State v. Laverdure
| Decision Date | 19 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-390,89-390 |
| Citation | 785 P.2d 718,241 Mont. 135 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Douglas Lee LAVERDURE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Douglas C. Anderson, Missoula, for defendant and appellant.
Marc Racicot, Atty. Gen., Paul D. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Robert Deschamps, III, County Atty., Missoula, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant, Douglas Laverdure, was charged in the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, with the felonies of aggravated burglary and criminal mischief, and misdemeanor assault. At the close of the State's case, the defense moved for directed verdict, alleging that the State had not presented sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict. The motion was denied, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three counts, and defendant was convicted. He appeals. We affirm.
Defendant presents the following two issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court err in denying the defendant's motion for directed verdict?
2. Did the prosecutor's remarks during closing arguments deprive defendant of a fair trial?
Substantial evidence in the record shows: The victim, Betty Bullchild, and her two children lived in a trailer court near Frenchtown, Montana. Living in the same trailer court were defendant, who lived with Lori Wessel, and defendant's sister, Debbie Laverdure. At around 3:19 a.m. on October 4, 1988, Bullchild called the Missoula County Sheriff's Department to report that someone had thrown a rock through her trailer window. A friend of hers, Mervin Pine was with her when the rock came through the window, and when the Deputy Sheriff came to investigate. The Deputy testified that both Pine and Bullchild were drinking but appeared sober. He testified Bullchild suspected defendant was the person that threw the rock through the window so the Deputy went to his trailer to investigate. He testified that the lights were all out at the defendant's trailer and that there was no one outside. He further testified that this ill-fated relationship between defendant, his sister, girlfriend and Bullchild had been going on for some time and he had personally dealt with the same group of people before on other vandalism calls.
About an hour later, the Deputy received a second phone call, this time to report that Bullchild had been assaulted and had been taken to her sister's house. The Deputy testified that Bullchild was "possibly in shock" when he talked to her and had blood all over her face and hands. Bullchild testified that defendant, Wessel and Debbie Laverdure had broken windows in her trailer and then forced their way into the house and beat her. She testified that defendant found her in her bedroom, yelled to the others "Here she is", and then beat her up. During the assault, Bullchild's two children were beneath the covers on the bed.
After investigating the trailer, the Deputy testified that he found blood on the floor in the kitchen and down the hallway and that all the windows in Bullchild's trailer had been broken out. The windows of Bullchild's car were also broken out.
Defendant personally testified but gave a completely different version of the facts. When the Deputy went to defendant's home after the second call, defendant and Wessel came to the door. The Deputy testified that defendant reported to him that somebody had broken out one of his windows. Defendant's testimony painted Bullchild and Pine as the aggressors, and he denied beating up Bullchild. The Deputy testified that defendant told him that an Indian, (Mervin Pine) had thrown a rock at him, missed and broke the window. The Deputy arrested defendant, Debbie Laverdure and Wessel. Separate charges were filed and separate trials were held. At the close of the State's case against defendant, the defense moved for directed verdict, alleging that the State had not presented sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict based on the inconsistencies in the various versions of the incident as told by Bullchild. The motion was denied. Defendant was convicted and this appeal follows.
Did the District Court err in denying the defendant's motion for directed verdict?
Defendant contends there was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that the denial of his motion for directed verdict was an abuse of discretion. He maintains that the State's case was based solely on the testimony of Bullchild and that her story varied from the time of the initial investigation through the trial.
The State urges that a district court may only grant a motion for directed verdict when:
there is no evidence upon which the jury could base a verdict; that is, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal if reasonable men could not conclude from the evidence taken in a light most favorable to the prosecution that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mummey
...reasonable doubt. See State v. Doney (1981), 194 Mont. 22, 29, 636 P.2d 1377, 1381; Haskins, 841 P.2d at 547 (citing State v. Laverdure (1990), 241 Mont. 135, 785 P.2d 718). The standard of review for a trial court's refusal to grant a defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal ......
-
Kingston v. Ameritrade, Inc.
... ... These arbitration disclosures state that arbitration is binding, the parties are waiving their right to seek remedies in the courts, that the right to appeal is limited, and other ... ...
-
State v. Christenson, 91-134
...province of the jury, and not to its admissibility. See State v. Armstrong (1980), 189 Mont. 407, 616 P.2d 341; State v. Laverdure (1990), 241 Mont. 135, 785 P.2d 718. We also disagree with the defendant's assertion that the videotape was unduly prejudicial and, therefore, should have not b......
-
State v. Haskins
...evidence taken in light most favorable to the prosecution that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Laverdure (1990), 241 Mont. 135, 138, 785 P.2d 718, 721. The decision to direct a verdict lies within the sound discretion of the district court and we will not overturn ......