STATE v O DONNELL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12111 I N T E SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA H F 1972 THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - DAN PEL EDWARD 0 ' DONNELL , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Holland, Holland and Haxby, B u t t e , Montana. Leonard J , Haxby argued, B u t t e , Montana, For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. David V. Gliko argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Lawrence G, S t i m a t z , County Attorney, B u t t e , Montana. J. Brian Tierney, Deputy County Attorney, B u t t e , Montana. Submitted: Decided : February 15, 1972 ApR 1 4 1972 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court . Defendant was convicted of mans l a u g h t e r by j u r y v e r d i c t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e second j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , S i l v e r Bow County, t h e Hon. James D. Freebourn, judge p r e s i d i n g , and sentenced t o seven y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e p e n i t e n t i a r y . From t h a t v e r d i c t and judgment, defendant a p p e a l s . O t h e n i g h t of A p r i l 10-11, 1970, a t approximately 12:37 n a.m., t h e B u t t e f i r e department received a c a l l r e q u e s t i n g i t t o proceed t o d e f e n d a n t ' s home w i t h a r e s u s c i t a t o r . Upon a r r i v a l , t h e firemen found d e f e n d a n t ' s s t e p s o n , t h r e e year old Donald Cuchine, i n a s t a t e of apparent l i f e l e s s n e s s . The f i r e m e n ' s a t t e m p t s t o r e v i v e t h e c h i l d were u n s u c c e s s f u l s o they rushed him t o t h e h o s p i t a l , where he was pronounced "dead on a r r i v a l " . A v i s u a l examination and an i n t e r n a l autopsy of t h e body revealed: t h e boy's body was covered w i t h b r u i s e s and h i s stomach was d i s t e n d e d ; t h e r e was one group of b r u i s e s t h a t f i t t h e p a t t e r n of a p e r s o n ' s knuckles; t h e boy had received p r i o r i n j u r i e s t o h i s r i b s ; and, t h e r e was a n adhesion o r s c a r t i s s u e on t h e mesentery i n d i c a t i n g a n old wound. A coroner's inquest determined d e a t h r e s u l t e d from t h e r u p t u r e of t h e l a r g e blood v e s s e l i n t h e mesentery, which caused t h e boy t o bleed t o d e a t h internally. bleeding. The d i s t e n d e d stomach was a r e s u l t of t h e i n t e r n a l F u r t h e r , t h e c o n s i s t e n c y of t h e blood i n t h e stomach c a v i t y i n d i c a t e d t h e hemorrhage had occurred j u s t t e n minutes p r i o r t o death. Both defendant and h i s w i f e , C a r o l , were away from home t h e evening of A p r i l 1 0 , 1970. T h e i r c h i l d r e n , i n c l u d i n g Donald, teen-age had been Left i n t h e custody of t w o l b a b y s i t t e r s , Leland Docken and Mike Mazzola. 11:30 p . m . , couch. When defendant r e t u r n e d home a l o n e around young Donald Cuchine was a s l e e p on t h e l i v i n g room Defendant then drove t h e two b a b y s i t t e r s home, l e a v i n g Donald unattended. Both of t h e b a b y s i t t e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t when defendant r e t u r n e d home he appeared t o have been d r i n k i n g and was i n a "mean mood". They a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t when they l e f t d e f e n d a n t ' s home t h e house was n e a t and o r d e r l y and Donald Cuchine d i d n o t have any b r u i s e s on h i s f a c e . The events following d e f e n d a n t ' s r e t u r n t o h i s home, a f t e r t a k i n g t h e b a b y s i t t e r s home, a r e somewhat confused and t h e testimony i s c o n f l i c t i n g . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r he r e t u r n e d home he had been watching t e l e v i s i o n f o r about 15-30 minutes when he heard Donald f a l l o f f t h e l i v i n g room couch, Donald "had wet himselfP', s o defendant changed h i s s h o r t s and pa jamas. A i t e r changing and d r e s s i n g Donald, defendant l a i d him back on t h e couch. "A few minutes l a t e r he r o l l e d o f f t h e couch and s t a r t e d vomiting." Donald appeared f a i n t and p a l e s o defendant put him on a k i t c h e n c h a i r and " s t a r t e d t o g e t him a d r i n k of water1'. Donald f e l l okf t h e c h a i r . Defendant gave Donald a g l a s s of water but he j u s t "kept on vomiting". De- fendant then t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r a n u p s t a i r s , caught h i s f o o t on t h e telephone cord and p u l l e d it from t h e w a l l . When he r e t u r n e d , Donald appeared t o be "passing out" s o defendant r a n over t o h i s sister-in-law's house and t r i e d t o l o c a t e h i s w i f e . Failing t o f i n d h e r , he r e t u r n e d home and administered mouth-to-mouth r e s u s c i t a t i o n t o Donald, but without s u c c e s s . I n t h e meantime, d e f e n d a n t ' s mother-in-law, Mrs. Fred Docken, c a l l e d a t e l e p h o n e o p e r a t o r r e q u e s t i n g t h a t h e l p be s e n t t o t h e 0 ' ~ o n n e l lhome. A p p a r e n t l y , t h e B u t t e f i r e de- pa r t m e n t r e c e i v e d i t s c a l l from t h e t e l e p h o n e opera t o r . Defendant r a i s e s f i v e i s s u e s on a p p e a l , a l l e g i n g : 1. The u s e o f i n a d m i s s i b l e photographs and t h e c h a r t was p r e j u d i c i a 1 t o t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s i b l e error. 2. A l l r e f e r e n c e t o t h e broken t e l e p h o n e , a p a i r o f s h o e s , a s t i c k , and a p a i r o f pajamas was i m m a t e r i a l and i r r e l e v a n t and o n l y s e r v e d t o p r e j u d i c e t h e minds o f t h e j u r y a g a i n s t t h e defendant. 3. The p r o s e c u t i o n was a l l o w e d t o impeach i t s own witness. 4. verdict. The e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e 5. ~ e f e n d a n t ' smotions f o r a m i s t r i a l , d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t of n o t g u i l t y , and t o a d v i s e t h e j u r y t o a c q u i t , should have been granted. The f i r s t i s s u e concerns t h e use of photographs of t h e deceased i n a c r i m i n a l prosecution. A t t r i a l seven photographs d e p i c t i n g t h e body o r t h e deceased from v a r i o u s a n g l e s were o f f e r e d i n evidence by t h e s t a t e . Deiendant's counsel o b j e c t e d t o t h e i r admission on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e p a t h o l o g i s t could t e s t i t y t o t h e f a c t s i n t h e p i c t u r e s and t h e " p i c t u r e s a r e unreasonable and ~nflarnmatory". Counsel c i t e d S t a t e v. B i s c h e r t , 131 Mont. 152, 308 P.2d 969. The t r i a l c o u r t r e s e r v e d i t s r u l i n g a t t h i s time i n o r d e r t o s e e i f t h e photographs would be connected up w i t h t h e crime charged. The p a t h o l o g i s t , D r . Newrnan, t e s t i f i e d t h a t blood hemorrhaging i n t h e boy's stomach c a v i t y had caused t h e d i s t e n s i o n . This d i s t e n s i o n became a f a c t u a l i s s u e during t h e t r i a l , o r more p r e c i s e l y , t h e time t h a t d i s t e n s i o n of t h e stomach occurred became a n i s s u e . D r . Newrnan f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t " t h e f a t a l blow was d e l i v e r e d about t e n minutes p r i o r t o t h e c e s s a t i o n of l i f e of t h e i n f a n t f ' ; t h a t t h e "blow" caused t h e hemorrhaging and t h e hemorrhaging caused t h e stomach d i s t e n s i o n . state's e x h i b i t #4, a photograph of t h e l e f t s i d e of t h e body, was adm i t t e d i n t o evidence over o b j e c t i o n f o r t h e s o l e purpose of showing t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t of t h e d i s t e n s i o n of t h e stomach. This Court i n S t a t e v. Warrick, 152 Mont. 94, 100, 446 P.2d 916, held t h a t "color photographs t h a t have p r o b a t i v e v a l u e a r e a d m i s s i b l e t ' , c i t i n g S t a t e v . R o l l i n g s , 149 Mont. 481, 428 P.2d 462. Photographs t h a t a r e " p r o b a t i v e and m a t e r i a l " a r e a d m i s s i b l e . S t a t e v . Logan, 156 Mont. 4 8 , 60, 473 P.2d 833. I n S t a t e v . Quigg, 155 Mont. 119, 145, 467 P.2d 692, t h i s Court c i t e d S t a t e v . Campbell, 146 Mont. 251, 261, 405 P.2d 978: ' " ~ h o t o g r a p h s a r e a d m i s s i b l e f o r t h e purpose o f e x p l a i n i n g and a p p l y i n g t h e e v i d e n c e and a s s i s t i n g t h e c o u r t and j u r y i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e c a s e . F u l t o n v. Chouteau County ~ a r m e r s 'Co., 98 Mont. 48, 37 P.2d 1025. When t h e purpose d a n e x h i b i t i s t o i n £ lame t h e minds of t h e j u r y o r e x c i t e t h e f e e l i n g s r a t h e r t h a n t o e n l i g h t e n t h e j u r y a s t o any f a c t , i t s h o u l d be excluded. S t a t e v . B i s c h e r t , 131 Mont. 152, 308 P. 2d 9 6 9 . ' " See a l s o : S t a t e v. Adams, 76 Wash.2d 650, 458 P.2d 558; S t a t e v . H i l l , 193 Kan. 512, 394 P.2d 106; People v . Spencer, 60 C.2d Here, t h e photograph was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d t o show t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f t h e stomach d i s t e n s i o n . The photograph allowed t h e j u r y t o judge whether o r n o t s u c h a n abnormal stomach c o n d i t i o n would have been n o t i c e a b l e had i t e x i s t e d s e v e r a l hours p r i o r t o d e a t h , a s contended by two w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e defendant. Defendant a l l e g e s e r r o r i n t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n was cont i n u o u s l y " f l a s h i n g " a n e l a b o r a t e s e t o f photographs of t h e boy's body b e f o r e t h e j u r y . This s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r i s a d d r e s s e d t o a c t i o n s of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n which a r e n o t recorded in the transcript. The t r a n s c r i p t does show t h e p r o s e c u t i o n d i d a t t e m p t , u n s u c c e s s f u l l y , t o have s u c h photographs a d m i t t e d i n t o evidence. Nowhere does t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e photo- graphs were "flashed" b e f o r e t h e j u r y . ~ e f e n d a n t ' ssecond s p e c i f i c a t i o n a l l e g e s e r r o r i n t h e a d m i s s i o n i n t o evidence of f i v e photographs d e p i c t i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e i n t e r i o r of d e f e n d a n t ' s home a s i t looked s h o r t l y a f t e r young Donald Cuchine was pronounced dead a t t h e h o s p i t a l . The b a s i s f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n i s t h a t t h e s e photographs a r e not relevant or material. Four of t h e photographs, S t a t e ' s e x h i b i t s #8, #9, #10, and #11, a l l show t h e d i n i n g a r e a of d e f e n d a n t ' s home; they show t h e p o s i t i o n of a black shoe or p a i r of b l a c k shoes which defendant was a l l e g e d t o have used t o s t r i k e t h e boy. E x h i b i t s !I8 and #9 show a s t i c k on t h e d i n i n g room t a b l e , however i t s connection w i t h t h e crime was never e s t a b l i s h e d . A l l f o u r e x h i b i t s show t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e pajamas worn by t h e deceased on t h e evening of h i s d e a t h . The pajamas were m a t e r i a l t o t h e theory of t h e s t a t e ' s case. The p o s i t i o n , a s w e l l a s t h e c o n d i t i o n , of t h e pajamas i n d i c a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n unexplained events had taken p l a c e between t h e time t h e b a b y s i t t e r s l e f t d e f e n d a n t ' s home and t h e time t h e B u t t e firemen a r r i v e d . E x h i b i t s /,I0 and #14 show t h e broken telephone c o r d , which played a p a r t i n t h e s t a t e ' s t h e o r y of t h e c a s e i n s o f a r a s i t t r i e d t o prove t h a t some s o r t of v i o l e n t a c t i v i t y had taken p l a c e a t t h e home a f t e r t h e b a b y s i t t e r s had left. While t h e s t i c k does n o t appear t o be r e l e v a n t , we a r e o r t h e opinion t h a t t h e pajamas, shoes and telephone cord a r e r e l e v a n t and m a t e r i a l and t h e photographs d e p i c t i n g t h e s e items were properly admitted. Evidence t h a t i s a d m i s s i b l e f o r one purpose, but n o t f o r a n o t h e r , must n o t be excluded. Teesdale v. Ans- chutz D r i l l i n g Co., 138 Mont. 427, 357 P.2d 4 , c i t i n g Edquest v . T r i p p & Dragstedt Co., 93 Mont. 446, 19 P.2d 637. Defendant a l l e g e s e r r o r i n t h e use of a c h a r t during t h e t r i a l upon which t h e p a t h o l o g i s t , D r . Newman, was asked t o l o c a t e t h e p o s i t i o n o i v a r i o u s c u t s and b r u i s e s . was used by D r . Newman f o r i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes. This c h a r t During h i s testimony when i t developed t h a t many of t h e s c a r s were o l d and h e a l i n g and had nothing t o do w i t h t h e events of A p r i l 10-11, t h e t r i a l c o u r t q u i t e p r o p e r l y admonished t h e j u r y n o t t o cons i d e r any of t h e evidence concerning t h o s e body s c a r s . The e x h i b i t was n o t allowed t o be considered a s evidence by t h e Deiendant made no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e r u l i n g of t h e t r i a l f o r t h e f i r s t time c o u r t , s o t h e matter cannot now be r a i s e d / o n a p p e a l . Too, dejury. fendant f a i l e d t o a s k f o r any c u r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n , i f one were needed. Defendant's t h i r d s p e c i f i c a t i o n o i e r r o r i s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t improperly allowed t h e prosecution t o impeach i t s own w i t n e s s e s i n t h a t i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s were e l i c i t e d from both Leland and Darla Docken. a c a s e of impeachment h e r e . W do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t we have e What we do have i s merely i n c o n s i s - t e n t s t a t e m e n t s o f f e r e d by a w i t n e s s on d i r e c t examination. N o showing was made t h a t such i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s were harmful t o the defendant's case. I f anyone derived any b e n e f i t from t h e i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s of Leland and Darla Docken, i t should have been t h e defendant. It was f o r t h e j u r y t o d e c i d e t h e weight t h a t should be given t o t h e s e two w i t n e s s e s ' testimony. Defendant's f o u r t h c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e evidence i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e v e r d i c t . contention. W f i n d no m e r i t i n t h i s e While t h e bulk of t h e evidence presented by t h e s t a t e was c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , t h e r e was one w i t n e s s who o f f e r e d eyewitness evidence. DarLa Docken, d e f e n d a n t ' s s i s t e r - i n - l a w , t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e saw t h e defendant s t r i k e Donald Cuchine w i t h a shoe and a b e l t ; she heard Donald screaming; and, t h a t defendant was h o l l e r i n g a t Donald sometime j u s t p r i o r t o ~ o n a l d ' s death. The testimony of Darla Docken combined w i t h t h e t e s t i - mony of t h e p a t h o l o g i s t a s t o t h e cause of d e a t h (blood v e s s e l r u p t u r e , caused by a heavy blow t o t h e abdomen and t h a t blow was d e l i v e r e d approximately t e n minutes p r i o r t o d e a t h ) , plus t h e f u r t h e r f a c t t h a t defendant was t h e l a s t person t o be w i t h t h e boy p r i o r t o h i s d e a t h , a r e s u f t i c i e n t f o r a j u r y t o r e a c h a v e r d i c t t h a t defendant was g u i l t y of manslaughter. Defendant's l a s t s p e c i i i c a t i o n of e r r o r i s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g h i s motion f o r e i t h e r a m i s t r i a l or a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t a t t h e c l o s e of t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f . The a l l e g a t i o n s of p r e j u d i c e which gave r i s e t o d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a m i s t r i a l have been d i s c u s s e d i n our t r e a t m e n t of t h e f i r s t t h r e e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of e r r o r . Since t h e r e was no p r e j u d i c e , d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a m i s t r i a l was p r o p e r l y denied. The r u l e governing t h e g r a n t i n g o t motions f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s i s s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. Yoss, 146 Mont. 508, 514, 409 "A d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s given only where t h e S t a t e f a i l s t o prove i t s c a s e and t h e r e i s no evidence upon which a j u r y could base i t s v e r d i c t . S t a t e v. Widdicombe, 130 Mont. 325, 301 P.2d 116; S t a t e v . Welch, 22 Mont. 92, 55 P. 927; S t a t e v . Rother, 130 Mont. 357, 303 P.2d 393." See a l s o : S e c t i o n 95-1909(i), R.C.M. 1947. Here, t h e r e was ample evidence presented upon which a j u r y could have based i t s v e r d i c t . Since t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence was d i s c u s s e d h e r e t o f o r e , we need n o t d e l i n e a t e t h e evidence which was presented during t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f . The judgment i s a f f i r m e d . / \ Associate J u s t i c e / '/chief , / ' // ' / Justice , Associate - Jus-tices // Hon. Jack Shanscrom, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r J u s c i c e Wesley C a s t l e s .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.