STATE v SMITH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14928 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, FORREST JORDAN SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Gordon Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Harold H. Harrison argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Chris Tweeten argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Charles Graveley argued, County Attorney, Helena, Montana Submitted: Decided: February 19, 1980 MAR 2 7 la g Mr. ~ustice Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Defendant was c o n v i c t e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e c r i m e of s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t and was s e n t e n c e d t o t e n y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n , w i t h t h e l a s t n i n e y e a r s suspended. Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e above c o n v i c t i o n and judgment. T h i s c a s e a r o s e from a c o m p l a i n t f i l e d by Mary Rose C l o n i n g e r a l l e g i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t f o r c e d h e r t o engage i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e i n t h e e a r l y morning h o u r s of August 4 , 1978. T h e r e i s no d i s p u t e t h a t on t h a t morning t h e d e f e n - d a n t and t h e c o m p l a i n a n t engaged i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e . The s o l e i s s u e a t t r i a l was whether t h e a c t w a s committed w i t h o u t consent. Evidence t a k e n d u r i n g t h e t r i a l r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t r i x , a former barmaid, and d e f e n d a n t had known e a c h o t h e r f o r a period of approximately t e n y e a r s ; t h a t during t h e i r t e e n a g e y e a r s t h e p r o s e c u t r i x had o f t e n t e l e p h o n e d d e f e n d a n t and w a s f a m i l i a r w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s v o i c e on t h e t e l e p h o n e ; t h a t d u r i n g t h o s e y e a r s t h e y were on many o c c a s i o n s a l o n e t o g e t h e r ; t h a t b o t h t h e p r o s e c u t r i x and d e f e n d a n t w e r e involved i n rodeo a c t i v i t i e s as w e r e t h e i r respect i v e f a m i l i e s ; t h a t d e f e n d a n t had p r e v i o u s l y gone w i t h t h e p r o s e c u t r i x ' s younger s i s t e r C a r r i e f o r a b o u t a y e a r ; t h a t C a r r i e had n e v e r complained t o t h e p r o s e c u t r i x of d e f e n d a n t making any untoward o r i n s u l t i n g a p p r o a c h e s t o h e r ; and t h a t a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l C a r r i e was s t i l l q u i t e f r i e n d l y w i t h d e f e n d a n t and vehemently o b j e c t e d t o h e r s i s t e r ' s r a p e c h a r g e s , a s d i d o t h e r members of t h e f a m i l y . With r e s p e c t t o t h e i n c i d e n t o u t of which t h e p r e s e n t case a r o s e , t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e p r o s e c u t r i x i n d i c a t e s t h a t between 3 : 3 0 and 4 : 0 0 a.m. on August 4 , 1978, d e f e n d a n t telephoned the prosecutrix and told her that he was at a party and asked if she would cook breakfast for him. She agreed to do so, and defendant arrived at her residence shortly thereafter. She had not dressed and was wearing only a light, clinging robe and nothing else. After breakfast the prosecutrix testified she offered to allow defendant to use a spare bedroom. She testified she did this because she knew defendant had to be at work at 7:00 that morning at a location relatively close to the Cloninger residence. When she was showing him to the room, the defendant made a sexual advance at the prosecutrix, which she rebuffed. She then returned to her bedroom. A few minutes later, defendant entered her bedroom and forcibly accomplished an act of sexual intercourse with her. She testified that she screamed and struggled, but ceased her resistance because of fear for her safety. This fear stemmed in part from a previous incident where defendant had allegedly assaulted her physically for calling him a "son-of-a-bitch." Defendant's story is consistent with the prosecutrix's testimony up to the point where she offered to allow defendant to sleep at her house. According to defendant, he had been drinking in a bar for several hours and had then gone to a house party at the home of a friend. He testified that he considered himself to have been drunk. He called the prosecutrix because he desired some female companionship for the night, though he admitted that there were no previous instances of sexual relations between them. He testified that he went over to the prosecutrix's house after his request for breakfast was granted. ~ccordingto defendant, when Ms. Cloninger offered to allow him to sleep at her house, she told him he could sleep anywhere h e wanted t o , and t h e n s h e went t o bed; t h a t s h e d i d n o t t a k e him t o any room; t h a t he was c o m p l e t e l y f a m i l - i a r w i t h t h e l a y o u t of t h e house; t h a t i t would n o t have been n e c e s s a r y f o r h e r t o show him t h e l o c a t i o n of any room; t h a t he took h i s s h o e s and s o c k s o f f i n t h e k i t c h e n , went i n t o t h e bedroom t h r o u g h a door t h a t was open and l i f t e d up t h e c o v e r s and c r a w l e d i n t o bed b e s i d e h e r ; t h a t he s t i l l had h i s s h i r t and p a n t s on; t h a t t h e y s t a r t e d necking and h e k i s s e d h e r on t h e l i p s , neck, n i p p l e s and unzipped h e r b a t h r o b e a l l t h e way; t h a t s h e o f f e r e d no o b j e c t i o n t o any o f t h i s ; t h a t s h e d i d n o t c r y o r scream; t h a t he t o o k h i s c l o t h e s o f f i n t h e c o u r s e of which he unbuckled h i s b e l t and undid h i s b u t t o n s and z i p p e r and pushed h i s p a n t s down; t h a t d u r i n g a l l t h a t t i m e h e w a s n o t h o l d i n g h e r i n any way e x c e p t t h a t he had h i s a r m around h e r ; t h a t s h e d i d n o t o b j e c t o r r e s i s t i n any way, n o r d i d s h e e v e r t e l l him t o s t o p ; t h a t s h e responded t o him and he completed t h e s e x a c t w i t h h e r and s h e a p p e a r e d t o c o o p e r a t e ; t h a t when i t w a s o v e r he w a s l a y i n g b e s i d e h e r and t h e y s t a r t e d t a l k i n g ; t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t r i x w a s t a l k i n g a b o u t h e r b o y f r i e n d Ed and s t a t e d t h a t " a f t e r he went t o c o l l e g e t h i s f a l l t h a t we c o u l d s t a r t g o i n g o u t " ; t h a t d e f e n d a n t t o l d h e r t h a t he had n e v e r ment i o n e d a n y t h i n g a b o u t g o i n g o u t t o g e t h e r and t h a t w i t h t h i s s h e became v e r y a n g r y and t o l d d e f e n d a n t t o " g e t t h e h e l l o u t of t h e house, you s o n - o f - a - b i t c h " ; t h a t with respect t o t h e d o c t o r l a t e r f i n d i n g a l i t t l e r e d n e s s around h e r w r i s t t h a t he d i d n o t h o l d h e r w r i s t , p i n c h i t o r a n y t h i n g of t h a t s o r t ; a n d , t h a t when h e l e f t t h e home of t h e p r o s e c u t r i x t h a t morning, he had no s u s p i c i o n whatever t h a t s h e would a c c u s e him of r a p e . The p r o s e c u t r i x d i d n o t phone f o r h e l p upon t h e d e p a r t u r e o f d e f e n d a n t b u t showered and went t o a g i r l f r i e n d ' s h o u s e , Diane T r a n k e l , and from t h e r e , some t i m e l a t e r , t h e a u t h o r i t i e s were c a l l e d . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r review: 1. Is t h e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t ? 2. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n r e f u s i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t " t h e c r i m e of s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t i s e a s y t o c h a r g e and d i f f i c u l t t o r e f u t e " ? 3. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e v i c t i m ' s p r i o r sexual conduct? 4. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n r e f u s i n g t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t h a t knowledge of t h e v i c t i m ' s l a c k o f c o n s e n t i s a n e l e m e n t of t h e o f f e n s e o f s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t ? 5. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s i m p r o p e r l y " g i v e undue prominence" t o t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e ? 6. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n g i v i n g I n s t r u c t i o n Nos. 7 , 8 , and 1 0 on t h e ground t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s w e r e i r r e l e - v a n t t o t h e i s s u e s and e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d ? T h i s c a s e , l i k e s o many o t h e r s , i s c l o s e . The v e r y f a c t t h a t the "consent" o r t h e very case i t s e l f i s h o t l y c o n t e s t e d and r e s t s s o l e l y on t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e p r o s e c u t r i x o r one p e r s o n and r e m a i n s u n c o r r o b o r a t e d p u t s a h a r d burden on t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n s o f a r a s a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i s c o n c e r n e d , o r on t h i s C o u r t on s u f f i c i e n c y of e v i d e n c e . The l a w i s almost as c l o s e a s t h e f a c t s i n t h e s e m a t t e r s . I n i t i a l l y , defendant a l l e g e s t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t of a c q u i t tal. H e c o n t e n d s t h a t v a r i o u s i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s make t h e p r o s e c u t r i x ' s v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s i n h e r e n t l y improbable. The e v i d e n c e was t h e r e f o r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n v i c t . Defen- d a n t s u b m i t s t h a t i n t h e t r i a l o f c a s e s of a l l e g e d r a p e , t h e c o u r t s h o u l d view e v i d e n c e o v e r and above t h e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e r u l e a p p l i c a b l e i n o t h e r c a s e s t o d e t e r m i n e whether o r n o t e v i d e n c e o f t h e a l l e g e d c r i m e i s i n h e r e n t l y improbable. D e Armond v. S t a t e ( 0 k l a . C r . Shouse ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 57 N.M. ( 1 9 4 4 ) , 48 N.M. 1 9 5 5 ) , 285 P.2d 236; S t a t e v. 701, 262 P.2d 984; S t a t e v. R i c h a r d s o n 544, 154 P.2d 224. Defendant a l s o c i t e s Montana c a s e s which s u p p o r t t h e i n h e r e n t l y improbable t e s t t o d e t e r m i n e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e i n r a p e c a s e s . S t a t e v. Moe ( 1 9 2 3 ) , 68 Mont. 552, 219 P. 803-;S t a t e v . McIlwain ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 60 Mont. 598, 201 P. 270. The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n h e r e n t l y improbab l e a b o u t t h e s c e n a r i o p r e s e n t e d by t h e p r o s e c u t r i x . I t ar- g u e s t h a t t h i s c a s e f a l l s i n t o t h e class of c a s e s t y p i f i e d by S t a t e v . P e t e r s o n ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 102 Mont. 495, 59 P.2d 61, and S t a t e v. Gaimos ( 1 9 1 6 ) , 53 Mont. 1 1 8 , 162 P. 596, where t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e p r o s e c u t r i x , a l t h o u g h impeached t o a n e x t e n t , was i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t and worthy of b e l i e f by a jury so inclined. S e c t i o n 46-16-403, MCA, provides: "When, a t t h e c l o s e of t h e s t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e o r a t t h e c l o s e of a l l t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e e v i d e n c e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support a finding o r v e r d i c t of g u i l t y , t h e c o u r t may, on i t s own motion o r on t h e motion of t h e d e f e n d a n t , d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n and d i s c h a r g e t h e d e f e n d a n t . . ." The g e n e r a l r u l e i n Montana a p p e a r s t o be t h a t a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l i s a p p r o p r i a t e i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s " o n l y where t h e S t a t e f a i l s t o p r o v e i t s c a s e and t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e upon which a j u r y c o u l d b a s e i t s v e r d i c t . " v . Yoss ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 508, 409 P.2d 452, 455. State "The d e c i s i o n whether t o d i s m i s s t h e c h a r g e o r d i r e c t a v e r d i c t o f a c q u i t t a l l i e s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and w i l l be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l o n l y when a b u s e i s shown." S t a t e v. J u s t ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , - 602 P.2d 957, D e f e n d a n t ' s second c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e r e f u s a l of t h e t r i a l court t o give t h e cautionary i n s t r u c t i o n , "the c h a r g e of r a p e i s e a s i l y made and d i f f i c u l t t o r e f u t e , " e s p e c i a l l y where, a s h e r e , t h e proof of l a c k of c o n s e n t r e s t s e n t i r e l y on t h e u n c o r r o b o r a t e d t e s t i m o n y o f t h e p r o s e c u t r i x , is reversible error. This Court faced a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n r e c e n t l y i n S t a t e v. J u s t , supra, wherein w e s t a t e d : " I n s t r u c t i o n s s i m i l a r t o t h e one above were o f f e r e d i n t h e e a r l i e r c a s e s of S t a t e v . Keeler ( 1 9 1 6 ) , 52 Mont. 205, 211, 156 P. 1080, 1081, and S t a t e v. M i h a l o v i c h ( 1 9 2 4 ) , 69 Mont. 579, I n e a c h of t h o s e c a s e s , 585, 22 P. 695, 697. t h i s Court held t h a t t h e t r i a l judge's r e f u s a l t o g i v e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was p r o p e r when t h e r e t h a the was n o t h i n g - -e r e c o r d t o s u g g e s t -ti n th p r o s e c u t r i x was m o t i v a t e d by p r i v a t e m a l i c e o r a d e s i r e f o r revenge The t e s t f o ---r d e t e r mining t h e p r o p r i e t y o f g i v i n g a n i n s t r u c t i o n such defendant w a s set f o r t h - -as t h a t o f f e r e d i n th ca e - -e r e c e n t -s-o f S t a t e v . Ballew (19751, 166 Mont. 270, 276, 532 P . 2 d 4 0 7 , 4 1 1 : ' it i s c l e a r t h a t r e f u s a l s t o g i v e such an ins t r u c t i o n w i l l be e r r o r o n l y when some s p e c i f i c c a u s e i s shown f o r d i s t r u s t i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y of Such c a u s e s might t h e complaining w i t n e s s . i n c l u d e manifest malice, d e s i r e - revenge, for an absence of corroborating evidence tending to t- -d s u p p o r - = f --r-- ~--- s ~ i f i _ = - e complaint t h e - a + t ~ ------ e o bv t h ing witness.'" 602 P.2d a t 964. (Emphasis added.) (Citations omitted.) . . . ... or & A s p o i n t e d o u t above, t h e m a t t e r a t hand i s t r o u b l e s o m e . T h i s s h o u l d a l e r t a t r i a l judge t o p r o c e e d w i t h extreme c a u t i o n , b e c a u s e t h e s e a r c h f o r t r u t h i s g o i n g t o be e l u s i v e and d i f f i c u l t , and fundamental f a i r n e s s i s n o t e a s i l y obt a i n e d under t h e s e k i n d s of c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The r e a s o n s are c l e a r why a l l a v a i l a b l e means be used t o i m p r e s s upon t h e j u r y t h a t u n c o r r o b o r a t e d t e s t i m o n y of one p e r s o n t o d e c i d e a c r i m i n a l c a u s e i s n o t t h e u s u a l s i t u a t i o n , even though a c c e p t a b l e by t h e l a w i n t h i s c a u s e , and t h a t t h e y s h o u l d p r o c e e d f a i r l y b u t w i t h a d d i t i o n a l c a u t i o n i n t h i s k i n d of matter. H e r e t h e r e was u n d i s p u t e d d i r e c t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e had been more t h a n c a s u a l t r o u b l e between t h e s e p a r t i e s i n t h e p a s t when d e f e n d a n t a l l e g e d l y s t r u c k t h e p r o s e c u t r i x . The i n c i d e n t s , however, stemming from d e f e n d a n t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e p r o s e c u t r i x ' s s i s t e r , w e r e n o t based on d r i n k o r s e x , b u t on d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n t o b e i n g c a l l e d a "sonof-a-bitch" by t h e p r o s e c u t r i x upon two of t h e o c c a s i o n s . Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r t h e s e x a c t was comp l e t e d on t h e n i g h t o f t h e a l l e g e d r a p e , t h e p r o s e c u t r i x suggested a "going o u t together r e l a t i o n s h i p , " a f t e r h e r b o y f r i e n d "Ed" r e t u r n e d t o c o l l e g e . Defendant s t a t e s he demurred, and a g a i n , w i t h o u t any a p p a r e n t f e a r of b e i n g b e a t e n , s h e t o l d him, " g e t t h e h e l l o u t of m house you sony of-a-bitch." There i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e s e i n c i d e n t s , t r u e o r f a l s e , a r e p r o p e r l y i n t h e r e c o r d , t o g e t h e r w i t h some o t h e r impeachment on p e r i p h e r a l m a t t e r s . F u r t h e r , t h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e e n t i t l e d d e f e n d a n t t o t h e cautionary instruction. The e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y m e e t s t h e s t a n - d a r d of p r i v a t e m a l i c e , d e s i r e f o r r e v e n g e and a b s e n c e of c o r r o b o r a t i o n on t h e c r i t i c a l m a t t e r s of c o n s e n t , a l l a s r e q u i r e d by S t a t e v. Ballew ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 270, 275-76, 532 P.2d 407, 410-11, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . Failure t o g i v e a c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s k i n d of m a t t e r , a s p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , i s more s e r i o u s t h a n i n t h e o r d i n a r y c r i m i n a l c a u s e s and r e q u i r e s r e v e r s a l . Therefore, the remainder of defendant's issues for review need not be considered. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the cause / for a new trial, - Justice We concur: Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate. Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d i s s e n t i n g : I dissent. I n m opinion t h e majority here improperly y s u b s t i t u t e s t h e i r o p i n i o n f o r t h a t of t h e j u r y . Admittedly, t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n i s u n u s u a l b u t t h a t i s what j u r o r s a r e f o r and t h e y , n o t t h i s C o u r t , h e a r d t h e t e s t i m o n y , saw t h e w i t n e s s e s and were i n a f a r b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o weigh t h e e v i d e n c e . A s t o t h e g i v i n g of t h e p r e c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n , I f a i l t o f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n e r r o r when i t f o l l o w s t h e case l a w e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s S t a t e . A s recently a s last y e a r w e upheld t h e r e f u s a l t o g i v e s u c h a n i n s t r u c t i o n i n S t a t e v. J u s t (1979), 1649. - Mont . , 602 P.2d 957, 3 6 St.Rep. See a l s o , S t a t e v. Ballew ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. P.2d 407. 270, 532 I f i n d no need t o s e a r c h e l s e w h e r e f o r a u t h o r i t y y t o o v e r t u r n t h i s c a s e when w e have, i n m o p i n i o n , ample a u t h o r i t y t o s u s t a i n t h e lower c o u r t .
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
