STATE v MACKIE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 79-55 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1980 STATE O M N A A F O T N , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, TERRANCE ANDREW M A C K I E , a/k/a J I M MASON, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f M i s s o u l a . Honorable James B. W h e e l i s , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Murray and H o l t , M i s s o u l a , Montana M a r g a r e t Borg a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r Respondent: Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y , G e n e r a l , H e l e n a ~ ,Montana C h r i s Tweeten a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana R o b e r t Deschamps 111, County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , Montana Karen S. Townsend, a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , Montana Submitted: Decided: November 1 4 , 1980 2 1 1981 The H o n o r a b l e Gordon R. B e n n e t t , d i s t r i c t j u d g e , s i t t i n g f o r Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C . S h e e h y , d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. After trial by jury, d e f e n d a n t was convicted in the Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Missoula County, o f s e x u a l intercourse without years at Montana c o n s e n t and t h e r e u p o n State c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e . Prison. appeals He W affirm. e sentenced t o both 20 the . The f o l l o w i n g e r r o r s a r e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t : A d m i t t i n g a p h o t o g r a p h d e p i c t i n g a b r a s i o n s on t h e 1. v i c t i m ' s back. 2. Allowing three prosecution witnesses to testify a b o u t c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h e y had w i t h t h e v i c t i m . Refusing 3. to give a special cautionary rape instruction. U t i l i z i n g a t s e n t e n c i n g p s y c h i a t r i c and p r e s e n t e n c e 4. investigation reports containing unsubstantiated information. There which was occurred conflicting on the evidence evening of regarding August 29, the events 1977. The prosecution presented evidence t o prove defendant b r u t a l l y raped a young Missoula woman that night. The d e f e n d a n t c l a i m e d t h e woman v o l u n t a r i l y e n g a g e d i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h him. The r a p e v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d s h e went f o r a d r i v e with the defendant, intending t o g o t o a c o f f e e s h o p and d i s c u s s p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s d e v e l o p i n g b e t w e e n d e f e n d a n t and h i s g i r l f r i e n d , who was h e r roommate. I n s t e a d of d r i v i n g t o t h e c o f f e e shop, s h e s a i d defendant drove her t o an i s o l a t e d area, parked testified resisted victim that the the car, defendant advances. voluntarily and made choked sexual and Defendant engaged in v i c t i m ' s apartment t h a t night. raped advances. her, testified sexual She when she and the in the he intercourse H e admitted t h e y d i d go f o r a d r i v e b u t i n s i s t e d t h e y m e r e l y d r o v e a r o u n d town. In h i s f i r s t s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r , defendant claims the court erred depicting by linear v i c t i m ' s back. insufficient allowing abrasions into or H e maintains foundation i n t o evidence. evidence photograph appearing scratches a on t h e prosecution presented t o properly permit W e disagree. d u r i n g an examination of the an t h e photograph The n u r s e who t o o k t h e p i c t u r e t h e v i c t i m immediately following the incident t e s t i f i e d a s follows: "Q. Miss S l o a n , t h e o t h e r d a y I showed you a p i c t u r e which i s marked a s S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t No. 1; i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. Yes. "Q. You t o o k t h a t p i c t u r e ? A. Yes, I d i d . "Q. Why d i d you t a k e t h a t p i c t u r e ? A. B e c a u s e i t was v i s u a l m a r k i n g s t h a t w e r e c l e a r l y seen. "Q. Did [ t h e v i c t i m ] s a y a n y t h i n g t o you t h a t made you t h i n k t h a t i t was n e c e s s a r y t o A. Yes, s h e d i d r e m a r k take that picture? t h a t s h e g o t them [ t h e s c r a t c h e s ] t h a t e v e n i n g , o r t h a t , you know, a t t h e i n c i d e n t . a "Q. As A. result of the alleged incident? Yes . ' I The l o n g s t a n d i n g r u l e i n Montana i s t h a t a p h o t o g r a p h is admissible if r e l e v a n t evidence." 1 3 9 P. it "fairly S t a t e v. and Jones accurately represents ( 1 9 1 4 ) , 48 Mont. 505, I t is w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t 441. t o allow i n t o evidence duly v e r i f i e d photographs t o a i d t h e jury i n its fact-finding process. F a r m e r s ' Co. graph, F u l t o n v. Chouteau County ( 1 9 3 4 ) , 98 Mont. 48, 37 P.2d suggesting 1025. T h i s photo- t h a t f o r c e was u s e d b y d e f e n d a n t d u r i n g t h e i n c i d e n t , was h i g h l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e o f c o n s e n t . It tended incident. considered to corroborate the victim's account of the I t was o f s u c h p o o r q u a l i t y t h a t i t c o u l d n o t b e inflammatory. In fact, it was of such poor q u a l i t y t h a t it c o u l d n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d p r e j u d i c i a l e v e n i f i t was i n a d m i s s i b l e . Defendant n e x t contends a p o r t i o n of t h e testimony of t h r e e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s was i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y . witnesses, two friends of the defendant and c o u n s e l o r , met w i t h t h e v i c t i m t h e m o r n i n g a f t e r incident. frightened and disoriented. Over defense F i r s t witness: "(2. Did s h e [ t h e v i c t i m ] s a y a n y t h i n g specifically in t h i s ride: A. Just rattling o n , s a y i n g , ' G e t me o u t o f h e r e . The s o n o f a bitch. G e t m e . .' . "Q. I ' m sorry. I I ' m sorry. 'Son o f I have t o here. f a s t e r . ' You know, Volkswagon .. . "Q. -- a rape t h e rape Each w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h e v i c t i m a p p e a r e d t o b e o b j e c t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y was g i v e n : else? These Did A. .. c a n ' t h e a r you. A. a bitch. Get m e o u t of g e t out of here. Go b e c a u s e I was d r i v i n g t h e .S h.e t.o l d t hhee r ,v i youm ]know, y t ha n y t hhi n g [ cti sa a t t ey ... "Q. What d i d s h e s a y A. She s a i d s h e was s c a r e d ; s h e c o u l d n ' t t a l k t o L i z b e c a u s e s h e was a c o p . T h a t s h e was--I don't remember what e l s e . S h e was j u s t r a t t l i n g o n , j u s t l i k e s h e was b e f o r e . Second w i t n e s s : "Q. What d i d [ t h e v i c t i m ] S h e s a i d , 'Oh, my God. ' "Objection "Overruled s a y t o you? A. ... ... "Q. Go a h e a d , you may-is God d o i n g this t o m e . ' A. She s a i d , 'Why Rape c o u n s e l o r : . . . "Q. would you p l e a s e t e l l t h e j u r y w h a t [ t h e v i c t i m ] t o l d you a b o u t a n y k i n d o f p h y s i c a l force-"Objection ... "Overruled ... counsel's "Q. You may a n s w e r . A. Okay, [ s h e ] t h a t he choked h e r s o much t h a t s h e s h e m i g h t b l a c k o u t , and t h a t h e u s e d t h r e a t e n i n g v o i c e and u s e d v e r b a l towards her." t o l d me thought a very threats Both p a r t i e s b e l i e v e t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of these state- m e n t s i s g o v e r n e d by R u l e 803 ( 2 ) , Mont.R.Evid., the excited u t t e r a n c e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e h e a r s a y r u l e , which p r o v i d e s : "The f o l l o w i n g a r e n o t e x c l u d e d by t h e h e a r s a y r u l e , even though t h e d e c l a r a n t is a v a i l a b l e ( 2 ) Excited utterance. A a s a witness: statement relating t o a s t a r t l i n g event or c o n d i t i o n made w h i l e t h e d e c l a r a n t was u n d e r t h e s t r e s s o f e x c i t e m e n t c a u s e d by t h e e v e n t or condition. " ... Both prosecution and defense agree the alleged rape would be s u f f i c i e n t l y s t a r t l i n g t o c a u s e t h e v i c t i m t o make excited utterances. They disagree as to whether the s t a t e m e n t s h e r e w e r e made " u n d e r t h e s t r e s s o f e x c i t e m e n t " caused by the utterances. rape, The thereby defense qualifying contends these as excited statements are i n a d m i s s i b l e b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e made up t o f o u r h o u r s a f t e r the alleged defendant's rape incident. The prosecution a r g u m e n t by showing t h a t t h e r a p e v i c t i m h e r e was s u f f e r i n g f r o m " r a p e t r a u m a s y n d r o m e " , for t.he rebuts disorientation and shock a m e d i c a l term experienced by rape victims following a rape assault. These arguments a r e n o t germane above d o e s n o t as the testimony included contain h e a r s a y u n d e r t h e Montana R u l e s of E v i d e n c e . The f i r s t two w i t n e s s e s ' our definition Mont.R.Evid. of a s t a t e m e n t s do n o t f i t w i t h i n hearsay statement. Rule 801(c), defines hearsay a s follows: "Hearsay. Hearsay is a s t a t e m e n t , o t h e r than o n e made by t h e d e c l a r a n t t e s t i f y i n g a t t h e t r i a l or hearing, o f f e r e d i n evidence t o prove (Emphasis th - e t r u t h of t h e m a t t e r a s s e r t e d . " added. ) Clearly, not t h e s t a t e m e n t s made by t h e f i r s t two w i t n e s s e s were offered to prove the truth of the assertions made therein. W h i l e t h e y d o t e n d t o show t h a t t h e v i c t i m was i n a high s t a t e of s e c u t i o n was a n x i e t y and, p o s s i b l y , obviously not confusion, presenting them to t h e proprove the l i n e a g e of t h e defendant o r anything about t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the themselves element of victim the deity. c a n n o t p o s s i b l y be viewed the and crime. The The exclamations a s probative objections t o the of any witnesses r e c o u n t i n g them w e r e p r o p e r l y o v e r r u l e d . The t h i r d s t a t e m e n t , a l t h o u g h h e a r s a y a s d e f i n e d by R u l e 8 0 1 ( c ) , is a d m i s s i b l e a s a n o n h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t u n d e r R u l e "(d) S t a t e m e n t s which a r e n o t s t a t e m e n t is n o t h e a r s a y i f : hearsay. A "(1) P r i o r S t a t e m e n t by w i t n e s s . The declarant t e s t i f i e s a t the t r i a l or hearing and is s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n s ( ~ t h e s t a t e m e n t , and t h e s t a t e m e n t i s s o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s t e s t i m o n y- i s o f f e r e d a nd t -o r e b u t a n e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d c h a r q e a g a i n s t him of -improper s u b s e q u e n t f -b- i c a t i o n , a- r (Emphasis added.) influence or motive ... j . . ." The d e f e n d a n t course that insisted throughout to the sexual inter- o c c u r r e d w i t h t h e v i c t i m was c o n s e n s u a l . order t o prove l a c k of consent, victim that testify. Upon In the prosecution called the direct examination the victim t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t had c h o k e d h e r t o f o r c e h e r t o e n g a g e i n intercourse. to D e f e n s e c o u n s e l on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n a t t e m p t e d impeach h e r by a s k i n g h e r to e x p l a i n why s h e d i d not r e p o r t t h i s c h o k i n g t o t h e d o c t o r who e x a m i n e d h e r a f t e r t h e rape incident. A f t e r f i v e more w i t n e s s e s were c a l l e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , t h e r a p e c o u n s e l o r was c a l l e d and s h e r e c o u n t e d t h e purported hearsay regarding t h e v i c t i m ' s statement about the choking. These circumstances clearly qualify the c o u n s e l o r ' s testimony a s nonhearsay under Rule 8 0 1 ( d ) ( l ) ( B ) , supra. trial, The q u o t e d d e c l a r a n t ( r a p e v i c t i m ) t e s t i f i e d a t t h e s h e was s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n concerning her statement, the counselor's statement is c o n s i s t e n t with t h e victim's testimony, and rebuts an implied charge intended to insure that it of fabrication. The hearsay rule is d e c l a r a t i o n s is p r e s e n t e d r e l i a b l e evidence of out-of-court t o a jury. only T e s t i m o n i a l e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l may b e t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y by r e q u i r i n g t h e w i t n e s s o f f e r i n g t h e testimony to examination. testify under oath, subject Hearsay e v i d e n c e , by d e f i n i t i o n , to cross- is evidence t h a t c a n n o t be t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h i s manner. Commission Comment, 801, Rule Mont .R.Evid. See Unless the h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e c a n b e shown t o h a v e some c i r c u m s t a n t i a l t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s , i t s a d m i s s i o n is b a r r e d . guaranty of Commission Comment, Rule 803 and 804, Mont.R.Evid. See Prior c o n s i s t e n t statements a r e defined a s nonhearsay s t a t e m e n t s because the reliability adversarial testing. the prior of the statement is subject to The r u l e p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e d e c l a r e r o f s t a t e m e n t m u s t b e p r e s e n t and s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - examination concerning t h e statement before another witness may h e p e r m i t t e d t o r e p e a t t h e d e c l a r a n t ' s p r e v i o u s l y made The p r i o r c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t i s a d m i s s i b l e a s statement. e v i d e n c e o n l y when it i s n e c e s s a r y t o redeem t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of the declarant, Under R u l e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( l ) ( B ) , t h e o p p o n e n t " o p e n s t h e opponent. door'' to the attempting fabrication. Fed.R.Evid. p r e v i o u s l y b r o u g h t i n t o q u e s t i o n by t h e admission of to prior consistent s t a t e m e n t s by the declarant by discredit See, That Advisory Committee N o t e , i s e x a c t l y w h a t was Rule done h e r e claiming 8Ol(d), and the c o u r t was t h e r e f o r e c o r r e c t i n o v e r r u l i n g t h e o b j e c t i o n t o t h e recounting of t h e v i c t i m ' s p r i o r c o n s i s t e n t statement. Defendant c l a i m s t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e an i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r y t h a t " t h e a c c u s a t i o n of r a p e ... i s e a s y t o make, b u t h a r d t o d e f e n d a g a i n s t , " a n i n s t r u c t i o n s i m i l a r t o one a p p r o v e d i n S t a t e v . , the 609 P.2d 6 9 6 , 37 S t . R e p . time facts the here, instruction however, instruction. 583. was do Smith ( 1 9 8 0 ) , in this justify the A s t h i s Court held i n S t a t e v. , Mont. 619 P.2d 173, . S m i t h was d e c i d e d a f t e r refused not Mont 37 S t . R e p . case. use of The this Pecora ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 1742, t h e Smith i n s t r u c t i o n is applicable only i f the evidence presented a t t r i a l shows: and (1) p e r s o n a l e n m i t y e x i s t e d b e t w e e n t h e v i c t i m the defendant, and ( 2 ) corroborating evidence of the v i c t i m ' s account of t h e rape i n c i d e n t does n o t e x i s t . The record the in this case record i n Smith. for revenge presented is different than No e v i d e n c e o f m a n i f e s t m a l i c e o r m o t i v e between during significantly the the victim t r ia.1. and the Further, defendant a good deal was of corroborating e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g t h e t r i a l , including testimony the p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e of of the victim's the victim's friends i n j ury. and the The i n s t r u c t i o n was p r o p e r l y r e f u s e d . The f i n a l q u e s t i o n h a s t o do w i t h t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e sentencing procedure. Following conviction, defendant requested the c o u r t t o order t h a t a p s y c h i a t r i c examination and evaluation report be consideration i n sentencing. prepared the court's H e s p e c i f i c a l l y requested t h a t Dr. Noel H o e l l p r e p a r e t h e r e p o r t . request. for The c o u r t a c c e d e d t o t h e Dr. H o e l l s u b m i t t e d h i s r e p o r t t o t h e c o u r t a f t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s w i t h d e f e n d a n t and a r e v i e w o f m a t e r i a l s s u b m i t t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h e M i s s o u l a c o u n t y a t t o r n e y . The p s y c h i a t r i c r e p o r t t u r n e d o u t t o be u n f a v o r a b l e t o defendant's argument for a light prison sentence. It s t r e s s e d d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e v i o u s r a p e c h a r g e s and d e s c r i b e d him a s a l i a r and a m a n i p u l a t o r . I t was u s e d n o t o n l y by t h e c o u r t b u t by a p a r o l e and p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r i n p r e p a r i n g t h e presentence investigation. D e f e n d a n t m a i n t a i n s t h e p s y c h i a t r i c r e p o r t was " t a i n t e d " by the materials provided attorney's office. to Hoe11 by the county These m a t e r i a l s i n c l u d e d r e f e r e n c e s t o defendant's criminal record. misleading Dr. and H c l a i m s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was e contained innuendo and conjecture. Specifically, defendant contends t h a t statements of alleged rape v i c t i m s made in connection with previous similar c h a r g e s , on w h i c h d e f e n d a n t was a c q u i t t e d , w e r e i n c l u d e d i n the materials psychiatrist's and thus findings. unfairly He c o n t e n d s influenced the court's the use of t h i s "tainted" psychiatric report violates the rule that a convicted defendant has a due process guarantee a g a i n s t t h e imposition of a sentence predicated on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n . S t a t e v. O r s b o r n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 4 8 0 , 555 P.2d The accorded Orsborn, entire record sentencing demonstrates due process, defendant and s u p r a , was n o t v i o l a t e d . that 509. was the clearly rule in He r e c e i v e d a c o p y o f b o t h t h e p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n and t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t i n time t o p r e p a r e f o r the sentencing hearing. The c o u r t was f u l l y i n f o r m e d o f h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t a p o r t i o n o f t h e r e p o r t was " t a i n t e d . " H e was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l and was allowed t o p r e s e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e t a i n t a l l e g a t i o n and t o r e b u t t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o n c l u s i o n s and t h e p r e s e n t e n c e report. There was, then, fully sufficient procedural p r o t e c t i o n t o r e a s o n a b l y a s s u r e t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e was n o t b a s e d on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n . Decided 12/17/80, that the S e e , S t a t e v . H i g l e y (No. 80-142, 37 St.Rep. s e n t e n c e was, in 1942). fact, T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n based on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n . Cross-examination of a l l t h o s e c o n t r i b u t i n g t o a presentence r e p o r t r e s t s i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Section 46-18-113, MCA. W f i n d no a b u s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n h e r e . e The j u d g m e n t and s e n t e n c e a r e t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m e d . Hon. Gordon R. B e n n e t t , D i s t r i c t Judge, S i t t i n g i n f o r Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C . Sheehy W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e case Thisfwas s u b m i t t e d p r i o r t o J a n u a r y 5, 1981.

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.