State v. Hawk
54 State Rptr. 1102, 285 Mont. 183, 948 P.2d 209 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for intimidation under § 45-5-203, MCA, requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant communicated a threat with the specific purpose of causing another person to perform or omit the performance of an act.
Facts:
- Deputy Bob Runge discovered Rodney Plenty Hawk intoxicated and lying in a road with a bleeding cut over his eye.
- When ambulance personnel arrived to examine him, Plenty Hawk became combative and tried to push them away.
- At the sheriff's office, Plenty Hawk was placed in a holding cell where he continued to be combative and took a swing at a paramedic, Sue Mercier.
- After his wound was cleaned, Deputy Runge informed Plenty Hawk that he was under arrest for the charge of Intoxicated Pedestrian.
- During the booking process, Plenty Hawk refused to remove a shoe, challenged Runge to a fight, and stated that as soon as he got out of jail he was going to "kick Runge's ass" and terrorize Runge and his family.
- Plenty Hawk later testified that due to his intoxicated condition, he had blacked out and did not remember the events or making any threats.
- The next day, Plenty Hawk apologized to a detention officer and expressed a desire to apologize to Runge as well.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Montana charged Rodney Plenty Hawk with felony Intimidation in the District Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District, Big Horn County.
- During a jury trial, at the close of the State’s case-in-chief, defense counsel made a motion for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
- The jury subsequently found Plenty Hawk guilty.
- The trial court sentenced Plenty Hawk to three years at Montana State Prison.
- Plenty Hawk filed a motion for a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied as untimely.
- Plenty Hawk (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Montana, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient evidence exist to support a conviction for intimidation when the prosecution fails to prove that the defendant's threats were made with the specific purpose to cause a law enforcement officer to perform or omit the performance of any act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Nelson
No, sufficient evidence does not exist to support the conviction because the State failed to prove the essential element that the threats were made with a specific purpose. The Montana intimidation statute, § 45-5-203, MCA, explicitly requires that a threat be communicated 'with the purpose to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act.' The State argued Plenty Hawk’s purpose was to cause Runge to release him, but the court found no evidence in the record to support this. The evidence demonstrated that Plenty Hawk was belligerent and uncooperative from the moment he was found, and his threats were merely a 'continuation of his belligerent attitude' rather than a purposeful communication to compel a specific action. Because the State failed to prove this specific intent, a rational trier of fact could not have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the mens rea (mental state) requirement for the crime of intimidation in Montana. It establishes that general threats made in a state of anger or intoxication, without a clear, specific purpose to compel action or inaction, do not meet the statutory definition of intimidation. The ruling narrows the statute's application, preventing it from being used to convict individuals for what may amount to disorderly conduct or simple threats made without a specific coercive goal. Consequently, future prosecutions for intimidation in Montana will require specific evidence linking the defendant's threat to a demand for the victim to perform or omit an act.
