State v. Higley

Summarize Case

Related Cases

Nos. 80-142 & 80-323 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1980 THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , VS. No. 80-142 EDWARD DENNIS HIGLEY D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t , Appeal from: District C o u r t of t h e E i g h t e e n t h 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 C o u n t y o f G a l l a t i n , The H o n o r a b l e J o s e p h B. G a r y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . THE STATE OF MONTANA, Relator, VS. No. 80-323 THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT e t a l . , Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: L a r r y W. Moran and M i c h a e l M . Nash, Bozeman, M o n t a n a M i c h a e l M. Nash a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana For 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 , M o n t a n a Mark Murphy a r g u e d , A s s t . A t t y . G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana . D o n a l d E W h i t e , C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , Bozeman, M o n t a n a M i c h a e l L i l l y a r g u e d , D e p u t y C o u n t y A t t y . , Bozeman, Montana Submitted: November 25, 1980 Decided: DEC 5 7 198Q Filed: gF@1'7 1980 -+."fi,,, - "' 9 ' 9 ' . , t'7tLqt : t : pi.,, j '+.,, ;p! ;ji;' Clerk M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. D e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , G a l l a t i n C o u n t y , o f k i d n a p p i n g and 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 . He 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 S t a t e P r i s o n o n e a c h c o u n t , to be served concurrently. The d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l e d t h e c o n v i c t i o n a n d w h i l e t h e a p p e a l was p e n d i n g , he a p p l i e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t judge, Powell County, f o r b a i l pending a p p e a l . The m o t i o n was g r a n t e d and d e f e n d a n t was r e l e a s e d f r o m p r i s o n . The G a l l a t i n C o u n t y A t t o r n e y a p p l i e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l , a s k i n g t h i s Court to f i n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge, P o w e l l C o u n t y , was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a d m i t d e f m d a n t t o bail. W c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e a p p e a l and t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e e writ. W e a f f i r m t h e c o n v i c t i o n and d e n y t h e S t a t e ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the w r i t , f i n d i n g t h e i s s u e of b a i l p e n d i n g a p p e a l t o be moot by reason of o u r d e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m t h e c o n v i c t i o n . On J u n e 29, 1 9 7 9 , a t a b o u t 1 : 3 0 a . m . , L y n e t t e Church l e f t a b a r i n downtown Bozeman and b e g a n w a l k i n g t o w a r d h e r home. Near t h e h o s p i t a l o n N o r t h W i l l s o n , a man jumped from b e h i n d a h e d g e and g r a b b e d h e r , k n o c k i n g o f f h e r g l a s s e s . She s c r e a m e d , a n d h e c l a p p e d a hand o v e r h e r mouth. She w a s f o r c e d i n t o h i s c a r and h e d r o v e t o a s e c l u d e d s p o t i n B r i d g e r Canyon. During t h e d r i v e , and a t t h e s t o p p i n g p o i n t i n t h e Canyon, t h e d e f e n d a n t f o r c e d h e r t o e n g a g e i n v a r i o u s a c t s of v a g i n a l and o r a l s e x . During t h e a c t i v i t y , L i n n i e n o t i c e d a wallet l y i n g on t h e ground. S h e s l i p p e d it u n d e r h e r c o a t , which d e f e n d a n t had o r d e r e d h e r to p l a c e on t h e ground b e f o r e engaging i n i n t e r c o u r s e . She even- t u a l l y managed t o g e t t h e w a l l e t i n t o h e r p o c k e t . A t a b o u t 3:00 a.m., t h e defendant dropped L y n e t t e o f f i n downtown Bozeman and s h e w a l k e d home. A t home s h e c a l l e d t h e Bozeman H e l p C e n t e r and l a t e r went t o t h e h o s p i t a l w i t h members o f t h e H e l p C e n t e r ' s Rape O u t r e a c h Team. P r i o r t o g o i n g t o t h e h o s p i t a l , L i n n i e examined t h e w a l l e t and found a d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e w i t h a p i c t u r e . She d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h i s w a s a p i c t u r e o f t h e man who had a t t a c k e d h e r . A t the h o s p i t a l s h e g a v e t h e w a l l e t t o Ron G r e e n of t h e Bozeman p o l i c e department. H e showed h e r t h e w a l l e t p h o t o g r a p h and L i n n i e p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n t h e p i c t u r e as h e r assailant. P u r s u a n t t o a s e a r c h w a r r a n t , t h e Bozeman d e t e c t i v e s s e a r c h e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s car and f o u n d a p o r t i o n of a f i n g e r n a i l , and p u b i c h a i r b e l o n g i n g to t h e v i c t i m . D e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d o n F r i d a y , J u n e 29, 1 9 7 9 , and a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e P e a c e o n t h a t day. On Monday, J u l y 2 , d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y r e q u e s t e d t h a t a p r e l i m i n a r y exami- n a t i o n be h e l d t h a t a f t e r n o o n . The S t a t e o b j e c t e d and n o exami- n a t i o n was h e l d . The d e f e n d a n t made no f u r t h e r r e q u e s t , and w a s r e l e a s e d o n bond o n J u l y 3 , 1 9 7 9 . An i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t on J u l y 1 0 , 1 9 7 9 , and d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a m o t i o n t o quash. The m o t i o n was d e n i e d . T r i a l commenced o n O c t o b e r 1 0 , 1 9 7 9 , and d e f e n d a n t was found g u i l t y on O c t o b e r 15. The d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d o n November 9 , 1 9 7 9 , f o l l o w i n g a n i n t e r v i e w b e t w e e n t h e j u d g e and t h e v i c t i m as t o h e r f e e l i n g s a b o u t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e . The d e f e n d a n t was n o t d e s i g n a t e d " d a n g e r o u s " o r l l n o n - d a n g e r o u s " u n t i l f o u r months l a t e r , f o l l o w i n g t h e f i l i n g of a p s y c h i a t r i c r e p o r t by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f I n s t i t u t i o n s . Defendant raises t h i r t e e n i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Is a d e f e n d a n t e n t i t l e d t o a p r e l i m i n a r y e x a m i n a t i o n i f an information h a s n o t been f i l e d w i t h i n t e n days af ter his arrest? 2. Is a p r e t r i a l p h o t o g r a p h i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by t h e v i c t i m , u t i l i z i n g o n l y one photograph, s o s u g g e s t i v e as t o r e q u i r e s u p p r e s s i o n of a n y i n - c o u r t identification? 3. Is t h e d e f e n d a n t d e n i e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o c o n f r o n t h i s w i t n e s s e s , b y o p e r a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 45-5-503 ( 5 ) , MCA, p r e c l u d i n g e v i d e n c e o f t h e v i c t i m ' s s e x u a l c o n d u c t , and R u l e 6 0 8 , Mont.R.Evid., p r e c l u d i n g t e s t i m o n y as t o s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of a w i t n e s s 1 c o n d u c t and c e r t a i n c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n ? 4. May t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t allow i n t r o d u c t i o n of e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l w h i c h was n o t s p e c i f i e d i n t h e o r d e r drawn u p f o l l o w i n g a n omnibus h e a r i n g ? 5. Was t h e d e f e n d a n t e n t i t l e d t o a c a u t i o n a r y S m i t h - t y p e i n s t r u c t i o n , b e c a u s e t h e s u b s t a n t i v e f a c t s were i n q u e s t i o n a t t r i a l and t h e r e was s c a n t y m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e o f i n t e r c o u r s e ? 6. Is d e f e n d a n t e n t i t l e d t o a n i n s t r u c t i o n as t o t h e n e c e s s i t y t h a t t h e v i c t i m m a n i f e s t l y o b j e c t e d t o t h e act of i n t e r - course? 7. Does t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t ? 8. Is t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e p e r m i t t e d t o i n t e r v i e w t h e v i c - t i m o n t h e i s s u e o f s e n t e n c i n g w i t h o u t a l l o w i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t to cross-examine the victim? 9. Did t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e e r r i n d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t a new t r i a l , when d e f e n d a n t was a b l e , a f t e r t r i a l , t o p r o d u c e e v i d e n c e of mental disease o r defect? 1 0 . Was d e f e n d a n t d e n i e d h i s d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s by t h e u s e of incorrect information a t sentencing? 11. Does d e f e n d a n t h a v e a r i g h t t o be p r e s e n t a t p o s t - conviction proceedings? 1 2 . Was t h e f a i l u r e t o d e s i g n a t e d e f e n d a n t a s " d a n g e r o u s " o r "non-dangerous" f o r f o u r m o n t h s a v i o l a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t a g a i n s t c r u e l and u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t and a v i o l a t i o n of t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t u n c e r t a i n or i n d e f i n i t e sentencing? 1 3 . Was d e f e n d a n t d e n i e d h i s r i g h t t o a t r a n s c r i p t o n appeal? D e f e n d a n t w a s a r r e s t e d o n F r i d a y , J u n e 29, 1979, and made a n i n i t i a l a p p e a r a n c e b e f o r e t h e J u s t i c e of t h e P e a c e t h a t day. On Monday, J u l y 2 , h i s a t t o r n e y c o n t a c t e d j u s t i c e c o u r t and r e q u e s t e d t h a t a p r e l i m i n a r y e x a m i n a t i o n be h e l d t h a t a f t e r n o o n . The c o u n t y a t t o r n e y r e c e i v e d o r a l n o t i c e t h a t a h e a r i n g would b e h e l d t h a t day. The S t a t e o b j e c t e d t o t h e h e a r i n g o n s u c h s h o r t n o t i c e and it was n o t n o t h e l d . D e f e n d a n t made no f u r t h e r r e q u e s t and h e was r e l e a s e d o n bond o n J u l y 3 . The county a t t o r n e y f i l e d an information i n District Court on J u l y D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t he h a s a r i g h t t o a p r e l i m i n a r y exam i f h e h a s n o t w a i v e d it or i f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s n o t p r e - v i o u s l y g r a n t e d l e a v e to f i l e d i r e c t . The r i g h t to a p r e l i m i n a r y e x a m i n a t i o n a r i s e s u n d e r s e c t i o n 46-7-103, MCA: Preliminary hearing i n j u s t i c e ' s court. After t h e i n i t i a l appearance a j u s t i c e ' s court s h a l l , within a reasonable t i m e , hold a preliminary examination u n l e s s t h e defendant waives a p r e l i - minary examination, the d i s t r i c t c o u r t has granted leave t o f i l e an information, an indict- m e n t h a s b e e n r e t u r n e d , o r t h e case i s t r i a b l e i n justice's court. (Emphasis added.) The p u r p o s e o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g is to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e is p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e t h a t a f e l o n y h a s b e e n committed. S e c t i o n 46-10-101, MCA. The p r o b a b l e c a u s e d e t e r - m i n a t i o n may be made i n a p r e l i m i n a r y e x a m i n a t i o n i n j u s t i c e c o u r t , o r it may be made by a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t judge, p r e s e n t i n g by a f f i d a v i t s u c h e v i d e n c e as t h e j u d g e may require. S e c t i o n 46-11-201, MCA. The o n l y r e q u i r e m e n t is t h a t t h e r e is a n i n d e p e n d e n t j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of p r o b a b l e c a u s e a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s no v e s t e d r i g h t t o e i t h e r p r o c e d u r e . G e r s t e i n v. Pugh ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 420 U.S. 103, 120, 95 S.Ct. 854, 866, 4 3 L.Ed.2d 5 4 , 6 9 ; S t a t e v. Dunn ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 5 5 Mont. 319, 3 2 5 , 472 Many s t a t e s s e t f o r t h p r e c i s e t i m e l i m i t s w i t h i n which t h e S t a t e must hold t h e p r e l i m i n a r y examination i f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s n o t g r a n t e d l e a v e to f i l e a n i n f o r m a t i o n . The f e d e r a l s t a t u t e provides: " s u c h e x a m i n a t i o n s h a l l b e h e l d w i t h i n a reaso- nable ---- time but in l a t e r - -1 0 tEan days following - i n i t i a l appearance i f the the d e f e n d a n t ----- and n o l a t e r -a n 2 0 is i n c u s t o d y th - d a y-i -h-is n o t i n c u s t o d y , p r o v i d e d , h o w e v e r , - s f e -- t h a t t h e p r e l i m i n a r y e x a m i n a t i o n s h a l l n o t be h e l d i f t h e d e f e n d a n t is i n d i c t e d or i f a n i n f o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t is f i l e d i n d i s t r i c t court. . ." (Emphasis added.) 18 U.S.C. Fed.R.Crim. P. 5 ( c ) . A s c a n be s e e n u n d e r t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e , then, any t i m e beyond 20 d a y s is viewed as u n r e a s o n a b l e i f t h e d e f e n d a n t i s n o t i n custody. I n t h e i n s t a n t case, d e f e n d a n t was o u t o n bond and w a i t e d o n l y 1 0 d a y s b e t w e e n h i s i n i t i a l a p p e a r a n c e and t h e d e t e r - m i n a t i o n of p r o b a b l e c a u s e . The p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l r u l e r e q u i r e d a h e a r i n g i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e only. I n James v. Lawrence ( D . C . Cir. 1 9 4 9 ) , 1 7 6 F.2d 18, 20, t h e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t 1 8 d a y s w a s n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e . There the S t a t e a s k e d f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e and t h e c o u r t n o t e d t h a t it m u s t c o n s i d e r time f o r t h e g o v e r n m e n t t o p r e p a r e , i n c o m p u t i n g reasonable t i m e . Alaska's s t a t u t e likewise requires a hearing within a reasonable t i m e . I n M a r t i n e z v. S t a t e ( A l a s . 1 9 6 7 ) , 4 2 3 P.2d 7 0 0 , t h e c o u r t d i s c u s s e d t h e i m p r a c t i c a l i t y of r e q u i r i n g a h e a r i n g w i t h i n a s p e c i f i c t i m e , and n o t e d t h a t w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e m u s t be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e f a c t s of t h e case. If t h e c h a r g e is s e r i o u s , b o t h s i d e s need t i m e t o p r e p a r e ; w h e t h e r t h e c h a r g e d is o u t o n bond i s a n o t h e r f a c t o r which m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d , b e c a u s e t h e p u r p o s e of t h e s t a t u t e i s to p r o t e c t t h e accused from unwarranted i n c a r c e r a t i o n . Martinez, s u p r a , 423 P.2d a t 710-711. The M a r t i n e z c o u r t f o u n d t h a t 1 6 d a y s was n o t a n u n r e a s o n a b l e amount o f t i m e . W f i n d t h a t a 10-day d e l a y i n d e t e r m i n i n g p r o b a b l e c a u s e e was n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e . The d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t e d t h e exam b u t t h e S t a t e w a s g i v e n o n l y a few h o u r s n o t i c e . On r e q u e s t of t h e S t a t e , t h a t h e a r i n g was v a c a t e d . D e f e n d a n t w a s r e l e a s e d o n bond t h e n e x t day. He d i d n o t r e q u e s t a n o t h e r s e t t i n g and l e a v e to f i l e was g r a n t e d less t h a n a week l a t e r . D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t f a i l u r e t o h o l d a p r e l i m i n a r y exami- n a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e may h a v e a l l o w e d a n i m p o r t a n t w i t n e s s t o g e t away w i t h o u t e v e r b e i n g i n t e r v i e w e d . But as t h i s C o u r t i n d i c a t e d i n S t a t e v. Dunn, s u p r a , 1 5 5 Mont. a t 326, 472 P.2d a t 293, the p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g is n o t m e a n t t o be a " f i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n " f o r a l l p o s s i b l e e v i d e n c e , and i f p r o b a b l e c a u s e is e s t a b l i s h e d t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e by t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s a f f i d a v i t , t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s l i t t l e r e a s o n to c o m p l a i n . In t h i s c a s e , t h e d i s t r i c t judge found p r o b a b l e c a u s e on t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d t o him by a f f i d a v i t . Based o n t h e amount of e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l , w e c a n f i n d no error i n t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l i n g t o hold a preliminary examination. T h e r e was 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 a c o n v i c t i o n , and t h e d e f e n d a n t , who r e l i e d o n t h e d e f e n s e o f a l i b i , a d m i t t e d t h a t t h i s w i t n e s s h a d no r e l e v a n c e t o h i s d e f e n s e of a l i b i and w a s n o t l i s t e d a s a n a l i b i witness. Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i t is d o u b t f u l t h a t a p r e l i m i n a r y e x a m i n a t i o n would h a v e s e c u r e d a n y a d v a n t a g e t o t h e defendant. S e e S t a t e v. J o h n s o n ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 1 4 9 Mont. 1 7 3 , 1 7 8 , 424 P.2d 7 2 8 , 731. Appellant next contends t h a t the p r e t r i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t by o n e p h o t o was s o s u g g e s t i v e t h a t M s . Church s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n p e r m i t t e d t o make a n i n - c o u r t identifi- cation. He argues t h a t a l l evidence obtained af ter t h a t f i r s t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s t a i n t e d by t h e i l l e g a l i t y o f t h e i d e n t i f i - cation. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t and t h i s C o u r t h a v e f a c e d t h e p r o b l e m o f s u g g e s t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and h a v e condemned t h e p r o c e d u r e o f showing t h e v i c t i m o n l y one photo. T h i s p r o c e s s may b e so s u g g e s t i v e and so c o n d u c i v e t o m i s t a k e n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as t o deny due process. S t o v a l l v. Denno ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 3 8 8 U.S. 293, 302, 8 7 S.Ct. 1 9 6 7 , 1 9 7 2 , 1 8 L.Ed.2d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 6 ; N e i l v. B r i g g e r s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 409 U.S. 188, 198, 93 S.Ct. 3 7 5 , 3 8 2 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401, 4 1 1 . However, n o t a l l s u g g e s t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s h a v e r e s u l t e d i n a f i n d i n g o f d e n i a l of d u e p r o c e s s . The Montana C o u r t , i n S t a t e v. L a r a ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont . I 5 8 7 P.2d 9 3 0 , 35 S t . R e p . 1 6 9 9 , e n u n c i a t e d i t s two-pronged test t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r or n o t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d be suppressed: " F i r s t , was t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e imper- m i s s i b i l y s u g g e s t i v e ; a n d , s e c o n d , i f so, d i d i t u n d e r t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s have s u c h a t e n d e n c y t o g i v e rise t o a s u b s t a n t i a l likelihood of i r r e p a r a b l e m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . S t a t e v. Lara, s u p r a , Mont. a t , 587 P.2d .I1 . a t 932, 35 S t . R e p . a t 1702. Undoubtedly t h e procedure h e r e w a s v e r y s u g g e s t i v e . Ms. C h u r c h t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e had made a p r e v i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t by v i e w i n g t h e p h o t o i n t h e w a l l e t which s h e had f o u n d a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e crime. The p o l i c e were n o t p r e s e n t a t that time. A t t h e h o s p i t a l s h e g a v e t h e p o l i c e t h e w a l l e t , and a t t h a t p o i n t t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r showed h e r t h e o n e p i c t u r e i n t h e w a l l e t , a s k i n g i f t h a t was a p i c t u r e of h e r a s s a i l a n t . B u t w e f i n d t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e p o i n t to s u f - f i c i e n t r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to s a t i s f y due p r o c e s s . In Neil, s u p r q t h e C o u r t s e t f o r t h some o f t h e f a c t o r s to be con- s i d e r e d i n judging r e l i a b i l i t y : "We t u r n , t h e n , t o t h e c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n , w h e t h e r u n d e r t h e ' t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ' t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was r e l i a b l e e v e n t h o u g h t h e c o n £ r o n t a t i o n p r o c e d u r e was s u g g e s t i v e i n d i c a t e d by o u r cases, t h e f a c t o r s t o be con- . As s i d e r e d i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e l i k e l i h o o d of misiden- t i f i c a t i o n i n c l u d e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of t h e w i t n e s s to v i e w t h e c r i m i n a l a t t h e t i m e of t h e crime, t h e w i t n e s s ' d e g r e e of a t t e n t i o n , t h e a c c u r a c y of t h e w i t n e s s 1 p r i o r d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e c r i m i n a l , t h e l e v e l of c e r t a i n t y d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e w i t n e s s a t t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n , and t h e l e n g t h of t i m e b e t w e e n t h e crime and t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n . " N e i l , supra, 409 U.S. a t 199-200, 9 3 S . C t . a t 3 - 84 L.Ed.2d a t 411. Here t h e v i c t i m s p e n t a b o u t o n e and o n e - h a l f hours with d e f e n d a n t , b o t h i n h i s car and i n B r i d g e r Canyon, and s h e was f o r c e d t o e n g a g e i n i n t i m a t e p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y w i t h him. A t two d i f f e r e n t times, t h e i n t e r i o r car l i g h t came o n , g i v i n g t h e v i c - t i m an o p p o r t u n i t y to view h e r a s s a i l a n t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a l t h o u g h t h e v i c t i m ' s p r i o r d e s c r i p t i o n of d e f e n d a n t was l i m i t e d i n d e t a i l , h e r d e s c r i p t i o n was a c c u r a t e . S h e t o l d t h e p o l i c e t h a t h e r a s s a i l a n t had b l o n d e h a i r , was f a i r l y h e a v y s e t and was v e r y l i g h t s k i n n e d . She a l s o s t a t e d t h a t h e r a s s a i l a n t ' s h a i r was s h o r t e r a t t h e t i m e of t h e o f f e n s e t h a n a t t h e t i m e t h e p h o t o g r a p h was t a k e n , and t h a t s h e d i d n o t remember t h a t h e r a s s a i l a n t had a m u s t a c h e as was shown i n t h e photo. I n f a c t , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s h a i r was s h o r t e r a t t h e t i m e o f h i s a r r e s t and he d i d n o t h a v e a m u s t a c h e . H i s h a i r was b l o n d e a n d he had a l i g h t c o m p l e x i o n . L i t t l e t i m e e l a p s e d between t h e v i c t i m ' s r e l e a s e and t h e photographic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The d e t e c t i v e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e d e m o n s t r a t e d a v e r y h i g h d e g r e e of c e r t a i n t y when i d e n t i f y i n g d e f e n d a n t from t h e photograph. Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s case, w e f i n d t h a t t h e r e was v e r y l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o d o f m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Thus, t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e p r o p e r l y d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n to s u p p r e s s t h e identification. A p p e l l a n t n e x t c h a l l e n g e s s e c t i o n 45-5-503(5), MCA, and R u l e 6 0 8 , Mont .R. Evid., as u n n e c e s s a r i l y r e s t r i c t i n g a d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o cross-examine, and to i n t r o d u c e r e l e v a n t t e s t i m o n y . He a l l e g e s t h a t t h e r e s u l t o f t h e u s e o f t h e s e s t a t u t e s is to d e n y t h e d e f e n d a n t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to c o n f r o n t w i t n e s s e s . S e c t i o n 45-5-503 ( 5 ) p r e v e n t s i n t r o d u c t i o n of e v i d e n c e of t h e v i c t i m ' s s e x u a l c o n d u c t and p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : " N o 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 of 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 u n d e r t h i s section .. .I1 The A n n o t a t o r ' s n o t e s t o t h a t s e c t i o n i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e r u l e is "to p r e v e n t t h e t r i a l of t h e c h a r g e against the d e f e n d a n t [ s i c ] b e i n g c o n v e r t e d i n t o a t r i a l of t h e v i c t i m . " A n n o t a t o r 's Notes, MONTCLIRC1s Montana C r i m i n a l Code A n n o t a t e d , R u l e 608 ( b ) , M0nt.R. E v i d ., p r o v i d e s in pertinent part: " S p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of c o n d u c t . S p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s o f t h e c o n d u c t of a w i t n e s s , f o r t h e p u r p o s e of a t t a c k i n g or s u p p o r t i n g h i s c r e d i b i l i t y , may n o t be p r o v e d by e x t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e . They may, h o w e v e r , i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e c o u r t , i f p r o b a t i v e of t r u t h f u l n e s s o r u n t r u t h f u l n e s s , b e i n q u i r e d i n t o o n cross- e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e w i t n e s s (1) c o n c e r n i n g h i s character for truthfulness o r untruthfulness . . ." Based on t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s t h e S t a t e o b t a i n e d a n o r d e r i n l i m i n e t o p r e v e n t d e f e n d a n t f r o m c a l l i n g Mrs. S o r e n s o n , L i n n i e l s l a n d l a d y , who w a s e x p e c t e d t o t e s t i f y t h a t L i n n i e l a u g h e d a f t e r b e i n g a s k e d by h e r roommate: "Where are a l l o f B o z e m a n l s rapists? L i n n i e n e e d s t o be r a p e d a g a i n .I1 Appellant's position i s t h a t by b e i n g p r e c l u d e d f r o m b r i n g i n g i n t h i s w i t n e s s t h e d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d i m p o r t a n t t e s t i m o n y as to t h e v i c t i m ' s v i e w s o n s e x u a l matters. He also alleges e r r o r in the restrictions w h i c h t h e j u d g e imposed o n h i s c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e v i c t i m c o n c e r n i n g h e r j a c k e t which had i n s c r i b e d o n i t , " L i q u o r i n t h e f r o n t , and p o k e r i n t h e b a c k . " The S i x t h Amendment g u a r a n t e e s a c r i m i n a l t h e r i g h t to t e s t i m o n y of w i t n e s s e s i n h i s f a v o r . W a s h i n g t o n v. T e x a s ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 3 8 8 U.S. 1 4 , 1 9 , 87 S.Ct. 1 9 2 0 , 1 9 2 3 , 1 8 L.Ed.2d 1019, 1023. However, i t d o e s n o t g u a r a n t e e him t h e r i g h t to a n y and a l l w i t n e s s e s , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r competency or knowledge. T h e r e is t h e c o m p e t i n g i n t e r e s t o f t h e f a i r n e s s and r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e trial. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t e x p r e s s e d t h i s con- s i d e r a t i o n i n Chambers v. M i s s i s s i p p i ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 410 U.S. 284, 3 0 2 , 93 S.Ct. 1 0 3 8 , 1 0 4 9 , 3 5 L.Ed.2d 297, 3 1 3 : " I n t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h i s r i g h t , t h e a c c u s e d , as i s r e q u i r e d o f t h e S t a t e , m u s t comply w i t h e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e and e v i d e n c e d e s i g n e d t o a s s u r e b o t h f a i r n e s s and r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h e a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f g u i l t and i n n o c e n c e . " I n l i m i t i n g t h e r i g h t to c o n f r o n t and c r o s s - e x a m i n e , the r u l e s i n q u e s t i o n m u s t be s c r u t i n i z e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e y a r e a r b i t r a r y or w h e t h e r t h e y s e r v e a l e g i t i m a t e c o m p e t i n g interest. Chambers, s u p r a , 410 U.S. a t 295, 9 3 S . C t . a t 1046, 3 5 L.Ed.2d a t 309. W e f i n d t h a t t h e s e r u l e s l i m i t i n g i n q u i r y i n t o s e x u a l con- d u c t o f t h e v i c t i m are e s s e n t i a l 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 it f r o m becoming a t r i a l of t h e v i c t i m . The Commission Comments, R u l e 405 ( b ) , M.R.Evid., sets o u t t h e j u s t i - f i c a t i o n f o r k e e p i n g o u t e v i d e n c e o f s p e c i f i c a c t s of c o n d u c t : " 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 is 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 con- f u s e and d i s t r a c t , t o e n g e n d e r t i m e - c o n s u m i n g 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 . ' McCormick, Handbook o f t h e Law o f Evidence 443 (2d ed. 1972 ) . AS? resurocthe 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 is 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 o u t c o m e o f t h e case." Commission Comments, R u l e 4 0 5 ( b ) , Mont .R. E v i d . The v i c t i m ' s c h a r a c t e r is n o t i n i s s u e i n a case s u c h as this. Thus t h e p o t e n t i a l l y damaging e v i d e n c e of s p e c i f i c a c t s a n d p r i o r c o n d u c t s h o u l d be k e p t f r o m t h e j u r y . W e f i n d no d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s i n t h i s l i m i t a t i o n nor do we f i n d t h a t t h e judge improperly l i m i t e d cross-examination as t o t h e v i c t i m ' s s e x u a l v i e w s as e v i d e n c e d by t h e q u o t e on h e r j a c k e t . R u l e 608 ( b ) , M.R.Evid ., p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e j u d g e may allow i n q u i r y i n t o s p e c i f i c acts on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , i f such a c t s are proba- t i v e o f t h e t r u t h f u l n e s s or u n t r u t h f u l n e s s o f t h e w i t n e s s . I t is d o u b t f u l t h a t testimony concerning t h e v i c t i m ' s s e x u a l views comes w i t h i n t h i s r u l e a t a l l , and it is c l e a r l y w i t h i n t h e j u d g e ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o e x c l u d e t h i s e v i d e n c e i f it is i r r e l e v a n t o r too p r e j u d i c i a l . S e e Commission Comments, R u l e 6 0 8 ( b ) , M.R.Evid. I n a d d i t i o n to b e i n g p r e j u d i c i a l , t h i s kind of e v i d e n c e h a s l i t t l e i f any p r o b a t i v e value. T h u s , w e f i n d no m e r i t i n d e f e n d a n t ' s a r g u m e n t , and f i n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e p r o p e r l y k e p t t h i s e v i d e n c e from t h e j u r y . Appellant next contends t h a t the d i s t r i c t judge's denial o f h i s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s t w o r e p o r t s f r o m t h e Montana C r i m i n a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n Lab c o n s t i t u t e s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . H e claims p r e j u- d i c i a l s u r p r i s e b e c a u s e t h e s e r e p o r t s were n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e "Omnibus H e a r i n g O r d e r . " P u r s u a n t t o l o c a l R u l e 10A " C r i m i n a l Omnibus H e a r i n g , " the d i s t r i c t j u d g e s c h e d u l e d a n o m n i b u s h e a r i n g f o r S e p t e m b e r 25, 1 9 7 9 , a few weeks b e f o r e t r i a l . A t t h a t t i m e t h e S t a t e made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e d e f e n s e a r e p o r t f r o m t h e Montana C r i m i n a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n Lab. The d a y b e f o r e t r i a l t h e S t a t e n o t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t t h a t two a d d i t i o n a l r e p o r t s had j u s t b e e n made a v a i l a b l e by t h e l a b . The f o l l o w i n g d a y , a t t r i a l , t h e S t a t e c a l l e d A r n o l d M e l n i k o f f , Bureau C h i e f o f t h e Lab t o t e s t i f y . A t t h a t time d e f e n s e c o u n s e l moved t o s u p p r e s s t h e e v i d e n c e i n r e p o r t s t w o and t h r e e . The d i s t r i c t j u d g e d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n , b u t granted a continuance. A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e to i n c l u d e t h e s e t w o tests i n t h e omnibus o r d e r r e q u i r e s t h e i r s u p p r e s s i o n b e c a u s e of a n o t i c e problem i n h e r e n t i n v i o l a t i n g a n omnibus order. I n S t a t e o f Montana v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t , (1979), Mont. , 590 P.2d 1104, 1109, 36 St.Rep. 161, 166- 167, t h i s Court directed the D i s t r i c t C o u r t s to a d o p t a n o m n i b u s h e a r i n g p r o c e - d u r e i n o r d e r t o " s c h e d u l e , r e s o l v e and d e t e r m i n e p r e t r i a l m o t i o n s , a p p l i c a t i o n s and r e q u e s t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e c a l e n d a r i n g and s c h e d u l i n g of t h e t r i a l .I1 P u r s u a n t to t h i s d i r e c t i v e , t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t a d o p t e d R u l e 10A. The o m n i b u s h e a r i n g r e q u i r e s t h e c o u r t t o " ( 2 ) S e e w h e t h e r d i s c o v e r y h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e and i f n o t , make o r d e r s a p p r o p r i a t e t o e x p e d i t e i t s c o m p l e t i o n " ; and f u r t h e r t h a t " ( 7 ) a n y and a l l i s s u e s s h o u l d be r a i s e d . . ." T h e s e r u l e s are c l e a r l y m e a n t t o e x p e d i t e and s i m p l i f y t h e t r i a l o f a c r i m i n a l case by g e t t i n g a l l p a r t i e s t o g e t h e r o n t h e c o n t e s t e d i s s u e s and t o f a c i l i t a t e d i s c o v e r y p r o b l e m s . The q u o t e d s e c t i o n s , s u p r a , d o n o t a p p e a r t o be aimed a t s e t t i n g a n a b s o l u t e d e a d l i n e on d i s c o v e r y , b u t r a t h e r s e r v e to implement t h e g e n e r a l d i s c o v e r y p r o c e d u r e s o u t l i n e d i n s e c t i o n 46-15-301 et s e q . MCA. P a r t 3 o f S e c t i o n 46-15-302 sets f o r t h t h e o b l i g a t i o n of c o n t i n u i n g d i s c o v e r y : " ( b ) I f , s u b s e q u e n t to compliance w i t h a n o r d e r i s s u e d p u r s u a n t t o t h i s r u l e and p r i o r t o o r during trial, a party discovers additional m a t e r i a l p r e v i o u s l y r e q u e s t e d w h i c h is s u b j e c t t o d i s c o v e r y o r i n s p e c t i o n u n d e r t h i s r u l e , he s h a l l promptly n o t i f y t h e o t h e r p a r t y o r h i s a t t o r n e y or t h e c o u r t o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l . The c o u r t s h a l l e x c l u d e any evidence not presented f o r inspection o r c o p y i n g p u r s u a n t t o t h i s r u l e u n l e s s good c a u s e i s shown f o r f a . i l u r e t o comply. In the latter case t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d to a recess or a c o n t i n u a n c e d u r i n g which it may i n s p e c t o r copy t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d f o r i n this subsection (3) ." The h e a r i n g o n t h e m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s t h i s e v i d e n c e i n d i - c a t e s t h a t t h e S t a t e was u n a w a r e of t h e r e s u l t s of t h e two t e s t s u n t i l t h e day before t r i a l . The S t a t e n o t i f i e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l at that time. The d e f e n d a n t t o o k no a c t i o n u n t i l t h e matter came up a t t r i a l . I n a somewhat a n a l a g o u s s i t u a t i o n , d e f e n d a n t i n S t a t e v. McKenzie ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 6 0 8 P.2d 428, 37 S t .Rep. 3 2 5 , c l a i m e d t h a t h e demanded c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y w h i c h was n o t s u p p l i e d t o him. After trial b e g a n , d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a m o t i o n to r e q u i r e t h e f u r n i s h i n g of t h i s material. The C o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e r e was a w a i v e r o f h i s r i g h t t o o b j e c t b e c a u s e o f " d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o f i l e a demand a n d m o t i o n f o r t h i s material u n t i l a f t e r t r i a l had begun." McKenzie, s u p r a , Mont. a t , 6 0 8 P.2d a t 443, 37 S t . R e p . a t 337. A l s o as i n McKenzie, d e f e n d a n t h e r e claims s u r p r i s e . We n o t e d i n t h a t case t h a t " t h e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e w h e r e s u r p r i s e i s claimed . . . is t o a s k f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e so t h a t d e f e n d a n t may prepare. " McKenzie , s u p r a , Mont. a t , 6 0 8 P.2d a t 441, 37 S t . R e p . a t 335. D e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t d e f e n d a n t knew of t h e new i n f o r - mation p r i o r to t r i a l , he d i d n o t r e q u e s t a continuance. However, a f t e r t h e t r i a l had commenced, t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e g r a n t e d a c o n t i n u a n c e o v e r n i g h t to allow d e f e n d a n t to p r e p a r e . I t is w i t h i n t h e j u d g e ' s d i s c r e t i o n to e x c l u d e t h e e v i d e n c e , or t o allow it i n , s u b j e c t t o a c o n t i n u a n c e , b a s e d on h i s p e r c e p - t i o n s o f t h e r e a s o n f o r n o n d i s c l o s u r e and p o s s i b i l i t i e s of prejudice. S e e Commission Comments, s e c t i o n 95-1803 (c), R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , (now s e c t i o n 4 6 - 1 5 - 3 0 2 ( 3 ) , MCA). T h e r e is no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e S t a t e p u r p o s e l y a t t e m p t e d t o w i t h h o l d e v i d e n c e from t h e defendant. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e d e f e n d a n t by-passed h i s oppor- t u n i t y t o h a v e t h e t r i a l c o n t i n u e d when he f o u n d o u t a b o u t t h e evidence t h e day b e f o r e t r i a l . C l e a r l y t h e new e v i d e n c e was v e r y d a m a g i n g t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , b u t t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e g r a n t e d him a n o v e r n i g h t c o n t i n u a n c e on l e a r n i n g o f t h e e v i d e n c e . W e f i n d no e r r o r to defendant i n t h i s procedure. Appellant next argues t h a t a cautionary i n s t r u c tion should h a v e been g i v e n to t h e j u r y , because h e r e t h e s u b s t a n t i v e f a c t s were i n q u e s t i o n and t h e r e was s c a n t y m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e of intercourse. The a p p e l l a n t is c l e a r l y a s k i n g t h i s C o u r t to d e v i s e new s i t u a t i o n s i n which t h e f o l l o w i n g k i n d o f i n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d be g i v e n : "You are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t no c h a r g e c a n be more e a s i l y made and n o n e is more d i f f i c u l t t o d i s p r o v e t h a n t h a t of ' r a p e ' . The j u r y i s i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e y must examine t h e c o m p l a i n a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y w i t h c a u t i o n and be s a t i s f i e d w i t h a l l a s p e c t s t h e r e o f beyond a reasonable doubt." W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n i n s e v e r a l cases o v e r t h e p a s t few y e a r s and h a v e s a n c t i o n e d i t s u s e o n l y i n v e r y limited circumstances. I n t h e case of S t a t e v. B a l l e w ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6 Mont. 270, 5 3 2 P.2d 407, w e n o t e d s e v e r a l s i t u a t i o n s i n which t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n is a p p r o p r i a t e : " [ I ] t is c l e a r t h a t 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 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 is 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 t h e c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s . Such c a u s e s m i g h t i n c l u d e m a n i f e s t malice, d e s i r e f o r revenge, or a n a b s e n c e of c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g to s u p p o r t t h e f a c t s t e s t i f i e d t o by t h e complaining witness." S t a t e v. B a l l e w , s u p r a , 1 6 6 Mont. a t 276, 5 3 2 P.2d a t 411. S i n c e t h e B a l l e w case was d e c i d e d , t h i s C o u r t h a s n a r r o w e d t h e r u l e , f i n d i n g t h a t a b s e n c e of c o r r o b o r a t i o n a l o n e is n o t s u f - f i c i e n t r e a s o n 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 t h e c o m p l a i n i n g witness. W e h o l d t h a t t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d be g i v e n o n l y w h e r e "a s h o w i n g o f some t y p e o f p e r s o n a l e n m i t y c o u p l e d w i t h a l a c k of c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e on t h e d i s p u t e d a r e a of t e s t i m o n y may g i v e r i s e t o d i s t r u s t . " S t a t e v. P e c o r a ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . I P.2d , 37 St.Rep. 1742, 1744. S e e a l s o S t a t e v. S m i t h (1980 I Mont . , 609 P.2d 6 9 6 , 6 9 9 , 3 7 S t . R e p . 5 8 3 , 587. The s i t u a t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t case would n o t n e c e s s i t a t e t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n under e i t h e r Ballew o r Pecora. T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e o f a n y d e s i r e f o r r e v e n g e , o r a n y i n d i c a t i o n of a n y malice. I n f a c t , t h e v i c t i m and t h e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t o h a v i n g n e v e r e v e n s e e n e a c h o t h e r p r i o r to t h e n i g h t i n q u e s t i o n . Additionally, t h e r e c o r d shows e v i d e n c e c o r r o b o r a t i n g t h e v i c t i m ' s testimony. A n e i g h b o r h e a r d a woman scream a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same t i m e t h a t t h e v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d to b e i n g a b d u c t e d . A p i e c e of the v i c t i m ' s g l a s s e s was f o u n d i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e c l a i m e d abduc- tion. A m i c r o s c o p i c a l l y s i m i l a r p u b i c h a i r of t h e v i c t i m ' s was f o u n d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s car. A pubic h a i r microscopically similar t o t h e v i c t i m ' s was f o u n d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s p u b i c h a i r s . A hand p r i n t m a t c h i n g t h e v i c t i m ' s was found o n t h e g r o u n d a t t h e p l a c e w h e r e s h e t e s t i f i e d t o b e i n g f o r c e d t o h e r h a n d s and k n e e s f o r a s e x u a l act. A wallet was i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e which t h e v i c - t i m t e s t i f i e d t o f i n d i n g d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e s e x u a l acts. B a s e d o n t h i s e v i d e n c e and a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e w a s no b a s i s f o r o f f e r i n g t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n to t h e j u r y . A p p e l l a n t a l s o claims e r r o r i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o t h e j u r y on " w i t h o u t c o n s e n t , " a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n s h i f t e d t h e b u r d e n t o d e f e n d a n t o f p r o v i n g to t h e j u r y t h a t t h e a c t was d o n e w i t h c o n s e n t . He requested an i n s t r u c t i o n s t a t i n g t h a t some m a n i f e s t a t i o n of l a c k o f c o n s e n t m u s t be shown by t h e v i c t i m . W e f i n d t h a t t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s as a w h o l e c o r r e c t l y i n s t r u c t e d o n c o n s e n t and o n t h e b u r d e n of p r o o f . D e f e n d a n t o f f e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n which was r e f used: "The c o u r t i n s t r u c t s t h e j u r y t h a t it is t h e l a w o f t h i s S t a t e t h a t a woman a s s a u l t e d w i t h a n i n t e n t t o c o m m i t r a p e upon h e r is n o t r e q u i r e d t o r e s i s t by a l l v i o l e n t means w i t h i n h e r power. The l a w r e q u i r e s o n l y t h a t s h e d o e s n o t c o n s e n t , a n d t h a t s h e d o a l l t h a t h e r a g e , s t r e n g t h and t h e a t t e n d a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s make i t r e a s o n a b l e f o r h e r t o d o i n o r d e r to m a n i f e s t h e r opposition. She is n o t r e q u i r e d to resist beyond e x h a u s t i o n o f h e r s t r e n g t h or beyond t h e p o i n t w h e r e t h e f o r c e u s e d a g a i n s t h e r would make f u r t h e r r e s i s t a n c e u s e l e s s or impossible." The i n s t r u c t i o n which was g i v e n c o n t a i n e d t h e same language, b u t w i t h one a d d i t i o n : "You are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t c o n t i n u o u s r e s i s t a n c e i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o show t h a t s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e was w i t h o u t c o n s e n t . " The j u d g e f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y o n t h e meaning o f " w i t h o u t c o n s e n t , " a s f o u n d i n s e c t i o n 45-5-501, MCA: "You are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t a n act is d o n e ' w i t h o u t c o n s e n t ' i f t h e v i c t i m is c o m p e l l e d to s u b m i t by f o r c e o r t h r e a t o f b o d i l y i n j u r y o r t h r e a t of k i d n a p p i n g , t o be i n £ l i c t e d o n a n y o n e . " A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s do n o t a d e q u a t e l y i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y o n t h e n e c e s s i t y of t h e v i c t i m ' s s h o w i n g a c t i v e r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e a s s a i l a n t , and r e q u e s t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n : "To c o n s t i t u t e c a r n a l k n o w l e d g e of a f e m a l e r a p e , [ s i c ] t h e law r e q u i r e s s o m e t h i n g more t h a n mere a b s e n c e o f c o n s e n t ; t h e r e m u s t be a c t u a l r e s i s t a n c e , o r excuse, imcompatible w i t h c o n s e n t , f o r its a b s e n c e . Thus, g e n e r a l l y , r e s i s t a n c e by t h e f e m a l e is a n e c e s s a r y e l e m e n t o f t h e crime. I n f a c t , t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f n o n c o n s e n t , o r t h a t t h e a c t be a g a i n s t t h e woman's w i l l , s i g n i f i e s , and is i n d i c a t e d by, r e s i s t a n c e by t h e f e m a l e . " F u r t h e r , i t m u s t be real o r g e n u i n e and a c t i v e , and n o t f e i g n e d , or p a s s i v e , or p e r f u n c t o r y . " The D i s t r i c t C o u r t m u s t i n s u r e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to h a v e i n s t r u c t i o n s s t a t i n g t h e law a p p l i c a b l e to h i s case, S t a t e v . M e t c a l f ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 3 Mont. 3 6 9 , 3 7 6 , 4 5 7 P.2d 453, 4 5 7 , b u t t h e c o u r t is n o t r e q u i r e d t o i n s t r u c t on i n c o r r e c t l a w , S t a t e v . C a r y l (1975),, 1 6 8 Mont. 4 1 4 , 425, 5 4 3 P.2d 389, 395, or on e v e r y nuance of a d e f e n s e t h e o r y . S t a t e v. H a m i l t o n ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 6 0 5 P.2d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 9 , 37 S t . R e p . 7 0 , 78-79. I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether or n o t t h e j u r y w a s p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d as t o t h e d e f e n s e ' s t h e o r y , t h i s C o u r t w i l l l o o k a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s as a w h o l e . S t a t e v. C a r y l , s u p r a , 1 6 8 Mont. a t 4 3 0 , 5 4 3 P.2d a t 398. I n s t r u c t i o n No. 6 t o l d t h e j u r y t h a t d e f e n - d a n t w a s c h a r g e d w i t h " 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 t h a t " e v e r y m a t e r i a l f a c t n e c e s s a r y to c o n s t i t u t e s u c h crime m u s t b e p r o v e d by t h e S t a t e by c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e , beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt." I n b e i n g so i n s t r u c t e d , t h e j u r y was a d e q u a t e l y i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e S t a t e had t o p r o v e " w i t h o u t c o n s e n t " beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ; t h e b u r d e n was n o t s h i f t e d t o t h e d e f e n d a n t t o prove "consent. " Montana l a w d o e s n o t r e q u i r e r e s i s t a n c e to t h e p o i n t of t h e v i c t i m ' s p u t t i n g h e r l i f e i n jeopardy, nor does the l a w r e q u i r e continuous resistance. S t a t e v. G l i d d e n ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5 Mont. 470, 4 7 4 , 529 P.2d 1 3 8 4 , 1 3 8 6 . Here t h e j u r y w a s i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e v i c t i m need o n l y resist to t h e e x t e n t t h a t is r e a s o n a b l e , and t h a t c o n t i n u e d r e s i s t a n c e i s n o t n e c e s s a r y to show t h a t t h e a c t was d o n e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t . T h i s is a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f t h e law and w e f i n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e p r o p e r l y r e f used d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s . The d e f e n d a n t n e x t a s s e r t s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t sup- p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , c i t i n g s e v e r a l items o f i n c o n s i s t e n t t e s t i m o n y . The d e f e n d a n t was i n p o o r p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n , and s e e m i n g l y n o t able t o sustain t h i s rigorous sexual a c t i v i t y . The d e f e n d a n t ' s b e h a v i o r a f t e r t h e crime was i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t o f a p e r s o n who had c o m m i t t e d k i d n a p p i n g and r a p e . H e w e n t t o work and behaved normally. H e d i d n o t b o t h e r to c l e a n h i s v e h i c l e , e i t h e r inside o r out. No s p e r m was found i n t h e v a g i n a n o r o n t h e c l o t h i n g or o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e v i c t i m . I n r e v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e , t h i s C o u r t w i l l v i e w it i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . S t a t e v. C a r y l ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 8 Mont. 4 1 4 , 4 2 2 , 5 4 3 P.2d 389, 394. T h i s C o u r t is n o t t h e t r i e r o f f a c t and w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n the jury's verdict i f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t i t . S t a t e v. S t o d d a r d ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 4 7 Mont. 4 0 2 , 408, 4 1 2 P.2d 8 2 7 , 8 3 1 ; S t a t e v. K i r k a l d i e (19781, Mont. , 5 8 7 P.2d 1298, 1305, 35 St.Rep. 1532, 1539. I n a d d i t i o n to t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e complaining w i t n e s s , 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 i n t h e r e c o r d which c o r r o b o r a t e s h e r testimony. The t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e w h e r e a b o u t s of d e f e n d a n t and t h e v i c t i m p l a c e d them b o t h a t t h e s c e n e of t h e a b d u c t i o n a t a b o u t t h e same t i m e . A woman i n t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d h e a r d a scream a t t h e time o f t h e a b d u c t i o n . She a l s o h e a r d a f l a p p i n g n o i s e l i k e someone w e a r i n g s a n d a l s . Ms. Church was w e a r i n g s a n d a l s a t t h e t i m e of t h e a b d u c t i o n . The p o l i c e f o u n d a p i e c e of t h e v i c t i m ' s f i n g e r n a i l and t h e v i c t i m ' s pubic h a i r i n d e f e n d a n t ' s car. One o f d e f e n d a n t ' s h e a d h a i r s w a s d i s c o v e r e d o n t h e v i c t i m ' s b l o u s e , and a p u b i c h a i r m i c r o s c o p i c a l l y similar t o t h e v i c t i m ' s was f o u n d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s pubic h a i r combings. The v i c t i m h e r s e l f f o u n d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s w a l l e t o n t h e g r o u n d a t t h e s c e n e of t h e r a p e , and i t c o n t a i n e d a p i c t u r e of t h e d e f e n d a n t . She p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d h e r a s s a i l a n t from t h e wallet p h o t o s h o r t l y a f t e r h e r release, a n d l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d him i n C o u r t . W e w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y , b a s e d as it is on s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e . P r i o r to s e n t e n c i n g , t h e d i s t r i c t judge conducted a n in- c h a m b e r s i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e v i c t i m i n o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e h e r f e e l i n g s as t o a n a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e . The d e f e n d a n t was n o t present. B o t h t h e S t a t e and d e f e n s e c o u n s e l were d e n i e d a n y cross-examination. 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 i n t e r v i e w and c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s was a d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to c o n f r o n t and cross-examine. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s f o u n d no v i o l a t i o n of d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s i n d e n y i n g c o n f r o n t a t i o n and c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o f w i t n e s s e s i n a s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , W i l l i a m s v . N e w York ( 1 9 4 9 ) I 337 U.S. 241, 250- 2 5 1 , 69 S . C t . 1 0 7 9 , 1 0 8 5 , 9 3 L.Ed 1 3 3 7 , 1 3 4 4 , and t h i s C o u r t i 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 , 485, 5 5 5 P.2d 5 0 9 , 5 1 2 , n o t e d t h a t " u n d e r s e c t i o n 95-2205 (now 46-18-113, MCA), t h e r i g h t of c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i n a presen- t e n c i n g h e a r i n g is a d i s c r e t i o n a r y matter w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " The O r s b o r n c o u r t was c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p o s s i b l e u s e of i n a c - c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n , and t h e e f f e c t t h a t a s e n t e n c i n g d e c i s i o n , b a s e d on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n , h a s o n t h e d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s o f t h e defendant. I n O r s b o r n , t h e c o u r t found t h a t d e s p i t e a d e n i a l o f cross-examination, t h e r e were s u f f i c i e n t s a f e g u a r d s , u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , to p r e v e n t a v i o l a t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s . The d e f e n d a n t w a s p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e judge t o l d t h e defen- d a n t t h e f a c t s t h a t h e was r e l y i n g o n , and h e g a v e t h e d e f e n d a n t a n o p p o r t u n i t y to r e f u t e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . S t a t e v. O r s b o r n , s u p r a , 1 7 0 Mont. a t 485-86, 5 5 5 P.2d a t 512, 513. The s i t u a t i o n i n t h e i n s t a n t case d o e s n o t p r e s e n t t h e same p r o t e c t i o n s to d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s . The i n t e r v i e w was c o n d u c t e d o n t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e ' s own i n i t i a t i v e and was h e l d i n c h a m b e r s without the defendant present. No c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n was a l l o w e d , n o r was a n y o p p o r t u n i t y g i v e n t o t h e a b s e n t d e f e n d a n t t o r e f u t e t h e information. W e f i n d t h i s p r o c e d u r e to v i o l a t e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o be s e n t e n c e d u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s f r e e from m i s i n f o r - mation. I n so h o l d i n g , w e h a v e n o t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i n t e r v i e w i n g t h e v i c t i m o f t h e crime is p e r s e v i o l a t i v e o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s rights. W e are r e a f f i r m i n g o u r h o l d i n g i n Orsborn t h a t a s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e may u t i l i z e i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m s o u r c e s o t h e r t h a n t h e t e s t i m o n y of w i t n e s s e s i n open c o u r t , i f t h e r e is a d e q u a t e pro- t e c t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s . But i n t h i s c a s e , we f i n d a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e manner i n which t h e i n t e r v i e w was conducted. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t n o t e d i n W i l l i a m s v. N e w York, s u p r a , t h a t " l e a v i n g a s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e f r e e to a v a i l him- s e l f of out-of-court information . . . does s e c u r e t o him a b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n a r y power, o n e s u s c e p t i b l e o f a b u s e . " Williams, s u p r a , 3 3 7 U.S. a t 251, 6 9 S . C t . a t 1 0 8 5 , 9 3 L.Ed a t 1344. Here, d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge d i d n o t f o l l o w t h e v i c t i m ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n as to t h e s e n t e n c e , w e h a v e no way t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e judge s d i s c r e t i o n concerning t h e l e n g t h o f t h e s e n t e n c e was a f f e c t e d by t h i s i n t e r v i e w . For t h a t reason, w e m u s t v a c a t e t h e s e n t e n c e imposed o n t h e d e f e n d a n t and remand f o r resentencing . Defendant n e x t a l l e g e s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g him a new t r i a l , i n t h a t d e f e n d a n t was a b l e t o b r i n g new e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . He submitted an a f f i d a v i t t o the c o u r t c o n t a i n i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y of D r . S t r a t f o r d , a p s y c h i a t r i s t , who examined d e f e n d a n t a f t e r t r i a l . Defense counsel i n d i c a t e s t h a t p r i o r t o t r i a l h e had r e p e a t e d l y a s k e d d e f e n d a n t to s u b m i t t o a n e x a m i n a t i o n , b u t d e f e n d a n t r e f u s e d t o d o so. When h e f i n a l l y was e x a m i n e d , d e f e n d a n t was found t o h a v e b e e n e i t h e r u n c o n s c i o u s or i n a d i s a s s o c i a t i v e m e n t a l s t a t e a t t h e time of t h e crime. S e c t i o n 46-16-702, MCA, governs the District Court's deci- s i o n t o g r a n t a new t r i a l . The d i s t r i c t j u d g e may d o so " i f r e q u i r e d i n t h e i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e . " T h a t d e c i s i o n is b a s e d o n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e and w i l l n o t be o v e r t u r n e d u n l e s s t h i s C o u r t f i n d s a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . S t a t e v. L e w i s ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont.474, 582 P.2d 346, 3 5 1 , 3 5 S t . R e p . 1089, 1095. T h i s C o u r t h a s n o t e d t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r new t r i a l s o n t h e ground of newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e are n o t f a v o r e d , f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t a d e f e n d a n t h a s a l r e a d y had ample o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e - p a r e and p r e s e n t h i s case. S t a t e v. G r e e n o ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 1 3 5 Mont. 5 8 0 , 5 8 6 , 3 4 2 P.2d 1 0 5 2 , 1 0 5 5 . However, i n certain instances, t h e i n f o r m a t i o n d i s c o v e r e d may r e q u i r e a new t r i a l . I n Greeno, s u p r a , t h i s Court set o u t c e r t a i n r u l e s : " (1) T h a t t h e e v i d e n c e m u s t h a v e come t o t h e knowledge of t h e a p p l i c a n t s i n c e t h e t r i a l ; " ( 2 ) t h a t it w a s n o t t h r o u g h w a n t o f d i l i g e n c e t h a t it was n o t d i s c o v e r e d e a r l i e r ; " ( 3 ) t h a t it is s o material t h a t it would p r o - b a b l y p r o d u c e a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t upon a n o t h e r trial;" " . . ." a St t 1 0t 5 5v. 3 4 2 P.2d a e . G r e e n o , s u p r a , 1 3 5 Mont. a t 586, C e r t a i n l y , e a c h case m u s t be d e c i d e d o n i t s own f a c t s . In t h e p r e s e n t case, w e f i n d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e c o u l d h a v e b e e n d i s c o v e r e d w i t h due d i l i g e n c e . D e f e n d a n t w a s e n c o u r a g e d by coun- s e l t o h a v e a n e v a l u a t i o n b e f o r e t r i a l , b u t it w a s o n l y a f t e r a g u i l t y v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t d e c i d e d t o l o o k i n t o a p o s s i b l e d e f e n s e o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t . T h i s is n o t a s u f - f i c i e n t r e a s o n f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o g r a n t a new t r i a l . D e f e n d a n t w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o r e l y o n t h a t d e f e n s e and t o allow h i m t o d o so now would c r e a t e a p r o b l e m of p o s s i b l e m u l t i p l e trials. A d e f e n d a n t c o u l d gamble o n a v e r d i c t of "not g u i l t y " a t t r i a l , b u t i f c o n v i c t e d , h e c o u l d t h e n come b a c k t o c o u r t w i t h t h e defense of mental d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t . The d i s t r i c t j u d g e d i d n o t a b u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . D e s p i t e t h e e x i s t e n c e of newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , t h e j u d g e was c o r r e c t i n f i n d i n g t h a t i t c o u l d h a v e e a s i l y b e e n d i s c o v e r e d p r i o r to t r i a l . A p p e l l a n t n e x t p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge c o n c l u d e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was e i t h e r a l i a r or a s c h i z o p h r e n i c . Defense counsel contends t h a t t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , set o u t i n t h e judge's " r e a s o n s f o r s e n t e n c i n g n memorandum, was b a s e d o n i n c o r r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n which d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t h a v e a n o p p o r t u n i t y to refute. Because of o u r d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e must b e v a c a t e d and t h e case remanded f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g , we need n o t address t h i s issue. D e f e n d a n t i s aware o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n con- t a i n e d i n t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t and c a n p r e p a r e t o r e f u t e a n y i n f o r m a t i o n which h e c o n s i d e r s to be e r r o n e o u s . The j u r y f o u n d d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o n October 1 5 , and h e w a s s e n t e n c e d o n November 9 t o t e n y e a r s o n e a c h c o u n t , t o be s e r v e d concurrently. At that time, J u d g e G a r y r e f u s e d t o d e s i g n a t e him a s e i t h e r " d a n g e r o u s " or " n o n d a n g e r o u s " b e c a u s e h e wanted a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t done. D e f e n d a n t was d e c l a r e d " n o n d a n g e r o u s n o n March 1 4 , 1 9 8 0 . Appellant contends t h a t t h i s d e l a y i n d e s i g n a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s c r u e l and u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t and s h o u l d be v o i d f o r l a c k o f c e r t a i n t y . A p p e l l a n t c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h i s f a i l u r e t o so d e s i g n a t e him c o n s t i t u t e s c r u e l and unu- s u a l p u n i s h m e n t and w e f i n d no merit i n t h i s claim. I n G r e g g v. G e o r g i a ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2 9 2 5 , 49 L.Ed.2d 8 5 9 , 874-75, t h e Supreme C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t " a t l e a s t . . . the p u n i s h m e n t m u s t n o t i n v o l v e u n n e c e s s a r y and w a n t o n i n f l i c t i o n of p a i n . . . Second, t h e p u n i s h m e n t m u s t n o t be g r o s s l y o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e s e v e r i t y of t h e crime ." There a r e no s u c h a l l e g a t i o n s h e r e . A s t o t h e u n c e r t a i n t y c a u s e d by t h e d e l a y , section 46-18-102, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e m u s t be r e n d e r e d w i t h i n a " r e a s o n a b l e time." This Court has not defined " r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , " b u t most j u r i s d i c t i o n s r e l e g a t e t h e d e c i s i o n o f r e a s o n a b l e t i m e t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e . A. C a m p b e l l , - -f S e n t e n c i n g , Law o ( 1 9 7 8 ) , S71. D e l a y s w i l l be u p h e l d i f t h e y a r e f o u n d t o be i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e , T r e a k l e v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 6 4 ) , 327 F.2d 8 2 , 8 3 , and a l l o w i n g t h e j u d g e t o o b t a i n more i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e o f f e n d e r h a s b e e n f o u n d t o be i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e . B o l d u c v . U.S. (5th Cir. 1 9 6 6 ) , 3 6 3 F.2d 8 3 2 , 833-34. I n t h i s c a s e , it a p p e a r s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e w a s con- c e r n e d w i t h t r e a t i n g d e f e n d a n t j u s t l y by r e q u e s t i n g t h e evaluation. Any d e l a y a p p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t and w a s r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Additionally, t h e l a c k of d e s i g n a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t b e c o n s i d e r e d n o n d a n g e r o u s f o r p u r p o s e s of p a r o l e . Section 46-18-404(3), MCA. Thus w e f i n d t h a t t h e r e was no p r e j u d i c e to t h e defendant. The d i s t r i c t j u d g e d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t to be p r e - s e n t a t a post-conviction h e a r i n g h e l d to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t was e l i g i b l e f o r b a i l p e n d i n g a p p e a l . A p p e l l a n t con- t e n d s t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e s e n c e was r e q u i r e d . D e f e n d a n t is n o t r e q u i r e d t o be p r e s e n t a t p r o c e e d i n g s o c c u r r i n g af t e r t h e v e r d i c t , because such proceedings are not p a r t of t h e t r i a l . S t a t e v. P e t e r s ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 4 6 Mont. 1 8 8 , 4 0 5 P.2d 642. I n P e t e r s , d e f e n d a n t was n o t p r e s e n t a t a m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l , which t h i s C o u r t found was n o t e r r o r . S t a t e v. P e t e r s , s u p r a , 1 4 6 Mont. a t 1 9 7 , 4 0 5 P.2d a t 647. The same reasoning applies here. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e had t h e bene- f i t o f s e e i n g H i g l e y ' s d e m e a n o r and h i s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e court. T h i s a r g u m e n t is a l s o w i t h o u t merit. The d i s t r i c t j u d g e h a d a week-long t r i a l d u r i n g which t o view d e f e n d a n t . A p p e l l a n t ' s l a s t claim is t o t a l l y f r i v o l o u s . The S t a t e c o n c e d e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s a r i g h t to a l l r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t f o r p u r p o s e s of a p p e a l . However, t h e S t a t e a s s e r t s t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a s n o t r e q u e s t e d a n y p o r t i o n s of t h e t r a n s c r i p t w h i c h h a v e n o t b e e n f u r n i s h e d t o him, n o r d o e s t h e a p p e l l a n t s p e c i f y a n y p o r t i o n s which h e h a s n o t r e c e i v e d . There i s no e r r o r . W a f f i r m the defendant's conviction. e W e v a c a t e t h e sen- t e n c e and remand f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g . Chief J u s t i c e