State v. Finley
2011 MT 89
| Mont. | 2011Background
- Debbie Finley called 911 at 1:41 a.m. on April 4, 2009, fleeing a drunk Finley who was damaging the home and threatening her and others.
- Witnesses observed Debbie afraid, underdressed for the cold, and distraught; officers found damage, blood, and footprints consistent with the claimed events.
- Finley was charged with partner or family member assault, second offense, after the Justice Court found Debbie not credible and the verdict appealed to the District Court.
- The District Court reversed, holding the State failed to prove reasonable apprehension of bodily injury and relying on Debbie’s alleged lack of credibility.
The State appealed to this Court; Finley moved to dismiss, arguing the appeal was unauthorized, which this Court denied.
This Court holds the State’s appeal is authorized and, on independent review, that the evidence could support the element of reasonable apprehension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient for reasonable apprehension of bodily injury? | Finley | Finley | The State can prove the element; evidence could sustain beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Is the State's appeal precluded by law? | Finley | Finley | The State's appeal is authorized; not barred by double jeopardy or other preclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (double jeopardy considerations when government appeals after judge's rule)
- State v. Barron, 2008 MT 69 (Mont.) (jeopardy and government appeals principles in Montana)
- Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (2005) (exception to double jeopardy—reinstating a guilty verdict on appeal)
- United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (1981) (government appeals do not automatically create retrial; constraints on double jeopardy)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (remand for new trial not allowed when record shows insufficient evidence; importance of appellate posture)
- State v. Seaman, 2005 MT 307 (Mont.) (state appellate review standards and finality of district court in Montana)
- State v. Vukasin, 2003 MT 230 (Mont.) (objective standard for reasonable apprehension of bodily injury)
- State v. McMahon, 2003 MT 363 (Mont.) (evidence may be circumstantial; burden on prosecution to prove element beyond doubt)
- State v. Pinkerton, 270 Mont. 287 (1995) (credibility and witness observation by trier of fact)
- State v. White Water, 194 Mont. 85 (1981) (prior inconsistent statements alone cannot sustain a conviction)