STATE v DICKENS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-412 I N T E SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA H F F 1982 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vsMICHAEL A A DICKENS, L N D e f e n d a n t 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 Eighth 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 C a s c a d e , The H o n o r a b l e J o h n M. McCarvel, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l of Record: For Appellant: M i c h a e l S . S m a r t t , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana F o r Respondent : Bon. 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 J . F r e d Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: JUN 2 4 1982 March 5 , 1982 J u n e 2 4 , 1982 Mr. Daly delivered t h e O p i n i o n o t t h e C o u r t . J u s t i c e Gene B. Michael appellant) Alan was Dickens charged (hereinafter before the referred Court District E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana, to of as the i n and f o r t h e County o f C a s c a d e , w i t h t h e crime o f a g g r a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g , a f e l o n y , and 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 , a felony. A j u r y t r i a l was h e l d o n A p r l l 2 8 , four days of trial, the jury 1 9 8 1 , and a f t e r r e t u r n e d g u i l t y v e r d i c t s on both counts. On twenty June years 3, for 1981, the the crime court of sentenced sexual appellant intercourse to without c o n s e n t ; f o r t h e u s e o f a d a n g e r o u s weapon, h e was g i v e n a n additional (consecutive) ten years; and, f o r t h e crime o f a g g r a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g , h e was s e n t e n c e d t o t h i r t y y e a r s ( t o be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y ) o f Prison. c o n £ i n e m e n t i n t h e Montana S t a t e A p p e l l a n t was found t o b e a n o n d a n g e r o u s o f f e n d e r f o r parole e l i g i b i l i t y purposes. A p p e l l a n t ' s motlon f o r a new t r i a l was d e n i e d , and t h l s appeal followed. On New Y e a r ' s Eve, 1 9 8 0 , t h e v i c t i m , a c c o r d i n g t o h e r t e s t i m o n y , was a b d u c t e d a t k n i f e p o i n t from a c i t y s t r e e t i n Great F a l l s , Montana, and f o r c e d into appellant's vehicle. She was t h e n t a k e n t o a n a r e a n e a r G i a n t S p r i n g s where t h e appellant forced her, sexual a c t s including a t knife point, sexual t o engage In v a r i o u s intercourse. After the acts had b e e n c o m p l e t e d , h e p u l l e d h e r from t h e v e h i c l e and g a v e her a choice of either being nearby c l l f f s i n t o the r i v e r . knifed A or thrown s t r u g g l e ensued, over the and the v l c t i m managed t o e s c a p e t h e a p p e l l a n t by k i c k i n g him i n t h e groin. 'Though naked e x c e p t f o r h e r socks, s h e managed to make h e r way away. t o Malmstroin A i r Soon thereafter, Force s h e was Base rescued about by two m i l e s base security personnel. The sheriff's d e p a r t m e n t was n o t i f i e d , and t h e v l c t i m was taken to a local hospital for h o s p i t a l s h e was examined by a D r . and later vagina testified, and an that there a b r a s i o n on the treatment. At the M i l l e r , who d i s c o v e r e d , was motil labial semen a r e a of in her her vaginal opening. Within several days the victim had identified the a p p e l l a n t from a p h o t o g r a p h and a t a n i n f o r m a l l i n e u p i d e n tlflcatlon. In contrast, the appellant testifled up t h e v i c t i m who was h i t c h h i k i n g . made advances Springs towards "to bring he p i c k e d H testified e him and suggested the in that New Year." they t h a t she go Appellant to Giant testified t h a t t h e y went t o G l a n t S p r i n g s , p a r k e d , g o t i n t h e b a c k s e a t of his car and intercourse. had a sexual Thereafter, encounter, according upset, to including sexual appellant's testi- mony, t h e v i c t i m became got o u t of t h e c a r and r a n off. A p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r c o n d u c t a n g e r e d him and t h a t a f t e r w a i t i n g a s h o r t t i m e he d r o v e o f f . The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d numerous w i t n e s s e s who t e s t i f i e d about most c e r t a i n circumstances damaging testimony of Mlller. testimony to h i s roommate surrounding the appellant's incident. defense The was the and t h e m e d i c a l t e s t i m o n y o f Dr. The a p p e l l a n t ' s roommate t e s t i f i e d t h a t on t h e d a t e f o l l o w i n g t h e a t t a c k t h e a p p e l l a n t s t a t e d he had a b d u c t e d a woman t h e n i g h t b e f o r e , had t a k e n h e r had her threatened to rape or t o G i a n t S p r i n g s and throw h e r over the cliffs. Miller, Dr. also had a s p e c i a l i s t i n o b s t e t r i c s and g y n e c o l o g y , done approximately victims over a ten-year f ift-y examinations of who rape p e r i o d , was a l l o w e d t o t e s t i f y t h a t from h i s c l i n i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s , t h e v i c t i m had b e e n r a p e d . Appellant r a i s e s numerous i s s u e s o f e r r o r on a p p e a l and t h e s e c a n be summarized a s f o l l o w s : 1. Was the appellant. denied his right to a fair trial? 2. Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t j u r y misconduct p r e s e n t to warrant. a r e v e r s a l ? Was t h e t r i a l 3. c o u r t committing r e v e r s i b l e error when it a l l o w e d t h e p h y s i c i a n t o v o i c e afi o p i n i o n a s t.o t h e ultimate issue? Was t h e a p p e l l a n t d e n i e d a f a i r t r i a l b e c a u s e t h e 4. S t a t e r e f used t o s t i p u l a t - e ? A p p e l l a n t . c o n t e n d s t h a t he was d e n i e d h i s r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t made a n i m p r o p e r comment on the evidence; impaired the cross-examination of a key p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s ; d i s p l a y e d a nonj u d i c i a l a t t i t u d e toward defense counsel; and, closing argument. improperly rest-ricted the These contentions a r e not length of supported by t h e r e c o r d o r by t h e l a w . The occurred alleged when, improper during l a n t ' s witnesses, comments by the d i r e c t examinat-ion of the court stated that, t e s t i m o n y is i r r e l e v a n t , " and, trial one of court appel- " a l l t h i s l i n e of " [i] t.'s a b o u t t i m e " when t h e prosecution objected. F i r s t . , t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e record ever of the court stating, " [ i ]t's about time." Counsel r e f e r s t o a page i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t where t h e remark is a l l e g e d t o h a v e o c c u r r e d , b u t i t i s c o u n s e l ' s own r e m a r k . S e c o n d , when t h e c o u r t is irrelevant," was indeed s t a t - e d , " a l l t h i s l i n e of i t was r u l i n g o n a l i n e o f irrelevant. Appellant's t.estimony test-imony t h a t counsel was asking a w i t n e s s , t h a t had had s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h a p p e l l a n t i n t h e past, whether other women became upset with appellant. b e c a u s e he f a i l e d t.o c a r r y on r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h them. This was 402, clearly an improper line of questioning. . Mont R. E v i d . ; R u l e 602, Mont. R. E v i d . Rule F u r t h e r , t h e "comment" was h a r m l e s s e r r o r and d o e s n o t p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t g r o u n d s for a P.2d reversal. S t a t - e v. 1 1 1 5 , 36 S t . K e p . , - 621 P.2d 462, Bier (1979), 466; S t a t e v . 37 S t . R e p . - Mont . LaMere ( 1 9 8 0 ) , , - 591 - Mont. 1936. Appellant contends t h a t t h e c o u r t impaired t h e crossexamination of counsel several on a key prosecution occasions. witness by review A interrupt.ing of the record r e v e a l s t h a t t h e " i n t - e r r u p t i o n s " were merely a c t - i o n s by t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o k e e p t-he t - r i a l r u n n i n g vent counsel issues. The from engaging court has in a duty smoot.hly and t o p r e - frequent. s o j o u r n s to conduct t.he into side trial in a s p e e d y and f a i r manner and h a s a g r e a t amount o f d i s c r e t - i o n i n s o doing. S t a t e v . LaMere, s u p r a ; S t a t e v . P i p p i ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 59 Mont.. 1 1 6 , 1 2 3 , 1 9 5 P. It 556, 558-559. i s a r g u e d by a p p e l l a n t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i s - played a n o n j u d i c i a l a t t i t u d e toward d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . This a t t i t u d e i s a l l e g e d t.o h a v e d i s p l a y e d i t s e l f d u r i n g s e v e r a l instances, trial beginning court's with ordering voir defense dire and counsel defense t a b l e during examination of ending to with return the appellant. to the the Again, t h e record does n o t support. t h e c o n t e n t i o n s . It. w a s stated in S t a t e v. Cassil (1924), 70 Mont. " I t w i l l n o t s e r v e any u s e f u l purpose t o enter i n t o a p a r t i c u l a r discussion of these alleged errors. I n view o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n reached with r e s p e c t t h e r e t o , of t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f w h i c h w e h a v e no d o u b t w h a t e v e r , w e s h a l l content ourselves with saying t h a t w h i l e we d o n o t a p p r o v e o f a n y o f t h e comm e n t s o r r e m a r k s made by t h e j u d g e , w h i c h a r e complained o f , w e do n o t f i n d t h a t any o f them, o r a l l o f them c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r , worked p r e j u d i c e t o a n y s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , o r probably could have done SO. as Here, " in Cassil, there e x i s t s no basis for concluding t h a t the r i g h t of a p p e l l a n t t o a f a i r t r i a l was i n a n y way denied or by t h e also: St.at.e v. 428, 458, impeded also t r i a l was affected 453; S t a t e v. contends . Mont 325; S t a t - e v . M e t c a l f 457 P.2d Appellant t-rial court. the McKenzie ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 37 S t . R e p . 369, 376-377, action of , See 608 P.2d ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 3 Mont.. P o k i n i (Haw. 1 9 7 4 ) , 526 that his right to a fair when t h e c o u r t l i m i t e d t h e t i m e f o r h i s c l o s i n g argument t o one-half hour. While it is t r u e that t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n f o n n e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h a t h e would o n l y a l l o w t h i r t y minutes t o conclude h i s c l o s i n g argument, i t is a l s o t r u e t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l had a l r e a d y b e e n t - a l k i n g f o r o n e h o u r and s e v e n m i n u t e s . its discretion by limiting The t r i a l c o u r t . d i d n o t counsel t h a t was o n e h o u r and t h i r t y - s e v e n to a closing abuse argument minutes long. S t a t e v. LaMere , s u p r a . The concerns second certain major issue allegations of raised j ury a l i e g e d m i s c o n d u c t o c c u r r e d i n two f o r m s : by the appellant misconduct. first, This t h e r e was a p o s s i b i l i t - y t h a t s e v e r a l j u r o r s may h a v e b r i e f l y c o n v e r s e d with prosecution wit-nesses; second, t h e b a i l i f f ' s statements t o the jurors. A review of t h e r e c o r d and a p p l i c a b l e c a s e law r e v e a l s t h a t no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r t o o k p l a c e . The f i r s t i n s t a n c e o f a l l e g e d m i s c o n d u c t t o o k p l a c e , according to t-he a p p e l l a n t . , d u r i n g members o f the witnesses, facing moving their were jury seen, some o f mouths. the is It by t.he t . r i a l when several of several appellant's prosecutior,'~ witnesses not clear from the and record w h e t h e r any c o n v e r s a t i o n was a c t - u a l l y h e a r d , b u t t h e a p p e l l a n t . ' ~witnesses did testify during t h e motion for a new of an t r i a l t h a t i t " a p p e a r e d " some c o m m u n i c a t i o n t o o k p l a c e . If there had indeed improper n a t u r e between t.he prosecution's c o u n s e l had witnesses 546, this issue during Turner v. 1 3 L.Ed.2d by the appellant, of a (1965), a case cited the United dubious nat-ure p r o s e c u t - i o n w i t n e s s e s and j u r o r s . Turner reveals that what defense t i m e t o inform t h e c o u r t Montana Code o f 379 85 a s c o n t r o l l i n g on Supreme Court i t c a n be shown t h a t takes place A review of consisted 466, U.S. States h e l d t h a t a v e r d i c t c a n be r e v e r s e d i f communications t.rial, some o f is n o t s u f f i c i e n t r e v e r s i b l e Louisiana 424, and F u r t h e r , t h i s t y p e o f communi- cation, a possibility a t best, S.Ct. the jurors D i s c i p l i n a r y Rule 7 - 1 0 8 ( F ) , Professional Responsibility. In communications s e v e r a l of an o b l i g a t i o n a t t h a t of the matter. error. been of between the facts in reversible error t h e r e is a f a r c r y f r o m what. t r a n s p i r e d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . I n Turfier, the t.wo key prosecution s h e r i f f s who were a l s o i n c h a r g e o f witnesses the jurors. were The C o u r t noted : ". . . deputy W e deal here not with a brief e n c o u n t e r , b u t w i t h a c o n t i n u o u s and i n t i m a t e a s s o c i a t i o n throughout a three-day t r i a l - - a n a s s o c i a t i o n which g a v e t h e s e w i t n e s s e s a n o p p o r t u n i t y , a s Simmons ( o n e o f t h e d e p u t - i e s ) put. i t , t o renew o l d f r i e n d s h i p s and make new a c q u a i n t a n c e s among t h e members o f t h e j u r y " 85 St.Ct.. a t 550. . There is a distinction Supreme C o u r t b e t w e e n a association" best, and "brief reflects by t.he encounter" some United Stat-es and a n " i n t i m a t e is a p p l i c a b l e h e r e . that distinction the record tion. drawn i n n o c u o u s t-ype o f At conversa- A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t i n f o r m t h e c o u r t when t h e i n s t a n c e s took place and not did complain until the verdict was e n t e r e d ; n o r was t h e r e a n y a t ~ t e m p t t o s u b m i t a f f i d a v i t s f r o m jurors. T h e r e was, q u i t e simply, not. enough e v i d e n c e p r e - s e n t e d by a p p e l l a n t t o w a r r a n t a new t - r i a l . ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 6 0 Mont. The second 403, 503 P.2d occurrence p i r e d when t h e b a i l i f f C h a r l i e v . Foos 538. of alleged misconduct trans- i n f o r m e d t h e j u r y t h a t he was h a v i n g some p r o b l e m s f i n d i n g t-hem a p l a c e t o s t a y o v e r n i g h t . ever, t-he jurors shortly thereafter Also, record reveals It the bailiff t o break but informed t h a t he had p r o c u r e d t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e j u r o r s t h a t d e s p i t e the hour, want that cannot. b e s e e n where the them rooms. informed t h e b a i l i f f i t was a f t e r 1 : 0 0 a.m., i n s t e a d wanted How- they did not to continue deliberating. any t y p e o f prejudice resulted to t h e a p p e l l a n t from t h e b a i l i f f ' s c o n d u c t . It trial is further contended by the appellant c o u r t c o m m i t t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r when physician t o t e s t i f y a s t o the ultimate it issue. that the allowed t h e The testi- mony i n q u e s t i o n was a s f o l l o w s : "(2. [Prosecution] Did you p e r f o r m a n y t y p e o f c l i n i c a l i m p r e s s i o n o f t h i s womac? A. [Physician] M o v e r a l l i m p r e s s i o n was t h a t y s h e was r a p e d . " Appellant argues t h a t t h i s testimony is inadmissible because it goes to t h e u l t i m a t e i s s u e of whether o r n o t t h e prosecu- t r i x was r a p e d and i s , t h e r e f o r e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f R u l e s 7 0 2 , 704 and 7 0 5 , Mont.R.Evid. T h i s C o u r t r e v i e w e d a s i m i l a r i s s u e i n a r e c e n t case. In S t a t e v. St.Rep. Howard ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 637 P.2d 1980, w e h e l d : "Under R u l e 7 0 4 t h e t e s t i m o n y m u s t b e ' o t h e r wise a d m i s s i b l e . ' The a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y i s g o v e r n e d by R u l e 7 0 2 , Montana Rules of Evidence: " ' I f s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n i c a l , o r o t h e r spec i a l i z e d knowledge w i l l assist t h e trier o f f a c t to u n d e r s t a n d t h e e v i d e n c e o r to d e t e r mine a f a c t i n i s s u e , a w i t n e s s q u a l i f i e d a s a n e x p e r t by k n o w l e d g e , s k i l l , e x p e r i e n c e , t r a i n i n g , o r e d u c a t i o n may t e s t i f y t h e r e t o i n t h e form o f a n o p i n i o n o r o t h e r w i s e . ' E l l i o t t was "According t o t h i s r u l e , Dr. c l e a r l y q u a l i f i e d to t e s t i f y as t o t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f t h e v i c t i m ' s i n j u r i e s . Whether he c o u l d t-hen e x t r a p o l a t e from t h i s d a t a and g i v e an o p i n i o n i s d e t e r m i n e d by w h e t h e r t h e o p i n i o n would a s s i s t t h e t-rier o f f a c t . S t a t e d a n o t h e r way, t h e t e s t i s : . .. w h e t h e r t h e s u b j e c t . is o n e o f s u c h common k n o w l e d g e t h a t men o f o r d i n a r y e d u c a t i o n c o u l d r e a c h a c o n c l u s i o n as i n t e l l i g e n t l y a s t h e w i t n e s s , or w h e t h e r t h e m a t t e r i s s u f f i c i e n t l y beyond common e x p e r i e n c e t h a t . t h e o p i n i o n o f a n e x p e r t would a s s i s t t h e trier of f a c t . ' S t a t e v. Campbell ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 4 6 Mont. 251, 258, 405 P.2d 978, 983. I1 I "Dr. E l l i o t t i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i n j u r i e s t h a t t h e p e r s o n who i n f l i c t e d t h e m d i d s o w i t h an intent. t o murder. W find e t h a t . u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s case, t h e j u r y was as q u a l i f i e d a s t h e d o c t o r t o draw an i n f e r e n c e from t h e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a s t o i n t e n t , and t h e r e f o r e t h e d o c t o r ' s o p i n i o n on i n t e n t w a s i n a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 7 0 2 , Mont.ana R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e . "We f u r t h e r f i n d t h a t , f o r a number o f r e a s o n s , t h e e r r o r was h a r m l e s s u n d e r b o t h t h e Montana and t h e f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t e s t s . Montana s t a t u t e s p r o v i d e t h a t n o c a u s e o f a c t i o n s h a l l be reversed by reason of any e r r o r c o m m i t t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e e r r o r was p r e j u d i c i a l , s e c t i o n 46-20-701, MCA; a n d t h a t a n y e r r o r 1 5 , 38 which does not a f f e c t s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s MCA. s h a l l be d i s r e g a r d e d , s e c t i o n 46-20-702, The f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t e s t f o r h a r m l e s s e r r o r is whether t h e r e is a r e a s o n a b l e possib i l i t y t h a t t h e evidence complained of might h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e c o n v i c t i o n , Fahy v . 85, 84 S . C t . C o n n e c t i c u t ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 375 U . S . 2 2 9 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1 7 1 ; or w h e t h e r t h e r e v i e w 1 ing court can declare a b e l i e f t h a t the e r r o r was h a r m l e s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . Chapman v . C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 386 U . S . 1 8 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 1 7 L.Ed.2d 705." 637 P.2d a t 17-18. The circumstances to similar those difference. presented this are case i n Howard, with indeed one The p h y s i c i a n i n Howard was a s k e d as opinion in to the intent. of the defendant. quite important t o g i v e an Here, the p h y s i c i a n was m e r e l y a s k e d t o g i v e h i s " c l i n i c a l i m p r e s s i o n " of t h e v i c t i m b a s e d upon h i s e x p e r i e n c e a s a s p e c i a l i s t i n o b s t e t - r i c s , g y n e c o l o g y and a s an expert t h a t h a s d o n e ap- proximately f i f t y examinations of rape victims. definite difference t h i s case, in the content of t.he There is a testimony. In i n t e n t was n o t p a r t . o f t h e q u e s t i o n , so t h e phy- s i c i a n could properly t e s t i f y a s to h i s c l i n i c a l impression and give an opinion based f irst-hand observation. was not prejudicial upon h i s varied e x p e r i e ~ c e and F u r t h e r , a s i n Howard, t h e t e s t i m o n y and was therefore not sufficient. t o constitute reversible error. The f i n a l c o n t e n t - i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a n t i s t h a t h e w a s denied a stipulate, of fair and, prejudicial trial because therefore, evidence. the prosecution t h e r e w a s an He contends refused to improper admission that because a d m i t t e d t.o numerous f a c t s t h e p r o s e c u t i o n was b a r r e d he from p r e s e n t i n g a n y e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h o s e admi t t . e d f a c t s . The p r o s e c u t i o n was u n d e r no d u t y t o s t i p u l a t e , a n d no e r r o r r e s u l t e d f r o m i t s r e f u s a l t o d o so. S t a t e v. A d l e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 Wash.App. 459, W i l s o n ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 2 1 5 Kan. 5 5 8 P.2d 2 8 , 523 P.2d 817, 821. In S t a t e v. 337, t h e Kansas Supreme Court s t a t e d : ". . . i t is a n e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e of law t h a t an a d m i s s i o n by a d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t p r e v e n t t h e s t a t e from p r e s e n t i n g s e p a r a t e and independent proof of t h e f a c t admitted. (Bizup v. P e o p l e , 1 5 0 C o l o . 2 1 4 , 3 7 1 P.2d 7 8 6 , c e r t . d e n . 3 7 1 U.S. 873, 83 S.Ct. 1 1 4 , 9 L.Ed.2d 112; and P a r r v. United S t a t e s [ 5 t h C i r . 1 9 5 8 1 , 2 5 5 F.2d 8 6 , c e r t . d e n . 3 5 8 U.S. 8 2 4 , 7 9 S . C t . 4 0 , 3 L.Ed.2d 6 4 . ) "The p r e v a i l i n g r u l e i n t h i s r e g a r d i s s t a t e d i n W h a r t o n ' s C r i m i n a l E v i d e n c e [ 1 2 t h Ed. 1 9 7 2 C u m u l a t i v e S u p p . ] , C o n f e s s i o n s a n d Admiss i o n s , $ 399: " ' T h e making o f a n a d m i s s i o n by t h e d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t b a r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n from p r o v i n g t h e f a c t i n d e p e n d e n t l y t h e r e o f a s t h o u g h no a d m i s s i o n had b e e n made, p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e f a c t s when v o l u n t a r i l y a d m i t t e d o f t e n l o s e rauch o f t h e i r p r o b a t i v e f o r c e i n t h e e y e s o f the jury.' (p. 63.) "To t h e same e f f e c t t h e r u l e i s s t a t e d i n 31A C.J.S. E v i d e n c e 5 299: "'A p a r t y i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o a c c e p t a j u d i c i a l a d m i s s i o n o f h i s a d v e r s a r y , b u t may i n s i s t on p r o v i n g t h e f a c t . ' (p. 766.) " I n t h e r e c e n t c r i m i n a l c a s e of A r r i n g t o n v. S t a t e ( F l a . 1 9 7 0 ) , 233 S o . 2 d 6 3 4 , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t of F l o r i d a p o i n t e d o u t t h a t a n o f f e r t o s t i p u l a t e remains merely an o f f e r unless a c c e p t e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . The F l o r i d a c o u r t d e c l a r e d i t s p o s i t i o n on t h e s u b j e c t by a d o p t i n g l a n g u a g e q u o t e d f r o m The P e o p l e v . S p e c k , 4 1 I 1 1 . 2 d 1 7 7 , 242 N.E.2d 2 8 8 , a s f o l lows : " ' I t h a s n e v e r been h e l d t h a t t h e s t a t e is b a r r e d from proving a f a c t because t h e d e f e n d a n t o f f e r s t o a d m i t i t , b u t , on t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r u l e i s t h a t when a t r i a l i s upon a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y , t h e s t a t e i s p e r m i t t e d t o go a h e a d and i n t r o d u c e i t s f u l l charged in the proof of the crime indictment.' ( 2 3 3 So.2d p p . 6 3 6 , 6 3 7 . ) " S e e , a l s o , The P e o p l e v . Sckieck, 356 I l l . 56, 198 N.E. 1 0 8 , 9 1 A.L.R. 1472, and 73 A m . J u r . 2 d r S t i p u l a t i o n s , S 1 8 , p. 5 5 7 . " 523 P.2d a t 341. Also, the California Supreme Court held in People v. "Second, t h e r e is a s t r o n g p o l i c y a g a i n s t d e p r i v i n g t h e s t a t e ' s c a u s e of i t s persuas i v e n e s s a n d f o r c e f u l n e s s by f o r c i n g t h e prosecutor to accept s t i p u l a t i o n s t h a t soften t h e impact of t h e evidence i n its e n t i r e t y , 'Parties, a s a general rule, are e n t i t l e d t o prove t h e e s s e n t i a l facts--to p r e s e n t t o t h e j u r y a p i c t u r e of t h e e v e n t s r e l i e d o n . ' (53 Am.Jur., S 105.) I n P e o p l e v . P o l l o c k , 25 Cal.App.2d 448, 77 P.2d 8 8 5 , t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y i n a r z p e c a s e was not obligated to accept the defendant's o f f e r t o s t i p u l a t e t h a t t h e r e had been i n t e r c o u r s e . ' E x c e p t a s o r d a i n e d by l a w , t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y , i n connection with t h e performance o f an o f f i c i a l a c t , i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o a c c e p t t h e judgment o f a s t r a n g e r t o t h e o f f i c e . ' ( I d . a t p. 444, 77 P.2d a t p. 8 8 7 . ) " 457 P.2d a t 877. W e f i n d no g r o u n d s f o r r e v e r s a l i n a n y o f a p p e l l a n t ' s contentions; W concur : e therefore, t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d , Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., concurring: I concur in the result but not in everything that is said. The majority opinion treats the issue of whether expert testimony on "rape" was proper. State v. Howard (1981), St.Rep. 1980. Reliance is placed upon Mont. , 637 P.2d 15, 38 In my opinion Howard is clearly distinguishable. The court in Howard found it was error for a physician to give the following testimony: "A. Well, yeah, I have an opinion. I think that somebody tried to murder her. You know, I just can't believe that you can sustain that much trauma with any other intent." This testimony was found to be harmless error in light of the fact that: (1) The jury did not rely on the doctor's opinion because it returned a verdict finding defendant guilty of aggravated assault and kidnapping rather than guilty of attempted deliberate homicide. (2) The evidence was overwhelming that the defendant purposefully or knowingly inflcited bodily injury on the victim with a weapon. In the case now before the Court, the issue was whether defendant's sexual intercourse with the victim was had with consent. position. The jury resolved that issue contrary to defendant's The testimony here in question was as follows: "Q. [Prosecution] Did you perform any type of clinical impression of this woman? "A. [Physician] My overall impression was that she was raped." The answer here given could have influenced the jury's verdict since the answer is consistent with the guilty finding of the jury. Therefore, this case is distinguishable from Howard where the expert witness testified that the assailant intended to murder the victim but the jury aquitted on that charge. Under the state of the record before us I would affirm but not rely upon Howard. The only objection made to the answer here given was that the testimony went to the ultimate issue of fact. Under Rule 704, Montana Rules of Evidence, testimony in the form of an opinion is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue. The answer here was not responsive to the question asked. Furthermore, the answer appears to be vague. If proper foundation is Paid,: a physician may express an opinion about whether force was used to accomplish penetration. The physician could not give an opinion about the mental state of the defendant having never conducted an examination of the defendant, nor having any other adequate foundation to draw such a conclusion. legal conclusions. Neither could the physician make The physician's use of the word "raped" is somewhat unclear in that he may only have been giving a medical diagnosis or, on the other hand, he may have been drawing legal conclusions and conjecturing about the state of defendant's mind. The former is permissible. The latter is not. The objection made was not sustainable. given is unresponsive and vague. The answer However, I do not feel that the answer is sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. Therefore, I concur in affirming the verdict.

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.