STATE v SWAZIO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13449 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O F MONTANA F 1977 THE STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsANTHONY M A R T I N SWAZIO, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . 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 R o b e r t H. Wilson, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Moses, Kampfe, T o l l i v e r and W r i g h t , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Dennis Moreen, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana A r t h u r W. A y e r s , J r . County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Red Lodge, Montana Submitted: Decided : A p r i l 1 4 , 1977 2 6 1977 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. O June 27, 1974, an Information was f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t n c o u r t , Carbon County, charging Anthony Martin Swazio w i t h aggravated a s s a u l t . The v i c t i m of t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t was Deputy S h e r i f f Robert P e t e r s . found g u i l t y by a j u r y v e r d i c t . O A p r i l 21, 1976, d e f e n d a n t was n Defendant was sentenced t o t h e s t a t e p r i s o n a t Deer Lodge, Montana, f o r a p e r i o d of one year. From t h i s v e r d i c t and f i n a l judgment defendant a p p e a l s . On June 22, 1974, a t approximately 10:45 p.m., Swazio was informed by h i s w i f e t h a t Deputy S h e r i f f Robert P e t e r s had been t o t h e i r home d u r i n g t h e day looking f o r a S t e v e H u l l , a f r i e n d of Swazio. T h i s u p s e t defendant a s t h e r e e x i s t e d bad blood between he and Deputy S h e r i f f P e t e r s . t h e P e t e r s ' r e s i d e n c e w i t h a Bruce Brush. Swazio drove t o Brush accompanied defendant t o show him where Deputy S h e r i f f P e t e r s l i v e d . Swazio parked h i s c a r i n f r o n t of t h e P e t e r s ' r e s i d e n c e , t h e n walked through a g a t e i n t h e fence e n c l o s i n g t h e house and y a r d , and t o t h e door of t h e house, Brush remained i n s i d e d e f e n d a n t ' s v e h i c l e t h e e n t i r e time. The w i f e of Deputy S h e r i f f P e t e r s , P h y l l i s P e t e r s , answered t h e door. Swazio reques tEd t h a t P e t e r s come o u t of t h e house and speak w i t h him. Deputy S h e r i f f P e t e r s came o u t s i d e and went through t h e g a t e of t h e fence and t h e r e met defendant. A t t h i s time an argument ensued between them r e g a r d i n g t h e of c o n d u c t / ~ e p u tS h e r i f f P e t e r s e a r l i e r t h a t day and b o t h were ~ y e l l i n g a t each o t h e r . Phyllis Peters, seeing the discussion had e s c a l a t e d i n t o a v i o l e n t argument, came from t h e house w i t h a gun and f i r e d it i n t o t h e a i r , a p p a r e n t l y i n an a t t e m p t t o s t o p t h e argument. The f i r i n g o f t h e s h o t had no e f f e c t on defendant o~ 3eputy P e t e r s . A t t h i s time Depucy b h e r i f f P e t e r s took t h e gun from h i s w i f e and informed defendant he was going t o p l a c e him under a r r e s t f o r d i s t u r b i n g t h e peace. f l i c t i n the facts. A t t h i s p o i n t t h e r e i s con- P e t e r s and h i s w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s P e t e r s was about t o f r i s k d e f e n d a n t , defendant made a sudden move t u r n i n g toward P e t e r s . was s h o t i n t h e back. The gun d i s c h a r g e d and defendant P r i o r t o t h e s h o o t i n g Deputy P e t e r s and h i s w i f e c l a i m defendant a s s a u l t e d Deputy S h e r i f f P e t e r s by s t r i k i n g him w i t h h i s f i s t . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t when P e t e r s s a i d he was a r r e s t i n g him, he threw up h i s arms, t u r n e d , and walked away from P e t e r s toward h i s v e h i c l e . a few s t e p s he was s h o t i n t h e back. After taking Defendant claimed he n e v e r he s t r u c k Deputy P e t e r s , u n t i l a f t e r / Nas s h o t i n t h e back. As a r e s u l t of t h e s h o o t i n g defendant f i l e d a c i v i l c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e of Montana. Defendant's a t t o r n e y moved t o have any evidence of t h e c i v i l c l a i m excluded from t r i a l . motion i n l i m i n e was denied. The Brush, d e f e n d a n t ' s companion, gave a s t a t e m e n t t o Deputy S h e r i f f P e t e r s soon a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t . Brush could n o t be found t o be served w i t h a subpoena t o appear a t t r i a l s o d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y attempted t o i n t r o d u c e t h e s t a t e m e n t g i v e n t o t h e deputy s h e r i f f i n t o evidence. The t r i a l c o u r t d i s a n m e d t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e s t a t e m e n t a t t r i a l . O a p p e a l defendant p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review by t h i s n Court; 1. Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion i n l i m i n e , t h e r e b y allowing evidence t o be p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y r e g a r d i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s c i v i l c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e of .<ont a n a ? 2. 'dhether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w i n t o evidence signed s t a t e m e n t s by an i m p a r t i a l eyewitness t o t h e a l l e g e d crime, Bruce Brush, i n absence of B r u s h ' s testimony? 3. Whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y ? I s s u e 1 concerns t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e motion i n Limine. T h i s i s s u e cannot be reviewed due t o t h e v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n s t a k e n by d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y . After the defendant's motion i n l i m i n e was denied h i s a t t o r n e y brought t h e m a t t e r of t h e c i v i l s u i t b e f o r e t h e j u r y while q u e s t i o n i n g defendant on d i r e c t examination. The r u l e concerning p r e s e r v a t i o n of e x c e p t i o n s and o b j e c t i o n s a t t r i a l i s s e t f o r t h i n 5 Am J u r 2d, Appeal and E r r o r 5562. It s t a t e s : II Even where e x c e p t i o n s have been duly taken t o a m a t t e r t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may r e f u s e review where t h e e x c e p t i o n i s deemed waived by subsequent i n c o n s i s t e n t conduct of t h e p a r t y complaining.;k * *" I n t h i s c a s e defendant waived h i s r i g h t t o o b j e c t t o t h e evidence by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o t h e t r i a l of t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r t h a t t h e motion i n l i m i n e was meant t o s u p p r e s s . Defendant cannot o b j e c t t o t h e consequences of h i s own v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n s . Croteau v. A l l b e e , 1 1 7 V t . 332, 9 1 A.2d 803; F r e d e r i c k v . Gay's Express I n c . , 111 V t . 411, 1 7 A.2d 248. Defendant i n h i s I s s u e 2 contends t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t allowing t h e s t a t e m e n t t a k e n from Bruce Brush t o be admitted i n t o evidence. He r e l i e s on t h e d o c t r i n e of r e s g e s t a e and t h e b e s t and secondary evidence r u l e . exception t o the hearsay r u l e . Res g e s t a e i s recognized a s an The s t a t e m e n t Brush gave t o Deputy P e t e r s was a n a r r a t i v e s t a t e m e n t followed by q u e s t i o n s and answers. T h i s Court i n S u l l i v a n v. M e t r o p o l i t a n L i f e I n s . Co., 96 Mont. 254, 268, 29 P.2d 1046, s t a t e d : * N p r e c i s e r u l e has been, nor can b e , formulated o f o r determining what s t a t e m e n t s a r e a p a r t of t h e res g e s t a e ; consequently, each c a s e i n i n a sense a law u n t o i t s e l f and must be decided on i t s p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s , so t h a t p r e c e d e n t s a r e v a l u a b l e more £ o r t h e purpose of i l l u s t r a t i o n t h a n f o r e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a r u l e which may be g e n e r a l l y followed." 96 Mont. 268. ''9; ? ; The amount of time between t h e i n c i d e n t and t h e time t h e s t a t e m e n t was taken by t h e deputy s h e r i f f i s n o t c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d , however i t does appear t h e s t a t e m e n t was completed w i t h i n an hour o r two a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d . T h i s Court i n Sullivan said: "The element of time e l a p s i n g a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t and b e f o r e t h e u t t e r a n c e sought t o be proved i s n o t d e c i s i v e , b u t important.'' 96 Mont. 268. T h e r e f o r e a l a p s e of time does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y exclude h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t s from t h e r e s g e s t a e r u l e . However, t h e l a p s e of time taken i n combination w i t h o t h e r f a c t o r s may w e l l i n d i c a t e t h e r u l e i s not applicable t o the statement. T h i s Court i n S t a t e v . Newman, 162 Mont. 450, 457, 513 P.2d 258, d i v i d e d t h e r e s g e s t a e r u l e i n t o f o u r c a t e g o r i e s : ** I n modem usage t h e I r e s g e s t a e ' e x c e p t i o n a c t u a l l y i n v o l v e s f o u r d i s t i n c t t y p e s of c a s e s (1) e x c i t e d u t t e r a n c e s , (2) d e c l a r a t i o n s of p r e s e n t s e n s e i m p r e s s i o n s , ( 3 ) d e c l a r a t i o n s a s t o s t a t e of mind, and (4) d e c l a r a t i o n s a s t o body c o n d i t i o n . I n each of t h e s e instances the b a s i c r a t i o n a l e underlying t h e ' r e s gestae' exception t o the hearsay r u l e i s t h a t t h e statements a r e spontaneous and contemporaneous, l e n d i n g a p a r t i c u l a r r e l i a b i l i t y of t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s t o t h e s t a t e m e n t . 162 Mont. 457. "gc The o n l y c a t e g o r y i n t o which B r u s h ' s s t a t e m e n t could f a l l i s t h e second: d e c l a r a t i o n of p r e s e n t s e n s e impressions. Brush' s s t a t e m e n t may have been d e s c r i b i n g an e v e n t , b u t t h e r e was no showing t h e s t a t e m e n t was made w h i l e t h e speaker was l a b o r i n g under excitement and b e f o r e h e . h a d time t o r e f l e c t o r o t h e r w i s e come w i t h i n t h e r u l e e n u n c i a t e d by t h i s Court. Therefore, the s t a t e m e n t was n o t a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t formed p a r t of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n and t h e r e was no abuse on t h e p a r t of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n denying rhe admission of h e a r s a y evidence. Counsel f o r defendant a l s o argues i n s u p p o r t of t h e admissi b i l i t y of B r u s h ' s s t a t e m e n t under t h e b e s t and secondary evidence rule. Counsel a r g u e s s i n c e Brush was o u t s i d e of t h e s t a t e of Montana, t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t t o t h e deputy s h e r i f f was a d m i s s i b l e as the best-evidence available. § 2 Jones on Evidence, 6 t h Ed., 7:2, s t a t e s : "The b e s t evidence r u l e i s g e n e r a l l y , i f n o t almost e x c l u s i v e l y , invoked where proof i s t o be made of a r e c o r d i n w r i t i n g o r where t h e r e i s a n a t t e m p t t o s u b s t i t u t e o r a l f o r documentary evidence o f t h e c o n t e n t of .a w r i t i n g . I n f a c t i t has been s a i d t h a t t h e term ' b e s t evidence' i s a convenient s h o r t d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e r u l e governing proof of t h e c o n t e n t s of a w r i t i n g . " The q u e s t i o n of t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h e b e s t evidence r u l e , o t h e r than t o documents, h a s n o t been reached d i r e c t l y i n Montana and has n o t been extended t o a s i t u a t i o n of t h i s k i n d . I s s u e 3 i s whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y ? The t e s t i s whether t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evidence, i f b e l i e v e d by t h e j u r y , t o s u p p o r t i t s v e r d i c t . I f t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evidence t h e v e r d i c t w i l l s t a n d . S t a t e v. Farnes, Mon t . , 558 P.2d 472, 33 St.Rep. 1270, 1274. The evidence h e r e i s i n c o n f l i c t . Deputy S h e r i f f P e t e r s and h i s w i f e c l a i m P e t e r s was s t r u c k by defendant b e f o r e defendant was s h o t , y e t n e i t h e r one could a g r e e on how many times he was s t r u c k nor e x a c t l y when. Defendant, on t h e o t h e r hand, c l a i m s he d i d n o t h i t P e t e r s u n t i l a f t e r he was s h o t . l i n e testimony of a l l w i t n e s s e s t o t h e i n c i d e n t . T h i s was t h e b a s e In State v. F i t z p a t r i c k , 163 Mont. 220, 226, 516 P.2d 605, t h i s Court s e t f o r t h i t s p o s i t i o n i n determining q u e s t i o n s of s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence : "As t h i s Court has h e l d many times o v e r , t h e j u r y i s t h e f a c t f i n d i n g body i n our system of j u r i s p r u d e n c e , and i t s d e c i s i o n i s c o n t r o l l i n g . The j u r y i s f r e e t o c o n s i d e r a l l evidence p r e s e n t e d and t o p i c k and choose which of t h e w i t n e s s e s i t wishes t o b e l i e v e . I f s u f f i c i e n t testimony was introduced, a s well a s exhibits t o j u s t i f y the j u r y ' s f i n d i n g s , t h e n i t s c o n c l u s i o n s w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s i t i s a p p a r e n t t h e r e was a c l e a r misunders t a n d i n g by t h e j u r y o r t h a t t h e r e was a misrepres e n t a t i o n made t o t h e jury.!' 163 Mont. 226. Defendant contends t h e u n c o n t r a d i c t e d p h y s i c a l evidence i n t h i s c a s e was ignored by t h e j u r y . The g e n e r a l law i n Montana i s t h a t u n c o n t r a d i c t e d c r e d i b l e evidence cannot be d i s r e g a r d e d by a c o u r t o r by a j u r y . 530 P.2d 476. H o l e n s t e i n v. Andrews, 166 Mont. 6 0 , I n reviewing t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e c o r d t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e p h y s i c a l evidence which s u p p o r t s d e f e n d a n t ' s content i o n s , b u t t h i s evidence was n o t u n c o n t r o v e r t e d evidence. Both b a l l i s t i c s w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d defendant was probably s h o t from a t l e a s t 36 inches away, y e t n e i t h e r e x p e r t could r u l e o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a contact shot. opinion evidence. The j u r y i s n o t bound by e x p e r t I n s h o r t , t h e j u r y i s t h e t r i e r of f a c t . I n S t a t e v . Glidden, 165 Mont. 470, 473, 529 P.2d 1384, t h i s Court stated: " I n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n t h e weight of evidence and c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s i s a m a t t e r e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h i n t h e province of t h e j u r y and should n o t be d i s t u r b e d by a c o u r t of appeal." While d e f e n d a n t ' s s t o r y , i f b e l i e v e d , would l e a d t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n h e was n o t g u i l t y of aggravated a s s a u l t , t h e j u r y was n o t r e q u i r e d t o b e l i e v e t h e testimony of t h e defendant o r t h e testimony of t h e e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s . Viewing t h e evidence 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 s t a t e , t h e s e f a c t o r s support t h e j u r y ' s conclusion: (1) Deferlclant went t o t h e Deputy s h e r i f f ' s home a t approximately 1 1 : O O p.m. because h e was extremely u p s e t w i t h Deputy P e t e r s ' conduct; ( 2 ) t h e y proceeded t o have a h e a t e d argument; ( 3 ) t h e o f f i c e r was p l a c i n g defendant under a r r e s t , and (4) P e t e r s and h i s w i f e t e s t i f i e d defendant s t r u c k Deputy S h e r i f f P e t e r s p r i o r t o t h e time defendant was s h o t . There b e i n g no r e v e r s i b l e t r i a l e r r o r and t h e r e c o r d does r e v e a l s u f f i c i e n t s u b s t a n t i a l and c r e d i b l e evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y , t h e judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s affirmed. W Concur: e chief Justice , Justices .

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.