State v. Buck
| Decision Date | 25 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-847.,03-847. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph Lee BUCK, Defendant and Appellant. |
For Appellant: Mark R. Sullivan, Attorney at Law, Kalispell, Montana.
For Respondent: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Robert Stutz, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Edward Corrigan, Flathead County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana.
¶ 1 Following a jury trial in the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, Joseph Lee Buck (Buck) was convicted of the offenses of deliberate homicide with the use of a weapon, and burglary. From his convictions, Buck appeals. We affirm.
¶ 2 Buck presents the following issues on appeal:
¶ 3 1. Did the District Court err in denying Buck's Motion to Suppress?
¶ 4 2. Did the District Court err in denying Buck's Motion in Limine seeking to exclude evidence of his methamphetamine use?
¶ 5 3. Did the District Court err in denying Buck's request for funds to employ a jury consultant and submit supplemental juror questionnaires?
¶ 6 4. Did the District Court err in granting the State's Motion in Limine regarding hearsay?
¶ 7 5. Did the District Court err in denying Buck's Motion for Change of Venue and his related "Motion for Expenditure of County Funds to Conduct a Public Opinion Survey"?
¶ 8 6. Did the District Court err in denying Buck's "Motion for Expenditure of County
¶ 9 7. Did the District Court err in limiting the testimony of Buck's expert witness, Dean Wideman?
¶ 10 During the early morning hours of October 25, 2002, George Evans (Evans), age sixty-four, was beaten to death by an intruder in his home in Kalispell, Montana. During a custodial interrogation two weeks later, Buck admitted that he had entered Evans' home and attacked him. In its Judgment and Sentence, the District Court described the incident as follows:
On October 25, 2002, between approximately 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning, the Defendant unlawfully entered the Kalispell residence of George Evans with the purpose to steal a number of the firearms Mr. Evans was known to have collected and stored at that location. When Mr. Evans awoke during the course of that Burglary, the Defendant assaulted him with such violence that he broke five rifles over Mr. Evans' head and back . . . it appears that the Defendant also kicked or stomped Mr. Evans with sufficient force to cause multiple, bilateral rib fractures. At some point during the assault, he bound Mr. Evans' hands behind his back, duct-taped his eyes, and left him to die face down on the floor. The Defendant subsequently left the residence, stealing an unknown quantity of currency and a pair of Mr. Evans' boots.
¶ 11 In December of 2002, the State filed its Information charging Buck with deliberate homicide pursuant to § 45-5-102, MCA. Buck pled not guilty. Thereafter, the State filed a Notice indicating that it would not seek the death penalty, stating "the prosecutor believes that there is non-sufficient evidence to establish . . . the statutory aggravating factors necessary to impose the death penalty under Montana Law."
¶ 12 In March of 2003, the State filed notice of its intent to seek Buck's designation as a persistent felony offender, noting that he had been released from prison less than five years before committing the charged offenses. In April of 2003, the State amended the Information to include a charge of burglary, pursuant to § 45-6-204(1), MCA, and an allegation that Buck had used a dangerous weapon in committing the deliberate homicide — an act separately punishable under § 46-18-221(1), MCA. Buck pled not guilty to all the charges.
¶ 13 Following the District Court's denial of four of his pre-trial motions, Buck filed an Application for Writ of Supervisory Control in May of 2003. We allowed the State an opportunity to respond regarding one issue, and denied the Application with regard to the other issues raised. Buck moved for dismissal of the Application after the outstanding issue was resolved in the District Court, and we issued an Order granting that request.
¶ 14 Buck waived his right to a speedy trial and a jury was convened on August 8, 2003. On the evening of the final day of trial, August 15, the jury found Buck guilty of the offenses of deliberate homicide and burglary, and found that Buck had used a weapon in committing the homicide.
¶ 15 In rendering Buck's sentence, the District Court stated, inter alia:
Given his prior criminal history, his repeated pattern of violence, drug abuse, and probation violations, the nature of the instant offenses, and his continued violent behavior while in jail, there is little, if any, realistic prospect for the Defendant's rehabilitation and safe return to a community setting. The safety of this community, and society in general, require a sentence that will guarantee the Defendant's incarceration for the remainder of his life.
¶ 16 The court designated Buck as a persistent felony offender1 and sentenced him to a life term, plus fifty years, at the Montana State Prison. Specifically, the court sentenced Buck to a term of life imprisonment upon his conviction for the offense of deliberate homicide; a consecutive term of ten years for his use of a weapon in the commission of the deliberate homicide; a consecutive term of twenty years upon his conviction of the offense of burglary; and a consecutive term of twenty years upon his designation as a persistent felony offender. Additionally, the court specified that Buck would not be eligible for parole or participation in any type of supervised release program during the entirety of his sentences.
¶ 17 On appeal, Buck does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence upon which his conviction was based. He does, however, seek a new trial based on seven alleged errors.
¶ 18 1. Did the District Court err in denying Buck's Motion to Suppress?
¶ 19 Upon request by law enforcement, Buck voluntarily went to the Kalispell Police Department headquarters on November 2, 2002. Before any questioning commenced, Buck was advised of his Miranda rights. Buck also signed a form acknowledging his understanding of these rights. Buck then willingly spoke with Lieutenant Greg Burns (Burns) and Detective Sergeant Roger Nasset (Nasset) for several hours, during which time Buck denied any responsibility in Evans' death. During this initial interrogation, Buck did not request counsel, and no counsel was present on his behalf.
¶ 20 After the interrogation was terminated, Buck was arrested on a probation violation, as a suspect in the investigation of Evans' homicide. At this stage, Burns sought to obtain a scraping of Buck's fingernails. The following discussion was preserved by audio-video recording:
Lt. Burns: Joe, before you, uh, head down to the jail, there's one other thing I'd like to do — it's, uh, just to get a scraping of your fingernails, or, I clean your fingernails.
Buck: Oh.
Lt. Burns: Okay? Do you have any problem with that? This is a permission to search form that we use when we get something like that.
Buck: Um, um, I don't know. Um, maybe I need to talk to a lawyer or something. I don't know.
Lt. Burns: Do you have a question about this?
Buck: Well, yeah, um, ya know.
Lt. Burns: Go ahead, I'll fill it out, you can read it and decide if you have a question. Maybe it will help you decide — know what I mean?
Buck: Yeah, its, I'll just wait and talk to a lawyer.
Lt. Burns: You want to wait? You don't want to do this?
Buck: Yeah, I'll just —
Lt. Burns: All right, I understand.
The discussion ended at this point. Buck was not appointed counsel and Burns did not take a fingernail scraping. Buck was then transported to the Flathead County Detention Center. While in custody, several days later, Buck declined to call an attorney after Officer Mike Cooper explicitly offered him the opportunity to do so.2
¶ 21 On November 8, while still in custody, Buck was transported to the police station where he agreed to another interrogation with Burns and Nasset. Before this session commenced, Buck was again advised of his Miranda rights, and he again signed a form acknowledging his understanding of these rights.
¶ 22 During this interrogation, which was preserved by audio-video recording, Buck did not request counsel, and no counsel was present on his behalf. Buck initially denied any involvement in Evans' death. Eventually, however, after viewing videotaped statements of witnesses, Buck admitted entering Evans' house on the morning in question. He then stated that he had encountered Evans and beat him repeatedly. Thereafter, Buck stated he tied Evans' hands behind his back and placed tape over his eyes. He also stated that Evans "was cussing and yelling and screaming," but stated he thought Evans "was okay when [he] left." During this discussion, Buck repeatedly stated that he had not intended to kill Evans. Finally, Buck stated, inter alia, that he left the house with a pair of Evans' shoes and an unspecified amount of cash which he found in a drawer. Nasset then sought and received verbal confirmation from Buck that he had made these statements of his "own free will."
¶ 23 In March of 2003, Buck filed a Motion seeking to suppress his confession. In his brief supporting the Motion, Buck argued that his confession was obtained illegally because the law enforcement officers did not honor his request for counsel before the second interrogation. The State filed a response, arguing that Buck's confession was obtained legally because his request for counsel was limited to the bodily search Burns had proposed, and because he waived his Miranda rights before the second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morrisey
...elevate form over substance. State v. Spang, 2002 MT 120, ¶ 23, 310 Mont. 52, 48 P.3d 727, overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Buck, 2006 MT 81, ¶ 48, 331 Mont. 517, 134 P.3d 53. Whether the suspect invoked his Miranda rights is an objective inquiry. See Davis, 512 U.S. at 458-59, ......
-
Seltzer v. Morton
...because the Defendants fail to support it with analysis or citation to legal authority, as required by M.R.App. P. 23(a)(4). State v. Buck, 2006 MT 81, ¶ 28, 331 Mont. 517, ¶ 28, 134 P.3d 53, ¶ 28. 8. As the United States Supreme Court has observed, although the collective judgment of a jur......
-
State v. Dewitz
...admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts under M.R. Evid. 404(b) to determine whether the court abused its discretion. State v. Buck, 2006 MT 81, ¶ 71, 331 Mont. 517, 134 P.3d 53 (citing State v. Aakre, 2002 MT 101, ¶ 8, 309 Mont. 403, 46 P.3d ¶ 58 In the case sub judice, Ashle......
-
State v. Jackson
...that the issue or claim be timely raised in the first instance in the trial court." West, ¶ 16 (citing § 46-20-104(2), MCA; State v. Buck, 2006 MT 81, ¶ 117, 331 Mont. 517, 134 P.3d 53; State v. Paoni, 2006 MT 26, ¶ 16, 331 Mont. 86, 128 P.3d 1040; In re T.E., 2002 MT 195, ¶ 20, 311 Mont. 1......
-
A relational Sixth Amendment during interrogation.
...cf. Cart v. State, 840 P.2d 1000 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992) (referring to the right to counsel as "case specific"). (328) See State v. Buck, 134 P.3d 53 (Mont. (329) See id.; cf. State v. Reavley, 79 P.3d 270 (Mont. 2003). (330) See State v. Mitchell, 137 S.W.3d 630 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). (33......