State v. Leprowse, No. DA 09-0067.
| Docket Nº | No. DA 09-0067. |
| Citation | 353 Mont. 312, 2009 MT 387, 221 P.3d 648 |
| Case Date | November 12, 2009 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
v.
Lisa Marie LEPROWSE, Defendant and Appellant.
[221 P.3d 649]
For Appellant: Joslyn M. Hunt, Chief Appellate Defender, Tammy A. Hinderman, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana.
For Appellee: Hon. Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Fred R. Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney, Jennifer Clark, Deputy County Attorney, Missoula, Montana.
Justice PATRICIA O. COTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 Lisa Marie Leprowse (Leprowse) appeals from her conviction for misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), first offense, in the Fourth Judicial District Court. We reverse Leprowse's conviction and remand this matter to the District Court for a new trial.
¶ 2 On May 12, 2008, Leprowse was charged in District Court with assault with a weapon and DUI. The assault charge was later dismissed. The allegations in support of these charges are as follows. On April 27, 2008, dispatch advised officers in Missoula County that someone had pointed a gun at another individual at the Other Place, a bar in Turah, Montana. Dispatch further advised that the suspect left the Other Place westbound on I-90 in a white SUV heading to a trailer park near the Cross Roads Truck Stop. Dispatch advised the officers that the vehicle was being driven by Leprowse.
¶ 3 Deputy Tillman stopped and processed Leprowse for a DUI. According to the charging documents, Leprowse was cooperative with Deputy Tillman, told the deputy how much she had to drink, and admitted she was intoxicated. Meanwhile, Deputy Schmill went to the Other Place to speak with the victims and witnesses. An individual named Jim Meixner (Meixner) told Deputy Schmill that Leprowse and Stephanie Wahl (Wahl) had been in a physical altercation in the women's bathroom at the Other Place. Meixner stated that he broke up the fight and separated the women. Meixner and Leprowse were subsequently talking outside the bar on the back patio when Leprowse asked Meixner for her hand gun back. Meixner had been keeping Leprowse's hand gun at his house. Pursuant to her request, Meixner went to his house and retrieved the gun and brought it to Leprowse.
¶ 4 Meixner told officers that Wahl then came "out of nowhere" and knocked both of them to the ground. Leprowse and Wahl then started calling each other names. Meixner helped Leprowse to her vehicle and she drove away. Meixner told officers that Leprowse did not point the gun at anybody during this time.
¶ 5 Wahl told officers a different story. Wahl claimed that she came out of the bar after her altercation with Leprowse, and saw Meixner and Leprowse kissing on the back patio. When she confronted them, she claimed that Leprowse pulled out her hand gun, pointed it at her head and twice threatened to shoot her. After Leprowse left, Wahl called 911.
¶ 6 After a bench trial in Justice Court, Leprowse appealed her conviction, seeking a trial de novo in the District Court. At the opening of those proceedings, Leprowse indicated to the District Court her intent to present the affirmative defense of compulsion to the DUI charge. This affirmative defense is codified at § 45-2-212, MCA, which reads as follows:
A person is not guilty of an offense, other than an offense punishable with death, by
reason of conduct which he performs under the compulsion of threat or menace of the imminent infliction of death or serious bodily harm if he reasonably believes that death or serious bodily harm will be inflicted upon him if he does not perform such conduct.
¶ 7 Leprowse argued that she was entitled to present this defense at trial. The State responded that compulsion was not a defense to a DUI charge and that in any event, Leprowse was not compelled to drive 14 miles away from the bar. The District Court agreed with the State, concluding prior to trial that compulsion was not a defense to the DUI charge. Leprowse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gregory Alan Me., No. DA 10–0329.
...to Maine, his attorney never raised or discussed with him the possibility of a compulsion defense. See § 45–2–212, MCA; State v. Leprowse, 2009 MT 387, 353 Mont. 312, 221 P.3d 648 (a defendant may assert the affirmative defense of compulsion to a charge of DUI). Yet, given his reasons for f......
-
City of Missoula v. Paffhausen, No. DA 11–0351.
...serious bodily harm will be inflicted upon 289 P.3d 147 the person if the person does not perform the conduct.¶ 27 In State v. Leprowse, 2009 MT 387, 353 Mont. 312, 221 P.3d 648, we stated that compulsion is a well-recognized basis for finding a defendant not guilty of a charged offense, ev......
-
State v. Johnson, No. DA 11–0544.
...by itself, cannot preclude a conviction. Rather, a defendant has the burden to raise and prove an affirmative defense. State v. Leprowse, 2009 MT 387, ¶ 11, 353 Mont. 312, 221 P.3d 648 (citing State v. Reynolds, 2004 MT 364, ¶ 9, 324 Mont. 495, 104 P.3d 1056). Here, although Johnson raised ......
-
State v. Higgins, DA 18-0233
...OF REVIEW ¶6 A district court may determine whether an affirmative defense exists as a matter of law. State v. Leprowse , 2009 MT 387, ¶ 11, 353 Mont. 312, 221 P.3d 648. We review a district court’s denial of an affirmative defense for correctness. State v. Lynch , 2005 MT 337, ¶ 7, 330 Mon......
-
State v. Gregory Alan Me., No. DA 10–0329.
...to Maine, his attorney never raised or discussed with him the possibility of a compulsion defense. See § 45–2–212, MCA; State v. Leprowse, 2009 MT 387, 353 Mont. 312, 221 P.3d 648 (a defendant may assert the affirmative defense of compulsion to a charge of DUI). Yet, given his reasons for f......
-
City of Missoula v. Paffhausen, No. DA 11–0351.
...serious bodily harm will be inflicted upon 289 P.3d 147 the person if the person does not perform the conduct.¶ 27 In State v. Leprowse, 2009 MT 387, 353 Mont. 312, 221 P.3d 648, we stated that compulsion is a well-recognized basis for finding a defendant not guilty of a charged offense, ev......
-
State v. Johnson, No. DA 11–0544.
...by itself, cannot preclude a conviction. Rather, a defendant has the burden to raise and prove an affirmative defense. State v. Leprowse, 2009 MT 387, ¶ 11, 353 Mont. 312, 221 P.3d 648 (citing State v. Reynolds, 2004 MT 364, ¶ 9, 324 Mont. 495, 104 P.3d 1056). Here, although Johnson raised ......
-
State v. Higgins, DA 18-0233
...OF REVIEW ¶6 A district court may determine whether an affirmative defense exists as a matter of law. State v. Leprowse , 2009 MT 387, ¶ 11, 353 Mont. 312, 221 P.3d 648. We review a district court’s denial of an affirmative defense for correctness. State v. Lynch , 2005 MT 337, ¶ 7, 330 Mon......