State v. Conaty

Citations: 380 N.W.2d 656; 1986 S.D. LEXIS 197Docket: 14817

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court; January 22, 1986; South Dakota; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Patrick J. Conaty was convicted of possession of a firearm by a person with a prior violent felony, reckless discharge of a firearm, and being an habitual offender due to five prior felonies. This appeal stems from incidents that occurred during the night of September 29-30, 1984, when Michael Woodhouse, a homeless individual and the State's principal witness, visited Conaty's apartment in Huron, South Dakota. Woodhouse claimed he was there to retrieve a bible but became involved in a heated argument with Conaty, who allegedly threatened him with a broken wine bottle and expelled him from the apartment. 

Contrarily, Darlene Swimmer, Conaty's fiancée, testified that Woodhouse was agitated and threatening during his visit. After Woodhouse left, Swimmer relayed her concern that he had stolen a hunting knife from them. Woodhouse admitted to consuming alcohol that evening but denied any threats or theft. Following their altercation, Conaty went to a neighbor, Howard Bacon, expressing fear for his safety due to Woodhouse's aggressive behavior. Bacon lent Conaty a shotgun, believing it would only be used to scare Woodhouse if he returned. 

Woodhouse did return around 1:00 a.m., and during this encounter, he testified that Conaty pointed the shotgun at him and ordered him to leave. When Woodhouse refused, Conaty discharged the weapon, with the shot landing near Woodhouse. Evidence showed shotgun pellets were retrieved from the apartment building’s door, corroborating Woodhouse's account of the incident. The court upheld the jury's verdict, affirming Conaty's convictions.

William Young, a defense witness residing at the Fair City Apartments during the incident, confirmed the testimonies of Swimmer and Bacon regarding Woodhouse's threats against Conaty. On November 20, 1984, Conaty pled guilty to having four prior felony convictions and was sentenced to fifteen years for possession of a firearm by a convicted violent criminal, followed by a concurrent one-year sentence for reckless discharge of a firearm. Conaty is appealing his conviction for reckless discharge, arguing insufficient evidence to support the verdict and challenging the State's amendment of the information during trial.

According to South Dakota law, to establish reckless discharge of a firearm, the State must demonstrate that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk at the time of the incident. The court assesses whether evidence exists in the record that could reasonably lead a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Testimony indicated that while Woodhouse was allegedly armed, no witnesses confirmed this, and it was noted that Conaty had been drinking that evening. Despite claims that Conaty intended only to scare Woodhouse, the act of loading the shotgun and the discovery of shotgun pellets in the door screen raised concerns about the potential harm to others. The court concluded that Conaty's actions demonstrated a conscious disregard for the risk of harm when he discharged the shotgun in a public area, affirming the trial court's finding of guilt.

Conaty's self-defense argument was deemed not preserved for appeal and was ultimately viewed as a factual issue for the jury, which found the defense witnesses unconvincing. Lastly, Conaty contended that the trial court incorrectly sentenced him under a more severe statute due to misclassification in Part II of the information; however, the Deputy State's Attorney had indicated his habitual offender status properly under the relevant statute prior to his arraignment.

When a defendant has one or two prior felony convictions, the sentence for a principal felony is enhanced to a more severe class. In this case, Conaty had five prior felony convictions, leading to the potential enhancement of his sentence. The trial court clearly informed Conaty that if convicted on Count I, the habitual information would elevate his penalty from a Class VI felony to a maximum of life imprisonment, which Conaty acknowledged understanding.

Prior to trial, the State sought to amend the habitual information to include SDCL 22-7-8, which mandates an enhancement for defendants with at least three prior felony convictions. Defense counsel opposed this amendment as untimely, citing SDCL 22-7-11, which requires habitual offender allegations to be filed before arraignment, detailing specific prior convictions and signed by the prosecutor. The trial court allowed the amendment, determining that the State met the requirements of SDCL 22-7-11, as the information was filed before the arraignment and included detailed prior convictions.

Citing the precedent in State v. Williamson, the court concluded that as long as the habitual information complies with SDCL 22-7-11 and the defendant is aware of the maximum penalty, the defendant can be sentenced under the appropriate statute, regardless of not explicitly naming it. Conaty was aware he faced a potential life sentence, affirming that he could be sentenced under SDCL 22-7-8. Therefore, the court upheld the trial court's sentencing decision, finding no error, with agreement from Justices Morgan, Henderson, and Wuest, while Chief Justice Fosheim was disqualified.