STATE v THOMPSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13713 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vsSTEPHEN A. THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Wm. Georqe Harris argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Charles R. Anderson, Assistant Attorey General, argued, Helena, Montana Robert Deschamps 111, County Attorney, argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: MAR ~2 - 1378 March 3, 1978 MAR 2 P 1978 Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendant Stephen A. Thompson was charged with two counts of perjury in the District Court of Missoula County based upon his sworn testimony in the homicide trial of Levi Stump. The jury acquitted defendant Thompson of count I and convicted him of count 11. Following denial of defendant's motion for a new trial on count 11, he appeals. Pursuant to a plea bargaining agreement with the prosecutor, defendant Thompson agreed to testify for the State in the deliberate homicide trial of Levi Stump who was accused of killing Charles Daniels. On June 25, 1976 defendant Thompson testified in the Stump trial. His direct testimony was that he and Stump had killed Daniels; on cross-e~mination he retracted this testimony by testifying that neither he nor Stump had anything to do with killing Daniels. The Stump trial ended in a mistrial. On July 8, 1976 defendant Thompson was charged with perjury. The amended information charged two counts of perjury: Count I charged perjury based upon defendant's inconsistent statements in a single proceeding; Count I1 charged perjury based on defendant's testimony in the Stump trial that he saw the victim lying on the ground bleeding on April 22 and April 23 near where the body was found on April 25, 1976. Defendant Thompson plead not guilty to each count. Thereafter the District Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the amended information. Later, following a hearing, the District Court denied defendant's motion to suppress his statements to police following his arrest in the Daniels homicide. Defendant's trial on the perjury charges commenced on October 8, 1976. At the close of the State's case-in-chief, d e f e n d a n t moved f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i n h i s f a v o r and d i s m i s s a l of t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n which was d e n i e d . Defendant o f f e r e d no t e s t i m o n y i n h i s d e f e n s e and r e s t e d h i s case. The j u r y a c q u i t t e d d e f e n d a n t of Count I and c o n v i c t e d him of Count 11. D e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r judgment n o t w i t h - s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t on Count I1 was d e n i e d . Defendant was s e n t e n c e d t o t e n y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n w i t h f i v e y e a r s suspended. L a t e r a n amended judgment was e n t e r e d whereby d e f e n d a n t was i n c a r c e r a t e d a t t h e Swan Lake Youth C o r r e c t i o n F a c i l i t y . Following d e n i a l of h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s . On a p p e a l , we c o n s o l i d a t e t h e i s s u e i n t o s i x s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f e r r o r r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t : (1) D e n i a l o f h i s motion t o s u p p r e s s h i s s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n t o p o l i c e f o l l o w i n g h i s a r r e s t i n t h e ~ a n i e l s 'homicide. ( 2 ) D e n i a l o f h i s motion t o d i s m i s s Count I1 of t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n . ( 3 ) D e n i a l of h i s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t a t t h e c l o s e of t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f . ( 4 ) D e n i a l o f h i s motion f o r judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t on Count 11. (5) Errors i n i n s t r u c t i n g t h e jury. ( 6 ) D e n i a l o f a f a i r t r i a l based on t h e S t a t e ' s c l o s i n g argument t o t h e j u r y . I s s u e 1. Defendant c l a i m s t h a t h i s a r r e s t w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t i n t h e D a n i e l s ' homicide was u n l a w f u l s o h i s s t a t e ments g i v e n t o t h e p o l i c e were i n v o l u n t a r y and s h o u l d have been s u p p r e s s e d . The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t none of t h e s t a t e m e n t s def e n d a n t s o u g h t t o have s u p p r e s s e d w e r e a d m i t t e d i n e v i d e n c e i n h i s perjury t r i a l . Under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s , d e f e n d a n t ' s s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r l a c k s s u b s t a n c e . This Court does n o t d e c i d e academic, t h e o r e t i c a l o r moot q u e s t i o n s . Livingston, Adkins v . C i t y of ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 1 2 1 Mont. 528, 194 P.2d 238. Although d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h i s i s s u e must be c o n s i d e r e d b e c a u s e t h e p r e s e n t c a s e was a n outgrowth of t h e D a n i e l s ' homicide c a s e , we a d h e r e t o t h e r u l e t h a t t h i s C o u r t c o n f i n e s i t s r u l i n g s t o t h e c a s e on a p p e a l . Mont. 283, 322 P.2d 1 1 0 4 . F e e l y v . Lacey, ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 133 A s defendant's statements t o t h e p o l i c e f o l l o w i n g h i s a r r e s t i n t h e D a n i e l s ' homicide were n o t used i n h i s p e r j u r y t r i a l , h i s s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r lacks relevance i n t h i s appeal. I s s u e 2. Defendant s p e c i f i e s e r r o r i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o d i s m i s s t h e p e r j u r y c h a r g e i n Count I1 prior t o trial. He a r g u e s t h a t h i s t e s t i m o n y i n t h e Stump t r i a l t h a t h e saw t h e v i c t i m l y i n g on t h e ground b l e e d i n g two and t h r e e d a y s p r i o r t o d i s c o v e r y of t h e body n e a r t h e same l o c a t i o n was n o t m a t e r i a l t o t h e i s s u e i n t h e Stump t r i a l , s p e c i f i c a l l y who k i l l e d D a n i e l s . Montana's p e r j u r y s t a t u t e , S e c t i o n 94-7-202, 1947, R.C.M. provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "Perjury. (1) A p e r s o n commits t h e o f f e n s e of p e r j u r y i f i n any o f f i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g he knowingly makes a f a l s e s t a t e m e n t under o a t h * * * when t h e s t a t e m e n t i s material. " ( 3 ) F a l s i f i c a t i o n i s m a t e r i a l , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h e s t a t e m e n t under r u l e s of e v i d e n c e , i f i t c o u l d have a f f e c t e d t h e c o u r s e o r outcome o f t h e I t i s no d e f e n s e t h a t t h e d e c l a r a n t m i s t a k e n l y proceeding. b e l i e v e d t h e f a l s i f i c a t i o n t o b e i m m a t e r i a l . Whether a f a l s i f i c a t i o n i s material i n a given f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i s a q u e s t i o n of law." is The t e s t of m a t e r i a l i t y / w h e t h e r i n t h e a c t u a l f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v e d , i t would be r e a s o n a b l e t o f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t , i f b e l i e v e d , c o u l d have a l t e r e d t h e c o u r s e o r outcome of t h e p r o c e e d i n g . Scanlon, ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 34 St.Rep. 368; S t a t e v . H a l l , 956, Mont. , S t a t e v. 569 P. 2d ( 1 9 3 0 ) , 88 Mont. 297, 292 P.2d 734. T h i s i s t h e same t e s t t h a t a p p l i e d under t h e p r i o r p e r j u r y s t a t u t e . S t a t e v. S c a n l o n , s u p r a . H e r e d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y i n t h e Stump t r i a l t h a t h e saw D a n i e l s l y i n g b l e e d i n g on A p r i l 2 2 and A p r i l 23 n e a r t h e p l a c e where D a n i e l s ' body was found on A p r i l 25 r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d have a f f e c t e d t h e outcome of t h e Stump t r i a l . Defendant Thompson's s t a t e m e n t , i f b e l i e v e d by t h e j u r y , would f u r n i s h that a b a s i s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g / D a n i e l s d i e d from wounds i n f l i c t e d by someone o t h e r t h a n Stump and Thompson. Stump's d e f e n s e was t h a t someone e l s e k i l l e d D a n i e l s and n o t him; Thompson's statement, as t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s p r i n c i p a l w i t n e s s , s u b s t a n t i a t e d Stump's d e f e n s e . A c c o r d i n g l y , we h o l d t h a t d e f e n d a n t Thompson's sworn s t a t e m e n t w a s m a t e r i a l and c o u l d have a f f e c t e d t h e outcome o f t h e Stump t r i a l . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t was c o r r e c t i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s Count I1 of t h e amended information. I s s u e 3. Here d e f e n d a n t r e p e a t s h i s argument t h a t h i s t e s t i m o n y was n o t m a t e r i a l and f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t was n o t f a l s e . I n t h i s case t h e jury, i f it believed t h e S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s , c o u l d f i n d t h a t D a n i e l s was s e e n a l i v e and w e l l between A p r i l 22 and A p r i l 25; t h a t d e f e n d a n t Thompson f a l s e l y g a v e sworn t e s t i m o n y i n t h e Stump t r i a l t h a t h e saw D a n i e l s b l e e d i n g , i n t h e a r e a where h i s body was l a t e r found some two and t h r e e d a y s p r i o r t o d i s c o v e r y of t h e body. A directed v e r d i c t f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e c a n o n l y be g i v e n where t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e on which t h e j u r y c o u l d base a conviction. 538 P.2d 339. S t a t e v . Paulson, ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 310, The D i s t r i c t Court was c o r r e c t i n d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t . I s s u e 4. Defendant n e x t c l a i m s e r r o r i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of h i s motion f o r judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t o n Count I1 of t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n . H e a r g u e s t h a t t h e v e r d i c t s i n t h i s c a s e must be i d e n t i c a l ; t h a t a c q u i t t a l on Count I b a r s c o n v i c t i o n on Count 11. H e f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t b e c a u s e of h i s d e f e n s e of r e t r a c t i o n , t h e v e r d i c t on b o t h c o u n t s must be c o n s i s t e n t and h e c a n n o t be c h a r g e d and c o n v i c t e d of p e r j u r y on Count I1 b e c a u s e o f his retraction. C o n s i s t e n c y i n v e r d i c t s on m u l t i p l e c h a r g e s i s n o t required i n a l l cases. U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. Dunn v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 284 189, 76 L.Ed. 356. Defendant r e c o g n i z e s t h i s principle but maintains t h a t i n t h i s case consistency i s r e q u i r e d b e c a u s e t h e e l e m e n t s of t h e o f f e n s e s c h a r g e d i n b o t h c o u n t s a r e t h e same and b e c a u s e of h i s d e f e n s e of retraction. Where s e p a r a t e a c t s a r e c h a r g e d i n a n i n f o r m a t i o n , e a c h a c t i s a s e p a r a t e o f f e n s e and a c q u i t t a l o r c o n v i c t i o n o f o n e o r more c o u n t s d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e o t h e r c o u n t s . Boe, ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 143 Mont. 1 4 1 , 388 P.2d 372. State v. Here e a c h c o u n t i n t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s t a t e s a s e p a r a t e o f f e n s e of p e r j u r y . A c q u i t t a l of Count I d o e s n o t b a r c o n v i c t i o n of Count I1 b e c a u s e t h e e l e m e n t s c h a r g e d i n t h e two c o u n t s a r e d i f f e r e n t . To p r o v e Count I , t h e S t a t e had t o show t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t made i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e Stump t r i a l and t h a t o n e of t h e i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s w a s f a l s e and w a s n o t b e l i e v e d t o be t r u e by t h e d e f e n d a n t . To p r o v e Count 11, t h e S t a t e had t o show t h a t d e f e n d a n t knowingly made a f a l s e and m a t e r i a l s t a t e m e n t under o a t h , n o t t h a t h e made i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e ments d u r i n g t h e Stump t r i a l . A s t h e e l e m e n t s of t h e two o f f e n s e s c h a r g e d were d i f f e r e n t , c o n s i s t e n c y of t h e two v e r d i c t s was n o t r e q u i r e d . The d e f e n s e of r e t r a c t i o n i s i r r e l e v a n t t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n of p e r j u r y i n Count I1 o f t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n . Count I1 c h a r g e d d e f e n d a n t w i t h p e r j u r y based upon h i s sworn t e s t i m o n y i n t h e Stump t r i a l t h a t h e saw D a n i e l s b l e e d i n g on A p r i l 22 and A p r i l 23 i n t h e a r e a where t h e body was found on A p r i l 25. T h i s s t a t e m e n t was made on r e d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n and was n o t r e t r a c t e d t h e r e a f t e r . Thus t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of a r e t r a c t i o n of t h i s s t a t e m e n t a r e m i s s i n g , v i z . a d i f f e r e n t and t r u e s t a t e m e n t f o l l o w i n g a p r i o r f a l s i f i c a t i o n i n t h e same p r o c e e d i n g . S e c t i o n 94-7-202(5), R.C.M. 1947. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t was c o r r e c t i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r judgment i n h i s f a v o r n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t on Count 11. I s s u e 5. W e f i n d no s u b s t a n c e t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e j u r y was i m p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d . N e r r o r was committed i n g i v i n g S t a t e ' s proposed o i n s t r u c t i o n No. 6 and r e f u s i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 2 . Both r e l a t e t o i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s made under o a t h and c o n t a i n t h e s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e of s e c t i o n 947 - 2 0 2 ( 6 ) , R.C.M. 1947, e x c e p t t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n o m i t s t h e words " b o t h having been made w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d of t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s * * *". Both i n s t r u c t i o n s r e l a t e d t o Count I of which d e f e n d a n t was a c q u i t t e d ; t h e r e w a s never an i s s u e concerning t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s i n t h e c a s e ; and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n i s a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t of t h e law a s a p p l i e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e case. Nor w a s t h e r e any e r r o r i n r e f u s i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 6 on c o r r o b o r a t i o n of p e r j u r y . Court's i n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 3 c o v e r i n g t h i s s u b j e c t was g i v e n t o t h e jury; i t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s e c t i o n 94-7- 2 0 2 ( 7 ) , R.C.M. 1947, and w a s a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t of t h e l a w ; and t h e r e f u s e d i n s t r u c t i o n was r e d u n d a n t . I s s u e 6. Defendant's f i n a l contention i s t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s c l o s i n g argument t o t h e j u r y d e n i e d him a f a i r t r i a l . H e o b j e c t s t o t h e S t a t e ' s arguing t o the jury t h a t p e r j u r y i n a homicide c a s e c o u l d have d i s a s t r o u s e f f e c t s i n t h a t a n i n n o c e n t man c o u l d be hanged o r a k i l l e r go f r e e ; t h a t t h e S t a t e a t t e m p t e d t o u s e i n f o r m a t i o n , f a c t s and t e s t i m o n y n o t i n e v i d e n c e a t t h e t r i a l ; and t h a t h i s presumption of i n n o c e n c e and h i s r i g h t t o be f a i r l y judged by t h e j u r y was d e s t r o y e d . The S t a t e ' s comments i n c l o s i n g argument on t h e e f f e c t of p e r j u r y i n a homicide t r i a l were u n o b j e c t i o n a b l e . The f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n i s a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t of t h e l a w on t h i s subject: " G e n e r a l l y , t h e g r a v i t y of t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d , t h e volume of t h e e v i d e n c e , c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s , i n f e r e n c e s t o be drawn from v a r i o u s p h a s e s of e v i d e n c e , and l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s i n v o l v e d , t o be p r e s e n t e d i n i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e j u r y , a r e a l l m a t t e r s w i t h i n t h e p r o p e r s c o p e of argument. * * *" [Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ] 23A C . J . S . , C r i m i n a l Law, Sec. 1090, page 129. Here t h e S t a t e was simply i n f o r m i n g t h e j u r y what e f f e c t p e r j u r e d t e s t i m o n y c o u l d have i n a homicide t r i a l . T h i s i s simply a comment on t h e g r a v i t y of t h e c r i m e charged and w e l l w i t h i n t h e s c o p e of p r o p e r argument t o t h e j u r y . Nor d i d t h e S t a t e ' s c l o s i n g argument t o t h e j u r y encompass i n f o r m a t i o n , f a c t s o r t e s t i m o n y n o t i n e v i d e n c e a t the trial. W recognize t h a t discussing f a c t s not i n evidence e i n a c l o s i n g argument t o t h e j u r y i s improper. S t a t e v . T o n e r , ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 127 Mont. 283, 264 P.2d 971. W a l s o note e t h a t repeated a t t e m p t s t o p l a c e excluded evidence b e f o r e t h e jury i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . Mont. - I S t a t e v . Bain, ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 35 St.Rep. P.2d - However, i n t h i s c a s e t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t e s t i m o n y i n t h e Stump homicide t r i a l was a d m i t t e d i n e v i d e n c e i n t h e p e r j u r y c a s e now on a p p e a l . In t h a t transcript there a r e numerous r e f e r e n c e s t o v a r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s and s t a t e m e n t s by 257, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. 13713 .......... STATE OF NONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN A. THOMPSON, CLERK OF S U P R E M E COURT STATE OF MONTANA Defendant and Appellant. ............ ORDER AElENDING OPINION ............ The above named opinion, issued March 28, 1978, should be amended by deleting the present Page 9 (except for the signatures of authoring and concurring justices) and replacing it with the attached Page 9. DATED this ~ & a fdy of April, D & $*&- Chief Justice defendant. The State's closing argument attempted to explain that transcript to the jury so they could understand it and not be mislead by it. With one exception, the District Court did not sustain defendant's objections to the State's closing argument. Thus, this case does not present the situation where the State made repeated attempts to get inadmissible matters before the jury. Finally, we find no denial of defendant's right to a fair trial in the State's closing argument. A correct general statement of the applicable law has been stated in this language: "The defendant in a criminal case has the right to a fair trial. It is axiomatic that prejudice can be implied from the denial or invasion of that right. However, the defendant must show that his right to a fair trial was denied or invaded." Mont . , 575 State v. Bradford, (1978), P.2d 83, 86, 35 St.Rep. 241Or stated another way: "The rule applicable is that before a judgment in a criminal case will be reversed, prejudice in a criminal case will not be presumed, but rather must appear from the denial or invasion of a substantial right from which the law implies prejudice. The defendant must demonstrate prejudice from the record. (Citation omitted.)" Bradford, 575 P.2d 86. The record in this case fails to show denial or invasion of defendant's right to a fair trial in the State's closing argument. With one exception the State's argument to the jury was unobjectionable; that exception was corrected by the District Court's admonition. A£ firmed . (Frank I. Haswell) Chief Justice We Concur: (Gene B. Daly) (John Conway Harrison) (Daniel J. Shea) Justices (Bernard W. Thomas) District Judge

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.