State v. Champagne

• Decision Date: 02 June 1972
• Docket Number: Cr. N
• Citation: 198 N.W.2d 218
• Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ambrose Collin CHAMPAGNE, a/k/a Ambrose Louis Champagne, Defendant and Appellant. o. 425.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 218

198 N.W.2d 218

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ambrose Collin CHAMPAGNE, a/k/a Ambrose Louis Champagne Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. No. 425.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

June 2, 1972.

Syllabus by the Court

1. When the circumstances are consistent with the hypothesis of accused's innocence as well as with that of his guilt, the jury must draw the inference, and an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury.

2. Having reviewed the evidence in this case as summarized in this opinion, it is the conclusion of this court that the evidence supports the verdict.

3. Corpus delicti, as understood in homicide cases, means the body of the crime, and consists of two component parts, the first of which is the death of the person alleged to have been killed, and the second that such death was produced through criminal agency.

4. The ingredients of the corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence, provided such evidence is so clear and convincing and of such probative force that it establishes the commission of the crime beyond all reasonable doubt.

5. No person can be convicted of murder unless the death of the person alleged to have been killed and the fact of the killing by the accused as alleged are established as independent facts, the former by direct evidence and the latter beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. Without adopting the inference-upon-inference rule, it is the view of this court that the defendant's rights in the instant case were protected against the evil intended to be avoided by the rule, which prohibits drawing an inference from another inference, by the trial court's instructions that the jury must find the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and that when the circumstances are consistent with the hypothesis of the accused's innocence as well as with that of his guilt, the jury must find him innocent.

7. For reasons stated in the opinion, we find no error in the court's use of the term 'rape' in conjunction with its instructions to the jury and particularly in conjunction with its explanation of the forms of the verdict.

8. For reasons stated in the opinion, it was not error for the trial court to receive the testimony of the medical doctor who performed an autopsy on the body of the alleged victim in the instant case.

9. There being no evidence in the instant case to support the requested instruction on outcry, the trial court did not err in refusing to give a requested instruction on outcry.

10. In light of the cautionary instructions which the trial court gave to the jury, we find no error in the court's failure to draw attention to the heinous nature of the crime charged and the possible prejudice resulting therefrom.

11. The Allen charge is a carefully balanced method of reminding jurors of their elementary obligations, which they can lose sight of during protracted deliberations. It is perfectly valid to remind them that they should give some thought to the views of others and should reconsider their position in light of those views.

12. We have examined the so-called Allen charge given in this case and find that although it varies in some respects from the original Allen charge, approved by the United States Supreme Court, in that the original Allen charge asked the minority to ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which was not concurred in by the majority, and the charge in the instant case does not make specific reference to the minority only, we think that the variation is immaterial and accordingly find no prejudicial error resulting from the charge.

John C. McClintock, Rugby, and Ziegler & Butz, Rugby, for defendant and appellant.

Helgi Johanneson, Atty. Gen., Bismarck, and John B. Hart, State's Atty., Rolla, for plaintiff and respondent.

ERICKSTAD, Judge.

At about 1:15 a.m. on June 13, 1971, the jury impaneled in this case found the defendant Ambrose Collin Champagne guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree. On July 17, 1971, Mr. Champagne was sentenced to imprisonment in the State Penitentiary at hard labor for life. On September 13, 1971, he filed his notice of appeal with the clerk of court of Rolette County, appealing from the verdict of guilty and the judgment of conviction. On May 2, 1972, oral arguments were made in this court on behalf of the defendant in support of his appeal by his counsel and in opposition thereto by the State's Attorney of Rolette County.

At the close of the State's case, the defense rested. That we may know the evidence upon which the jury acted, let us briefly review the testimony of the various witnesses called on behalf of the State.

Frank Russell St. Clair, age 61, testified as follows: On the 25th of February 1971 he was living with his wife, Alice, on the north side of Dunseith, North Dakota, in a two-room house, approximately 16 14 feet. The room at the front of the house contained Mr. and Mrs. St. Clair's two beds, separated by a dresser. There was another bed in the small room at the rear of the house. Mr. St. Clair suffered from arthritis and was confined to his bed on that day, unable to rise without his wife's help. He also suffered from failing eyesight, had broken his glasses and had not yet replaced them.

To identify the defendant in the courtroom, Mr. St. Clair had to be led to within three feet of him. His hearing was so poor he had to request the State's attorney to 'holler' at him.

Mr. St. Clair testified further:

At the time his wife went to bed he had an opportunity to see her face and there 'was nothing wrong with her.' There were two boys sleeping in the rear room, and a baby grandchild and Ambrose Champagne with them in the front room. Mr. St. Clair told Ambrose to sleep in the back room with the boys or sleep with him, but Ambrose took his boots off, turned out the lights and went the other way, presumably to Mrs. St. Clair's bed. He heard his wife say, 'Be careful for the baby.' He also heard a sound which he described as 'a bumping wail.'

After a recess, Mr. St. Clair stated that his wife had said to Ambrose, 'Get out of here,' and 'Go and sleep over there with Russell.'

Mr. St. Clair said that later LeRoy Poitra came into the house, put the light on and went back outside. Then Mary Norman and Paulie Baker came in the house and Mary grabbed a club and started hitting Ambrose, who was lying on the floor.

LeRoy Poitra's testimony, in essence, follows:

He was 22 years old and on February 25, 1971, he was living in Dunseith. He had known Mr. and Mrs. St. Clair for approximately one year and had known Ambrose Champagne nearly all of his life. He estimated Mrs. St. Clair's height at about 5 2 and her weight at 90 pounds.

At about seven o'clock in the evening of February 25, he and a group that included Ambrose Champagne were drinking beer and wine at his home and from there they went to the home of Cecelia Deschamp, also known as Celia Day, where they drank more wine. At about 9 o'clock, LeRoy went alone from the Day house to the St. Clair house, where there was another gathering of people drinking wine. He did not take any liquor along with him to the St. Clair house, but he was offered drinks from someone else's supply. He could not remember if he had anything to drink in the house, but he drank some beer in the car outside. Mrs. St. Clair was in bed all the time he was there and he did not talk to her or look at her face. He could not recall seeing her take part in the drinking.

Ambrose Champagne arrived at the St. Clair home about an hour after LeRoy, and because Ambrose was so drunk that he fell on the floor, Leroy and Delmar Baker tried to put him to bed in the back room, but Ambrose got right up again.

At about eleven o'clock, LeRoy left the St. Clair house to go for a drive with a new acquaintance, Van Counts, and Lucy Lily, Mary Norman, and Paul Baker, who drove the car. They 'sat around and drank' at the home of Riel St. Pierre for a while.

When they returned to the St. Clair home to check on Mrs. St. Clair's daughter's baby, at about 1:00 or 1:30 a.m., LeRoy went into the house alone, turned on the light, and saw Mr. St. Clair in bed, and Mr. St. Clair told him to look around. LeRoy then saw Mr. Champagne lying on top of Mrs. St. Clair on the floor, with his pants down to his calves, his legs together between Mrs. St. Clair's, and his head near her right shoulder. They were 'stomach to stomach', with Mr. Champagne's toes pointing toward the floor. LeRoy received no response to his order to Ambrose Champagne to get up, and at that time he did not notice anything unusual about Mrs. St. Clair's face. He went outside to the car and accompanied Mary Norman and Paul Baker back to the house and, although he did not go inside then, he saw Mrs. St. Clair's face and noticed that something was leaking from her right eye. (Others testified that it was Mrs. St. Clair's left eye that was injured.) When Mary Norman came out of the house, the group went to the Van Counts home to call the police, and LeRoy and the others stayed there while Mary Norman and Lucy Lily went back to St. Clair's.

Kenneth Morin, age 19, testified that he and his brother Randall Paige had been drinking that day and that they slept in the back room at the St. Clair home that night. He said that he had gone through the main room on his way to bed and that at that time Alice St. Clair was in bed with the baby, her husband was in his bed, Delmar Baker was standing near the door, and Ambrose Champagne was looking for milk for the baby. Kenneth said that he went to sleep and, although he heard voices from the main room, he did not become fully awake until the police came to take him and his brother to the police station.

Randall Roy Paige, age 17, testified that he had been drinking 'quite a bit' that night, did not recall going to bed, and was still drunk when he woke up.

Mary Norman testified, in...