STATE v HERRON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12948 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, JERRY ALLEN HERRON, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R o b e r t Keller, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : D a n i e l J. Shea a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r Respondent : Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , Helena, Montana R o b e r t L. Deschamps, 111 a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , Montana Submitted : November 1 2 , 1975 Filed: ' ' 6 ', 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 o f t h e Court. Defendant a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c t i o n of attempted second degree murder and t h e 25 y e a r s e n t e n c e imposed i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Missoula County. O October 20, 1972, a teen-age g i r l was r i d i n g h e r n bicycle on t h e highway n e a r Clearwater J u n c t i o n . by a shotgun f i r e d from a p a s s i n g v e h i c l e . She was s h o t Defendant J e r r y Allen Herron was a r r e s t e d t h e same day and was u l t i m a t e l y t r i e d f o r f o u r a l t e r n a t i v e crimes: 1 ) Attempted second degree murder. 2) F i r s t degree a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l . 3) F i r s t degree a s s a u l t w i t h a t t e m p t t o commit a f e l o n y . 4) Second degree a s s a u l t . The f i r s t t r i a l on t h e s e charges was h e l d i n June 1973. The j u r y was given t h e s e two i n s t r u c t i o n s , among o t h e r s : 11 I n s t r u c t i o n No. 20, The crimes charged a g a i n s t t h e Defendant a r e a l l f e l o n y o f f e n s e s . T h e r e f o r e , a l l twelve of your number must a g r e e i n o r d e r t o r e t u r n a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y o r n o t g u i l t y , and a l l twelve of your number must a g r e e i n o r d e r t o d e c i d e any quest i o n n e c e s s a r y t o b e decided i n a r r i v i n g a t a v e r d i c t on a crime. 11 It i s n e c e s s a r y t h a t you c o n s i d e r t h e crime of attempted murder f i r s t , and f i n d t h e defendant e i t h e r g u i l t y o r n o t g u i l t y of t h a t charge. "1n t h e event you f i n d t h e defendant g u i l t y of attempted murder you need go no f u r t h e r a s you w i l l have reached a v e r d i c t i n t h i s c a s e . "In t h e event you f i n d t h e defendant n o t g u i l t y of attempted murder, then you must c o n s i d e r t h e crime o f A s s a u l t i n t h e F i r s t Degree w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l a s embodied i n a l t e r n a t i v e Count I1 of t h e Information. You must f i n d t h e defendant e i t h e r g u i l t y o r n o t g u i l t y of A s s a u l t i n t h e F i r s t Degree w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l . I n t h e event you f i n d t h e defendant g u i l t y of t h a t charge, you have reached a v e r d i c t and need go no f u r t h e r . "In t h e event you f i n d t h e defendant n o t g u i l t y of A s s a u l t i n t h e F i r s t Degree w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l , you must c o n s i d e r t h e a l t e r n a t i v e Count Number I11 of t h e Information which i s A s s a u l t i n t h e F i r s t Degree w i t h i n t e n t t o commit a f e l o n y . I n t h e event you f i n d t h e defendant g u i l t y o f t h a t c h a r g e , you have reached a v e r d i c t and need go no f u r t h e r . "1n t h e event you f i n d t h e defendant n o t g u i l t y of A s s a u l t i n t h e F i r s t Degree under both Counts I1 and 111, you must t h e n c o n s i d e r t h e l e s s e r included o f f e n s e of A s s a u l t i n t h e Second Degree. You must f i n d t h e Defendant g u i l t y o r n o t g u i l t y o f t h i s c h a r g e , and when you do s o , ou have reached a v e r d i c t and need n o t proceed f u r t h e r . x It I n s t r u c t i o n No. 24 When you r e t i r e t o t h e j u r y room, you s h a l l s e l e c t one of your number t o a c t a s foreman, who w i l l p r e s i d e over your d e l i b e r a t i o n s . I n o r d e r t o r e a c h a v e r d i c t , a l l twelve j u r o r s must a g r e e t o t h e d e c i s i o n . As soon a s you have agreed upon a v e r d i c t , you s h a l l have i t d a t e d and signed by your foreman and then s h a l l r e t u r n w i t h i t t o t h i s room." The j u r y was provided w i t h e i g h t forms of v e r d i c t . The j u r y d e l i b e r a t e d one e n t i r e n i g h t , r e t u r n e d t o c o u r t a t 5 : 4 0 a.m. and announced i t s f a i l u r e t o r e a c h a v e r d i c t , and was discharged. Three days l a t e r a member of t h e j u r y telephoned d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y f o r t h e s t a t e d purpose of informing him what had a c t u a l l y occurred d u r i n g t h e n i g h t of j u r y d e l i b e r a t i o n s . According t o t h e a f f i d a v i t of t h i s j u r o r , which was f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y , t h e j u r y had a c t u a l l y voted unanimously t o a c q u i t defendant of attempted second degree murder, f i r s t degree a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l , and f i r s t degree a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o commit a f e l o n y . The j u r y was deadlocked only on d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t o r innocence o f second degree a s s a u l t . ~ e f e n d a n t ' scounsel c o n t a c t e d t h e j u r y foreman by phone who s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o r r o b o r a t e d t h e s e e v e n t s and f u r t h e r explained t h e r e a s o n why no v e r d i c t forms had been signed t o r e f l e c t t h e verdict. According t o t h e foreman's a f f i d a v i t , t h e j u r y was con- fused by two i n s t r u c t i o n s , No. 20 and No. 24, h e r e t o f o r e quoted. The j u r o r s asked t h e b d i f f t o convey a q u e s t i o n t o t h e p r e s i d i n g judge a s t o whether they should s i g n t h e f i r s t v e r d i c t form b e f o r e proceeding t o t h e n e x t charge. N r e c o r d e x i s t s concerning what o t h e b a i l i f f asked t h e judge o r what t h e judge r e p l i e d t o t h e b a i l i f f , a s no c o u r t r e p o r t e r was i n a t t e n d a n c e and no a t t e m p t was made t o n o t i f y e i t h e r c o u n s e l of t h e j u r o r s ' confusion. The a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e d t h e b a i l i f f t o l d t h e j u r y foreman t h a t t h e j u r y was t o a r r i v e a t only one v e r d i c t i n t h e c a s e and t h e r e f o r e should s i g n o n l y one form. These e v e n t s were c o r r o b o r a t e d by t h e a f f i d a v i t s of t h e other jurors. T h e i r v e r s i o n of e v e n t s was never q u e s t i o n e d by t h e s t a t e i n i t s b r i e f o r o r a l argument on appeal. The second t r i a l of defendant was h e l d i n December 1973. Defendant was t r i e d on t h e same c h a r g e s , w i t h one e x c e p t i o n ; t h e charge of f i r s t degree a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o k i l l was dismissed. The j u r y was unable t o r e a c h a v e r d i c t on t h e remaining t h r e e charges a t t h e second t r i a l . A t h i r d t r i a l was h e l d i n June 1974, on t h e same charges a s i n t h e second t r i a l . Defendant was c o n v i c t e d of attempted second degree murder and sentenced t o 25 y e a r s imprisonment i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n , where he i s p r e s e n t l y i n c a r c e r a t e d . A t t h e second and t h i r d t r i a l s defendant maintained t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r y him a g a i n on c h a r g e s of attempted second degree murder o r f i r s t degree a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o commit a f e l o n y , because he had been a c q u i t t e d of both charges a t t h e f i r s t t r i a l . His c l a i m i s based on t h e double jeopardy p r o v i s i o n of t h e F e d e r a l and S t a t e C o n s t i t u t i o n s . They provide : Amendment 5 , United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n : ** n o r s h a l l any person be s u b j e c t f o r t h e same o f f e n s e t o be twice put i n jeopardy of l i f e or limb $< Y<. I' 'I* * A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 25, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n : "* * * No person s h a l l be a g a i n put i n jeopardy f o r t h e same o f f e n s e p r e v i o u s l y t r i e d i n any j u r i s d i c t i o n , 11 The double jeopardy p r o v i s i o n of t h e United S t a t e s Constit u t i o n p r o h i b i t s being twice placed on t r i a l , a s w e l l a s twice punished f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . It does n o t p r o h i b i t r e t r i a l f o r t h e same o f f e n s e i f t h e f i r s t t r i a l r e s u l t s i.n a hung j u r y . W e f i n d no reason t o c o n s t r u e t h e double jeopardy p r o v i s i o n of M o n t a ~ a ' s C o n s t i t u t i o n otherwise. The u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n on a p p e a l i s whether t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e d i s c l o s e s an a c q u i t t a l o r a hung j u r y a t t h e f i r s t t r i a l on t h e charge of attempted murder. T h i s i s s u e must s t a n d o r f a l l on t h e answer t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s : 1. The , e f f e c t of t h e o r a l communication between t h e j u r y and t h e c o u r t i n t h e absence of c o u n s e l ? 2. Whether j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s can b e used t o supply proof of a c t u a l e v e n t s t h a t occurred d u r i n g j u r y d e l i b e r a t i o n ? I n view of t h e f a c t t h i s defendant was t r i e d t h r e e times b e f o r e c o n v i c t i o n and defense counsel r a i s e d t h e i s s u e s we are about t o d i s c u s s a t t h e second and t h i r d t r i a l s , t h i s Court i s a t a l o s s t o understand why, upon d i s c o v e r i n g t h e f a c t s a f t e r t h e f i r s t t r i a l , he d i d n o t a p p l y t o t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y control. H i s f a i l u r e t o do s o caused t h e expense of two n e e d l e s s t r i a l s , along w i t h unnecessary trauma t o h i s c l i e n t . The o r a l communication between t h e j u r y and t h e c o u r t v i a t h e b a i l i f f c l e a r l y v i o l a t e s s e c t i o n 95-1913(d), R.C.M. 1947: "(d) A f t e r Retirement, May Return i n t o Court f o r Information. A f t e r t h e j u r y has r e t i r e d f o r d e l i b e r a t i o n i f t h e r e be any disagreement among them a s t o t h e testimony, o r i f they d e s i r e t o be informed on any p o i n t of law a r i s i n g i n t h e c a u s e , they must r e q u i r e t h e o f f i c c t o conduct them i n t o c o u r t . Upon b e i n g brought i n t o c o u r t , t h e information r e q u e s t e d may be given i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t ; i f such information i s given i t must be given i n t h e presence of t h e county a t t o r n e y and t h e defendant and h i s counsel." It a l s o v i o l a t e s t h e p r o s c r i p t i o n a g a i n s t o r a l j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n . S t a t e v. Beesskove, 34 Mont. 41, 85 P. 376; S t a t e v. Wakely, 43 Mont. 427,437, 117 P. 95; S t a t e v. Asher, 63 Mont. 302,306, 206 P. 1091; S t a t e v. Gies, 77 Mont. 62,64, 249 P. 573. A s a general r u l e additional instructions t o the jury must comply w i t h t h e law and f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w t h e law c o n s t i t u t e s reversible error. The v i c e o f t h e s i t u a t i o n h e r e i s t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y was n o t n o t i f i e d n o r p r e s e n t and had no way t o p r o t e c t h i s c l i e n t from t h e j u r y ' s confusion. This i s patently p r e j u d i c i a l . Had t h e j u r y convicted defendant of t h e charge of attempted murder a t t h e f i r s t t r i a l , t h e v e r d i c t would have had t o be s e t a s i d e because of r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r , chargeable t o t h e s t a t e . Can j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s be used t o prove what occurred during jury deliberations? The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , p r i o r t o t h e second t r i a l , h e l d t h a t t h e y could n o t on t h e ground t h a t j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s cannot be used t o impeach j u r y v e r d i c t s i n Montana. This h o l d i n g i s e r r o r . I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s were n o t used t o impeach t h e j u r y v e r d i c t , because t h e j u r y d i d n o t r e t u r n a v e r d i c t of any kind. The a f f i d a v i t was used t o show t h a t because of o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e s on t h e j u r y d u r i n g i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s , a v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l on t h r e e o f t h e charges was a c t u a l l y rendered by t h e j u r y b u t was n o t r e t u r n e d t o t h e c o u r t due t o t h e confusion over jury instructions. The s t a t e does n o t deny t h i s . J u s t i c e compels t h e u s e of j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s t o prove what a c t u a l l y occurred. For t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n of attempted second degree murder i s vacated. The cause i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r r e t r i a l on t h e remaining charge o f second degree a s s a u l t . M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison and M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s t dissenting : W dissent. e The o r d e r d e c l a r i n g a m i s t r i a l a s a r e s u l t It was n o t u n t i l of a deadlocked j u r y was made on June 29, 1973. December 2 , 1973, t h a t t h e e f f o r t t o , i n e f f e c t , impeach a j u r y v e r d i c t was made. I n t h e t r a n s c r i p t of proceedings taken b e f o r e Judge K e l l e r on December 3 , 1973, Judge K e l l e r i n q u i r e d s p e c i f i c a l l y a s t o Judge ~ u s s a u l t ' sr e c o l l e c t i o n s ; c o u n s e l had n o t even i n q u i r e d . Nor was t h e b a i l i f f questioned. and f i n a l l y r u l e d . Judge K e l l e r c a r e f u l l y i n q u i r e d Judge K e l l e r s t a t e d i n p a r t : " M R .SHEA: For t h e r e c o r d , Your Honor could t h e Court s t a t e t h e grounds f o r denying t h e motion? "THE COURT: Yes. This i s an e f f o r t t o i n essence impeach a v e r d i c t of a j u r y o r v i r t u a l l y t o b r i n g o u t what a t r u e v e r d i c t was, one i n open Court b e f o r e t h e j u r y announced t h a t t h e y cannot a g r e e upon a v e r d i c t and t h e j u r y was discharged a t t h a t time f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t t h e y could n o t a g r e e upon a verdict and n o t h i n g f u r t h e r was done a t t h a t time. k ; The motion i s denied f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t t h i s j u r y has been discharged and t h i s e f f o r t t o f i n d o u t what t h a t j u r y d i d comes i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e some days a f t e r - - - t h e f i r s t Motion f o r A c q u i t t a l was f i l e d some days a f t e r t h e j u r y had been discharged and w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p a r t t h a t t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e Court had m i s i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y , t h a t comes months a f t e r t h e j u r y had been discharged and i n both c a s e s w e l l a f t e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y f o r t h e j u r y t o be c o n t a c t e d by o t h e r persons could have occurred. "The f i r s t motion i s t o i n s t r u c t t h e Defendant and h i s c o u n s e l and a s f a r a s t h e Court i s concerned, i t means a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e Defendant and h i s c o u n s e l , n o t t o i n d i c a t e i n any way t h a t t h e j u r y p r e v i o u s l y impaneled i n t h i s c a s e was a t one p o i n t i n t h e d e l i b e r a 1 : In a s f a r t i o n s 1 t o 1 f o r complete a c q u i t t a l . + a s v o i r d i r i n g t h i s j u r y panel i s concerned, t h e y cannot : go i n t o what t h e a l l e g e d v o t e was of t h a t j u r y . 9 * * ** ** * *" Then l a t e r t h e following exchange appears: "MR. SHEA: For t h e r e c o r d , Your Honor, I would r e q u e s t s o t h a t a l l t h e f a c t s may be brought out b e f o r e t h e Court and I have no o b j e c t i o n . I n f a c t , I make t h e r e q u e s t t h a t t h e Court i n q u i r e of both b a i l i f f s - - t h e y a r e both h e r e today a s I understand i t as t o what t h e communications were made from t h e j u r y t o them t o t h e judge and back t o them and back t o t h e j u r y a g a i n . And a l s o I would be w i l l i n g t o go i n t o a s k t h e Court t h a t presided a t t h a t time a s t o any r e c o l l e c t i o n s he may have o f t h e circumstances. --- "THE COURT: "MR. SHEA: D you want m t o i n q u i r e ? o e Yes s i r , s o a r e c o r d can b e made. o "THE COURT: N w a r e you done w i t h your motion and ready t o go? "I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t what you a r e doing i n t h i s c a s e , t h e main r e a s o n , a s f a r a s I am concerned, i s t h a t your Motion f o r A c q u i t t a l i s denied, t h a t t h e s a l i e n t p o i n t , i f i t i s s a l i e n t , t h a t comes up, comes up i n December and t h i s c a s e was t r i e d i n June. Is that correct? "MR. DESCHAMPS: "MR.SHEA: Yes, t h a t i s c o r r e c t . The l a s t of June, yes s i r , Your Honor. "THE COURT: And f r a n k l y I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h a t i s something t h a t you should have a s c e r t a i n e d r i g h t a f t e r t h i s c a s e was over and i f t h e r e was any v a l i d i t y t o your motion t h a t i t would have been a s a r e s u l t of d i l i g e n t work on your p a r t . The only reason t h a t I say t h a t i s because I want you t o b e aware of what m f e e l i n g s a r e , M r . Herron. I want you t o b e s a t i s y f i e d now when I a s k you, a r e you s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e s e r v i c e s rendered by your c o u n s e l , your c o u n s e l t h a t i s going t o r e p r e s e n t you i n t h i s c a s e . I I The m a j o r i t y opinion s t a t e s t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t s were n o t used t o impeach a j u r y v e r d i c t . But c l e a r l y t h e Court i s a l l o w i n g , by a f f i d a v i t of one j u r o r of r e c o l l e c t i o n s f i v e months l a t e r , t h e impeachment of t h e j u r y ' s deadlock o r f a i l u r e t o r e a c h a verdict. To do t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y i s d i s r e g a r d i n g t h e h e a r i n g t r a n s c r i p t where Judge K e l l e r noted t h a t t h e r e was no r e c o r d of any communication between t h e Judge, t h e b a i l i f f , and t h e j u r y . Now, f i v e months l a t e r , t h i s i s attempted t o b e shown by r e c o l l e c t i o n s of t h e j u r y foreman. W would a f f i r m t h e judgment i n a l l p a r t i c u l a r s . e '., C '- . -: / ; pl 2 '-.,//$Y 9 sv~tdL.:db* +>. # , :/ ./' i -",***s/ % Chief J u s t i c e % - stice Ju 'g - 8 F . r v: ' 1 -;.,t*~-+#-.As*~~*

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.