STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RICHARD PAUL GIRARD,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
In and For the County of Silver Bow, Cause No. DC-2006-016
Honorable John W. Whelan, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Walter M. Hennessey; Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, Mark W. Mattioli,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Robert M. McCarthy, Silver Bow County Attorney, Brad Newman,
Deputy County Attorney, Butte, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 25, 2007
Decided: August 7, 2007
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 In January of 2006, the State filed its Information in the District Court of the Second
Judicial District, Silver Bow County, charging Richard Paul Girard with the offense of
intimidation, a felony, in violation of § 45-5-203(1)(a), MCA. This charge arose from an
incident in which the State alleged that Girard verbally threatened to inflict physical harm on
two law enforcement officers as they arrested him in connection with a traffic accident.
¶3 Girard was tried before a jury and convicted in April of 2006. During the
proceedings, the two arresting officers testified that Girard had become “enraged” while
being taken into custody; that he had resisted arrest; and that he had repeatedly issued verbal
threats to both of them. According to the officers, the most alarming among Girard’s threats
was directed at Officer Anthony Jurenic. Particularly, the officers testified, Girard named the
street on which Officer Jurenic resides and threatened to kill him. Along with this threat, the
officers further testified, Girard provided a detailed description of Officer Jurenic’s residence
and also claimed to have previously observed his activities inside the home through a bay
window.
2
¶4 On appeal, Girard argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to
establish each element of the offense of intimidation. Thus, Girard contends that the District
Court erred when it refused to either enter a judgment in his favor or order a new trial.
¶5 We are not persuaded by Girard’s argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence
and we therefore need not address his additional arguments. The record clearly demonstrates
that the State’s evidence was sufficient to establish each element of the offense of
intimidation. Therefore, we conclude that our decision in this case is appropriately rendered
by memorandum opinion pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(i) of our 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003.
¶6 Affirmed.
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
3
