STATE v MERSEAL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12706 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - BILL ROSCOE MERSEAL, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Edward T. Dussault, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Daniel J. Shea argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John F. North, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschamps, County Attorney, argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: A,(T, ? ': --, 4 June 23, 1975 AUG 8 1,9:5 M r . J u s t i c e John C. H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant B i l l Roscoe Merseal a p p e a l s from a judgment r e n d e r e d November 1 4 , 1973, i n Missoula County, f i n d i n g him g u i l t y of attempted second degree a s s a u l t , a f e l o n y . The c h a i n of e v e n t s l e a d i n g t o d e f e n d a n t ' s a r r e s t began w i t h a domestic d i s t u r b a n c e . Missoula p o l i c e department o f f i c e r s Meltzer and Doxtater were d i s p a t c h e d i n response t o a c a l l from defendant's wife. She informed them defendant had a s s a u l t e d h e r and t h e n l e f t i n h i s c a r . She a l s o t o l d them an automatic weapon could be found on t h e f l o o r b o a r d of t h e c a r . Defendant was l o c a t e d and a r r e s t e d l a t e r t h a t evening and was informed t h e c h a r g e would be t h i r d d e g r e e a s s a u l t . A t t h a t p o i n t defendant was asked t o d r i v e t o t h e county courthouse. O f f i c e r Meltzer accompanied defendant i n h i s v e h i c l e , w h i l e t h r e e o t h e r p a t r o l c a r s , one i n f r o n t and two i n back, e s c o r t e d them. N s e a r c h of d e f e n d a n t ' s v e h i c l e was conducted o a t t h e scene of t h e a r r e s t . The a l l e g e d second degree a s s a u l t on O f f i c e r Meltzer a p p a r e n t l y took p l a c e d u r i n g t h i s d r i v e t o t h e c o u r t h o u s e , w h i l e t h e v e h i c l e was s t i l l i n motion. Defendant and O f f i c e r Meltzer became involved i n a heated argument, and s e v e r a l t i m e s d u r i n g t h e d i s c u s s i o n , defendant expressed a d e s i r e t o g e t out of t h e c a r . The r e c o r d i s n o t c l e a r a s t o whether d e f e n d a n t ' s purpose was t o e s c a p e o r merely t o avoid f u r t h e r a l t e r c a t i o n s w i t h O f f i c e r Meltzer by r i d i n g i n one of t h e o t h e r c a r s . testimony t o s u p p o r t b o t h p r o p o s i t i o n s . There i s The s p e c i f i c a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e crime a l l e g e d were d e s c r i b e d by O f f i c e r Meltzer on d i r e c t examination: Did a n y t h i n g unusual happen a s you were pro"Q. ceeding down Orange S t r e e t ? A . Yes, when we g o t on t h e Orange S t r e e t Bridge, approximately dead c e n t e r M r . Merseal had slowed h i s v e h i c l e down t o approximately 5 m i l e s p e r hour. W were about a e h a l f b l o c k behind t h e l e a d p o l i c e c a r and he a g a i n s t a t e d he was going t o jump o u t . He reached f o r , grabbed t h e t i l t e j e c t o r on t h e wheel and t i l t e d i t forward and s t a r t e d f o r t h e door and approximately a t t h e same time he reached down o r lunged f o r t h e f l o o r b o a r d w i t h h i s r i g h t hand, d r i v i n g w i t h h i s l e f t . I reached over w i t h m l e f t hand, grabbed h i s arm and drew m y y weapon and p o i n t e d i t a t him and s a i d i f he came t h a t I ' d have t o shoot him." ~ e f e n d a n t ' sv e r s i o n i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same e x c e p t he denied t h a t he reached down o r lunged f o r t h e f l o o r b o a r d . A s e a r c h of t h e v e h i c l e i n t h e courthouse parking l o t d i d i n f a c t r e v e a l t h e e x i s t e n c e of a loaded .25 c a l i b e r weapon under t h e floormat on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e . Defendant was then booked and j a i l e d on t h e c h a r g e of t h i r d degree a s s a u l t on h i s w i f e and r e l e a s e d on bond. Approximately f i v e months l a t e r , t h e county a t t o r n e y f i l e d an I n f o r m a t i o n which provided i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : I1 The f a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e o f f e n s e a r e : Said Defendant d i d w i l f u l l y , w r o n g f u l l y , u n l a w f u l l y , and f e l o n i o u s l y a t t e m p t t o a s s a u l t a human b e i n g , t o w i t : G. Lee M e l t z e r , w i t h a loaded .25 c a l i b e r automatic p i s t o l , w i t h t h e i n t e n t i n him, t h e s a i d B i l l Roscoe Merseal t o p r e v e n t o r r e s i s t t h e l a w f u l d e t e n t i o n o f h i m s e l f , a t approximately 2:00 A.M., on December 27, 1972, i n a moving v e h i c l e on o r n e a r t h e Orange S t r e e t B r i d g e , i n Missoula, Montana. I 1 Myriad s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of e r r o r a r e p r e s e n t e d b u t o n l y one i s s u e m e r i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s appeal--- i s t h e evidence l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t and judgment ? This Court remains evermindful of one fundamental r u l e - t h a t q u e s t i o n s of f a c t must be determined s o l e l y by t h e j u r y , and t h a t given a c e r t a i n l e g a l minimum of evidence, t h i s Court on review w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e j u r y . S t a t e v. Gunn, 89 Mont. 453, 300 P. 212; S t a t e v. B a r i c k , 143 Mont. 273, 389 P.2d 170. The p o l i c y i s f i r m l y grounded on t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t , u n l i k e an appellate court, the jury has, a s s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. G u s t i n , 85 Mont. 581, 584, 281 P. 351: "* * * t h e advantage of s e e i n g t h e w i t n e s s e s on t h e w i t n e s s - s t a n d , of observing t h e i r demeanor, t h e i r apparent candor o r l a c k of i t , of examining t h e e x h i b i t s o f f e r e d i n evidence. * * *". *** However, t h e r u l e has no a p p l i c a t i o n where t h e s t a n d a r d of l e g a l s u f f i c i e n c y has n o t been met. by a long l i n e of d e c i s i o n s , i s t h e dence. That s t a n d a r d , e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e of s u b s t a n t i a l e v i - Where s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s found t o support t h e v e r d i c t , i t must s t a n d . S t a t e v. F i t z p a t r i c k , 163 Mont. 220, 516 P.2d 605; S t a t e v. Hoskins, 163 Mont. 36, 514 P.2d 1331; S t a t e v. Bouldin, 153 Mont. 276, 456 P.2d 830; S t a t e v. Olsen, 152 Mont. 1, 445 P.2d 926; S t a t e v. Peschon, 131 Mont. 330, 310 P.2d 591. But where t h e r e i s no s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e judgment, i t becomes o u r duty t o s e t i t a s i d e . State v. Konon, 84 Mont. 255, 274 P. 1060; S t a t e v. McCarthy, 36 Mont. 226, 92 P. 521. On appeal we examine t h e evidence t o determine whether t h e v e r d i c t i s supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. I n s o doing, we view 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 . S t a t e v. Noble, 142 Mont. 284, 384 P.2d 504; S t a t e v. Steward, 151 Mont. 551, 445 P.2d 741. S u b s t a n t i a l evidence means such r e l e v a n t evidence a s a r e a s o n a b l e mind might a c c e p t a s adequate t o support a conclusion. Hurley v. Northern P a c i f i c Ky. Co., 153 Mont. 199, 455 P.2d 321; Graham v. Rolandson, 150 Mont.270, 435 P.2d 263; 24A C.J.S. Criminal Law 91880, p. 793. To o b t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n f o r attempted a s s a u l t , t h e S t a t e c a r r i e s t h e burden t o prove t h r e e elements beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt: (1) The attempt o r i n t e n t i o n a l and i n e f f e c t u a l o v e r t a c t , S t a t e v. Stone, 40 Mont. 88, 105 P. 89; (2) t h e p r e s e n t apparent a b i l i t y t o do harm; and (3) a r e a s o n a b l e apprehension o r f e a r i n t h e mind of t h e person a s s a u l t e d . 45 Mont. 598, 124 P. 775. S t a t e v. Barry, Too, under s e c t i o n 94-602(5), R.C.M. 1947, t h e i n t e n t t o prevent o r r e s i s t l a w f u l apprehension o r d e t e n t i o n must be e s t a b l i s h e d . The r e c o r d i s d e f i c i e n t i n t h a t i t f a i l s t o provide any c r e d i b l e evidence i n s u p p o r t of t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s conduct placed O f f i c e r Meltzer i n r e a s o n a b l e apprehension o r f e a r . Since t h e q u e s t i o n was n e v e r put t o him d i r e c t l y , t h e j u r y d e c i s i o n c o u l d o n l y have been based on i n f e r e n c e s drawn from c i r c u m s t a n t i a l testimony. O f f i c e r Meltzer t e s t i f i e d he b e l i e v e d defendant had a gun, This i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s t e s t i - a l t h o u g h he never saw one, - mony t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t i f defendant came up w i t h a gun, he would have t o shoot him. He was w e l l aware of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h e gun was under t h e f l o o r m a t , b u t he u n h e s i t a t i n g l y e n t e r e d d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r f o r t h e r i d e t o t h e courthouse without f i r s t searching t h e vehicle. While defendant r e p e a t e d l y argued withhim and expressed an i n t e n t t o l e a v e t h e v e h i c l e , t h e o f f i c e r never found i t n e c e s s a r y t o p l a c e him under r e s t r a i n t and allowed him t o continue t o drive the car. A d d i t i o n a l c o n f u s i o n surrounds h i s testimony concerning d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g e d I' lunge" f o r t h e weapon, which seemed t o t a k e p l a c e a t approximately t h e same time a s defendant moved toward t h e door i n an o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n . While t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s might w e l l have j u s t i f i e d t h e o f f i c e r i n drawing h i s weapon o r p l a c i n g t h e defendant under p h y s i c a l r e s t r a i n t , t h e y d o n o t j u s t i f y a c o n v i c t i o n f o r attempted assault. The r e c o r d simply l a c k s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence upon which a proper i n f e r e n c e a s t o t h e o f f i c e r ' s s t a t e of mind might have been drawn. The f a c t s h e r e a r e of such a c o n j e c t u r a l n a t u r e a s t o b e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e conviction. Accordingly, judgment i s r e v e r s e d . - ' , --*---'-*---*-------------------- Justice . ' W Concur: e /----i Chief h 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.