State v. Redlich
| Decision Date | 04 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 13–0109.,DA 13–0109. |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Bryan James REDLICH, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
For Appellant: Wendy Holton, Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana.
For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Jonathan M. Krauss, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Jed Fitch, Beaverhead County Attorney, Dillon, Montana.
¶ 1 A jury found Bryan Redlich guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, and two counts of felony assault with a weapon. Redlich received concurrent ten-year sentences at the Department of Corrections for the two felonies, and a ten-day sentence at the county jail for the misdemeanor. Redlich now appeals his convictions. We affirm. We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
¶ 2 1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Redlich's convictions for felony assault with a weapon.
¶ 3 2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in limiting a justifiable use of force defense to Count II (felony assault with a gun).
¶ 4 3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in allowing the State to present rebuttal evidence to impeach defense witness testimony.
¶ 5 4. Whether the District Court erred in denying Redlich's motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial.
¶ 6 On May 29, 2011, Redlich left a bar in Dillon at closing time, after a night of drinking and playing pool with his girlfriend, Rebecca Ginter. A number of people were standing outside of the bar, including three University of Montana Western football players, Scott Keiter–Charles, Kalani McLaughlin, and Rashad Peniston. From here, the accounts of the night's events diverge. Redlich stated that he had previously encountered the football players, while the football players maintained that they had either never interacted, or never seen Redlich before. Redlich and Ginter testified that the football players started walking toward Redlich to instigate a fight, and that Redlich told them that he did not want any trouble. Redlich stated he was holding his pool cue at this time, twirling it like a baton, and not trying to swing it at anyone.
¶ 7 Witness Alison Scott and the football players testified that Redlich was in the middle of the street swinging the pool cue at the football players, waving it erratically and violently in a criss-cross pattern, and taking “baseball swings.” Scott and the football players stated that Redlich was agitated and yelling racial slurs directed at the football players.
¶ 8 Keiter–Charles stated that he was afraid that Redlich could have attacked him at any time with the pool cue, and that he would have been unable to get away from Redlich due to a knee injury. McLaughlin testified that Redlich was not exactly swinging the pool cue at him, but he was swinging it at Keiter–Charles. Peniston testified that he thought Redlich was going to hit Keiter–Charles and McLaughlin with the pool cue. Peniston then disarmed Redlich, and threw the pool cue aside. Redlich and Ginter testified that Peniston kicked Redlich in the processof disarming Redlich, which Peniston denied. Scott and the football players averred that Redlich then threw a beer bottle toward McLaughlin and Keiter–Charles. Redlich believed that the football players were pursuing him, and he ran towards his home at the Creston Motel. The football players then began walking to Peniston's house, which happened to be in the same neighborhood as the Creston Motel.
¶ 9 Ginter then drove to the Creston Motel in search of Redlich. She did not find him, but she did find their friend Kyle Reed, and told him that three black men were chasing Redlich and beating him up. Reed then grabbed a baseball bat and went to look for the football players. When Reed found them, he approached them with the bat while yelling racial slurs at them.
¶ 10 At this moment, Scott and the football players testified that Redlich appeared with a gun and threatened the football players. The football players saw the gun and scattered. Scott, who was a friend of Redlich, testified that she approached Redlich, put her hands on his shoulders, and tried to convince him to put the gun down.
¶ 11 Redlich, Reed, and Ginter testified that no gun was involved, and that they did not see Scott at the scene. Officers then arrived, and Redlich came out of the Creston Motel with a weed eater, which he was “revving,” while continuing to yell racial slurs directed at the football players. An officer ordered Redlich to put down the weed eater, and Redlich eventually turned it off. The officer then questioned Redlich on the scene, and he denied having a gun or threatening the football players with any type of weapon. At trial, Redlich testified that he did not have a gun, but he did pick up a hammer from the bed of his truck when he saw Reed being chased by two of the football players.
¶ 12 On June 7, 2011, the State charged Redlich with three counts of assault with a weapon, and one count of disorderly conduct. The State alleged:
Count I: Redlich purposely or knowingly caused a reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury by swinging a pool cue at a group of people including Keiter–Charles, McLaughlin, and Peniston and attempting to hit them with it.
Count II: Redlich purposely or knowingly caused a reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury by pointing a revolver-type pistol at a group of people including Keiter–Charles, McLaughlin, Peniston, and Scott and stating that he was going to shoot them.
Count III: Redlich purposely or knowingly caused a reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury by waving and revving a running weed eater at a group of people including Keiter–Charles, McLaughlin, Peniston, and Scott.
Count IV: Redlich knowingly disturbed the peace by repeatedly yelling profanities and racial slurs at a group of black men in attempt to start a fight.
Redlich was arrested twice for violating his conditions of release, and was incarcerated a total of 46 days prior to trial.
¶ 13 Trial was originally set for January 31, 2012. On December 21, 2011, the State filed an unopposed motion for a continuance due to a scheduling conflict. The District Court granted the motion, and trial was reset for May 29, 2012. On May 14, 2012, Redlich moved for a continuance after his case was reassigned to a new public defender. The District Court granted the motion, and trial was reset for September 25, 2012.
¶ 14 On September 20, 2012, Redlich filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, which was denied. The jury trial was held as scheduled. At the close of the State's case, Redlich moved for judgments of acquittal on all charges. Regarding the first two assault charges, Redlich argued that the State had failed to prove a reasonable apprehension of bodily injury by any the individuals named in those counts. The District Court found that Peniston could not be considered as a victim in Count I, but otherwise denied the motion.
¶ 15 Later in the trial, Redlich called Reed to testify. During cross-examination, the State questioned Reed about a conversation he had with Scott a few days after the incident. Reed testified that Scott approached him in a bar and asked him a few questions about the incident. The State then called Scott as a rebuttal witness, who testified that Reed had approached her to discuss the incident. Redlich objected on the grounds of relevance, which the court overruled. Scott told Reed that she did not want to talk to him, and that she thought Redlich should not have pulled a gun on them. Reed told her that Redlich did not have a gun, but rather, a hammer, and that she should change her story.
¶ 16 The jury found Redlich guilty of Counts I, II, and IV, and not guilty of Count III on September 27, 2012. Redlich filed a motion for a new trial, or in the alternative, a judgment of acquittal, in which he argued in part that there was insufficient evidence to prove the elements of assault as to either McLaughlin or Keiter–Charles regarding Count I. The District Court denied Redlich's motion for a new trial. He was sentenced on January 15, 2013, and the judgment was filed on January 24, 2013.
¶ 17 Issue One: Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Redlich's convictions for felony assault with a weapon.
¶ 18 We review de novo whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction. State v. Trujillo, 2008 MT 101, ¶ 8, 342 Mont. 319, 180 P.3d 1153 (citing State v. Swann, 2007 MT 126, ¶ 19, 337 Mont. 326, 160 P.3d 511). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Trujillo, ¶ 8 (citations omitted).
¶ 19 We review jury instructions in a criminal case to determine whether the instructions, as a whole, fully and fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case. State v. Crawford, 2002 MT 117, ¶ 15, 310 Mont. 18, 48 P.3d 706. The right to a unanimous jury verdict represents a fundamental right protected by Article II, Section 26 of the Montana Constitution. State v. Vernes, 2006 MT 32, ¶ 21, 331 Mont. 129, 130 P.3d 169 (citing State v. Weaver, 1998 MT 167, ¶ 26, 290 Mont. 58, 964 P.2d 713). “Unanimity means more than an agreement that the defendant has violated the statute in question; it requires substantial agreement as to the principal factual elements underlying a specific offense.” Vernes, ¶ 21 (citing Weaver, ¶ 33).
¶ 20 Redlich raises his factual insufficiency argument in two steps. First, he argues that the jury instructions were improper by not requiring the jury to name the victim. Second, he claims that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that Redlich assaulted McLaughlin for Count I, or that Redlich assaulted Peniston...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hernandez
...was a 927-day delay, 357 days of which the defendant was assigned counsel who was not qualified to try a capital case); State v. Redlich, 321 P.3d 82, 146 (Mt. 2014) (holding that a delay of 485 days between the defendant's arrest and trial did not violate his constitutional rights to a spe......
-
State v. Montoya
...“[T]he presumption that pre [-]trial delay has prejudiced the accused intensifies over time.”); State v. Redlich, 2014 MT 55, ¶ 52, 374 Mont. 135, 321 P.3d 82 (noting that, because a delay of 285 days beyond the presumptive threshold was significant, the court “require[d] less proof of prej......
-
State v. Wells
...substantial agreement as to the principal factual elements underlying a specific offense." State v. Redlich , 2014 MT 55, ¶ 19, 374 Mont. 135, 321 P.3d 82 (quotation omitted). ¶20 When the State alleges multiple unlawful acts under a single count, a judge may be required to instruct the jur......
-
State v. Sommers
...of fact could have found all the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Redlich, 2014 MT 55, ¶ 18, 374 Mont. 135, 321 P.3d 82.DISCUSSION¶ 16 1. Did the District Court properly instruct the jury on the meaning of “actual physical control”?¶ 17 The DUI statute u......