence t h a t t h e p a r t y k i l l i n g a c t e d under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a reason- a b l e f e a r t h a t someone was going t o be murdered o r seriously injured. [Citing a u t h o r i t i e s ] I n t h i s case t h e r e i s no evidence whatever t h a t t h e defendant a c t e d under a r e a s o n a b l e apprehension of d e a t h o r g r e a t b o d i l y harm. The w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e S t a t e gave no i n d i - c a t i o n t h a t t h e defendant d i d t h e k i l l i n g i n f e a r n o r d i d t h e defendant himself c l a i m t h a t he a c t e d under any f e a r of harm. II I n s t r u c t i o n s must have r e l a t i o n t o t h e f a c t s given i n a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . S t a t e v. Evans, 60 Mont. 367, 199 P. 440. Although i n s t r u c t i o n s may s t a t e a c o r r e c t p r i n c i p l e of law, i f they a r e n o t based upon o r i n conformity w i t h t h e i s s u e s o r f a c t s r a i s e d o r supported by t h e evidence t h e y ought n o t t o be given. S t a t e v. Smith, 57 Mont. 563, 190 P. 107; S t a t e v. M i t t e n , 36 Mont. 376, 92 P. 969. I n t h i s c a s e Judge McClernan was c o r r e c t i n r e f u s i n g t o i n s t r u c t on s e l f - d e f e n s e . 1 1 I n S t a t e v. Eisenman, 155 Mont. 370, 374, 472 P.2d 857, t h e defendant d i d g i v e n o t i c e of i n t e n t i o n t o r e l y on s e l f - d e f e n s e pursuant t o s e c t i o n 95-1803(d), R.C.M. 1947. Defendant t h e r e o f f e r e d s e v e r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s on s e l f - d e f e n s e . The t r i a l c o u r t r e f u s e d them on t h e grounds t h a t t h e r e was no evidence presented t h a t supported such a t h e o r y . This Court a f f i r m e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , saying: I' According t o a p p e l l a n t ' s own v e r s i o n , she saw h e r husband waving a gun i n t h e i r home and looking 'goofy'. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she t r i e d t o disarm him and i n t h e ensuing s c u f f l e and w r e s t l i n g match, he was s h o t f i v e times! A t b e s t s h e was claiming a c c i d e n t a l shooting. She never claimed t h a t she s h o t i n defense of anything. There simply i s no evidence s u p p o r t i n g a s e l f - d e f e n s e theory. 1 1 For t h e foregoing reasons we cannot a g r e e w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s contention, A f t e r c a r e f u l r e a d i n g of t h e t r a n s c r i p t and s t a t e m e n t s , we f i n d t h e undisputed f a c t s prove t h a t defendant could n o t have a v a i l e d himself of t h e defense of s e l f - d e f e n s e . Having found no i s s u e of s e l f - d e f e n s e , t h e c l a i m of un- c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y a s t o s e c t i o n 95-1803, R.C.M. 1947, i s n o t b e f o r e us. Ho~irever, f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s m a t t e r s e e : S t a t e ex rel. Sikora v. D i s t r i c t Court, 154 Mont. 241, 462 P.2d 897; S t a t e v. Bentley, 155 Mont. 383, 472 P.2d 864; S t a t e ex r e l . K r u t z f e l d t , Mon t . 9 - P. 2d - , 30 St.Rep. 993; Williams v. F l o r i d a , 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L ed 2d 446; Radford v. Stewart 320 F.Supp. 826 472 F.2d 1 6 1 Wardius v. Oregon, , 37 2 ed 2d 82 tI-973). -U. S. - 9 93 S.Ct. The judgment of c o n v i c t i o n i s a f f i r m e d .

Hon. Edward T. Dussault, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison. Justices.