STATE v SMITH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 84-199 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1985 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vsR N L ALLEN SMITH, O AD Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL FROM: District Court of t h e Eleventh 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 , The H o n o r a b l e M i c h a e l Keedy, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O RECORD: F For Appellant: Gary G. Doran a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , 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 , H e l e n a , Montana James S c h e i e r a r g u e d , A s s t . A t t y . G e n e r a l , H e l e n a Ted 0. Lympus, County A t t o r n e y , K a l i s p e l l , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: Skp i o 1985 June 2 5 , 1985 September 1 0 , 1985 M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. The defendant, Ronald aggravated kidnapping, two counts. The Allen Smith, two c o u n t s , defendant was convicted of and d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e , was convicted each of count pursuant t o p l e a s o f g u i l t y entered i n t h e District Court of Flathead County, State sentenced t o death. by t h i s Court in P.2d. , of Montana. The defendant was The j u d g m e n t a n d s e n t e n c e w e r e a f f i r m e d S t a t e v. Ronald A l l e n S m i t h 42 S t . R e p . 1985), (Mont. 463. T h i s C o u r t i s a g a i n a s k e d t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e r e c o r d and remand t h e m a t t e r f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t and a r e h e a r i n g o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e , b a s e d upon S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t c a s e o f Ake v. a United (19851, , 105 S.Ct. U.S. 1 0 8 7 , 84 L.Ed.2d Oklahoma 53, which came down a f t e r a r g u m e n t i n t h i s c a s e . On August 4, 1982, H a r v e y Mad Man, Jr., and remote near U.S. location defendant kidnapped Thomas R u n n i n g R a b b i t , Highway 2, b o r d e r o f F l a t h e a d County. and Fontaine west On A u g u s t 3 , two companions, Andre d e p a r t e d from A l b e r t a , Canada. victims, Mad Man G l a c i e r , Montana. and and Running of killed a t a Jr., the eastern 1982, t h e defendant and Rodney Munro, had The t h r e e e n c o u n t e r e d t h e t w o Rabbit, at a bar in East While a t t h e b a r , t h e t h r e e s h o t p o o l and d r a n k b e e r w i t h Mad Man a n d R u n n i n g R a b b i t . The t h r e e l e f t t h e b a r i n E a s t G l a c i e r a n d h i t c h h i k e d w e s t a l o n g Highway 2. There had been discussion between the defendant and Andre F o n t a i n e a b o u t s t e a l i n g a c a r and t h e need t o e l i m i n a t e a n y witnesses t o the theft. Shortly thereafter, t h e t h r e e men w e r e p i c k e d u p b y Mad Man a n d R u n n i n g R a b b i t . The men d r o v e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w e n t y m i n u t e s a n d s t o p p e d t o a l l o w Mad Man and Running R a b b i t t o r e l i e v e t h e m s e l v e s . got back into single-shot the bolt t h i s country, car, the action .22 defendant rifle, Mad Man i n t h e back o f the brought rifle, sawed-off a illegally into Munro d i s p l a y e d The d e f e n d a n t and Munro marched t h e two v i c t i m s i n t o t h e t r e e s . reloaded pulled and p o i n t e d it a t t h e d r i v e r . h i s k n i f e t o t h e passenger. When t h e two men The d e f e n d a n t s h o t Harvey t h e head a t p o i n t - b l a n k walked several feet to range. where He Thomas Running R a b b i t had f a l l e n t o t h e ground upon b e i n g s t a b b e d by Munro, and s h o t him i n t h e t e m p l e a t p o i n t - b l a n k r a n g e . men w e r e k i l l e d i n s t a n t l y . Both The d e f e n d a n t and t h e o t h e r two t h e n s t o l e t h e v i c t i m s ' c a r and p r o c e e d e d t o C a l i f o r n i a . The c a r was l a t e r r ~ c o v e r e dwhen F o n t a i n e and Munro w e r e a r r e s t e d f o r armed r o b b e r y i n C a l i f o r n i a . The d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d i n Wyoming. An two i n f o r m a t i o n was counts deliberate of f i l e d charging t h e defendant with aggravated homicide. An kidnapping arraignment and two hearing counts was held of on November 1, 1982, a t which t i m e t h e d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a p l e a of "not guilty" t o a l l charges. O F e b r u a r y 24, n d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a change o f p l e a . s h o o t i n g b o t h v i c t i m s i n t h e head. 1983, t h e The d e f e n d a n t a d m i t t e d The c o u r t was a p p r i s e d o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e n t i o n t o seek t h e d e a t h penalty. A t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g on March 21, and parties minor At reviewed correction, t h e hearing, 1983, t h e c o u r t t h e presentence r e p o r t and, t h e c o u r t admitted a f t e r one it without o b j e c t i o n . t h e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e had been i n p r i s o n f o r e i g h t o f t h e l a s t t e n y e a r s , and t h a t h e had l i v e d by p e t t y t h e f t and s e l l i n g d r u g s when h e was n o t i n p r i s o n . He testified in detail about the l i s t e d i n t h e presentence report. sixteen prior offenses He testified t o the facts of the killing. to kill H e s t a t e d t h a t Munro was a w a r e o f h i s i n t e n t t h e victims because he intended t o s t e a l t h e i r c a r and wished t o l e a v e no w i t n e s s e s . He stated t h a t in addition t o h i s d e s i r e t o eliminate t h e witnesses t o t h e c a r t h e f t , he had had a f a s c i n a t i o n t o f i n d o u t w h a t it w o u l d b e "morbid like t o k i l l somebody." t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e h a d consumed He t h e crime b u t t w o o r t h r e e b e e r s on t h e n i g h t o f ability to testified understand he sought his the were actions death penalty not that his impaired. because a He prolonged p e r i o d o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n would b e o f n o b e n e f i t t o h i m s e l f o r society and population remorse because at for the the violent person, stated that he killings, no with the testified that he that t h a t he had problems He prison. and he foresaw he to change denied being extreme under stress the and influence stated that of drugs, he knew no a again. his Following e x t e n s i v e q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e c o u r t , felt himself considered f e l t he could k i l l desire Indian He lifestyle. t h e defendant intoxicants of no or mitigating circumstances. On March 2 1 , determine the mitigating 1983 a t t h e conclusion o f t h e hearing t o existence and circumstances, nature the of court any aggravating a imposed or of sentence d e a t h upon t h e d e f e n d a n t . Subsequently, reconsideration t h e defendant of the psychiatric examination. motions May death on penalty a motion t o seek a and The c o u r t h e l d 1983. 3, filed At the a a motion for h e a r i n g on hearing, the a the defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s f a m i l y h a d i n d u c e d him t o c h a n g e h i s mind and s e e k a lesser p e n a l t y t h a n d e a t h . earlier desire depression for which the had d ~ a t hp e n a l t y resulted from He testified that his was the the product of long period of solitary confinement his arrest. earlier and to that factor--his t h e Flathead he induce had the County J a i l following t h a t he had d e s i g n e d h i s further testified He testimony death, in court concealed a u s e o f d r u g s and a l c o h o l . to s e n t e n c e him potential to mitigating He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t and Munrn had u s ~ d h r e e o r f o u r h u n d r e d " h i t s " o f LSD d u r i n g the period t i m e immediately p r i o r t o t h e i r e n t r y t o t h e of He further United S t a t e s , ending t h e day b e f o r e t h e murders. testified that on the day of the crime he had consumed a p p r o x i m a t e l y twelve b e e r s . O n motion June 10, 1983 the court f o r psychiatric evaluation. granted the defendant's The c o u r t a p p o i n t e d a p s y c h i a t r i s t , D r . W i l l i a m S t r a t f o r d , t o examine t h e d e f e n d a n t and report to the d e t e r m i n e which o f credible; and on August 4, amend court as (1) w h e t h e r to: he could t h e v e r s i o n s g i v e n by t h e d e f e n d a n t was ( 2 ) w h a t was t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n 1982. The defendant requested the court to its order deleting t h e investigative function of D r . Stratford. The court amended i t s o r d e r and d i r e c t e d S t r a t f o r d t o assume t h e t r u t h o f d e f e n d a n t ' s Dr. second v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s i n performing h i s examination. The court held a hearing on defendant's motion r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c e on December 1, 1983. hearing, that the capacity Stratford testified Dr. use of to appreciate conform h i s the t o the criminality requirements A t the found n o e v i d e n c e drugs o r alcohol affected conduct criminal intent. t h a t he for the defendant's of of his law, conduct, or form a H e b a s e d h i s c o n c l u s i o n s on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y and s t a t e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g h i s e x t e n s i v e u s e o f LSD a n d h i s c o n d u c t on t h e d a y o f t h e crime. According t o D r . S t r a t f o r d , a f t e r t h r e e o r f o u r c o n s e c u t i v e d a y s o f h e a v y LSD usage the result, user a l a r g e d o s e s have defendant's month develops history of o r more prior tolerance little or for no crime, drug. effect. heavy LSD u s a g e t o the the As Given a the f o r a p e r i o d o f one Stratford Dr. concluded t h a t t h e u s e o f e i g h t o r n i n e , o r e v e n a s many a s f i f t y d o s e s o f LSD would n o t h a v e a f f e c t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l s t a t e when h e committed t h e h o m i c i d e s . Rodney Munro, the h e was accomplice testi- also Munro s t a t e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e fied a t t h e hearing. crime, defendant's f l a s h e s of experiencing confusion, l i g h t and h a l l u c i n a t i o n s , h a v i n g i n g e s t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same amount of d r u g s and alcohol a s t h e defendant. He also testified t h a t h e had s t a b b e d Running R a b b i t o n c e b e f o r e t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o t him, and t h a t i t was p o s s i b l e Running R a b b i t was a l r e a d y dead b e f o r e h e was s h o t . 12, On December for an 1983, t h e d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s motion . The d e f e n d a n t ' s for reconsideration, additiona 1 psychiatric evaluation m o t i o n was d e n i e d . In reviewing defendant ' s motion t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law t o support i t s o r i g i n a l sentence. The c o u r t found t h a t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h e a g g r a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g s c o m m i t t e d by t h e defendant the resulted statutory 46-18-303, in t h e death of aggravating h i s victims, circumstance stated satisfying in - MCA. u 4 L-- v We the L a -.- -.. A > . AY section C a n - UC , .A.' -*. -t-.tn ",.,-,t. "L. '3 -'I that M3k The c o u r t no m i t i g a t i n g found beyond circumstances w e r e found t h a t w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , a " I - l reasonable doubt present. The court t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s consumption o f alcohol and drugs was voluntary, and did not impair or o t h e r w i s e a f f e c t h i s s t a t e o f mind, h i s c a p a c i t y t o r e c o g n i z e and a p p r e c i a t e t h c r i m i n a l i t y o f h i s c o n d u c t o r h i s a b i l i t y ~ to control his actions r e q u i r e m e n t s o f law. made a and to conform his to the The c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t c r > n s c i o u s and v o l u n t a r y c h o i c e notwithstanding conduct his use of drugs t o k i l l the victims and alcohol, and that i n t o x i c a t i o n was n o t a s u f f i c i e n t m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e t o c a l l f o r leniency. The d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l e d affirmed. S t a t e v. Ronald A l l e n S m i t h , s u p r a . f o r r e h e a r i n g i s b a s e d on Ake v. Defendant's p e t i t i o n Oklahoma 53. W e from t h e s e n t e n c e imposed. (1985), , U.S. 105 S . C t . 1 0 8 7 , 84 L.Ed.2d Our p r o v i n c e on t h e a p p e 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 d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a n a d d i t i o n a l p s y c h i a t r i c exam u n d e r Ake, - supra. The defendant argues that the Ake - decision established a constitutional r i g h t f o r defendant's access t o competent psychiatric essential to assistance the effective defendant argues t h a t in entitled to disagree. an defense l i g h t of additional where such of is case. The Ake the - decision, he is psychiatric the assistance examination. We W e find t h e - decision lacks d i r e c t application Ake t o M o n t a n a ' s c a p i t a l s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e e d i n g and t o t h e p r e s e n t case. I n Ake v. charged with Oklahoma, first-degree supra, murder. an i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t was At his arraignment the t r i a l j u d g e o r d e r e d him t o b e examined by a p s y c h i a t r i s t d u e t o h i s b i z a r r e behavior. The d e f e n d a n t was i n i t i a l l y found i n c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l , b u t s i x weeks l a t e r h e was found comp~tent so anti-psychotic long as drugs. he The continued defendant to be raised sedated the with insanity d e f e n s e and r e q u e s t e d a p s y c h i a t r i c evaluation t o determine h i s mental s t a t e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e . The t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r s u c h an e v a l u a t i o n . The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d and h e l d t h a t when a d e f e n d a n t h a s made a p r e l i m i n a r y showing t h a t h i s s a n i t y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e offense i s l i k e l y t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a t t r i a l . , the constitution requires t h a t t h e s t a t e provide access t o a psychiatrist's assistance on this issue, if the defendant cannot o t h e r w i s e a f f o r d one. f i n d t h e - d e c i s i o n r e a d i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from Ake We the case a t bar. raised which the in capital S152 First, issue of is a Oklahoma sentencing (1981). the In testimony i n Ake the psychiatric defendant's statutory proceeding. Montana, f u t u r e dangerousness, aggravating Oklahoma future factor Stat., in a Title is dangerousness 21, not a s t a t u t o r y aggravating circumstance under t h e s t a t e ' s c a p i t a l sentencing scheme. Section 46-18-303, MCA. Unlike the s i t u a t i o n t h a t e x i s t e d i n - t h e s t a t e d i d n o t r e l y upon o r Ake, present psychiatric evidence S t a t e attempt establish any aggravating F u r t h e r , i n t h i s c a s e , a t no t i m e d i d factors a t sentencing. the to to elicit from D r . S t r a t f o r d an opinion concerning f u t u r e dangerousness o f t h e dependant. Second, sanity was present a in Ake - there significant matter, was a factor trial. in his The defendant's defense. In the t h e defendant p l e a d g u i l t y t o t h e homicide and aggravated kidnapping offenses. Third, in the United States Supreme Court decision, t h e r e was no e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y f o r e i t h e r s i d e on A k e ' s s a n i t y at the However, time of the i n Smith, offense. supra, Dr. Ake, - 105 Stratford, S.Ct. at 1091. the psychiatrist, gave e x t e n s i v e t e s t i m o n y a s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e o f mind a t t h e t i m e of the offense including: ( a ) t h e e f f e c t o f a l c o h o l and d r u g s on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e o f mind; (b) whether t h e defendant a c t e d under e x t r e m e m e n t a l o r e m o t i o n a l stress; (c) whether t h e defendant ' s c a p a c i t y t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e c r i m i n a l i t y o f h i s conduct to the requirements of law was s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r e d ; and (d) a diagnosis mental condition. St.Rep. a t 4 7 9 . Fourth, Ake, in of the defendant's S t a t e v. S m i t h , 4 2 the trial court denied defense counsel ' s r e q u e s t f o r a p s y c h i a t r i c examination o f defendant with respect offense. to In his the mental condition present case, defendant 's i n i t i a 1 request the at time the trial of court the granted f o r the psychiatric evaluation. F o l l o w i n g t h e e x a m i n a t i o n and t h e p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s conclusion r e g a r d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e o f mind, t h e d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion for an additional second motion was d e n i e d . the Ake decision psychiatric evaluation. we f i n d Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , readily distinguishable The and without precedential m e r i t t o t h i s case. The d e f e n d a n t a l s o a r g u e s t h a t h e was n o t p r o v i d e d w i t h a competent psychiatrist. The defendant repeats contention raised i n t h e i n i t i a l appeal t h a t D r . his Stratford's r o l e was c o n t a m i n a t e d by t h e i n v e s t i g a t i v e f u n c t i o n imposed by the District Court. This contention raised by the d e f e n d a n t i n h i s b r i e f s and argument is i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t i n t h e f i r s t a p p e a l , S t a t e v . Ronald A l l e n S m i t h , s u p r a . We h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e argument n o t o n l y i n l i g h t of Ake t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l a p p e a l , b u t a l s o on t h e decision. The United State Supreme Court in Ake, noted: T h i s i s n o t t o s a y , o f c o u r s e , -t tha the i n d i g e n t defendant has a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i a h t t o choose a ~ s v c h i a t r i s t o f h i s p e r s o n a l l i k i n g o r i o L receive f u a s - i E; hire his own. Our c o n c e r n i s t h a t t h e i n d i g e n t defendant have a c c e s s to a - - competent p s y c h i a t r i s t f o r t h e p u r p o s e w e h a v e d i s c u s s e d , and a s i n t h e case of t h e provision of counsel we leave t o t h e S t a t e t h e d e c i s i o n on how t o implement t h i s r i g h t . (Emphasis a d d e d . ) Ake, s u p r a , 1 0 5 S.Ct. a t 1097. - - The basic tenent of indigent defendant's the Ake decision was to assure an a c c e s s t o a competent p s y c h i a t r i s t f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f a d e f e n s e b a s e d on h i s m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n . We f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t was a f f o r d e d t h i s r i g h t . S t r a t f o r d ' s e d u c a t i o n a 1 and p r o f e s s i o n a 1 clearly reflects Dr. qualifications. The r e c o r d S t r a t f o r d i n t e r v i e w e d t h e d e f e n d a n t on Dr. two o c c a s i o n s a t t h e Plontana S t a t e P r i s o n a n d c o n s i d e r e d t h e t h e presentence report t r a n s c r i p t s of t h e p r i o r proceedings, and witness Stratford statements provided a l s o interviewed by the defendant. Rodney Munro and Andre Dr. Fontaine and s e c u r e d a p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o f i l e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t from D r . Herman W l t e r s . a Dr. capacity Stratford's to appreciate conclusion the was criminality that of Smith the conduct his had and t h a t t h e d r u g s and a l c o h o l d i d n o t h a v e a s u b s t a n t i a l e f f e c t on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s that Dr. s t a t e o f mind. S t r a t f o r d was a n e u t r a l p s y c h i a t r i s t who examined Smith a s t o h i s sanity a t the t i m e Stratford testified t o the was on The r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t e s that basis that of the offenses. f o r e g o i n g a t t h e h e a r i n g and this Court found no Dr. it additional p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n was n e c e s s a r y . Accordingly, we find that Ronald Allen e n t i t l e d t o a second p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s e v a l u a t i o n . Smith is not We concur: ,.-.f Justices
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.
