STATE v GOPHER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-276 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . THANE GOPHER, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade. Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Donovan and Anderson, Office of Public Defender, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on briefs: June 10, 1981 Decided: Filed: s! i' i rlr>r-r tybl oi;F,,p**d Clerk @p 1 4 ifdl Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B . Defendant Daiy d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . Thane Gopher was charged on October 16, 1959, with aggravated a s s a u l t , s e c t i o n 45-5-202(1)(d), by The an information f i l e d information MCA, i n Cascade County D i s t r i c t C o u r t . alleged that defendant purposely or k n o w i n g l y c a u s e d b o d i l y i n j u r y t o a p e a c e o f f i c e r by k i c k i n g nim i n the leg. Defendant e n t e r e d a p l e a of n o t g u i l t y . On A p r i l 1, 1 9 8 0 , a 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 anci tne court sentenced defendant t o t h r e e years Montana S t a t e Prison, except for the with all of the sentence in the suspended t h e f i r s t s i x months which was t o be s e r v e d Cascade County jail. On June 23, 1980, the in court e x c u s e d d e f e n d a n t from s e r v i n g a n y f u r t h e r t i m e i n j a i l on the of requirement employment. that he complete certain conditions Defendant a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n . On t h e morning of 1979, an a u t o m o b i l e i n October 5, w h i c h d e f e n d a n t was a p a s s e n g e r was driving. The requested l i c e n s e of the driver deputy , sheriff Af t e r from t h e d r i v e r , the deputy s h e r i f f as to learning the the names receiving identities of for the "erratic" operator's d e f e n d a n t ' s b r o t h e r , who was u n a b l e t o produce one. inquired stopped the the necessary information of issued the passengers, a c i t a t i o n and passengers. the deputy Upon sheriff checked w i t h t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e t o a s c e r t a i n i f t h e r e were a n y o u t s t a n d i n g w a r r a n t s on t h e p a s s e n g e r s . When t h e d e p u t y s h e r i f f was i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e r e was a n o u t s t a n d i n g b u r g l a r y war r a n t f o r " J a y Thane G o p h e r , " and asked Defendant the passengers hesitated but he approached t h e v e h i c l e which identified v e h i c l e upon t h e d e p u t y ' s r e q u e s t . one was himself Thane Gopher. and e x i t e d the He was t h e n i n f o r m e d by t h e d e p u t y t h a t h e was u n d e r a r r e s t f o r b u r g l a r y . B e f o r e d e f e n d a n t was p l a c e d i n t h e p a t r o l v e h i c l e , h e was p a t t e d down and handcuffed. this At time defendant became v e r b a l l y a b u s i v e and v e r b a l l y t h r e a t e n e d t h e d e p u t y sheriff. Defendant a l s o refused t o g e t i n t o t h e backseat of t h e p a t r o l c a r and p h y s i c a l l y r e s i s t e d t h e d e p u t y s h e r i f f by k i c k i n g him i n t h e l e g j u s t defendant fell back above t h e knee. into the patrol car Thereafter, and c o n t i n u e d r e s i s t t h e d e p u t y s h e r i f f by k i c k i n g a t him. deputy, with assistance from another Finally, officer, to the pushed d e f e n d a n t i n t o t h e c a r f a r enough t o g e t t h e d o o r c l o s e d . The b a s i s for t h e "bodily injury" 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 was t h a t t h e deputy s h e r i f f the defendant's k i c k t o the deputy's leg. about sheriff the nature and degree of the received from When q u e s t i o n e d injury, the deputy t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s l e g was d i s c o l o r e d and s o r e f o r a b o u t a week b u t t h a t t h e i n j u r y d i d n o t r e q u i r e a n y m e d i c a l treatment whatsoever. The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w a r e : 1. Whether, s t r u c t i o n on by r e f u s i n g t o i n c l u d e a n o f f e r e d i n - resisting arrest, the trial court committed reversible error? 2. Whether t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ? 3. Whether t h e t r i a l j u d g e had p r o p e r j u r i s d i c t i o n ? Defendant reversible contends error by not that the trial instructing the court jury committed that the o f f e n s e o f r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t was a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f aggravated a s s a u l t . the trial court's I t is a b a s i c r u l e i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n s must cover every issue or theory having support ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. in the evidence. 238, 557 P.2d 283. Ostwald (1979), - St.Rep. 442, 448, stated 591 ". that, v. Buckley T h i s Court i n S t a t e v. , Mont. State . P.2d . 646, 36 defendant a 651, is i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e s i f any e n t i t l e d t o i n s t r u c t i o n s on l e s s e r e v i d e n c e e x i s t s i n t h e r e c o r d which would p e r m i t t h e j u r y t o rationally him of Mont. a f i n d him g u i l t y o f greater." See a l s o S t a t e v. 571 P.261 456, a lesser 779; State v. o f f e n s e and a c q u i t Baugh Bouslaugh ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 (1978), 176 Mont. 7 8 , 576 P.2d 261; S t a t e v . R a d i ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 451, 578 P.2d 1169. Further, - Mont . (1980)t , t h i s Court 605 P.2d i n S t a t e v. Hamilton 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 9 , 37 S t . R e p . 70, " [w]e h a v e c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t s u c h 77, emphasized t h a t , a n i n s t r u c t i o n is r e q u i r e d where t h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e t o support the lesser offense." The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n refusing arrest to instruct the jury because the offenses on t h e o f f e n s e o f of resisting resisting arrest and a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t a r e n o t i n h e r e n t l y r e l a t e d and t h i s C o u r t should adopt t h e " i n h e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p " test t o determine i f t h e two o f f e n s e s a r e i n h e r e n t l y r e l a t e d . The several "inherent United relationship" States Supreme test Court cases K e e b l e v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 412 U.S. 36 L.Ed.2d 844. is a product of culminating in 205, 93 S . C t . I n Keeble t h e Court held t h a t ". . . d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o i n s t r u c t i o n s on a l e s s e r offense, if evidence would permit the jury 1993, the included rationally to f i n d him g u i l t y o f t h e l e s s e r o f f e n s e and a c q u i t him o f t h e greater applied ." 412 U.S. is, if the a t 208. lesser I n o t h e r words, offense is t h e t e s t t o be supported by the e v i d e n c e and i s " i n h e r e n t l y r e l a t e d " t o t h e g r e a t e r o f f e n s e , t h e n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d be g i v e n t o t h e j u r y . T h i s t e s t d o e s n o t d i f f e r i n a n y a p p r e c i a b l e way f r o m t h e s t a n d a r d t h a t h a s been u s e d i n t h i s s t a t e . Ostwald 442. (1979), , Mont. 5 9 1 P.2d See S t a t e v. 646, 36 S t . R e p . t h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o a d o p t t h e " i n h e r e n t Therefore, relationship" test. The S t a t e ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t c a n n o t p o s s i b l y be a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t is erroneous. The b a s i s f o r i t s c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e two sections, 45-5-202(1)(d), 7-301, MCA ( a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t ) , a n d 4 5 - MCA ( r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t ) , p r o t e c t two t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t interests i n our society. It argues t h a t the aggravated a s s a u l t s e c t i o n p r o t e c t s t h e p h y s i c a l s a f e t y of p e a c e o f f i c e r s w h i l e t h e y p e r f o r m t h e i r d u t i e s and t h a t t h e r e s i s t i n g arrest section suspects from t h w a r t i n g concludes, the two protects there sections society's an interest arrest. in Therefore, preventing the State is n o t a s u f f i c i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between to require the lesser included offense instruction. The r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 45-7-301, MCA, provides: "A p e r s o n commits t h e o f f e n s e o f r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t i f h e knowingly p r e v e n t s o r a t t e m p t s t o p r e v e n t a p e a c e o f f i c e r from e f f e c t i n g an a n a r r e s t by: " ( a ) using or threatening t o use physical f o r c e or violence a g a i n s t t h e peace o f f i c e r or another; or " ( b ) u s i n g any o t h e r means which c r e a t e s a r i s k of c a u s i n g p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o t h e p e a c e o f f i c e r or another. " The defendant testimony of the verbally threatened deputy sheriff the deputies, was that kicked the one of them i n t h e l e g , and c o n t i n u e d t o k i c k u n t i l b o t h o f f i c e r s C l e a r l y , t h i s is s u f f i - forced defendant i n t o the backseat. cient evidence to satisfy the elements of the resisting a r r e s t s t a t u t e ; t h a t is, the defendant did use "threatening" language force" to the against peace the officers peace and he officers. did The use "physical testimony of the d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s was n o t e v e n c o n t r a v e r t e d by d e f e n d a n t . Further, under t h e p e r t i n e n t p a r t of the aggravated a s s a u l t s t a t u t e , i t i s s t a t e d : "A p e r s o n commits t h e o f f e n s e of aggravated assault if he p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly c a u s e s I t is a p p a r e n t from t h e b o d i l y i n j u r y t o a peace o f f i c e r . " f a c t s t h a t t h e r e was a q u e s t i o n f o r t h e t r i e r o f f a c t a s t o whether defendant "purposely or injury" t o the deputy s h e r i f f . knowingly Again, caused bodily when t h e f a c t s a r e a p p l i e d t o t h e s t a t u t e s , t h e y would be s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y the necessary elements for either t h e l a n g u a g e of O s t w a l d , i . e . , instructions on lesser offense. Finally, from " [ a ] d e f e n d a n t is e n t i t l e d t o included offenses if any e v i d e n c e e x i s t s i n t h e r e c o r d which would p e r m i t t h e j u r y t o r a t i o n a l l y f i n d him g u i l t y o f a l e s s e r o f f e n s e and a c q u i t him o f a greater ," 5 9 1 P.2d 6 5 1 , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n on r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t s h o u l d h a v e been p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y . Under f e d e r a l c a s e l a w t h e r e s u l t i s a l s o t h e same. The two f e d e r a l c a s e s t h a t b e s t i l l u s t r a t e how t h e " i n h e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p " t e s t works a r e United S t a t e s v. Whitaker (7th Cir. 1 9 7 1 ) , 447 F.2d (9th Cir. 1980), 637 34, F.2d and U n i t e d S t a t e s v . 1224, 1233. In Johnson Johnson the court a n a l y z e d t h e i n h e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t e s t u s e d by t h e U n i t e d States test. Supreme C o u r t First, the in court Keeble, stated by utilizing that a a two-part lesser included o f i e n s e m u s t be i d e n t i t i e d , and s e c o n d , a r a t i o n a l j u r y m u s t be a b l e t o f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of t h e i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e b u t i n n o c e n t of t h e g r e a t e r o f f e n s e . H e r e , a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e i s i d e n t i f i a b l e and a j u r y , if the resisting a r r e s t i n s t r u c t i o n is given, could reasonably find defendant g u i l t y of r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t and a c q u i t on a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . The J o h n s o n c o u r t a p p r o a c h i s b a s e d upon i t s r e a d i n g of Rule 3 1 ( c ) , Fed.R.Crim.P. 1 6 - 6 0 3 ( 3 ) , MCA), lesser included (synonymous w i t h s e c t i o n 46- which r e g u l a t e s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f when a offense instruction s h o u l d be g i v e n . The c o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t , " [ t l h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s r u l e is t o a v o i d t h e s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e j u r y , d a n t i s g u i l t y o f some c r i m e , t h e charged o f f e n s e s . " i s t e m p t e d t o c o n v i c t him o f 637 F.2d t h e y have been p r e s e n t e d convinced t h a t t h e defen- 1233. in t h i s case, From t h e f a c t s , the jury not have unpunished, wanted to let the could have is, the jury been f o r c e d t o f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y - - t h a t may as defendant's action go s o t h e y c h o s e t o f i n d him g u i l t y of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t b e c a u s e t h e o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e was a c q u i t t a l . The question as to whether the State presented s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t d o e s n o t r e q u i r e d i s c u s s i o n s i n c e t h e c a s e is b e i n g r e v e r s e d on o t h e r grounds. Defendant's argument j u r i s d i c t i o n is without merit. that the trial judge lacked T h i s C o u r t r u l e d on F e b r u a r y 1 4 , 1 9 8 0 , t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s "Motion and A s s i g n m e n t o f J u d g e " to hear disqualification proceedings was moot, and that order s t i l l stands. The judgment the sentence of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t is r e v e r s e d , is v a c a t e d . and The c a u s e i s remanded f o r a new triai consistent with this opinion. W e concur: 8 A & & , u d Chief ~ust-ice ~upP-9
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.
