State v. Sanders
| Decision Date | 23 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 11163,11163 |
| Citation | 149 Mont. 166,424 P.2d 127 |
| Parties | The STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Roy SANDERS, Defedant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Maurice Maffei and John Frankovich (argued), Butte, for appellant.
Forrest H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., William A. McCormick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Mark Sullivan, County Atty. (argued), Johe Prothero, Deputy County Atty., Butte, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered on a jury verdict of guilty of first degree murder. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The defendant-appellant is Roy H. Sanders and will be referred to as the defendant.
The defendant makes four specifications of error which in substance contend that the verdict and judgment are contrary to the law and evidence because the jury did not find the defendant insane at the time he committed the crime with which he was charged and convicted. Although the defendant makes the contention that the judgment and verdict are contrary to the law, the defendant's brief does not refer this court to a single error of law made by the district court. Thus, the single issue presented by this appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
The information charging the defendant with first degree murder reads in part: 'That at the County of Silver Bow, State of Montana, on or about the 5th day of August A.D. 1965, * * * the said defendant did willfully, unlawfully, and wrongfully, knowingly, intentionally, feloniously, deliberately and premeditatively, with and of his malice aforethought, kill and murder one Robert Henningsen, a human being, contrary to the form, force, and effect of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Montana.'
The defendant testified in his own behalf at the trial. From defendant's own testimony the events that took place on the day of the shooting can be summarized.
The shooting took place on August 5, 1965. Defendant was in his early seventies and resided at the Silver Bow Homes in Butte, Montana.
Defendant received his monthly social security check on the 3rd or 4th of August, 1965. When defendnat left his home on August 5, 1965, to pay his rent and make some purchases in uptown Butte, he took with him a small 38-caliber revolver. Defendant paid his rent as planned and proceeded to uptown Butte. His first stop uptown was at Penney's department store to buy a pair of slippers. Then he went to the State liquor store and bought a bottle of brandy. Both of these stores are located on Park Street which runs generally in an east-west direction. His next intended stop was the Royal Bakery on North Main Street, which runs generally in a north-south direction. Defendant retraced his path over Park Street. He did not go all the way to Main Street but used an alley that rune north-south between Park Street and Broadway Street. This alley exists on Broadway Street at a point in between the Prudential Federal Savings and Loan Building and the Christie Furniture Store.
As the defendant came out of the alley onto Broadway Street, he saw Mr. Robert Henningsen in the display window of the Christie Furniture Store. Defendant stated that Mr. Henningsen was moving furniture around in the window fixing the display like a bedroom. Defendant stated that he saw two or three oher persons also working in the store.
Sometime after defendant had made the purchase at Penney's department store, he had placed his small revolver in the package containing the slippers. Defendant entered the Christie Furniture Store and walked to the display window where Mr. Henningsen was working. There was an exchange of greeting. Then, defendant that he saw two or three other persons also Henningsen, 'I got something for you, Bob, you thieving son of a bitch.' Defendant shot Mr. Henninges one time.
Working in or near the display window with Mr. Henningsen were three other Christie Furniture Store employees. They were Catherine McIntosh, Glen Lewis, and Wendell Pollard. Their testimony concerning the shooting substantially agreed with the account told by the defendant.
After the shooting Wendell Pollard wrestled with the defendant and knocked him to the ground. Glen Lewis took the gun from the defendant while the defendant and Mr. Pollard were scuffling.
Defendant did not attempt to use the gun on the other employees in the display window. After the gun had been taken from him, defendant sat in a chair in the store waiting to be taken to the police station. At this time he stated to Mr. Pollard, 'I should have shot you, too.'
With the exception of this one threatening comment, Mr. Pollard and Mr. Lewis testified that defendant sat quietly in the chair waiting for the police.
Thus, the events surrounding the actual shooting are not in dispute.
Section 94-201, R.C.M.1947, provides in part: 'All persons are capable of committing crimes except those belonging to the following classes:
* * *'
Section 94-119, subd. (2), R.C.M.1947, provides in part: 'When the commission of the act charged as a crime is proven, and the defense sought to be established is the insanity of the defendant, the same must be proven by the defendant by a preponderance of the testimony * * *'.
At the trial the defendant attempted to make use of the defense of insanity. To support his contention of insanity the defendant testified, several exhibits were introduced, and the expert testimony of a psychiatrist was offered for the jury's consideration.
While testifying, defendant was given a complete opportunity to tell his story to the jury. He was allowed to explain his version of the business dealings he had had with Christie Furniture Store and Mr. Henningsen. Defendant was allowed to trace many incidents in his life in which he alleged he had been unjustly or unfairly treated by courts of law, doctors, attorneys and others. He stated his reasons for shooting Mr. Henningsen. There was no attempt by the county attorney to limit the defendant's testimony to the facts surrounding the shooting incident. Every fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Olsen
...of a jury based upon substantial evidence will not be overturned on appeal. State v. Lukus, 149 Mont. 45, 423 P.2d 49; State v. Sanders, 149 Mont. 166, 424 P.2d 127; State v. Pankow, 134 Mont. 519, 333 P.2d The final specification of error urged by the appellant is that the lower court erre......
-
State v. Olson, 11916
...those cases where there has been an acquittal on the ground of mental disease or defect going to responsibility. In State v. Sanders, 149 Mont. 166, 171, 424 P.2d 127, 129, this Court 'It was a legal defense for the defendant to allege insanity as a bar to his being convicted of the crime c......
-
State v. Steward, 11464
...the assaults, could distinguish right from wrong, this being the test for criminal responsibility in this jurisdiction. State v. Sanders, 149 Mont. 166, 171, 424 P.2d 127; State v. Noble, 142 Mont. 284, 304, 384 P.2d 504, 514. For the present test see section 95-501, R.C.M.1947. With this e......