STATE v LAMB
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-302 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. JOHN WALL LAMB, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Beaverhead Honorable Frank Blair, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appeliant: ~oolingLaw Office, Biilon, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana W e G. Gilbert, 111, County Attorney, Uilion, Montana Submitted on briefs: March 18, 1982 Decided: June 10, 1982 Filed: 3UN 10 1982 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Defendant District Court County, upon a Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. appeals of the jury from Fifth a judgment District, Judicial verdict in entered which the by Beaverhead defendant was found g u i l t y 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 and a g g r a v a t e d kidnapping. years a t Defendant t h e Montana intercourse without was sentenced State Prison, consent and to a total forty years ten years of for for fifty sexual aggravated kidnapping, t o be served consecutively. S e p t e m b e r 3 , 1 9 8 0 , Zane Tams, a n A t a b o u t 1 2 : 3 0 a.m., eighteen-year-old woman, Dillon, S h e h a d h a d a few d r i n k s w i t h f r i e n d s a n d Montana. entered the Truck Inn Cafe in stopped a t t h e Truck Inn t o e a t . D e f e n d a n t , J o h n Lamb, t w e n t y - f o u r y e a r s o l d , was a l s o e a t i n g a t t h e Truck I n n j u s t a f t e r m i d n i g h t on September 3 . Tams s a t b e s i d e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e f r o n t c o u n t e r . did not know e a c h other and talked only briefly. They After e a t i n g , Tams l e f t t h e c a f e . Tams g o t into her car t o g o home a n d d i s c o v e r e d it would n o t s t a r t . D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h i s t i m e , Tams waved t o him a n d a s k e d him t o h e l p h e r w i t h h e r c a r . t h a t defendant drove up n e x t to her car Tams t e s t i f i e d and asked if she needed h e l p . D e f e n d a n t c h e c k e d u n d e r t h e c a r hood t o f i n d t h a t t h e c o i l w i r e was m i s s i n g . H e s a i d he might have an e x t r a c o i l w i r e a t h i s h o u s e a n d a s k e d Tams i f s h e would come w i t h him to get it. She agreed. Instead of defendant drove t o a secluded place o f f had sexual intercourse with Tams. going to his home, a c o u n t r y road Needless to say, and the a c c o u n t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d Tams v a r y c o n s i d e r a b l y a s t o what happened a f t e r Tams a g r e e d to ride with defendant in h i s pickup. Defendant testified that Tams initiated sexual ad- v a n c e s t o w a r d him a n d t h a t s h e e n c o u r a g e d a n d c o o p e r a t e d i n the sexual intercourse. then He drove Tams back to the Truck Inn. Tams t e s t i f i e d dant's his pickup, house. road, he t h a t a s t h e y were d r i v i n g in k e p t s a y i n g t h a t t h e y would s o o n come t o Eventually, deferidant turned onto a dark p u l l e d o f f t h e r o a d and s t o p p e d t h e t r u c k . t o w a r d s Tams a n d s a i d t h a t s i n c e h e was d o i n g her, defen- side He t u r n e d a favor for s h e s h o u l d d o a f a v o r f o r him. D e f e n d a n t t h e n a t t a c k e d Tams, g r a b b i n g h e r a n d jump- ing on her, causing her senger door of t h e t r u c k . to hit her head t o have s e x u a l testified hit defendant t h e pas- She r e s i s t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t a c k , but d e f e n d a n t f o r c e d h e r that against her intercourse. several times, one Tams blow c a u s i n g a c u t on t h e i n s i d e o f h e r m o u t h a n d s w e l l i n g a r o u n d her l i p . A f t e r i n t e r c o u r s e , and w h i l e d e f e n d a n t was o u t s i d e of: t h e t r u c k p u t t i n g on h i s p a n t s , key c h a i n behind t h e t r u c k s e a t . Tams d r o p p e d p a r t o f h e r Before leaving t h e scene, d e f e n d a n t h a n d e d Tarns a c o i l wire t h a t h a p p e n e d t o f i t h e r car. O n t h e way b a c k t o t o w n , Tams made a c o n s c i o u s e f f o r t t o remember d e t a i l s a b o u t d e f e n d a n t a n d h i s t r u c k , the year, large dent model and c o l o r o f n i s p i c k u p , near yellow motorcycle. she purposefully the gas cap, and that that he was including t h e r e was a carrying a Defendant dropped h e r o f f n e a r town, and watched his truck leave, memorizing the l a s t f o u r d i g i t s o f h i s l i c e n s e number. With her broken belt, coil wire and purse in h a r l d s , Tams r a n t o a n e a r b y t r a i l e r and y e l l e d f o r h e l p . husband and yelling, t n e h u s b a n d a n s w e r e d t h e d o o r and l e t Tams i n . wife talked wife occupied with Tams and the trailer. tried to Awakened cornfort her by her A the The while the husband c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e . i n t h i s c a s e , is v e r y t e l l i n g . The w i f e ' s t e s t i m o n y , She testified with regard to Tams that her "hair was a l l messed up, h e r f a c e was c o v e r e d w i t h m a s c a r a , h e r makeup was coinpletely- d i s t o r t e d , s a i d , v e r y much, and s h e was, o f c o u r s e , c r y i n g l i k e I and t h e t e a r s t r e a k s w e r e down h e r c h e e k s , h e r f a c e and l i p s w e r e q u i t e p u f f y and v e r y d i s t o r t e d . " testified further that Tams seemed hysterical but She could r e s p o n d t o q u e s t i o n s and k e p t r e p e a t i n g t h e l a s t f o u r d i g i t s o f d e f e n d a n t ' s l i c e n s e p l a t e number. The p o l i c e a r r i v e d and Tams d e s c r i b e d d e f e n d a n t , h i s truck, and r e p e a t e d t h e l i c e n s e number. hospital where i n s i d e of her chest. s h e was e x a m i n e d . She was t a k e n t o a She had a b r u i s e on t n e r i g h t k n e e and b r u i s e s on h e r a r m s and u p p e r She a l s o had a v e r y n o t i c e a b l e b r u i s e on h e r l i p a n d a c u t on t h e i n s i d e o f h e r mouth. The n e x t d a y , a bruise was d i s c o v e r e d on t h e b a c k o f h e r h e a d . Defendant Tams was found was a r r e s t e d . i n his p i c k u p . The key c h a i n b e l o n g i n g The s e a t c o v e r was removed from h i s p i c k u p and examined by f o r e n s i c s c i e n t i s t s . testified to Experts that the s t a i n s on t h e s e a t c o v e r were a m i x t u r e o f semen and b l o o d . Tams had b e e n m e n s t r u a t i n g a t t h e t i m e of t h e i n c i d e n t . Prior to trial, the District Court granted the S t a t e ' s m o t i o n i n l i m i n e p r o h i b i t i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l o r any w i t n e s s from r e f e r r i n g t o p a s t s e x u a l c o n d u c t of t h e v i c t i m . D e f e n s e c o u n s e l o b j e c t e d t o t h e m o t i o n on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e r e was p o t e n t i a l l y c e r t a i n evidence indicating that the c h a r g e s by 'Tams may h a v e been m o t i v a t e d by a p s y c h o l o g i c a l syndrome r e s u l t i n g from a p r e v i o u s s e x u a l a s s a u l t . D e f e n d a n t r a i s e s f o u r i s s u e s on a p p e a l : Whether 1. t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t the conviction. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by g r a n t i n g t h e 2. State's motion in limine prohibiting reference to past s e x u a l conduct of t h e v i c t i m . 3. Whether the District Court erred by permitting 'rains t o r e m a i n i n t h e c o u r t r o o m w h i l e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d . Whether 4. t h e S t a t e u n l a w f u l l y s e q u e s t e r e d a sub- poenaed w i t n e s s who may h a v e p r o v i d e d e x c u l p a t o r y t e s t i m o n y for the defense. The c o n v i c t i o n m u s t be u p h e l d b e c a u s e i t i s s u p p o r t e d by substantial properly evidence prohibited and because reference to the District the victim's past Court sexual conduct, including a possible p r i o r sexual a s s a u l t . The t e s t f o r s u f f i c i e n c y o f e v i d e n c e i s w h e t h e r t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n , viewed i n the light most favorable to the State. S t a t e v. Wilson 38 St.Rep. 1040. (1981) t Mont. , '"Substantial evidence' is such r e l e v a n t evidence a s a rea- 631 P.2d 1273, s o n a b l e mind m i g h t a c c e p t a s a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t a c o n c l u sion." See, Wilson, 631 P.2d at 1278, and cases cited there. Here, t h e record is r e p l e t e w i t h e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t defendant's conviction: the testimony of to her trailer t h e testimony of Tams, the victim; t h e w i f e who saw t h e v i c t i m when s h e came for help; testimony of t o o k 'rams t o t h e h o s p i t a l ; p o l i c e o f f i c e r s who and t h e b r u i s e s o n t h e v i c t i m ' s A l l t h i s e v i d e n c e is s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s body. f i n d i n g t h a t Tams was f o r c e d t o h a v e s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e a n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t i n f l i c t e d b o d i l y harm i n t h e p r o c e s s . Defendant c o n t e n d s i n h i s second i s s u e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by g r a n t i n g t h e S t a t e ' s m o t i o n i n l i m i n e , thereby excluding evidence of the conduct, including a possible prior victim's past sexual sexual a s s a u l t charge. B e c a u s e s u c h e v i d e n c e s h o u l d o n l y b e u s e d when i t i s c e n t r a l to the outcome of the case, the District Court properly granted t h e S t a t e ' s motion i n limine. S e c t i o n 45-5-503 ( 5 ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s : "No e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e s e x u a l c o n d u c t o f t h e v i c t i m is a d m i s s i b l e i n p r o s e c u t i o n s under t h i s s e c t i o n , e x c e p t : ( a ) e v i d e n c e o f t h e v i c t i m ' s p a s t s e x u a l conduct with t h e offender; " ( b ) evidence of s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of t h e v i c t i m ' s s e x u a l a c t i v i t y t o show t h e o r i g i n o f semen, p r e g n a n c y , o r d i s e a s e which is a t i s s u e i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n under t h i s s e c t i o n . " The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o p r e s e r v e t h e i n t e g r i t y of t h e t r i a l and t o p r e v e n t i t from becoming a t r i a l of t h e victim. P.2d S t a t e v. 1843, 1858-1051, Higley (1980), 37 S t . R e p . Mont. , 621 1 9 4 2 , 1 9 4 9 . In R i g l e y , t h i s C o u r t acknowledged t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r excluding evidence of s p e c i f i c a c t s o f conduct: " ' T h i s method o f p r o o f is t h e most p e r s u a s i v e o f t h e t h r e e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r u l e , and i s a l s o t h e most l i k e l y " t o a r o u s e undue p r e j u d i c e , t o c o n f u s e and d i s t r a c t , t o e n g e n d e r time-consuming s i d e i s s u e s and t o c r e a t e r i s k o f u n f a i r s u r p r i s e .'I McCornnick, Handbook o f t h e Law o f E v i d e n c e , 443 ( 2 d e d . 1 9 7 2 ) . A s a r e s u l t o f t h e e f f e c t o f t h i s method o f p r o o f , it is g e n e r a l l y r e s t r i c t e d t o s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e c h a r a c t e r i s i n i s s u e , when s u c h p r o o f is c e n t r a l t o t h e outcome o f t h e c a s e . ' Comm i s s i o n Comments, R u l e 405 ( b ) , Plont.R.Evid." 6 2 1 P.2d a t 1 0 5 1 . Here, t h e e v i d e n c e n e i t h e r c o n t r o l s t h e outcorrle o f the case because of t h e overwhelming e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e v i c t i m ' s testimony, s e c t i o n 45-5- nor f a l l s within t h e exceptions of 503 ( 5 ) , MCA. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h e r e f o r e p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d t h e S t a t e ' s notion i n liinine. The n e x t two i s s u e s r a i s e d b y d e f e n d a n t c a n b e t a k e n c a r e of summarily. presence of testified. D e f e n s e c o u n s e l made no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e victim the Absent issue is n o t Owens (1979), 1182, 1188; in the the courtroom objection of legitimately presented . , ,597 S t a t e v. and Concerning the last issue, defense for O'Donnell Ivlont P.2d defendant counsel, review. 72, 77, there the S t a t e v. 36 S t . R e p . ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 5 9 Mont. is n o t h i n g record about t h e s e q u e s t e r i n g of a w i t n e s s . not consider wl-lile on 138, the This Court w i l l i s s u e s w i t h o u t a r e c o r d t o which we c a n l o o k . See, S t a t e v. 450, 38 S t . R e p . Rumley ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , - 6 3 4 P.2d 446, 1351A, 1 3 5 1 F , a n d c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . F i n d i n g s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t the conviction Court, and no error on t h e judgment is a f f i r m e d . the part of the District We concur: =?A.cpA $.$Ad& Chief Justice
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.
