State v. Spotted Eagle
| Decision Date | 26 October 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 10-0054.,DA 10-0054. |
| Citation | 243 P.3d 402,2010 MT 222,358 Mont. 22 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Glen D. SPOTTED EAGLE, Sr., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Ethan C. Lerman, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana.
For Appellee: Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; C. Mark Fowler, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Gina Dahl, Hill County Attorney, Havre, Montana.
¶ 1 Defendant, Glen D. Spotted Eagle, Sr. (Spotted Eagle), was convicted by a jury in the Twelfth Judicial District, Hill County, of Partner or Family Member Assault, 3rd or subsequent offense, a felony, and Failure of Disorderly Person to Disperse, a misdemeanor. Spotted Eagle appeals only his Partner or Family Member Assault conviction. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
¶ 2 On April 7, 2009, the State of Montana charged Spotted Eagle by Information with Count I: Partner or Family Member Assault, 3rd or subsequent offense, a felony, and Count II: Failure of Disorderly Person to Disperse, a misdemeanor. Count I charged that Spotted Eagle "purposely or knowingly caused bodily injury to his partner, Michelle Gobert" in violation of § 45-5-206, MCA. No subsection was cited.
¶ 3 Trial commenced on September 10, 2009. After all testimony was heard and both the State and Spotted Eagle rested, the State proposedtwo new jury instructions—Instructions 3A and 4A. Instruction 3A read "A person commits the offense of partner or family member assault if the person purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury or reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in a partner or family member." Instruction 4A read, in pertinent part,
¶ 4 Defense counsel objected to the newly proposed instructions, arguing that the basis of the charge against Spotted Eagle "was whether Glen struck Michelle or not." The objection was overruled and the jury was given the new instructions. The jury convicted Spotted Eagle of both counts. Spotted Eagle moved for a new trial based on the new instructions submitted by the State. The District Court denied his motion. Spotted Eagle was sentenced to four years with the Department of Corrections, with all four years suspended. This appeal follows.
¶ 5 We restate the issue on appeal as follows: Did the District Court err when it allowed Instructions 3A and 4A to go to the jury?
¶ 6 The giving of jury instructions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. English, 2006 MT 177, ¶ 39, 333 Mont. 23, 140 P.3d 454; State v. Cybulski, 2009 MT 70, ¶ 34, 349 Mont. 429, 204 P.3d 7. The district court has broad discretion in formulating jury instructions. English, ¶ 39. We review jury instructions to determine whether the instructions, as a whole, fully and fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case. Cybulski, ¶ 34. To constitute reversible error, any mistake in instructing the jury must prejudicially affect the defendant's substantial rights. Id.
¶ 7 Spotted Eagle argues that Instructions 3A and 4A amended the charge against him by asserting a new theory not charged in the Information—partner assault by reasonable apprehension of bodily injury. He argues this was an amendment of substance and, as such, was untimely under § 46-11-205, MCA. He also argues the amendment violated his right to due process.
¶ 8 The State argues the amendment was to form, not substance, that no different offense was charged, and Spotted Eagle's rights were not substantially prejudiced.
¶ 9 An information must reasonably apprise the defendant of the charges against him so that he may have the opportunity to prepare and present his defense. City of Red Lodge v. Kennedy, 2002 MT 89, ¶ 10, 309 Mont. 330, 46 P.3d 602. The State may amend the form of the information at any time prior to the verdict. State v. Wilson, 2007 MT 327, ¶ 26, 340 Mont. 191, 172 P.3d 1264. Amendments to substance are prohibited within five days of trial. Section 46-11-205(1), MCA; Wilson, ¶ 26.
¶ 10 "An amendment is one of form when the same crime is charged, the elements of the crime and the proof required remain the same, and the defendant is informed of the charges against him." Wilson, ¶ 26; Kennedy, ¶ 11. To differentiate between amendments of form and substance, we examine whether the amendment alters the nature of the offense, the essential elements of the crime, the proofs or the defenses. Wilson, ¶ 26; Kennedy, ¶ 14. An amendment that substitutes one statutory subsection for another may charge a wholly new offense and require new proofs and defenses. Kennedy, ¶ 15; State v. Hallam, 175 Mont. 492, 499-500, 575 P.2d 55, 60-61 (1978); State v. Brown, 172 Mont. 41, 45, 560 P.2d 533, 535 (1976).
¶ 11 The District Court erred in allowing Instructions 3A and 4A to go to the jury because those instructions improperly amended the charge against Spotted Eagle. The instructions amended not the form, but the substance of the charge against Spotted Eagle. The Information plainly stated that Spotted Eagle was charged with "caus[ing] bodily injury to his partner" which falls under subsection (1)(a) of § 45-5-206, MCA. Instructing the jury regarding "reasonable apprehension of bodily injury," which falls under subsection (1)(c) of § 45-5-206, MCA, changed the essential elements of the charge against him, replacing bodily injury with reasonable apprehension of bodily injury. Brown, 172 Mont. at 45, 560 P.2d at 535; Hallam, 175 Mont. at 499-500, 575 P.2d at 60-61. Changing the essential elements changed the nature and substance of the charge against Spotted Eagle. Id.
¶ 12 Contrary to the State's argument, generally citing § 45-5-206, MCA, cannot overcome the specific language the State chose when charging Spotted Eagle. It chose to charge him under § 45-5-206(1)(a), MCA, by the plain language used in the Information, despite not specifically citing that subsection. To find otherwise would elevate form over substance. Generally citing § 45-5-206, MCA, does not allow the State to proceed on any theory under that Section while leaving the defendant guessing.
¶ 13 Because the amendment was substantive, it must haveoccurred at least five days before trial. Section 46-11-205(1), MCA; Wilson, ¶ 26. It did not. It was made in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kaarma
..., 2005 MT 147, ¶ 20, 327 Mont. 335, 114 P.3d 217. The district court has broad discretion in formulating jury instructions. State v. Spotted Eagle , 2010 MT 222, ¶ 6, 358 Mont. 22, 243 P.3d 402. To constitute reversible error, any mistake in instructing the jury must prejudicially affect th......
- State v. Polak, DA 16-0306
- State v. Lamoureux
-
City of Missoula v. Zerbst
...its discretion when it erroneously instructed the jury on the law regarding the essential elements of the charge against the defendant. 2010 MT 222, ¶ 12, 358 Mont. 22, 243 P.3d 402. "Spotted Eagle was specifically charged with causing bodily injury to a partner. The jury should not have be......