STATE v RITCHSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 80-340 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1981 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , VS. JAMES THOMAS RITCHSON, D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth 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 of C a s c a d e . H o n o r a b l e J o h n McCarvel, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: Sandra K. W a t t s a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana C h r i s Tweeten a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana J . F r e d Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: JUL C - 19@ =amwp.* Clerk J u n e 11, 1 9 8 1 JuL 2 - 198 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. James Thomas R i t c h s o n w a s c o n v i c t e d o f o n e c o u n t o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t and o n e c o u n t o f r o b b e r y f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f Cascade County. H e was s e n t e n c e d to con- c u r r e n t terms o f 20 y e a r s i m p r i s o n m e n t o n e a c h c o u n t and was declared a dangerous offender. judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n . R i t c h s o n a p p e a l s from t h e W e affirm. R i t c h s o n r o b b e d t h e D a i l y Double Bar i n Great F a l l s i n t h e e a r l y m o r n i n g on December 1 7 , 1979. H e had b e e n i n t h e b a r f o r s e v e r a l h o u r s d r i n k i n g and p l a y i n g p o o l . p u l l e d a sawed-off A t closing t i m e , he s h o t g u n from u n d e r n e a t h h i s j a c k e t and s h o t i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e b a r behind which s t o o d t h e b a r t e n d e r , J i m Heaney. The d e f e n d a n t demanded t h e money f r o m t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r . The owner o f t h e b a r i n s t r u c t e d t h e b a r t e n d e r t o g i v e t h e man t h e money, whereupon t h e d r a w e r o f t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r was p l a c e d o n t h e bar. The d e f e n d a n t t o o k most o f t h e money and t h e n p r o c e e d e d t o back o u t toward t h e f r o n t door. The s w a m p e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t when h e h e a r d t h e s h o t h e l e f t t h e b a r t h r o u g h t h e f r o n t d o o r , l o c k i n g it b e h i n d him. The d e f e n d a n t t h e r e f o r e b r o k e down t h e f r o n t d o o r t o make h i s e x i t . H e w a s s e e n g e t t i n g i n t o a car w i t h t w o o t h e r p e o p l e and l e a v i n g . The i n v e s t i g a t i n g police o f f i c e r f o u n d a g l o v e i n t h e s t r e e t i n t h e area w h e r e d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d t h e g e t a w a y car. After f u r t h e r investigation, Ritchson was arrested a t h i s home o n December 21, 1 9 7 9 , w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t . A t t h e t i m e of arrest t h e o f f i c e r s s a w i n h i s house a j a c k e t f i t t i n g a d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e n by t h e w i t n e s s e s . w a r r a n t and s e i z e d t h e j a c k e t , The p o l i c e r e t u r n e d w i t h a s e a r c h i n t h e p o c k e t o f which w a s found t h e matching glove. The d e f e n d a n t w a s c h a r g e d w i t h a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , s e c t i o n 45-5-202 MCA. ( l ) ( c ) , MCA, and f e l o n y r o b b e r y , s e c t i o n 4 5 - 5 - 4 0 1 ( 1 ) ( b ) , Notice o f i n t e n t t o r e l y on t h e d e f e n s e o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t was f i l e d o n J a n u a r y 11, 1 9 8 0 . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t be t r a n s p o r t e d t o t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n t o u n d e r g o a 45-day p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n . The r e p o r t a p p a r e n t l y p e r s u a d e d t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s c o u n s e l t o a b a n d o n t h e defense of mental i l l n e s s . S e v e r a l times d u r i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l moved t o d i s m i s s t h e a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t c h a r g e o n t h e b a s i s t h a t a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t is a lesser i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of r o b b e r y u n d e r s e c t i o n 46-11-502, MCA. The d e f e n s e also moved to r e q u i r e t h e S t a t e to elect s p e c i f i c elements of robbery under s e c t i o n ( 45-5-401 (1) b ) . B o t h m o t i o n s were d e n i e d . A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e e v i d e n c e t h e d e f e n s e moved t o d i s m i s s t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t due t o t h e i l l e g a l arrest of defendant. T h i s motion was a l s o d e n i e d . On a p p e a l t h e d e f e n d a n t r a i s e d t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s : 1) W h e t h e r s e c t i o n 46-11-502, MCA, p r o h i b i t s t h e convic- t i o n o f t h i s d e f e n d a n t o f b o t h a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t and r o b b e r y . 2) Whether t h e S t a t e must e l e c t t h e s p e c i f i c e l e m e n t s of r o b b e r y , a s d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 45-5-401 (1) b ) , which t h e S t a t e ( would a t t e m p t t o p r o v e . 3) Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n p r o h i b i t i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l f r o m p r o p o u n d i n g q u e s t i o n s to p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s o n t h e i r t h o u g h t s a b o u t s e v e r i t y o f t h e s e n t e n c e i n t h i s case. 4) W h e t h e r i n l i g h t o f t h e r e c e n t U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n i n P a y t o n v. N e w York, t h e r e was a n i l l e g a l a r r e s t of the defendant. 5) Whether t h e d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v e d a p r o p e r p s y c h i a t r i c e x a m i n a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 46-14-202, MCA. The d e f e n d a n t f i r s t a r g u e s t h a t a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t i s a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f r o b b e r y and t h a t it w a s e r r o r to impose s e n t e n c e s for b o t h o f f e n s e s . S e c t i o n 46-11-502, provides in part: "When t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n may e s t a b l i s h t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f more t h a n o n e o f f e n s e , a p e r s o n c h a r g e d w i t h s u c h c o n d u c t may b e p r o s e c u t e d f o r MCA, each such o f f e n s e . H e may n o t , h o w e v e r , b e conv i c t e d o f more t h a n o n e o f f e n s e i f : "1) o n e o f f e n s e is i n c l u d e d i n t h e o t h e r . . ." The term " i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e " is d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 46-11-501 ( 2 ) , MCA, as f o l l o w s : An o f f e n s e is a n ' i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e ' when: "(2) " ( a ) i t is e s t a b l i s h e d by p r o o f o f t h e same o r l e s s t h a n a l l t h e f a c t s r e q u i r e d to e s t a b l i s h t h e commission of t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d ; " ( b ) it c o n s i s t s of a n a t t e m p t to c o m m i t t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d o r to commit a n o f f e n s e o t h e r w i s e included t h e r e i n ; or " ( c ) it d i f f e r s from t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d o n l y i n t h e r e s p e c t t h a t a less s e r i o u s i n j u r y o r r i s k o f i n j u r y t o t h e same p e r s o n , p r o p e r t y , o r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t or a lesser k i n d o f c u l p a b i l i t y s u f f i c e s to e s t a b l i s h i t s commission ." D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e r e l i e s upon t h e same a c t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e c a u s i n g of r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n of s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y , a n e l e m e n t o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , and t h e t h r e a t or f e a r of b o d i l y i n j u r y , an element of robbery. The a c t o f f i r i n g t h e s h o t g u n i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e b a r t e n d e r is t h e "same t r a n s a c t i o n " w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 46-11-502, a c c o r d i n g to defendant. MCA, He argues t h a t i n t h i s case robbery can b e e s t a b l i s h e d by p r o v i n g t h e e l e m e n t s o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t p l u s t h e added i n g r e d i e n t o f o c c u r r e n c e i n t h e c o u r s e o f c o m m i t t i n g a theft. While t h i s Court h a s n o t a d d r e s s e d t h e s p e c i f i c i s s u e of w h e t h e r a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t is a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e w i t h i n r o b b e r y , t h e r e are s e v e r a l r e c e n t o p i n i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e a n a l y - s i s t o be f o l l o w e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g i f a n o f f e n s e is i n c l u d e d within another offense. S t a t e v. Close ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 6 2 3 P.2d 9 4 0 , 38 S t . R e p . 1 7 7 ; S t a t e v. Coleman ( 1 9 7 9 ) , , Mont 6 0 5 P.2d . , 1000, 36 St.Rep. 451, 578 P.2d 1169. . I Mont . 1 1 3 4 ; S t a t e v. P e r r y ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 590 P.2d 1 1 2 9 , 36 S t . R e p . 1 7 6 Mont. 1 9 6 , 577 P.2d Mont 291; S t a t e v. Davis ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 375; and S t a t e v. Radi ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. T h e s e cases c o n s i s t e n t l y a p p l y t h e t e s t s e t f o r t h i n B l o c k b u r g e r v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 284 U.S. 299, 3 0 4 , "The a p p l i c a b l e r u l e is t h a t w h e r e t h e same a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n of t w o d i s t i n c t s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , t h e t e s t t o be a p p l i e d to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e are two o f f e n s e s o r o n l y o n e , is w h e t h e r e a c h p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r e s p r o o f -f- a f a c t w h i c h t h e o t h e r d o e s o not." (Emohasis added.) I n S t a t e v. Close, s u p r a , it was s t a t e d t h a t t h e B l o c k b u r g e r anal y s i s m u s t be a p p l i e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to t h e s t a t u t e s d e f i n i n g e a c h o f f e n s e and n o t w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e f a c t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l case. S e e a l s o Brown v. Ohio ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 4 3 2 U.S. 1 6 1 , 97 S e c t . 2221, 5 3 L.Ed. 2d 1 8 7 , h o l d i n g t h a t t h e e m p h a s i s of t h e B l o c k b u r g e r t e s t is o n t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e two crimes. The s t a t u t e d e f i n i n g " i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e " s p e a k s i n terms of " t h e f a c t s r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e c o m m i s s i o n of t h e o f f e n s e charged." S e c t i o n 46-11-501 ( 2 ) ( a ) , MCA. T h i s l a n g u a g e is a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s t a t u t o r y e l e m e n t s o f t h e crime r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l f a c t s o f e a c h case. The A r i z o n a , C a l i f o r n i a and O r e g o n cases r e l i e d upon by d e f e n d a n t are i n a p p o s i t e . T h o s e s t a t e s , e i t h e r by s t a t u t e or case l a w , h a v e a d o p t e d a n a p p r o a c h w h e r e b y t h e f a c t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l case r a t h e r t h a n t h e s t a t u t o r y e l e m e n t s of t h e crimes d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r m u l t i p l e p u n i s h m e n t is a l l o w a b l e . S t e e l e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 33 0r.App. S e e S t a t e v. 491, 577 P.2d 5 2 4 ; S t a t e v. J o r g e n s o n ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 0 8 A r i z . 476, 5 0 2 P.2d 1 5 8 ; P e o p l e v. Beamon ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 105 Cal.Rptr. 681, 8 C a l . 3 d 6 2 5 , 5 0 4 P.2d 9 0 5 . In those juris- d i c t i o n s t h e t e s t is t o e l i m i n a t e t h e f a c t s i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l case w h i c h are needed t o p r o v e o n e o f f e n s e and t h e n to d e t e r m i n e i f t h e remaining f a c t s w i l l prove t h e o t h e r o f f e n s e . v . M i t c h e l l ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 0 6 A r i z . 492, 478 P.2d 517. See S t a t e I f such an a p p r o a c h were f o l l o w e d i n t h i s c a s e , t h e act o f f i r i n g t h e s h o t g u n c o u l d be u s e d to e s t a b l i s h o n l y o n e of t h e o f f e n s e s . Montana h a s n e v e r u s e d t h e f a c t u a l a p p r o a c h , h o w e v e r , and s u c h a n a p p r o a c h is i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y and case l a w o f t h i s state. The u l t i m a t e g o a l i s t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o a l l o w m u l t i p l e p u n i s h m e n t w h e r e t h e same a c t v i o l a t e s two statutes. E x a m i n a t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e s a l o n e w i l l provide t h e answer t o t h e m u l t i p l e punishment question. A g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t is c o m m i t t e d a c c o r d i n g to s e c t i o n 45-5-202, " MCA, when a p e r s o n . . . purposely o r knowingly c a u s e s : "(a) s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y to a n o t h e r ; "(b) b o d i l y i n j u r y t o a n o t h e r w i t h a weapon; " ( c ) r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n of s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y i n a n o t h e r by u s e o f a weapon; o r "(d) b o d i l y i n j u r y to a p o l i c e o f f i c e r . " The o f f e n s e o f r o b b e r y i s d e f i n e d by s e c t i o n 45-5-401, MCA, as f o l l o w s : " ( 1 )A p e r s o n commits t h e o f f e n s e o f r o b b e r y i f i n t h e c o u r s e of committing a t h e f t he: "(a) i n f l i c t s b o d i l y i n j u r y upon a n o t h e r ; " ( b ) t h r e a t e n s t o i n f l i c t b o d i l y i n j u r y upon a n y p e r s o n o r p u r p o s e l y or k n o w i n g l y p u t s a n y p e r s o n i n f e a r of immediate b o d i l y i n j u r y ; or " ( c ) commits o r t h r e a t e n s i m m e d i a t e l y t o c o m m i t a n y f e l o n y o t h e r t h a n t h e £ t .I1 I n o r d e r to e s t a b l i s h t h e o f f e n s e of r o b b e r y , t h e S t a t e m u s t p r o v e t h a t t h e i n j u r y or t h r e a t o c c u r r e d i n t h e c o u r s e of committing a t h e f t . In order t o e s t a b l i s h aggravated a s s a u l t , t h e S t a t e must prove s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y and/or . weapon u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n s ( a ) , ( b ) and ( c ) o f i n j u r y to a p o l i c e o f f i c e r . t h e u s e of a S u b s e c t i o n ( d ) r e q u i r e s proof One c a n c o m m i t r o b b e r y w i t h o u t i n f l i c t i n g s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y and w i t h o u t u s i n g a weapon. As n o t e d i n MONTCLIRC1s Montana C r i m i n a l Code A n n o t a t e d , pp. 182-184, o n e c a n commit r o b b e r y w i t h a t o y g u n . n o t q u a l i f y as a "weapon," MCA, A t o y gun d o e s as d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 4 5 - 2 - 1 0 1 ( 6 5 ) , and as used i n t h e a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t s t a t u t e . A s the aggravated a s s a u l t s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s proof of a t least one element t h a t is n o t n e e d e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e o f f e n s e o f r o b b e r y , it i s n o t a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e i n t h e crime o f r o b b e r y . Two o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a v e d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h e o f f e n s e s o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t and r o b b e r y o n t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e f o r m e r r e q u i r e s s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y w h i l e t h e l a t t e r r e q u i r e s mere bodily injury. S t a t e v. S t e p n e y ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 280 N.C. 8 4 4 and P e o p l e v. Newton ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 6 1 App.Div.2d N.Y.S.2d 306, 1 8 5 S.E.2d 1051, 403 277. W e f i n d t h a t a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t as d e f i n e d by s e c t i o n 45-5-202, MCA, is n o t a lesser i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of r o b b e r y a s d e f i n e d by s e c t i o n 45-5-401, MCA. Therefore t h e District Court d i d n o t err i n imposing s e n t e n c e s f o r b o t h o f f e n s e s . D e f e n d a n t ' s s e c o n d c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g to r e q u i r e t h e S t a t e to elect between t h e altern a t i v e means o f c o m m i t t i n g r o b b e r y s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n ( 45-5-401 (1) b ) . The i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s included both t h e o r i e s of s u b s e c t i o n ( b ) . Defendant argues t h a t f a i l u r e t o e l e c t d e p r i v e s him of n o t i c e and d u e p r o c e s s b e c a u s e h e h a s no way o f knowing w h i c h s e t o f e l e m e n t s and which p r o o f w i l l be r e q u i r e d . F u r t h e r d e f e n d a n t claims t h a t o n l y o n e o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s r e q u i r e s t h e mental s t a t e " p u r p o s e l y or knowinglyf1 a n d t h a t t h e r e f o r e t h e S t a t e was a l l o w e d t o p r o v e t h e o f f e n s e o f robbery without proving i n t e n t . N e i t h e r o f d e f e n d a n t ' s a r g u m e n t s h a s a n y merit. I t was e s t a b l i s h e d i n S t a t e v. K l e i n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9 Mont. 350, 5 4 7 P.2d 75, t h a t a c o n v i c t i o n f o r t h e crime o f r o b b e r y r e q u i r e s p r o o f t h a t t h e a c c u s e d m u s t h a v e a c t e d p u r p o s e l y o r k n o w i n g l y , r e g a r d l e s s of w h i c h a l t e r n a t i v e e l e m e n t is p r o v e d . The j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s as a w h o l e make t h e i n t e n t r e q u i r e m e n t c l e a r , s i n c e I n s t r u c t i o n N o . w a s g i v e n as f o l l o w s : "To s u s t a i n t h e c h a r g e o f R o b b e r y , t h e S t a t e m u s t p r o v e t h a t e a c h e l e m e n t o f t h e o f f e n s e was done p u r p o s e l y or knowingly. " Any c o n f u s i o n c a u s e d by t h e w o r d i n g o f t h e s t a t u t e which w a s 3 r e p e a t e d i n t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n was c u r e d b y I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 3. C f . S t a t e v. Dess ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 4 Mont. 231, 462 P.2d 1 8 6 . The i n f o r m a t i o n was s u f f i c i e n t t o n o t i f y d e f e n d a n t o f t h e c h a r g e s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t him. T h i s Court s p e c i f i c a l l y approved t h e p r a c t i c e of charging i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h i n s e p a r a t e c o u n t s i n S t a t e e x r e l . McKenzie v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5 Mont. 54, 5 2 5 P.2d 1211. S e c t i o n 46-11-404(1), MCA, e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e s t h a t a c h a r g e may c o n t a i n d i f f e r e n t s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e same o f f e n s e , and f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n is n o t r e q u i r e d t o elect between t h e d i f f e r e n t o f f e n s e s . Defendant n e x t contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g to a l l o w h i s c o u n s e l d u r i n g v o i r d i r e to i n f o r m t h e j u r o r s o f t h e p e n a l t y f o r r o b b e r y and t h e n to i n q u i r e w h e t h e r t h e y f e l t t h e p e n a l t y w a s too s e v e r e . The c o u r t a l l o w e d c o u n s e l t o i n q u i r e w h e t h e r t h e j u r o r s were aware o f t h e p e n a l t y , and n o n e o f t h e j u r o r s responded i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e . Defendant complains t h a t h i s r i g h t s u n d e r s e c t i o n 46-16-304(2) ( i ) , MCA, were violated. A s i m i l a r a r g u m e n t was r a i s e d i n S t a t e v. H a l l a m ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 5 Mont. 492, 575 P.2d 5 5 , w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s 1 b e l i e f s on c a p i t a l punishment. T h e r e i n it was n o t e d t h a t a j u r y having c o n s c i e n t i o u s opinions a g a i n s t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y would n o t be more l i k e l y t o c o n v i c t d e f e n d a n t . S i m i l a r l y , i f any o f t h e j u r o r s i n t h i s case f e l t t h e p e n a l t y f o r r o b b e r y was too s e v e r e , t h i s b e l i e f c o u l d o n l y work to t h e b e n e f i t o f d e f e n d a n t . The S t a t e m i g h t c o m p l a i n a b o u t t h e r e s t r i c t i o n of v o i r d i r e i n t h i s a r e a , b u t t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t show t h a t t h e r e s t r i c t i o n r e s u l t e d i n p r e j u d i c e to him. On A p r i l 1 5 , 1 9 8 0 , p r i o r t o t h e t r i a l i n t h i s case, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t d e c i d e d P a y t o n v. N e w York ( 1 9 8 0 ), 4 4 5 U.S. 573, 1 0 0 S . C t . 1 3 7 1 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639, wherein a w a r r a n t l e s s , n o n c o n s e n s u a l e n t r y i n t o a s u s p e c t l s home t o make a r o u t i n e f e l o n y a r r e s t w a s h e l d v i o l a t i v e o f t h e F o u r t h Amendment to t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . Ritchson argues t h a t h i s w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t a t h i s home f o u r d a y s a f t e r t h e r o b b e r y v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t s as e n u n c i a t e d i n P a y t o n , and t h a t t h e r e f o r e t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him s h o u l d h a v e b e e n d i s m i s s e d . The f l a w i n d e f e n d a n t ' s a r g u m e n t is t h a t a n i l l e g a l a r r e s t h a s n e v e r been a b a r to p r o s e c u t i o n . The C o u r t i n P a y t o n n o t e d t h a t t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r d e c i s i o n was w h e t h e r c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e s e i z e d as a r e s u l t o f or i n c i d e n t t o t h e a r r e s t was a d m i s s i b l e , and n o t w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t m u s t s t a n d t r i a l , b e c a u s e he m u s t s t a n d t r i a l e v e n i f t h e a r r e s t is i l l e g a l . York ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 445 U.S. , citing a t 592, 1 0 0 S . C t . a t 1 3 8 3 , 6 3 L.Ed.2d v . C r e w s ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 4 4 5 U.S. U.S. P a y t o n v. New 463, 1 0 0 S . C t . at 1244, D e f e n d a n t c o n c e d e s t h a t t h e coat and g l o v e 6 3 L.Ed. 2d 537. s e i z e d f r o m h i s home u n d e r t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t were p r o p e r l y admitted. The d e f e n d a n t s l a s t c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t t h e p s y c h i a t r i c e x a m i n a t i o n a t t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n d i d n o t c o n f o r m to t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s e c t i o n 46-14-202, MCA. Defense counsel b a s e s h e r a r g u m e n t o n a n a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t by a member o f t h e p r i s o n s t a f f t h a t t h e p r i s o n is n o t e q u i p p e d to h a n d l e f o r e n s i c p s y c h i a t r i c e x a m i n a t i o n s and t h a t t h e y c o n d u c t m e r e l y d i a g n o s t i c e v a l u a t i o n s f o r placement purposes. No o b j e c t ion appears i n the r e c o r d to t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r s e n d i n g d e f n d a n t to t h e p r i s o n f o r e x a m i n a t i o n , and t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n d e f e n d a n t ' s b r i e f are b a s e d upon h e a r s a y r e c o r d s o u t s i d e o f t h e r e c o r d . E r r o r c a n n o t be p r e - d i c a t e d on f a c t s n o t a p p e a r i n g i n t h e r e c o r d . (19791, Mont Affirmed . . , 5 9 5 P.2d 1 1 6 3 , 3 6 S t . R e p . Chief J u s t i c e S t a t e v. P u z i o 1004.

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.