STATE v BREITENSTEIN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14417 IN THE s u p m COUHT OF THE STATE OF rnNTANA 1978 THE STATE OF JONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -VS- KENNETH BREmSTEIN',SR. Defendant and Appellant. Appeal f o n District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, ra: Honorable Ibbert M. Holter, Judge presiding. Counsel of m d r : For Appellant: Frank B bbrrison, Sr., Whitefish, Mntana . For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Mntana William A Douglas, County Attorney, Libby, Mntana . Submitted on briefs: No MAR 2 Decided. 8, 1978 !7 99 Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. Defendant Kenneth B r e i t e n s t e i n , S r . , a p p e a l s from a judgment c o n v i c t i n g him o f t h e c r i m e o f 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 i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of L i n c o l n County. On J u l y 4 , 1977, a p p e l l a n t Kenneth B r e i t e n s t e i n , S r . , w a s a r r e s t e d i n L i n c o l n County, Montana, o n t h e c h a r g e of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t under s e c t i o n 94-5-202, s e c t i o n 45-5-202 MCA. R.C.M. 1947, now An i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d c h a r g i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had p u r p o s e l y and knowingly p l a c e d W i l l i a m H. Heika i n r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y by u s e o f a weapon, s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t h e had p o i n t e d a p i s t o l a t W i l l i a m Heika and t h r e a t e n e d t o s h o o t him i f he moved. Defendant p l e a d e d " n o t g u i l t y " . Later d e f e n d a n t f i l e d n o t i c e of h i s i n t e n t i o n t o r e l y on t h e d e f e n s e s of i n s a n i t y , s e l f - d e f e n s e and a l i b i . J u r y t r i a l w a s h e l d March 1 4 and 1 5 , 1978, and a p p e l l a n t w a s found g u i l t y of t h e c r i m e of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . H e w a s s e n t e n c e d t o f o u r y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . The s e n t e n c e w a s suspended. On J u l y 4 , 1977, W i l l i a m Heika, E a r l B a l l e n g e r and J i m Tompkins w e r e on a s p u r r o a d a s h o r t d i s t a n c e o f f t h e Long Meadow Road i n t h e Yaak V a l l e y of L i n c o l n County, Montana, on t h e i r way t o c u t f i r e w o o d a t Roderick B u t t e n e a r b y . Heika h e l d a F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r m i t t o c u t f i r e w o o d i n t h e area. On t h e s p u r r o a d t h e y came upon a number o f trees f e l l e d a c r o s s t h e road blocking f u r t h e r progress. They proceeded t o c u t t h e trees i n t o b l o c k s , l o a d i n g them i n t o H e i k a ' s p i c k u p t o clear p a s s a g e f o r t h e i r t h r e e p i c k u p s . A p p e l l a n t was d r i v i n g down Long Meadow Road o n h i s way home from work. H e saw t h e t h r e e p i c k u p s o n t h e s p u r r o a d and r e c o g n i z e d H e i k a ' s . A p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d he proceeded t o h i s r a n c h n e a r b y and washed up. H e t h e n s t r a p p e d on h i s . 2 2 c a l i b e r p i s t o l , t i e d a b l o c k of s a l t on h i s t r a i l b i k e and proceeded t o t a k e H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had f e l l e d t h e the s a l t t o his cattle. trees a c r o s s t h e s p u r r o a d where Heika and h i s two companions w e r e sawing i n o r d e r t o c o n t a i n h i s cows w i t h i n a F o r e s t S e r v i c e G r a z i n g P e r m i t l o c a t e d a d j a c e n t t o h i s r a n c h and upon which t h e i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r s a l t i n g h i s c a t t l e , h e d e c i d e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t o see i f t h e trees had been removed, which would a l l o w h i s cows t o walk away. A p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d h e was somewhat u p s e t when h e a r r i v e d a t t h e scene of t h e i n c i d e n t . H e apparently addressed h i m s e l f t o Heika a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y a l t h o u g h Heika w a s t h e f u r t h e s t from him a s h e a r r i v e d on t h e s c e n e . he inquired ". . . what cutting those trees." He testified t h e h e l l they w e r e doing t h e r e , Heika's version w a s a p p e l l a n t came c h a r g i n g o u t o f t h e woods . . . [ y e l l i n g a t u s ] 'What i n t h e h e l l are you d o i n g o n m p r o p e r t y ' . y down t h o s e t r e e s f o r a r e a s o n . . ." ". . . T h a t h e had c u t A p p e l l a n t c a l l e d Heika some v e r y p r o f a n e and i n s u l t i n g names and o r d e r e d a l l of them o f f " h i s p r o p e r t y " . appellant. Heika w a s from 1 0 t o 2 5 f e e t from A p p e l l a n t was s t a n d i n g a b o u t a t t h e rear of Heika' s p i c k u p . Both a g r e e Heika t o o k s e v e r a l s t e p s f o r w a r d i n a p p e l lant's direction. A p p e l l a n t a t t h i s p o i n t drew h i s a u t o - m a t i c p i s t o l and p o i n t e d i t a t Heika. Heika t e s t i f i e d he had been o r d e r e d t o l e a v e and was t r y i n g t o g e t t o h i s pickup t o do so. Appellant's version i s the steps w e r e t h r e a t e n i n g , a s Heika had a b e e r c a n i n h i s hand and ~ e i k a "had a w e i r d l o o k o n h i s f a c e " , " a t w i s t e d l o o k l i k e he Was r e a l l y mad and g o i n g t o g e t r e v e n g e " . Appellant t e s t i f i e d h e s a i d , " S t o p B i l l t t and B i l l s t o p p e d . Heika t e s t i f i e d he s t o p p e d b u t t h a t a g a i n a p p e l l a n t o r d e r e d him t o l e a v e and a g a i n h e t o o k a s t e p toward h i s p i c k u p whereupon a p p e l l a n t p u l l e d t h e s l i d e t o cock t h e a u t o m a t i c p i s t o l and s a i d " A l l r i g h t you f a t s o n - o f - a - b i t c h , a n o t h e r s t e p and I w i l l blow you f u l l o f h o l e s l i k e a s,i.eve." Heika t u r n e d away, walked t o t h e f a r t h e s t p i c k u p , Tompkins', and l e f t . A p p e l l a n t h o l s t e r e d t h e p i s t o l and a l l o w e d Tompkins t o t a k e H e i k a ' s p i c k u p . Heika made a c o m p l a i n t t o t h e s h e r i f f and a p p e l l a n t w a s a r r e s t e d . Some background i s n e c e s s a r y . A p p e l l a n t Kenneth B r e i t e n s t e i n owned t h e f a m i l y r a n c h of 150 acres a l o n g t h e S o u t h Fork o f t h e Yaak R i v e r and had l i v e d t h e r e h i s whole l i f e , 4 4 y e a r s . H e worked i n t h e woods f e l l i n g trees and had some c a t t l e on h i s r a n c h . He a l s o had, a s h i s f a m i l y b e f o r e him, a U. S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e G r a z i n g P e r m i t o n some 70 odd a c r e s a d j a c e n t t o t h e r a n c h . The c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s , W i l l i a m Heika, had l i v e d i n t h e Yaak community f o r two o r two and o n e - h a l f the incident. years before H e " t h i n n e d i n t h e woods" and r a n a b a r c a l l e d The Cherokee S t r i p , l o c a t e d a b o u t two o r two and one-half m i l e s from t h e s c e n e of t h e i n c i d e n t . A p p e l l a n t and Heika had met f o u r o r f i v e t i m e s i n t h e t i m e Heika had l i v e d i n t h e community. I n 1976 Heika owned t h r e e I r i s h S e t t e r s and i n t e n d e d t o r a i s e s e t t e r s a t t h e Cherokee S t r i p . I n August 1976 a p p e l - l a n t ' s s o n , Ken, J r . , s h o t two o f H e i k a ' s dogs k i l l i n g o n e and wounding a n o t h e r . One dog, "Big M e l t ' , w a s r e g i s t e r e d and a champion, w o r t h $350 a c c o r d i n g t o Heika. ~ccording t o a p p e l l a n t , t h e dogs were s h o t b e c a u s e t h e y were c h a s i n g appellant's cattle. I n e a r l y 1977 Heika d i s c o v e r e d who had s h o t h i s dogs and f i l e d a l a w s u i t a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t . A p p e l l a n t a l s o t e s t i f i e d Heika had t h r e a t e n e d him o v e r t h e C i t i z e n Band r a d i o t h r e a t e n i n g t o g e t a p p e l l a n t and h i s son i f h e c o u l d e v e r c a t c h them " a l o n e o u t o n t h e r o a d " . The i s s u e o n a p p e a l i s framed by a p p e l l a n t a s f o l l o w s : Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n e x c l u d i n g e v i d e n c e of s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of p r i o r t h r e a t s made by t h e v i c t i m o f t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t / d e f e n d a n t which w e r e known by a p p e l l a n t and which engendered i n him a r e a s o n a b l e b e l i e f t h a t h e w a s i n d a n g e r of imminent b o d i l y i n j u r y ? I t i s w e l l t o note t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d allow d e f e n d a n t t o t e s t i f y f u l l y a s t o t h r e a t s made by Heika a g a i n s t h i m s e l f and h i s s o n . Two s e p a r a t e o f f e r s of proof w e r e made by a p p e l l a n t . The f i r s t w a s when a p p e l l a n t ' s s o n w a s c a l l e d a s t h e f i r s t d e f e n s e w i t n e s s and b e f o r e a p p e l l a n t had t e s t i f i e d . The o f f e r was t h a t t h e w i t n e s s , Ken, J r . , would t e s t i f y t h a t H e i k a ' s mother-in-law s a i d s h e would blow Ken, J r . ' s head o f f w i t h a s h o t g u n and t h i s t h r e a t was r e l a t e d t o appellant. F u r t h e r , h e would t e s t i f y t h a t i n March 1977 t h e r e was a c o n f r o n t a t i o n between Heika and Ken, J r . , a t t h e D i r t y Shame S a l o o n when Heika s a i d h e was g o i n g t o knock t h e h e l l o u t o f Ken, Jr. T h i s t h r e a t was a l s o r e l a y e d t o appellant. The o f f e r o f proof w a s r e j e c t e d by t h e c o u r t f o r l a c k of foundation. Mont.R.Evid., A p p e l l a n t c i t e s R u l e s 404- ( a ) ( 2 ) and 405 ( b ) , a s t o when s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of c o n d u c t may b e u s e d t o show c h a r a c t e r where c h a r a c t e r i s an e s s e n t i a l element of t h e defense. W e hold t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t w a s c o r r e c t i n i t s r u l i n g a t this time. The Commission Comment t o R u l e s 404 ( a ) ( 2 ) and 405 ( b ) s t a t e s i n e f f e c t t h a t t h e Montana r u l e s were m o d i f i e d from t h e Federal Rules s p e c i f i c a l l y t o be r e s t a t e m e n t s of e x i s t i n g Montana c a s e l a w . A p p e l l a n t ' s argument r e c o g n i z e s t h e Montana r u l e i s t h a t " a f t e r t h e accused has l a i d h i s foundation f o r self-defense", such e v i d e n c e m a y b e a d m i s s i b l e . " H e a r g u e s t h a t by a p p e l - l a n t g i v i n g n o t i c e o f h i s 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 t h a t no f u r t h e r f o u n d a t i o n w a s n e c e s s a r y . T h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v . Logan ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 156 Mont. 48, 6465, 473 P.2d 833, 842, s p e c i f i c a l l y r e j e c t e d t h i s argument: ". . . The e x i s t e n c e o f t h e i s s u e o f s e l f - d e f e n s e and a n i s s u e a s t o t h e a g r e s s o r i n t h e a l t e r c a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e c o r r o b o r a t i o n by e v i d e n c e o f t h e d e c e a s e d ' s r e p u t a t i o n f o r t u r b u l e n c e and v i o lence i s admissible. "The n o t i c e o f 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 s e r v e d by d e f e n d a n t on t h e s t a t e p r i o r t o t r i a l i s immaterial and d o e s n o t p l a c e t h i s m a t t e r i n i s s u e a t t h e t r i a l . Defendant i s n o t bound t o r e l y on t h i s defense a t t h e t r i a l notwithstanding s e r v i c e of t h i s n o t i c e . U n t i l s u c h t i m e a s def e n d a n t took t h e s t a n d and a d m i t t e d t h e k i l l i n g , t h e i s s u e of self-defense w a s n o t joined a t t h e t r i a l . Thus no f o u n d a t i o n e x i s t e d f o r t h e admiss i o n of t h e t e s t i m o n y . " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) The C o u r t t h e n a l l o w e d a p p e l l a n t t o t e s t i f y t o h i s knowledge o f p r i o r t h r e a t s Heika had made. He testified t h a t i n t h e middle of A p r i l , he, a p p e l l a n t , w a s t a l k i n g t o a n e i g h b o r o n h i s C i t i z e n Band r a d i o when Heika b r o k e i n and s a i d " I ' l l g e t e v e n w i t h you and your s o n " i f he c o u l d e v e r c a t c h them a l o n e somewhere o n t h e r o a d . H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n A p r i l o r May h i s d a u g h t e r had t o l d him t h a t Heika had s t o p p e d where s h e w a s l i v i n g and made h e r g o f o r a r i d e w i t h Heika i n h i s p i c k u p . Heika wanted a p p e l l a n t ' s d a u g h t e r t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t h e r f a t h e r i n t h e l a w s u i t o v e r t h e dogs. F u r t h e r , Heika had t h r e a t e n e d t o c a t c h a p p e l l a n t o u t o n t h e r o a d and even t h i n g s up. H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1977 h i s s o n , Ken, J r . , came home and t o l d him h e had had a n e n c o u n t e r w i t h Heika a t t h e D i r t y Shame Saloon where Heika had t h r e a t ened t o g e t him f o r s h o o t i n g t h e dogs. Under c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n Heika a d m i t t e d t h e two i n c i d e n t s d e a l i n g w i t h a p p e l l a n t ' s son and d a u g h t e r . B. threat. H e d e n i e d t h e C. However, a l l t h e t h r e a t s w e r e t h e same, h e would g e t a p p e l l a n t and h i s son o u t on t h e r o a d a l o n e and even t h i n g s up. A second o f f e r of proof was made t o p r o v e by t h e t e s t i - mony o f o n e David Lawson t h a t t h e C.B. t h r e a t was made. The t e s t i m o n y o f E l i z a b e t h B r e i t e n s t e i n , now E l i z a b e t h J e t t o n , would p r o v i d e c o r r o b o r a t i o n of H e i k a ' s v i s i t t o h e r and h i s t h r e a t s t o h e r f a t h e r and b r o t h e r . F u r t h e r , Ken, J r . , would t e s t i f y a s t o t h r e a t s made by Heika a t t h e D i r t y Shame Saloon. T h i s o f f e r was r e j e c t e d by t h e c o u r t a f t e r s t a t i n g h e had a l l o w e d a p p e l l a n t t o t e s t i f y c o n c e r n i n g t h e t h r e a t s on h i s own s t a t e of mind, b u t found "under t h e Rules o f Evid e n c e t h a t i t would e x c l u d e i t b e c a u s e i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed by t h e d a n g e r of u n f a i r p r e j u - d i c e , c o n f u s i o n o f t h e i s s u e and r e s u l t i n g i n m i s l e a d i n g t h e jury . " The c o u r t a l s o r e f u s e d t h e S t a t e t h r o u g h William Heika t o r e b u t t h e t h r e a t s t e s t i f i e d t o by a p p e l l a n t . The t r i a l judge made h i s a s s e s s m e n t of t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e o f t h e t h r e a t e v i d e n c e and h i s r e a s o n i n g a s f o l l o w s : "The very most that can be said is that with the beer can in his hand, if you take the Defendant's view of him moving toward his agressor, if you take the complaining witness's statement of standing there and I started to go to my car and a guy whipped out a pistol and then said I am going to blow you out of existence, or something to that effect, then it might have been admitted solely for the state of mind of the Defendant. I don't believe its of any great value to the Jury." Judge Brantly in State v. Hanlon (1909), 38 Mont. 557, 574, 580, 100 P. 1035, addressed the admissibility of such evidence as follows: ". . . But no hard-and-fast rule of exclusion may be laid down. A wise discretion should be the guide, and in all cases where the specific act, by reason of its proximity in time and place, would legitimately reflect upon the conduct or motives of the parties at the time of the affray it should be admitted." ... Did the trial judge abuse his discretion? "As the admissibility of the evidence itself must rest largely in the sound discretion of the trial court, so must the extent to which the investigation of collateral issues arising thereon may so be lodged in its discretion, and its action will not be reviewed except where its discretionary power has been manifestly abused." Hanlon, 38 Mont. at 580. The trial judge stated that in his opinion, further testimony as to the threats would be excluded because its "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue and result in misleading the jury. " Rule 403, Mont.R.Evid., states: "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue, or needless presentaor misleading the jury . . tion of cumulative evidence." . The Commission Comment reads: "A key element of this rule is the discretion of the judge in deciding whether otherwise relevant evidence is to be excluded because of the factors listed in the rule." I n S t a t e v . J e n n i n g s ( 1 9 3 4 ) , 96 Mont. 80, 89, 28 P.2d 448, t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : "Such e v i d e n c e i s a d m i s s i b l e o n l y when t h e d e f e n d a n t has interposed a p l e a of self-defense ( c i t i n g cases) and when a p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n i s l a i d by proof o f some o v e r t a c t j u s t i f y i n g s u c h d e f e n s e . ( C i t i n g cases.) The t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d e x e r c i s e a sound l e g a l d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether o r n o t t h e p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n h a s been l a i d f o r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y . .. "'The t r u e s o l u t i o n i s t o e x e r c i s e a d i s c r e t i o n and t o a d m i t s u c h f a c t s when common s e n s e t e l l s t h a t they could l e g i t i m a t e l y a f f e c t a defendant's a p p r e h e n s i o n . ' (1 Wigmore on Evidence, 2nd e d . , 521.)" I n t h i s case t h e j u r y was informed of t h e t h r e a t s . From t h e t o t a l r e c o r d of t h e c a s e , t h e l o n g - s t a n d i n g c o n t r o v e r s y between Heika and a p p e l l a n t and h i s f a m i l y i s c l e a r and u n c o n t r a d i c t e d . The e v i d e n c e by t h e w i t n e s s e s t o t h e i n c i d e n t s u b s t a n t i a t e s t h a t even d u r i n g t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n , t h e dog problem w a s a r g u e d . Under t h e s e c i r o u m s t a n c e s w e h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l judge d i d n o t a b u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n by r u l i n g t h a t r e p e t i t i o u s testimony a s t o p r i o r t h r e a t s should be excluded a s l i k e l y t o d i s t r a c t and m i s l e a d t h e j u r y from t h e i s s u e s a c t u a l l y i n controversy. S e e S t a t e v. Heaston ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 1 0 9 Mont. 303, The judgment of c o n v i c t i o n i s a f f i r m e d . - . Chief J u s t i c e -
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.
