Former Players in Trouble?

[SonomaCat]

Agreed, Grizlaw. I didn't realize it was only a misdemeanor until you pointed it out. That is very difficult to understand. This is EXACTLY the kind of violent behavior for which I firmly believe that jail/prison is the only proper punishment. I don't want people capable of doing this running around town.

For all the silly crap we lock people up for ... and yet something like this apparently doesn't require jail time.

[kmax]

You want to know what really makes my blood boil out of this whole thing? These two quotes, from the Chronicle:

Davis is accused of punching the woman in the face, hitting her numerous times and dragging her by her hair during an argument over the weekend, according to court records. He was arrested and charged with partner assault, a misdemeanor.

* * *

In court Monday, City Prosecutor Susan Wordal told the judge the woman had to go to Bozeman Deaconess Hospital for a broken rib. She also had bruises, swelling, cuts and scratches on her face and body, according to court records.

Davis pleaded guilty to partner assault without an attorney representing him, saying he wanted to get back to work and school.

I feel like I'm in the fcking Twilight Zone.

When a person is hospitalized for a broken rib, "misdemeanor partner assault" is NOT the crime that springs to my mind. I think I've been posting here long enough for you all to know that I am not a raving psycho who flies off the handle at every little thing, but the events that have been described here warrant a FELONY, folks. I don't care if this was a one-time thing or what this guy's prior record is; he belongs in PRISON, not jail/community service.

This is not smack directed at MSU, the Cats, or anything of the sort; I'm not going to preach or blame the school for this, but the PROSECUTOR, on the other hand, needs to be called out on the carpet, imo. Felony charges have been brought (and won) in far less serious cases than this. Someone has some 'splainin to do...

Totally agree with you here. If this one gets swept away as just a misdemeanor we've got some major problems around here.

[MAGOO]

I've had some experience in making prosecutorial decisions in my life wanderings, and here you only get to the felony level via aggravated assault (which has mandatory prison time) or criminal endangerment. Both deal with "serious bodily injury" which in turn requires proof of bodily injury that: "(i) creates a substantial risk of death; (ii) causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function or process of a bodily member or organ; or (iii) at the time of injury, can reasonably be expected to result in serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function or process of a bodily member or organ." One would have to look at the pictures of the injuries, evaluate the medical reports, and perhaps wait to see if there is in fact permanent hearing loss before grabbing for your felony pencil. I'm guessing that the arresting officer made a judgment call that the injuries were not severe enough, and wrote a ticket for a PFMA (partner-family member assault) which is a misdemeanor until you get to the 3rd offense. So don't jump on the County Attorney just yet.

[catamaran]

You want to know what really makes my blood boil out of this whole thing? These two quotes, from the Chronicle:

Davis is accused of punching the woman in the face, hitting her numerous times and dragging her by her hair during an argument over the weekend, according to court records. He was arrested and charged with partner assault, a misdemeanor.

* * *

In court Monday, City Prosecutor Susan Wordal told the judge the woman had to go to Bozeman Deaconess Hospital for a broken rib. She also had bruises, swelling, cuts and scratches on her face and body, according to court records.

Davis pleaded guilty to partner assault without an attorney representing him, saying he wanted to get back to work and school.

Totally agree with you here. If this one gets swept away as just a misdemeanor we've got some major problems around here.

I feel like I'm in the fcking Twilight Zone.

When a person is hospitalized for a broken rib, "misdemeanor partner assault" is NOT the crime that springs to my mind. I think I've been posting here long enough for you all to know that I am not a raving psycho who flies off the handle at every little thing, but the events that have been described here warrant a FELONY, folks. I don't care if this was a one-time thing or what this guy's prior record is; he belongs in PRISON, not jail/community service.

This is not smack directed at MSU, the Cats, or anything of the sort; I'm not going to preach or blame the school for this, but the PROSECUTOR, on the other hand, needs to be called out on the carpet, imo. Felony charges have been brought (and won) in far less serious cases than this. Someone has some 'splainin to do...

This law seems somewhat out of whack since if you were to do the same thing to a random person walking down the street the penalty would be far worse

[Catmandoo]

I am absolutely sickened by this whole players in trouble deal. I think there is a much bigger problem than it being lack of montana kids, jc transfers or drop downs. I think this whole generation of kids are lead to believe that immediate self-gratification is the way to go. MTV has shown them for many years how to dress, what to buy, how to live, and how to treat women. Our young women have learned from them how they should be disrepected. That in NO WAY excuses the pud that beat the young girl up. I am just saying all of the kids are being taught wrong. Very few seems to be for the good of the whole. Most are just doing what feels good at the time...drugs, stealing etc. Have they no conscience? Families are falling apart. What is this...the fall of the roman empire v.2??

Let's not go chicken little on the generation -- the kids are alright ... just as they always have been. They are maybe even better than most


recent generations.

Right on, BAC. Something has gone amiss in recruiting for Bobcat men's coaches in recent years. If it were one or two incidents, we might be able to blame it on chance. But it is much more disturbing and widespread than a couple of isolated incidents.

One image keeps appearing in my mind, and I remember it being very embarrassing to me as a Cat fan while sitting with some Griz fans watching the Cat/Griz game last year. Before the game, the announcers displayed pictures of the players on both teams. The Griz players looked clean-cut and classy, while about half of the Cat players looked like they just came from a photo shoot for a rap video. It was very embarrassing for MSU, and I took alot of sh*t for it from my Griz buddies. While I poo-poo'd it and try to defend the players, down deep inside I wondered if our program really had sunken to a new low in recruiting thugs. And, now, with all of these problems emerging, it looks like my fears may have been justified.

The problem isn't kids in general ... it just appears to be many of the kids that we have recruited at MSU in recent years.

[Hello Kitty]

I've had some experience in making prosecutorial decisions in my life wanderings, and here you only get to the felony level via aggravated assault (which has mandatory prison time) or criminal endangerment. Both deal with "serious bodily injury" which in turn requires proof of bodily injury that: "(i) creates a substantial risk of death; (ii) causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function or process of a bodily member or organ; or (iii) at the time of injury, can reasonably be expected to result in serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function or process of a bodily member or organ." One would have to look at the pictures of the injuries, evaluate the medical reports, and perhaps wait to see if there is in fact permanent hearing loss before grabbing for your felony pencil. I'm guessing that the arresting officer made a judgment call that the injuries were not severe enough, and wrote a ticket for a PFMA (partner-family member assault) which is a misdemeanor until you get to the 3rd offense. So don't jump on the County Attorney just yet.

You would think stepping on a persons neck would create a substantial risk of death.
I hope he is not headed "back to work"

[Grizlaw]

I've had some experience in making prosecutorial decisions in my life wanderings, and here you only get to the felony level via aggravated assault (which has mandatory prison time) or criminal endangerment. Both deal with "serious bodily injury" which in turn requires proof of bodily injury that: "(i) creates a substantial risk of death; (ii) causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function or process of a bodily member or organ; or (iii) at the time of injury, can reasonably be expected to result in serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function or process of a bodily member or organ." One would have to look at the pictures of the injuries, evaluate the medical reports, and perhaps wait to see if there is in fact permanent hearing loss before grabbing for your felony pencil. I'm guessing that the arresting officer made a judgment call that the injuries were not severe enough, and wrote a ticket for a PFMA (partner-family member assault) which is a misdemeanor until you get to the 3rd offense. So don't jump on the County Attorney just yet.

Wait, time out...if the County Attorney's office made its decision based solely on the POLICE OFFICER'S legal opinion of whether the girl's injuries were serious enough to warrant an aggravated assault charge, then we damn well should be jumping all over the County Attorney. That, quite frankly, would be pure laziness, and if that is the actual level of analysis that went on, then someone needs to get canned. Period.

Secondly -- I don't have time to do legal research and review my outline from my first semester, first-year criminal law class from law school (from 1998, if anyone cares), but I know that there are Montana Supreme Court cases defining "serious bodily injury" as including injuries that are far less serious than a broken rib. I would have to go back and review the caselaw, but I definitely remember that "broken bone = serious bodily injury" in Montana (and the line is actually pretty far south of that). There are cases that are close calls, and of course everything depends on what the evidence actually was, but assuming there is evidence to substantiate what has been written, I would think this case would be a slam dunk.

The thing that bothers me about this is that when I look at these facts, this is what I see: the incident happened on Friday night (4 a.m. Saturday, to be precise), the guy spent the weekend in jail, and then after that, we have a VERY QUICK guilty plea to a misdemeanor. A very serious beating happens on Saturday, guilty plea on Monday...game over.

If I was very, very naive, I would say that the prosecutor and the cops were completely incompetent. Unfortunately, I think that what actually happened is far, far worse, and I think you all know what I'm getting at.

Like I said, I just hope someone is held accountable.

--GL

[Topher]

I just want to vomit

This is NOT a Bobcat problem, this is not a Grizzly problem and certainly not a sports issue. This goes way beyond smack or the rivalry so anyone low enough to make a comment you have my apologies.

I am sorry, but "I was under the influence" does not cut it. There is no excuse for hitting a woman beyond she is physically putting you in danger. I hope and pray the legal system will see this one to the end, and this young man will seek rehabilitation for what he has done. I think every action is forgiveable, but he needs to attain it.

There, I got on my podium long enough. I am sorry, but this stuff just drives me crazy. It dosn't matter what she did, you NEVER EVER hit a woman. (He did plead guilty so I assume the allegations are true)

I know there are plenty of stand up young men and women that represent your programs (know a few personally), so I won't let a couple of idiots ruin my opinion.

[catmom]

I too am amazed that they didn't keep him in jail. From what I was told there was no bond on him either. How can that be???? If you saw what this girl looked like you would be even more incensed. She, IMHO, is lucky to have come out of this. She is a very tiny girl.

I don't know what more they can do to prevent this kind of thing from happening. None of these kids that have been introuble recently had records (except one that I know had problems as a juvenile). There is no way to tell for the most part. There are hundreds of student athletes at the school you can't not support the masses because of a few bad apples.

The school is having another meeting with all the athletes today. They are trying everything they know how to prevent this sort of thing from happening. They can't control what these kids do on their free time.

I am suprised that no one has said anything about his roommates not stepping in. They could have stopped this very soon after it started if they would have stepped in. In high school one of my girlfriends was getting pushed around and then slapped by her boyfriend. I didn't stand by and watch and I am a girl!!!!

[Bleedinbluengold]

Believe you me....finding out what the he!! the deal was with the other 2 roommates is MY priority. How the roommates are dealt with is the one thing I can influence...I don't give a crap who they are.

[catmom]

Believe you me....finding out what the he!! the deal was with the other 2 roommates is MY priority. How the roommates are dealt with is the one thing I can influence...I don't give a crap who they are.

I have never liked one of the kids that is his roommate. He has done things here already that has made me question his ethics. I will say that he is one of the first players that is new that I just can't stand (and that is the first time I have felt that way). I have not heard very many nice things said about this boy.

I hope you do something. I did tell a coach this summer that I didn't like this one kid and that he was trouble in my view. I have never done this before. I don't know if he cared what I had to say but I wanted to make sure that he was watched (it was not Kramer that I told and was not a coach that I knew very well).

[MAGOO]

Grizlaw: Better dust off your criminal law outline. The following is the statutory definition of serious bodily injury, and following the same is the Code comment

"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that:
(i) creates a substantial risk of death;
(ii) causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function or process of a bodily member or organ; or
(iii) at the time of injury, can reasonably be expected to result in serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function or process of a bodily member or organ.

Serious Bodily Injury: The new sections on Aggravated Kidnapping (MCA, 45-5-303) and Assault (MCA, 45-5-201 through 45-5-204) are graded in part by the degree of bodily harm threatened or inflicted. Serious bodily injury differs from bodily injury (MCA, 45-2-101) in the substantiality of pain, risk, disfigurement, or impairment which is created. This definition replaces the ambiguous and narrow phrase found in the prior section on Assault in the First Degree (R.C.M. 1947, § 94-601) "likely to produce death". The wording for the definition is nearly identical to the Model Penal Code source and to N.Y. Pen. L. 1965, § 10.00(10). The final clause of the definition concerning serious mental illness as a type of bodily injury is a new addition by the Criminal Law Commission. The clause applies to those situations in which the victim's mental functions are impaired as a result of a physical attack but in which no substantial physical injury has been manifested.

Let me know when your ready to get up in front of criminal case jury again and argue that serious is far less than what the statute and comment by the Code Commission mean.

Also, in the real world, as the offense occured within the City limits, unless the arresting officer or the city prosecutor actually passed the matter by the County Attorney, it would be handled as a misdemeanor in City Court without the County Attorney ever being aware of the same. So, you should probably address your innuedos of malfeasance or favoritism to the City Attorney or the City Police Chief. As for me, unless I was well familiar with the evidence, the officers' reports, and the victim and witness statements, I sure as hell wouldn't, as an attorney, be out trying to stir up resentment and outrage against law enforcement.

[Grizlaw]

Grizlaw: Better dust off your criminal law outline. The following is the statutory definition of serious bodily injury, and following the same is the Code comment

*statute deleted*

Let me know when your ready to get up in front of criminal case jury again and argue that serious is far less than what the statute and comment by the Code Commission mean.

Also, in the real world, as the offense occured within the City limits, unless the arresting officer or the city prosecutor actually passed the matter by the County Attorney, it would be handled as a misdemeanor in City Court without the County Attorney ever being aware of the same. So, you should probably address your innuedos of malfeasance or favoritism to the City Attorney or the City Police Chief. As for me, unless I was well familiar with the evidence, the officers' reports, and the victim and witness statements, I sure as hell wouldn't, as an attorney, be out trying to stir up resentment and outrage against law enforcement.

Upon reflection, you are right about one thing: I was wrong to direct my ire at the County Attorney. It does sound like they never touched the case (though it probably should have ended up on their desk), and thus, never had the opportunity to do anything wrong (or right, to be fair).

As to the rest of what you said:

1. I am familiar with the statute you cited. For the record, before my last post, I even checked the online version of the MCA, just to make sure it had not been amended since I graduated. (Here is the link, for anyone who is interested:)

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/5/45-5-202.htm

I never disagreed with any of that. However -- if you are a prosecutor, and by your comments, I surmise that you may be -- then you have to be familiar with the line of cases that interprets this statute. The statutory definition is what it is, but there is case law interpreting what constitutes an injury "that, at the time of the injury, can reasonably be expected to result in serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function or process of a bodily member or organ." If you seriously want to argue about whether the injuries described in this case do not meet that standard, then I will find the cases that I am referring to, and we can talk about it (it will take me some time, though; it's not going to happen today), but to answer your question, yes, I would be perfectly happy to make that argument, and I do not think it is all that much of a stretch under the statute.

2. Regardless of all of that, though -- the fact remains that all of this happened in less than one business day. Seriously, even if "misdemeanor" was the right answer here, do you really think this case was given the level of attention that it should have received? Even if we assume that you're correct and that the prosecutors couldn't prove "serious bodily injury," you can't convince me that the prosecutor actually reviewed the evidence and exercised any semblance of judgment on that point in less than a day.

You're right; I should not have gone off on the County Attorney, but someone did mishandle this case (or at the very least, made far too hasty a judgment about it). Maybe it was the City Attorney, and maybe it was the cop, but if the newspaper account is anywhere near accurate, somebody dropped the ball here, imo. You're also right to note that I don't know the evidence, but I can read what's in the paper, and as I said, assuming there is evidence to substantiate that, I have to think this wasn't handled well.

As to your last point: I am not actually trying to stir up anything here; people are entitled to their opinions, and nobody should give mine any special deference. I am just calling it as I see it, and yes, the facts of this case are very maddening, so I may be getting a little carried away. If you think that it is appropriate for a prosecutor to accept a Monday-morning misdemeanor guilty plea from a defendant in a case where a beating victim apparently had to be treated for broken bones and other injuries, then you should express that opinion, as well. As I said, my own opinion is that it might have been nice if a little more than a few hours worth of work had been done on the case, though...

[BR GRIZ]

Grizlaw: Better dust off your criminal law outline. The following is the statutory definition of serious bodily injury, and following the same is the Code comment

*statute deleted*

Let me know when your ready to get up in front of criminal case jury again and argue that serious is far less than what the statute and comment by the Code Commission mean.

Also, in the real world, as the offense occured within the City limits, unless the arresting officer or the city prosecutor actually passed the matter by the County Attorney, it would be handled as a misdemeanor in City Court without the County Attorney ever being aware of the same. So, you should probably address your innuedos of malfeasance or favoritism to the City Attorney or the City Police Chief. As for me, unless I was well familiar with the evidence, the officers' reports, and the victim and witness statements, I sure as hell wouldn't, as an attorney, be out trying to stir up resentment and outrage against law enforcement.

Upon reflection, you are right about one thing: I was wrong to direct my ire at the County Attorney. It does sound like they never touched the case (though it probably should have ended up on their desk), and thus, never had the opportunity to do anything wrong (or right, to be fair).

As to the rest of what you said:

1. I am familiar with the statute you cited. For the record, before my last post, I even checked the online version of the MCA, just to make sure it had not been amended since I graduated. (Here is the link, for anyone who is interested:)

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/5/45-5-202.htm

I never disagreed with any of that. However -- if you are a prosecutor, and by your comments, I surmise that you may be -- then you have to be familiar with the line of cases that interprets this statute. The statutory definition is what it is, but there is case law interpreting what constitutes an injury "that, at the time of the injury, can reasonably be expected to result in serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function or process of a bodily member or organ." If you seriously want to argue about whether the injuries described in this case do not meet that standard, then I will find the cases that I am referring to, and we can talk about it (it will take me some time, though; it's not going to happen today), but to answer your question, yes, I would be perfectly happy to make that argument, and I do not think it is all that much of a stretch under the statute.

2. Regardless of all of that, though -- the fact remains that all of this happened in less than one business day. Seriously, even if "misdemeanor" was the right answer here, do you really think this case was given the level of attention that it should have received? Even if we assume that you're correct and that the prosecutors couldn't prove "serious bodily injury," you can't convince me that the prosecutor actually reviewed the evidence and exercised any semblance of judgment on that point in less than a day.

You're right; I should not have gone off on the County Attorney, but someone did mishandle this case (or at the very least, made far too hasty a judgment about it). Maybe it was the City Attorney, and maybe it was the cop, but if the newspaper account is anywhere near accurate, somebody dropped the ball here, imo. You're also right to note that I don't know the evidence, but I can read what's in the paper, and as I said, assuming there is evidence to substantiate that, I have to think this wasn't handled well.

As to your last point: I am not actually trying to stir up anything here; people are entitled to their opinions, and nobody should give mine any special deference. I am just calling it as I see it, and yes, the facts of this case are very maddening, so I may be getting a little carried away. If you think that it is appropriate for a prosecutor to accept a Monday-morning misdemeanor guilty plea from a defendant in a case where a beating victim apparently had to be treated for broken bones and other injuries, then you should express that opinion, as well. As I said, my own opinion is that it might have been nice if a little more than a few hours worth of work had been done on the case, though...

Magoo hit on the jurisdictional issue. I don't believe any city prosecutor in the state has the authority to charge someone with a felony. For a felony to be filed I believe the city prosecutor would have to turn it over to the county attorney.

[MAGOO]

Actually, I am a former County Attorney. The one thing that gets my dander up is when laymen start harping about the decision that a prosecutor has made based soley upon a newspaper article. I really get upset when a lawyer does it. That was my point. Here, I understand now that the initial news report about Beye may have been incorrect. That is the danger of knowing too little and blowing off about it. I do not know what occured in Court, or prior to the preliminary hearing, for that matter. What I do know is: I would sure as hell would not start yelling about dark matters until I had spoken directly to the prosecutor and gotten the full story on what happened, and why it happened if a plea agreement was reached. Hell, there could have been an inadvertant procedural screw-up which required the prosecution to accept a plea to a lesser offense. Just as there are (or used to be) "a thousand stories in the city" there are many not-obvious reasons why decisions are made by prosecutors. I don't know the Bozeman City Prosecutor, but I would guess that he or she is just as angry as the rest of us when it comes to PFMA cases. I do know Marty Lambert, and he is a hard-working, smart prosecutor. He is also a hard charger on PFMA assaults. But, again, until anyone asks them, its pretty hard to know the whys of their decisions.

[rtb]

I need to bring a little humor into this crappy subject.

Shouldn't BobcatNation be charging a few for all this discussion among lawyers?

Or will you be billing all the readers for legal advice?

[Ponycat]

My guess is that this isn't over yet. I could see a kidnapping charge being brought against this A$$. I don't think too hightly of CA Lambert but in a case like this if the girl will testify (which may be a reason for the lack of charges) I see Mr. Lambert going after it. I'm also guessing Davis' attorney told him to plea while it was a misdemeanor as soon as he could before the Information was ammended.

On a side and sad note, in Montana you have to hit your wife or girlfriend 3 times before it's a felony, but the second time you kick you dog it's a felony. That's f'd up IMHO

[bobcatmaniac]

I need to bring a little humor into this crappy subject.

Shouldn't BobcatNation be charging a few for all this discussion among lawyers?

Or will you be billing all the readers for legal advice?

Well, it is National Talk Like a Pirate Day (AARRRRGGGHHH Matey, me thinks you should walk the plank!), we could change it to "Talk Like A Lawyer Day" "Well, Mr. Jones, as you see here in section 9 paragraph 12, blah blah blah"...

[Grizlaw]

Actually, I am a former County Attorney. The one thing that gets my dander up is when laymen start harping about the decision that a prosecutor has made based soley upon a newspaper article. I really get upset when a lawyer does it. That was my point. Here, I understand now that the initial news report about Beye may have been incorrect. That is the danger of knowing too little and blowing off about it. I do not know what occured in Court, or prior to the preliminary hearing, for that matter. What I do know is: I would sure as hell would not start yelling about dark matters until I had spoken directly to the prosecutor and gotten the full story on what happened, and why it happened if a plea agreement was reached. Hell, there could have been an inadvertant procedural screw-up which required the prosecution to accept a plea to a lesser offense. Just as there are (or used to be) "a thousand stories in the city" there are many not-obvious reasons why decisions are made by prosecutors. I don't know the Bozeman City Prosecutor, but I would guess that he or she is just as angry as the rest of us when it comes to PFMA cases. I do know Marty Lambert, and he is a hard-working, smart prosecutor. He is also a hard charger on PFMA assaults. But, again, until anyone asks them, its pretty hard to know the whys of their decisions.

Yeah...I understand what you're saying, and why you got upset with me. Unfortunately, I guess it's something we all face, in one form or another. I'm a tax lawyer, and someday, someone at the IRS might decide that a transaction I helped design is an abusive tax shelter...and if that happens, you'll read about it in the Wall Street Journal, where a journalist who knows nothing about tax law will explain why the deal I designed is abusive, and how I helped my client rip off the average guy who actually pays his taxes...and then, non-tax lawyers (who also know nothing about tax law, and who won't really understand what I did or why I did it) will write messages on message boards about all the things that are wrong with the system, and will have a debate about how much time I should spend in prison for designing the whole thing, and etc. It sucks, and I understand why you got upset. I do hope there are no hard feelings...

At the end of the day, though, I still can't read the article without thinking that this should have been a felony (or at least, that someone should have seriously considered whether it should have been a felony, and that that could not have happened in such a short time). I understand the jurisdictional issues, but seriously, does it not seem to you like this happened a lot more quickly than it probably should have? We had a guilty plea in less than a day...you said it yourself, you would have had to examine the evidence and wait to see the full extent of her injuries before making your assessment...would you not agree that that should have happened here? To me, I hear "broken rib" and I'm already leaning in the direction of "felony," and that doesn't even consider what other injuries she may have. Like I said, if "misdemeanor" is really the right answer, then so be it, but could that determination have really been made this quickly?

I'm not a prosecutor, so I'll give you some deference, but I have a hard time reading this and not thinking that someone, somehow dropped the ball.

[Grizzfan]

Anybody know a good lawyer joke? Having read this thread I now can repeat the old mantra, "thank God for lawyers".


Tom