STATE v RUMLEY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-288 I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O M N A A F H F OTN 1981 THE STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS. OWEN A A RUMLEY, J R . , S 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 E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f F l a t h e a d . Honorable James M. S a l a n s k y , 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 : K. M. B r i d e n s t i n e , P o l s o n , Montana F o r 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 Ted 0 . Lympus, County A t t o r n e y , K a l i s p e l l , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : May 28, Filed : 0 7 p R ,%?a.-Q -< 4# I v Clerk 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B . D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . The d e f e n d a n t , June 7, 104, Owen Asa Rumley, Jr 1979, w i t h n e g l i g e n t homicide by MCA, an information filed ., was c h a r g e d on under in s e c t i o n 45-5- Flathead County D i s t r i c t Court. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e information charged t h a t the negligent defendant's caused the Defendant death of pleaded operation Margaret n o t g u i l t y and d e f e n s e of mechanical d e f e c t . to suppress e v i d e n c e of a of Beebe his motor on May asserted the vehicle 12, 1979. affirmative Defendant a l s o f i l e d a motion blood alcohol test. After an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , t h e m o t i o n was d e n i e d . D e f e n d a n t was f o u n d g u i l t y of n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e and s e n t e n c e d t o f i v e 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 was s u s p e n d e d on t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s e r v e s i x t y d a y s i n t h e F l a t h e a d County j a i l , perform p u b l i c service at the county nursing home for ten weeks, and u n d e r g o a n e v a l u a t i o n a t t h e C h e m i c a l Dependency C e n t e r Kalispell. On driving in Defendant a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n . the afternoon north on K a l i s p e l l , Montana. of Highway May 93 12, 1979, several defendant miles south was of H e had j u s t l e f t a b a r where h e c l a i m e d h e d r a n k o n l y two b o u r b o n d i t c h e s . According t o t h e testimony of a n o t h e r d r i v e r on t h e road a t t h e t i m e , d e f e n d a n t ' s yellow pickup truck suddenly appeared rear in his view mirror. He testified that d e f e n d a n t blew h i s h o r n , and t h e n p a s s e d h i s v e h i c l e a s w e l l a s t h e v e h i c l e a h e a d o f him, coming s o c l o s e t h a t h e had t o swerve t o avoid being h i t by t h e d e f e n d a n t . A few m i l e s down t h e r o a d , t h e d r i v e r and h i s w i f e came upon t h e s c e n e o f t h e c o l l i s i o n which g a v e r i s e t o t h i s a c t i o n . An off-duty highway patrolman witnessed the collision as he was driving south on Highway 93. As the patrolman crossed the center line to see whether he could pass the vehicle ahead of him, he saw the defendant's pickup swerve across the center line and collide with a Buick sedan driven by Margaret Scherf Beebe. Margaret Beebe died as a result of the injuries she received in the accident. Defendant testified that he was driving between 50 and 55 miles per hour when he saw a southbound vehicle pull into his lane in an attempt to pass another car. When he saw the other car, defendant slammed on his brakes leaving skid marks for 134 feet in the northbound lane. The marks indicate that defendant's pickup swerved into the southbound lane, and just before the collision, the marks indicate that the pickup swerved back toward the northbound lane. The highway patrolman who investigated the scene testified that in his opinion the defendant's pickup was traveling between 65 and 70 miles per hour at the time of the collision. Numerous witnesses, including several highway patrolmen, an ambulance driver, and a nurse at the hospital where defendant was taken, testified that after the collision defendant smelled of alcohol and was confused and disoriented. Defendant was either unresponsive incoherent when he did try to respond to questions. or Even when others tried to explain to defendant what had occurred, he kept repeating, "What did I do?" or "What happened?" At the hospital in Kalispell a blood sample was drawn from the defendant and sent to the criminal investigation lab in Missoula. The crime 1 a ~ ' s analysis showed that defendant's blood alcohol level was 0.25 grams percent by welgnt e t h y l alcohol. D e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t s t o r r e v i e w f o u r specifications o i error: 1. D e n l a l oZ t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t l o n t o s u p p r e s s ; 2. A d m i s s i o n of t h e b l o o d a n a l y s i s a t t h e t r i a l ; 3. Denial of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s or d l r e c t a v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l ; and 4. Limitation of t h e f i n a l a r g u m e n t t o f o r t y - f i v e mlnutes. Defendant a r g u e s t h a t h i s motlon t o s u p p r e s s should h a v e been g r a n t e d b e c a u s e he had n o t e x p r e s s l y c o n s e n t e d t o t h e t a k i n g o f h i s b l o o d and was n o t i n f o r m e d o f for its extraction. not arrested prior and, therefore, search. the reason F u r t h e r , c i e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t h e was t o t h e time the taking s a m p l e was t a k e n the of t h e blood was blood an improper T h e s e a r g u m e n t s a r e a p p a r e n t l y made t o show t h a t the State failed 61-8-402, t o comply w i t h (1) o f section MCA. S e c t i o n 61-8-402, statute, subsection and subsection MCA, is Montana's ( 1 ) of that implied consent section does require t h a t a f o r m a l a r r e s t be made p r i o r t o t h e t a k i n g of a b l o o d sample. A s t h i s C o u r t f o u n d i n S t a t e v . Mangels ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6 Mont. 1 9 0 , 5 3 1 P.2d 1 3 1 3 , h o w e v e r , s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) o f s e c t i o n 61-8-402, ~f MCA, a person rendering is " u n c o n s c i o u s " o r him 4 L ) 2 ( 2 ) , MCA. tlme the condition test. d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h a t a f o r m a l a r r e s t be made blood incapable Here, of refusal." See t h e D i s t r i c t Court s a m p l e was rendering "otherwise i n a condition him taken, incapable section found t h a t 61-8at the t h e d e f e n d a n t was "in a of blood refusal" of A f o r m a l a r r e s t was t h e r e f o r e n o t n e c e s s a r y , a n o r was it p o s s i b l e a t t h a t time t o obtain the express consent o i the defendant. D e f e n d a n t ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t he was n o t a r r e s t e d f a i l s also for the simple reason that f i n d i n g t h a t an a r r e s t was made. the record supports a The i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r a t t h e s c e n e of t h e c o l l i s i o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he p l a c e d t h e d e f e n d a n t under arrest for alcohol. Similarly, driving under the i n f l u e n c e of t h e o f f i c e r who met d e f e n d a n t a t t h e h o s p i t a l when t h e ambulance a r r i v e d testified that he too had p l a c e d t h e d e f e n d a n t under a r r e s t . The t e s t for determining whether is " i n a a person c o n d i t i o n r e n d e r i n g him i n c a p a b l e of r e f u s a l " was f i r s t s e t down i n Mangels and r e c e n t l y a f f i r m e d i n S t a t e v . (1980 1 , , Mont. 615 P.2d 1 9 0 , 37 S t . R e p . C o u r t i n Manqels s t a t e d : "Here, 1337. we o n l y r e q u i r e i n c a p a c i t y be d e t e r m i n e d on t h e b a s i s of Campbell The that the the best evidence which i s r e a s o n a b l y a v a i l a b l e t o t h e o f f i c e r . " 166 Mont. a t 1 9 4 , 531 P.2d a t 1 3 1 5 . In - g eMan ls suppressed the because the c o n f u s i o n on t h e p a r t minor injuries, results officers of admitted a only the defendant, blood test were had evidence of t h e d e f e n d a n t had and b e c a u s e t h e o f f i c e r s d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o t r y t o question the defendant. was of into I n Campbell t h e blood evidence because test the o f f i c e r s could see t h a t Campbell was s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d and i n g r e a t p a i n , w e r e a d v i s e d by a n u r s e talk t o him, and that could i t would be b e t t e r n o t g e t him to not t o t r y respond to coherently when t h e y d i d t r y t o t a l k t o him. Here, collision, t h e o f f i c e r who i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e s c e n e of the ambulance driver, the officer at the the hospital, and a n u r s e i n t h e emergency room where d e f e n d a n t was t a k e n a f t e r t h e c o l l i s i o n , a l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was c o n f u s e d and d i s o r i e n t e d , "What h a p p e n e d ? " t h a t defendant kept repeating e v e n a f t e r h e was t o l d w h a t had h a p p e n e d , a n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was n o t c o h e r e n t i n h i s responses even As a result when h e r e a l i z e d h e was b e i n g a s k e d a q u e s t i o n . of the collision, d e f e n d a n t had a fractured jaw, a broken f o o t , a c o n t u s i o n on h i s c h e s t t h a t l e d t o a c o l l a p s e d l u n g , and m u l t i p l e lacerations. In light of this evidence of i n c a p a c i t y , t h e D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y denied t h e motion t o s u p p r e s s , and t h e o f f i c e r a t t h e K a l i s p e l l h o s p i t a l , unable t o r e c e i v e a c o h e r e n t r e s p o n s e from t h e d e f e n d a n t , p r o p e r l y r e q u e s t e d t h a t a b l o o d s a m p l e be t a k e n . Defendant's second is t h a t contention the District C o u r t e r r e d by a d m i t t i n g t h e b l o o d a n a l y s i s i n t o e v i d e n c e a t trial. an Defendant claims t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h adequate foundation for introduction of the blood a n a l y s i s due t o an a s s e r t e d break i n t h e c h a i n of p o s s e s s i o n of t h e sample t a k e n from d e f e n d a n t . specifically tne officer that the c h a i n of i n charge of D e f e n d a n t c l a i m s more c u s t o d y was b r o k e n b e c a u s e taking the blood sample d i d n o t a c t u a l l y see t h e b l o o d drawn from d e f e n d a n t . The officer, standing in the doorway of the room where t h e b l o o d was b e i n g drawn f r o m d e f e n d a n t , saw a d o c t o r and two lay. nurses He standing around the table d i d n o t see t h e a c t u a l d r a w i n g of t h e l e s s , one o f t h e n u r s e s who p a r t i c i p a t e d of blood from d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d where defendant blood. Never- i n t h e drawing t h a t she helped t o draw t h e b l o o d s a m p l e i n t o a v i a l t h e o f f i c e r had g i v e n h e r gave that same vial to the officer. In light of and this nurse's testimony, t h e s e c o n d c l a i m of d e i e n d a n t l a c k s any merit. I n S t a t e v. Nelson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 280, 583 P.2d 435, q u o t i n g S t a t e v . Wong Fong ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 75 Mont. 8 1 , 8 7 , 241 P. 1072, 1074, t h i s Court described t h e S t a t e ' s burden in e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e c h a i n of c u s t o d y o f c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e : '"It was n o t i n c u m b e n t upon t h e s t a t e t o prove t h a t i t c o u l d n o t have been tampered with. I t was n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t a l l p o s s i b i l i t y of its having been tampered w i t h s h o u l d be e x c l u d e d by a f f i r m a t i v e t e s t i m o n y . I t was o n l y n e c e s s a r y t o [Citation omitted.] i d e n t i f y t h e p a c k a g e , and t o make a p r i m a f a c i e showing t h a t t h e r e h a s been no s u b s t a n t i a l change i n it t o w a r r a n t i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n N e l s o n , 1 7 8 Mont. a t 2 8 8 , into evidence. ' " 583 P . 2 d a t 4 3 9 . I n N e l s o n t h e C o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e of an unbroken s e a l and s e a l number saved t h e e v i d e n c e from e x c l u s i o n , spite misidentification of an earlier of a misread in seal number. Here, t h e n u r s e who h e l p e d defendant placed t h e blood draw t h e b l o o d from t h e i n t h e g l a s s v i a l g i v e n h e r by t h e o f f i c e r ; t h e o f f i c e r s e a l e d t h e v i a l and s e c u r e d i t i n the s e a l e d crime lab container. The s e a l on t h e v i a l and t h e c o n t a i n e r w e r e i n t a c t when opened by t h e c h e m i s t a t t h e ivlissoula c r i m e l a b . The i n t a c t s e a l and t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e n u r s e who h e l p e d t o draw t h e b l o o d show t h a t t h e r e was n o t a s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g e i n t h e b l o o d from t h e t i m e i t was drawn from d e f e n d a n t t o t h e t i m e i t was a n a l y z e d . The c h a i n of c u s t o d y was n o t b r o k e n . Defendant's Court erred by third denying d l r e c t e d v e r d i c t of evidence presented contention is that his to dismiss motion acquittal. at t r i a l was Defendant the claims District or for that a the insufficient t o support a guilty veraict. More proximate was cause specifically, not defendant claims sufficiently shown. that Defendant c l a i m s t h a t t h e r e remains t h e q u e s t i o n of whether he s t e e r e d h i s pickup i n t o t h e oncoming l a n e o r whether a mechanical d e f e c t b r o u g h t him i n t o t h e oncoming l a n e . The o f f i c e r who i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e c o l l i s i o n g a v e h i s opinion that oncoming defendant lane. had steered his Defendant presented truck into t e s t i m o n y of the a person t r a i n e d a s a m e t a l l u r g i s t and a n a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t o r , gave the opinion that the pickup veered as a result who of damage t o a s p r i n g i n t h e f r o n t e n d o f t h e p i c k u p . is It facts, are the prerogative of and t h i s C o u r t must u p h o l d supported S t a t e v. by substantial Kirkaldie the decide the s u c h f i n d i n g s when t h e y evidence. ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 179 k o n t . As 283, .. body 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 . minimum to we 587 stated P.2d in 1298, 1532, 1539, " [ t l h e j u r y is t h e f a c t - f i n d i n g 1 3 0 5 , 35 S t . R e p . legal jury of d e t e r m i n a t i o n of evidence, the substantial evidence w i l l stand. . ." facts is we for found will that to Given t h e r e q u i r e d not of substitute . . If the verdict, it the support our jury. (Citations omitted.) C o n t r a r y t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c l a i m s , t h e r e c o r d is r e p l e t e with evidence sufficient n e g l i g e n t homicide. to support moments excessive prior speed. support the jury's conviction of E v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l showed t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was e x t r e m e l y i n t o x i c a t e d , just a to Such the collision, evidence is driving carelessly and clearly driving at an sufficient to f i n d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s b e h a v i o r was a g r o s s d e v i a t i o n from t h e s t a n d a r d of s e c t i o n s 45-2-101(31) and 45-5-104, reasonable care. MCA. See Defendant contends finally that the District Court e r r e d by l i m i t i n g c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t t o a p e r i o d o f f o r t y - f i v e minutes per side. Although the r e c o r d d o e s show t h a t t h e c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t was l i m i t e d t o f o r t y - f i v e m i n u t e s , t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n on t h e r e c o r d defense counsel record of argument, a t t h a t time. either we t h a t a n o b j e c t i o n was made by the cannot Further, State's or determine the s i n c e t h e r e i s no defendant's whether closing defendant's rights w e r e a b r i d g e d by t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n . A s s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. Musgrove ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 8 Mont. 1 6 2 , 582 P.2d 1 2 4 6 , t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r i s s u e s which a r e not based look. v. upon a A similar record t o which the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t can h o l d i n g was made i n S t a t e e x r e l . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 7 Mont. Woodahl 5 1 4 , 5 1 8 , 540 P.2d 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 , where t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n e d no i n d i c a t i o n o f a m o t i o n t o substitute the Regardless contention, upheld judge. The Court "We w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r decided: after a fact of or the the since we Af f i r m e d . possible have no merits Court's basis S t a t e e x r e l . Woodahl r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of representations District a l l e g a t i o n of e r r o r . in dehors of time on the parties records." defendant's limitation which to final must review be the we c o n c u r :

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.