State v. Lancione, No. 97-042
| Docket Nº | No. 97-042 |
| Citation | 956 P.2d 1358, 288 Mont. 228 |
| Case Date | April 14, 1998 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
Page 1358
v.
Patrick LANCIONE, Defendant and Appellant.
Decided April 14, 1998.
Page 1359
Larry Jent; Williams, Jent & Dockins; Bozeman, for Defendant and Appellant.
Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General; Patricia J. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Marty Lambert, Gallatin County Attorney; Bozeman, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
REGNIER, Justice.
¶1 Patrick Lancione was charged by information on June 7, 1996, with the offense of criminal endangerment, a felony, in violation of § 45-5-207, MCA. Lancione was tried by a jury in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, and found guilty. Lancione appeals from the sentence and the judgment of the District Court. We affirm.
¶2 The following issues are presented on appeal:
¶3 1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Lancione's behavior immediately prior to the crime?
¶4 2. Is § 45-5-207, MCA, defining the offense of criminal endangerment, unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied to Lancione?
¶5 3. Did the District Court err in instructing the jury on the mental state necessary to prove criminal endangerment?
¶6 4. Was sufficient evidence presented at trial to convict Lancione of criminal endangerment?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶7 Patrick Lancione was a licensed real estate agent for Yogi Khalsa Realty Company, located in Bozeman, Montana. The company was owned by Yogi Khalsa, a licensed broker. Their business relationship, which began in 1993, had deteriorated by September 1995. On September 5, 1995, Khalsa asked Lancione to find another broker to work for.
¶8 On June 7, 1996, Khalsa walked into Lancione's office and requested certain documents. This request lead to an argument about the sharing of a commission from the sale of a real estate listing. Khalsa testified that Lancione grabbed him, threw him against a wall, and shoved him out the door.
Page 1360
Khalsa left Lancione's office and returned to his office. He then decided to leave the building. He walked out into the hallway to leave and was blocked by Lancione.¶9 According to Khalsa, Lancione closely followed him down the hallway and pursued him down five flights of stairs. At the last full flight of stairs, above a door to the lobby, Khalsa recalls Lancione saying, "You'll never make it to the street." The last thing Khalsa remembers is going through the door with Lancione right behind him. Khalsa regained consciousness lying on the floor in a pool of blood in front of the elevator about ten to twelve feet from the door.
¶10 According to Lancione's testimony, as he exited the door at the bottom of the stairwell, Khalsa tried to reach back and slam the door on him. Lancione then accidentally tripped into Khalsa and they both tumbled down the stairs.
¶11 On September 26, 1995, Lancione was charged by information in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, with the felony offense of criminal endangerment pursuant to § 45-5-207, MCA. Lancione was tried by a jury on August 19-21, 1996, and found guilty.
¶12 On September 12, 1996, Lancione moved for a new trial. He alleged that § 45-5-207, MCA, is unconstitutional on its face and as it is applied to him in this case. He further alleged that the District Court erred in allowing certain character evidence to be admitted and that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the verdict. On December 9, 1996, the District Court denied the motion for a new trial.
¶13 On December 12, 1996, the District Court deferred sentencing Lancione for a period of six years. As a condition for the six-year deferred sentence, the court ordered Lancione to serve ninety days in the Gallatin County Detention Center. Lancione was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $8,629.40. Lancione now appeals the sentence and the judgment of the District Court.
ISSUE 1
¶14 Did the District Court abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Lancione's behavior immediately prior to the crime?
¶15 At trial, the State offered the testimony of Colleen Kinnear regarding Lancione's behavior when she saw him on the street less than fifteen minutes before Khalsa was injured. Kinnear, an acquaintance of Lancione, testified that she observed Lancione across the street on a corner walking toward her. She stated that Lancione was normally a neat and snappy dresser. However, on the day of the incident, she testified that:
[Lancione] was less well groomed, his hair was not particularly combed, looked like it needed a cut. [He][h]ad on sloppy, baggy pants, unpressed white shirt, just different from his normal appearance on a work day.
¶16 She then testified that as they were crossing the street from opposite corners, "he walked very slow, sort of deliberately slow." At the time, she testified that there was a delivery truck waiting to make a turn. When they met in the middle of the street, she testified that Lancione told her "Let's walk real slow. Let's piss the truck driver off."
¶17 Lancione argues that the District Court abused its discretion by not excluding the testimony of Kinnear. At trial, Lancione objected to Kinnear's testimony, arguing that the admission of her testimony was not relevant under Rule 401, M.R.Evid., that it was character evidence prohibited by Rule 404(a), M.R.Evid., and that it was prejudicial pursuant to Rule 403, M.R.Evid. In his motion for a new trial and on appeal, Lancione again argued that the District Court erred in admitting Kinnear's testimony on the same three grounds. However, in his motion for a new trial, Lancione, for the first time, raised Rule 404(b), M.R.Evid., as a basis to reverse the District Court.
¶18 The State counters that the introduced evidence was not evidence of a trait of character. Instead, the State contends that it was evidence of a specific event showing Lancione's res gestae, or hostile state of mind, fifteen minutes before Khalsa was found injured. Furthermore, the State contends that this Court should not consider
Page 1361
Lancione's argument based on Rule 404(b), M.R.Evid., because he failed to object to the admission of Kinnear's testimony on this basis at trial.¶19 In its order denying Lancione's motion for a new trial, the District Court concluded that because the crime of criminal endangerment involves the defendant's state of mind, the State was entitled to introduce this evidence concerning Lancione's state of mind fifteen minutes before the crime was committed. Furthermore, the court stated that Kinnear's testimony was brief, approximately ten minutes out of a three-day trial, and was not unduly prejudicial.
¶20 The standard of review for evidentiary rulings is whether the district court abused its discretion. See State v. Gollehon (1993), 262 Mont. 293, 301, 864 P.2d 1257, 1263. The determination of whether evidence is relevant and admissible is left to the sound discretion of the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Southern, No. 97-640
...M.R.Evid. ¶48 The admissibility of evidence is left to the discretion of the district court judge. State v. Lancione, 1998 MT 84, p 20, 288 Mont. 228, p 20, 956 P.2d 1358, p 20 (citing State v. Gollehon (1993), 262 Mont. 293, 301, 864 P.2d 1257, 1263). Thus, this Court reviews a district co......
-
State v. Jackson, No. DA 06-0195.
...297, ¶ 22, 297 Mont. 111, 991 P.2d 929); Tuomala, ¶ 20 (citing Rosling, ¶ 36); Johnson, ¶ 43 (citing State v. Lancione, 1998 MT 84, ¶ 37, 288 Mont. 228, 956 P.2d 1358; State v. Buckingham, 240 Mont. 252, 260, 783 P.2d 1331, 1337 (1989)). "Circumstantial evidence must only be of such a `qual......
-
State v. Johnson, Nos. 96-592
...rejected. Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to obtain a conviction. State v. Lancione, 1998 MT 84, p 37, --- Mont. ----, p 37, 956 P.2d 1358, p 37, 55 St.Rep. 344, p 37 (citing State v. Buckingham (1989), 240 Mont. 252, 260, 783 P.2d 1331, 1337). "Circumstantial evidence must only......
-
State v. Clausell, No. 98-213.
...1117 ¶ 31 We have held that "circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to obtain a conviction." State v. Lancione, 1998 MT 84, ¶ 37, 288 Mont. 228, ¶ 37, 956 P.2d 1358, ¶ 37. Moreover, "criminal intent, being a state of mind, is rarely susceptible of direct or positive proof and therefore......
-
State v. Southern, No. 97-640
...M.R.Evid. ¶48 The admissibility of evidence is left to the discretion of the district court judge. State v. Lancione, 1998 MT 84, p 20, 288 Mont. 228, p 20, 956 P.2d 1358, p 20 (citing State v. Gollehon (1993), 262 Mont. 293, 301, 864 P.2d 1257, 1263). Thus, this Court reviews a district co......
-
State v. Jackson, No. DA 06-0195.
...297, ¶ 22, 297 Mont. 111, 991 P.2d 929); Tuomala, ¶ 20 (citing Rosling, ¶ 36); Johnson, ¶ 43 (citing State v. Lancione, 1998 MT 84, ¶ 37, 288 Mont. 228, 956 P.2d 1358; State v. Buckingham, 240 Mont. 252, 260, 783 P.2d 1331, 1337 (1989)). "Circumstantial evidence must only be of such a `qual......
-
State v. Johnson, Nos. 96-592
...rejected. Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to obtain a conviction. State v. Lancione, 1998 MT 84, p 37, --- Mont. ----, p 37, 956 P.2d 1358, p 37, 55 St.Rep. 344, p 37 (citing State v. Buckingham (1989), 240 Mont. 252, 260, 783 P.2d 1331, 1337). "Circumstantial evidence must only......
-
State v. Clausell, No. 98-213.
...1117 ¶ 31 We have held that "circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to obtain a conviction." State v. Lancione, 1998 MT 84, ¶ 37, 288 Mont. 228, ¶ 37, 956 P.2d 1358, ¶ 37. Moreover, "criminal intent, being a state of mind, is rarely susceptible of direct or positive proof and therefore......