STATE v GRADY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12785 I N THE SUPRhXE COIJRT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1975 THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - JOHN GRADY, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: 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 , Honorable R o b e r t Wilson, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f R.ecord: For Appellant : John L. Adams, Jr. a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , 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 Harold F. Hanser, County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana C h a r l e s A. B r a d l e y , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided : J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1975 - FEB 7 1975 Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by d e f e n d a n t from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, r e n d e r e d upon a j u r y v e r d i c t c o n v i c t i n g him of t h e crime of a s s a u l t i n t h e second d e g r e e . E a r l y i n t h e morning of September 2 2 , 1973, o f f i c e r s Knutsen and J o n e s of t h e B i l l i n g s P o l i c e Department responded t o a c o m p l a i n t t h a t a s h o o t i n g had o c c u r r e d i n a r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a of B i l l i n g s . Upon t h e i r a r r i v a l a t t h e s c e n e , t h e y d i s c o v e r e d one C a l v i n "Bubbles" White had been s e v e r e l y wounded by g u n f i r e and w a s b e i n g h e l p e d i n t o h i s c a r by M. and Mrs. B i l l F o s t e r . r Immediately upon t h e d i s c o v e r y t h a t a s h o o t i n g had o c c u r r e d , O f f i c e r J o n e s i n q u i r e d a s t o who had done t h e s h o o t i n g ; F o s t e r r e p l i e d w i t h words t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t "John Grady d i d i t " . The o f f i c e r s r a d i o e d t o o t h e r p a t r o l c a r s t h a t t h e s u s p e c t was John Grady and a l l o w e d t h e F o s t e r s t o d r i v e t h e v i c t i m t o t h e l ~ o s p i t a l . Amelio Martinez t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was awakened by a s h o t and looked o u t t h e window of h e r house, which was a c r o s s t h e s t r e e t from Bubbles' house. She o b s e r v e d M r . and Mrs. F o s t e r s t a n d - i n g on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e o f B u b b l e s ' c a r a p p a r e n t l y t r y i n g t o h e l p him g e t i n . She t h e n saw a c a r come down t h e s t r e e t w i t h i t s l i g h t s o f f , make a U-turn and t h e n s t o p . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h i s p o i n t a man g o t o u t of t h i s c a r on t h e p a s s e n g e r s i d e and a s h o t was f i r e d , which s h e t h o u g h t was i n t o t h e a i r . She t e s t i - f i e d t h a t a second s h o t w a s t h e n f i r e d which c a u s e d Bubbles t o f a l l t o t h e ground. Roberta A q u i l a r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was awakened by t h e sound of l o u d t a l k i n g . She h e a r d one s h o t a n d , from t h e window of h e r house a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - t h i r d o f a b l o c k o r 1 0 0 f e e t from t h e a c t i v i t y , saw t h r e e o r f o u r o t h e r s h o t s . l y i n g down, p r o b a b l y on t h e s i d e w a l k . She o b s e r v e d Bubbles Bubbles t h e n g o t u p a n d , w h i l e he w a s b e i n g h e l p e d i n t o h i s c a r by t h e F o s t e r s , a b l u e Buick proceeded down t h e s t r e e t w i t h i t s l i g h t s o f f . She s t a t e d t h a t t h e Buick s t o p p e d and more s h o t s w e r e f i r e d , a b o u t f i v e she thought. The c a r t h e n l e f t , made a U-turn and came back. She t h e n c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e . f i v e minutes t h e r e a f t e r . The o f f i c e r s a r r i v e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y Over o b j e c t i o n M r s . A q u i l a r was p e r - m i t t e d t o t e s t i f y t h a t when t h e p o l i c e a r r i v e d , s h e h e a r d , t h r o u g h h e r open window, t h e p o l i c e a s k M r . F o s t e r i f h e knew who had s h o t M r . White and t h a t "Mr. Grady." F o s t e r s a i d i t was John The Court a l l o w e d t h e w i t n e s s t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n but c a u t i o n e d t h e j u r y t h a t i t was " a l l o w i n g t h e answer o n l y f o r t h e purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s s t a t e m e n t was made, n o t f o r t h e p u r p o s e of showing t h e t r u t h o r f a l s i t y of t h e statement i t s e l f . " O d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n of O f f i c e r Mnutsen, t h i s t r a n s p i r e d : n "Q. N w when you a r r i v e d d i d you a s k M r . White o and M r . F o s t e r who had done t h e s h o o t i n g ? ADAMS: O b j e c t t o t h i s , Your Honor, on t h e grounds it v i o l a t e s t h e Rules of Hearsay, no p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n f o r i t s a d m i s s i o n h a s been l a i d . F u r t h e r on t h e grounds t h a t it v i o l a t e s t h e Rules o f C o n f r o n t a t i o n . "MR. "THE COURT: O v e r r u l e d , I am g o i n g t o a l l o w t h e w i t n e s s t o answer b u t a g a i n I c a u t i o n t h e J u r y d o n ' t a l l o w t h e answer t o a f f e c t your d e t e r m i n a t i o n I t ' s only of g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e of t h i s d e f e n d a n t . f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e sequence of events. "MR. ADAMS: I f your Honor p l e a s e , May I have an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l i n g s o I am n o t waiving m y objection? "THE COURT: Yes, you may have a c o n t i n u i n g objection. "A. I d i d n o t a s k them, O f f i c e r J o n e s asked them wno had done t h e s h o o t i n g . "Q. A.. Did anyone r e p l y t o O f f i c e r J o n e s ' q u e s t i o n ? Yes, s i r , B i l l F o s t e r d i d . "Q. And what d i d he r e p l y ? John Grady had s h o t him. A. He s t a t e d t h a t "A. I p u t o u t t o l o c a l c a r s t h a t o n e of t h e w i t n e s s e s a t t h e s c e n e had s t a t e d t h a t John Grady had d.one t h e s h o o t i n g and t h a t John Grady owned a ' 6 5 Buick, w h i t e o v e r b l u e f o u r d o o r . A t t h e t i m e I had t h e l i c e n s e p l a c e number w r i t t e n down i n m n o t e s and I do n o t r e c a l l what i t was t o d a y . y Q . Did you p u t o u t t h e l i c e n s e number t o o ? Yes, s i r , I d i d . " A. On d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n of O f f i c e r J o n e s , t h i s was e l i c i t e d : "A. * * * So I t u r n e d back t o William F o s t e r who had r u n around and s t a r t e d t o g e t i n t o t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e and I s a i d , 'Who s h o t B u b b l e s ? ' and he s a i d , ' J o h n Grady, John s h o t B u b b l e s . ' " And on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n : "Q. A. What a b o u t S a l l y F o s t e r , d i d s h e s a y a n y t h i n g ? Yes, s h e d i d . "Q. What d i d s h e s a y ? s h o t Bubbles. "Q. A. A. She s a i d t h a t John Grady Then b o t h h e r and h e r husband v o l u n t e e r e d t h i s ? No, I asked them and t h e n t h e y came r i g h t o u t - - . "Q Did you s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k e a c h of them i n d i v i d u a l l y ? A. There was a l o t of e x c i t e m e n t t h e r e and I sa i d , 'Who s h o t him?' and M r . F o s t e r s a i d , ' J o h n Grady d i d . ' And t h e n t h e y g o t i n t h e c a r and t o o k o f f and I s t a y e d a t t h e s c e n e and Mrs. F o s t e r was t h e r e and I asked h e r , 'Now who d i d you s e e s h o o t i n g ? ' And s h e s a i d , ' I saw John and Carolyn and t h e y were s h o o t i n g a t h i m . ' " O f f i c e r Wong of t h e B i l l i n g s P o l i c e Department t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e and O f f i c e r S p o e r l were downtown i n a p a t r o l c a r and h e a r d a d i s p a t c h t h a t a s h o o t i n g had o c c u r r e d and t h e s u s p e c t i n t h e s h o o t i n g was p u t o v e r t h e a i r a s John Grady, d r i v i n g a w h i t e o v e r b l u e Buick. O f f i c e r Wong t h e n d e s c r i b e d t h e o b s e r v a t i o n of a c a r which t h e y t h o u g h t m i g h t be t h e s u s p e c t v e h i c l e , t h e de- t a i l s of t h e i r p u r s u i t of t h a t v e h i c l e a n d , t h e i r f o l l o w i n g t h e v e h i c l e i n t o a c o r n f i e l d where John Grady and Carolyn Grady were arrested. A f t e r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n had r e s t e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i n chambers, informed d e f e n d a n t t h a t he was n o t r e q u i r e d t o t a k e che s t a n d t h a t , i f h e d i d n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d and t e s t i f y i n h i s own b e h a l f , no comment a s t o t h a t c o u l d be made by t h e c o u n t y That t h e S t a t e w a s o b l i g a t e d t o prove t h e a t t o r n e y i n any way. c h a r g e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t even though he d i d n o t t e s t i f y and t h a t , on t h e 0 t h 9 r hand, he d i d have t h e r i g h t t o t e s t i f y on h i s own b e h a l f b u t would be s u b j e c t t o t h e same t y p e o f c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n a s any o t h e r w i t n e s s . A f t e r h a v i n g been s o informed and a f t e r c o n f e r r i n g p r i v a t e l y w i t h h i s c o u n s e l , d e f e n d a n t elected t o testify. The t e s t i m o n y of d e f e n d a n t , b o t h on d i r e c t and c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , i s r e p l e t e w i t h a d m i s s i o n s t h a t he g o t o u t o f h i s c a r and s h o t a t t h e group o f p e o p l e i n f r o n t of Bubbles W h i t e ' s house t h a t n i g h t . Defendant, however, s t a t e s t h a t he s h o t o n l y i n s e l f - d e f e n s e ' , . h i s c a r h a v i n g been f i r e d upon as he d r o v e down t h e s t r e e t . He t h e n s t o p p e d t h e c a r a t t h e i n t e r s e c - t i o n , g o t o u t of t h e c a r , walked around t h e c a r f u l l y exposed t o t h e p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s who were f i r i n g upon him. This testimony on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n f a i r l y summarizes h i s t e s t i m o n y : "Q. Then what d i d you do? A. I went back t o t h e s i d e of my c a r t o where I c o u l d l o o k o v e r and some more s h o t s come and I f i r e d a warning s h o t , I f i r e d i n t h e a i r and t h e n I had t o duck. "Q. A l l r i g h t now, you a r e o u t of t h e c a r w i t h t h e s h o t g u n , you f i r e once i n t h e a i r . Who d i d you s h o o t a t t h e second t i m e you f i r e d t h e s h o t gun? A. I j u s t f i r e d i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e crowd t h a t - - b u t low--I w a s n ' t t r y i n g t o h u r t anybody. I t * * * "Q. How many t i m e s d i d you s h o o t a t t h e s e t h r e e p e o p l e s t a n d i n g t h e r e on t h e s i d e w a l k w i t h t h e shotgun? A. I b e l i e v e i t might have been t w i c e . I t might have been once. I d o n ' t know. "Q. Now you have s h o t once i n t h e a i r , t w i c e a t t h e p e o p l e o v e r h e r e w i t h t h e s h o t gun, once i n t o t h e c a r and you p u t t h e s h o t g u n away. A . Yes. "Q. Did you s e e whether o r n o t you had h i t anybody when you s h o t them w i t h t h e s h o t g u n ? A. No, I d i d n o t b e c a u s e I was f i r e d upon a g a i n . " * * * "0. Yes. So now you were f i r e d upon a g a i n . A. "Q. Okay, and t h i s t i m e how d i d you g e t t h e automatic r i f l e o r semi-automatic r i f l e o u t ? A. I t a k e it o u t of t h e back s e a t . "Q. Okay, now how many s h o t s d i d you f i r e w i t h t h e r i f l e ? A. F i r s t shot I f i r e d with t h e r i f l e was r i g h t h e r e i n f r o n t of t h e c a r and I w a s n ' t - - "9. T h a t ' s t h e o n e t h a t h i t t h e cement? A. Yes. "Q. Where was t h e second s h o t w i t h t h e r i f l e ? A. I t was f i r e d t o w a r d s t h e p e r s o n n e a r e s t t o t h e end o v e r h e r e , i t t u r n e d o u t t o be C a l v i n White. " The S t a t e ' s c a s e was w i t h o u t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f C a l v i n White, t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y , and w i t h o u t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f W i l l i a m and S a l l y F o s t e r , two p e r s o n s a c t u a l l y a t t h e s c e n e a t t h e t i m e af t h e s h o o t i n g . J o h n Grady was a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d w i t h t h e crime of a s s a u l t i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e , a f e l o n y u n d e r former s e c t i o n 9 4 6 0 1 , R.C.M. 1947, then i n e f f e c t . The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y of t h e crime of a s s a u l t i n t h e second d e g r e e . There- upon, d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o a t e r m o f s i x y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . Defendant a p p e a l s from t h a t c o n v i c t i o n and p r e s e n t s two issues: (1) Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s a d m i s s i o n o f t h e h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y o f t h e S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t was the a s s a i l a n t i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r ? (2) Whether t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e S t a t e t o p r o d u c e c e r t a i n w i t n e s s e s , who may have been d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e a . f f r a y , 3 s L a b l i s h e d t h e d e f e n s e of s e l f - d e f e n s e and p r e c l u d e d d e f e n d a n t from b e i n g c o n v i c t e d o f t h e crime of a s s a u l t ? - 6 - W e answer e a c h q u e s t i o n i n t h e n e g a t i v e and a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court . With r e s p e c t t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e , d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n i s s t a t e d i n t h e s e two s e n t e n c e s t a k e n from h i s b r i e f t o t h i s Court : " B r i e f l y s t a t e d , it i s f e l t t h a t c o n v i c t i o n might n o t have been had i f t h e d e f e n d a n t had n o t e l e c t e d t o t e s t i f y and a d m i t t h a t he had f i r e d c e r t a i n s h o t s t h a t e v e n i n g a t M r . White, u s i n g b o t h a r i f l e and a s h o t g u n * * *. M r . Grady v o l u n t a r i l y assumed t h e s t a n d b u t p r i m a r i l y h i s r e a s o n s f o r assuming t h e s t a n d were p r e d i c a t e d on t h e h e a r s a y i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e c a s e i n c h i e f * * *." Because o f t h e view we t a k e o f t h i s a p p e a l , we do n o t examine t h e i s s u e of whether t h e a d m i s s i o n of t h e t e s t i m o n y t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t "John Grady d i d i t " was e r r o r . S e c t i o n 95-2425, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s : "Any e r r o r , d e f e c t , i r r e g u l a r i t y o r v a r i a n c e which d o e s n o t a f f e c t s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s s h a l l be d i s r e g a r d e d . " I t i s o f t e n s a i d t h a t t h e o b j e c t of a t r i a l i s a s e a r c h for the truth. Defendant v o l u n t a r i l y assumed t h e s t a n d . His a d m i s s i o n s i n h i s t e s t i m o n y c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t h e was t h e p e r s o n f i r i n g a t "Bubbles1' White on the night i n question. Thus t h e e r r o r , i f a n y , i n a d m i t t i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y t h a t "John Grady d i d i t " when viewed i n l i g h t of t h e t e s t i m o n y a s a whole, d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f d e f e n d a n t and i s p r o p e r l y d i s r e g a r d e d . A d m i t t i n g f o r t h e moment t h e S t a t e ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t "John Grady d i d i t " may have prompted d e f e n d a n t t o t a k e t h e s t a n d , a l t h o u g h t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t show t h i s , s u c h f a c t d o e s n o t e n t i t l e d e f e n d a n t t o have h i s t e s t i m o n y d i s r e g a r d e d s h o u l d e r r o r be found. Defendant a p p a r e n t l y a s k s t h i s C o u r t t o e s t a b l i s h a r u l e o f law which would a l l o w t h e d e f e n d a n t t o enumerate e v e r y c o n c e i v a b l e s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r h e c o u l d t h i n k o f and s t a t e t h a t b e c a u s e of such e r r o r he was compelled t o t a k e t h e s t a n d i n n i r own b e h a l f . Then, upon a p p e a l , i f t h i s C o u r t found t h a t any o f t h o s e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f e r r o r had m e r i t , t h e d e f e n d a n t would be e n t i t l e d t o h a v e h i s t e s t i m o n y d i s r e g a r d e d . This C o u r t w i l l n o t e s t a b l i s h s u c h a r u l e of law. D e f e n d a n t ' s s e c o n d i s s u e may b e summarily a n s w e r e d . He c o n t e n d s t h a t by h i s p l e a o f s e l f - d e f e n s e h e had i n e f f e c t admitted t h e doing of c e r t a i n a c t s ; t h a t t h e prosecution should t n e n have been c o m p e l l e d t o p r e s e n t t h e w i t n e s s e s , namely "Bubbles' White and t h e F o s t e r s , t o v i t i a t e s u c h p l e a , and t h a t s i n c e none o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e c o u l d v i t i a t e t h e p l e a , i t s h o u l d b e deemed e s t a b l i s h e d a n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l . The l a w i n Montana i s t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e burden of p e r s u a s i o n remains on t h e S t a t e , i n o r d e r t o a v a i l himself of t h e a f f i r m a t i v e defense of s e l f d e f e n s e , t h e defendant has t h e burden of producing s u f f i c i e n t evidence on t h e i s s u e t o r a i s e a r e a s o n a b l e doubt of h i s g u i l t . S t a t e v . ~ e a k k ~ 4, Mont. 3 5 4 , 366, 120 P . 234; S t a t e v . P o w e l l , 4 5 4 Mont. 217, 220, 1 6 9 P . 46. The judgment i s a f f i r m e d . W concur: e Chief J u s t i c e ................................ Justices Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell and Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly specially concurring: We concur in affirming the conviction, but feel the majority opinion contains an error of law to which this special concurring opinion is directed. The defendant contends that he was prejudiced "by the Court's allowing the hearsay testimony of Officer Knutson that the defendant was the assailant". The majority hold the admis- sion of this testimony "harmless error". In our view, the ad- mission of this testimony is no error at all as the testimony is clearly admissible. The testimony of Officer Knutson that upon his arrival at the scene of the shooting Mr. Foster stated that defendant had shot the victim is admissible as a "verbal act", a well recognized exception to the hearsay rule. inal Evidence, 13th Ed., Vol. 2, Sec. 274. See Wharton's CrimThe fact the state- ment was made, irrespective of its truth or falsity, is relevant. It serves to show the sequence of events immediately following the shooting; in particular it explains why police activity had focused on defendant and why police subsequently apprehended him. Without this information, the jury would be left in the dark concerning the chase and subsequent arrest of defendant. Judge Wilson clearly limited the testimony to this purpose: "Overruled, I am going to allow the witness to answer but again I caution the Jury don't allow the answer to affect your determination of guilt or innocence of this defendant. It's only for the purpose of establishing the sequence of events. " Hence, the testimony was clearly admissible; no error was committed; and the "harmless error" rule is not involved. Justices k

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.