State v. Birthmark

300 P.3d 1140 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D visited Glasgow and stayed at the house shared by his mother, brother, and sister. D and his sister went to a party at his aunt's nearby house. He got into an argument with someone at the party and at about 1:30 a.m. returned to his mother's house angry and intoxicated. D's brother was awake and watching TV, while his mother was asleep. D was loud and woke his mother and she came into the living room. D began staring at his mother and brother and called them 'inbreds' and snitches. He grabbed a piece of lumber and said he was going to 'bash [their] heads in;' that he was going to slice their necks and kill them; and that he would do the same to the people at the party. This conduct went on for some time. D left the living room for the kitchen, saying he was going to find a knife. The mother left the house and called 911. Police met the mother outside the house. She was upset, crying, and 'scared to death.' D's brother came out and was concerned for his mother and warned police that d had a knife. D came out of the house without the piece of lumber or a knife. D was intoxicated and 'worked up.' D was charged with PFMA. The charge was his third or subsequent such offense and was therefore a felony. At trial D claimed the he was attacked and the anger was not directed at his mother and brother but was directed toward the people at the party. D's attorney did not offer any proposed jury instructions and stated that he had no objection to the instructions proposed by the State. The District Court instructed the jury that '[a] person acts purposely when it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature,' and, in a separate instruction, that '[a] person acts knowingly when the person is aware of his or her conduct.' It also stated: Purpose and knowledge ordinarily may not be proved directly because there is no way of fathoming or scrutinizing the operations of the human mind. But you may infer D’s state of mind, including his purpose and knowledge, from D's acts and all other facts and circumstances in evidence that indicate his state of mind. D was convicted. D contends that the definitions of 'purposely' and 'knowingly' were improper because they were 'conduct-based' definitions and not 'result-based' definitions.