No. 79-115
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA
O R F F
1980
STATE O M N A A
F O T N ,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
BILLIE L O PENDERGRASS,
E N
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l District,
I n and f o r t h e County o f Lewis and C l a r k .
Honorable M. James S o r t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
P e t e r M. Meloy a r g u e d , Helena, 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 , Montana
C h a r l e s G r a v e l e y a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , H e l e n a , Montana
Submitted: May 2 2 , 1980
Decided: CLLC+& /I) / 9 ~
C,
Filed:
Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e
Court.
D e f e n d a n t B i l l i e L e o n P e n d e r g r a s s was c o n v i c t e d o f
a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y 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 consent i n
October, 1977. T h e c o n v i c t i o n s w e r e r e v e r s e d b y t h i s C o u r t and
t h e c a s e was r e m a n d e d t o t h e L e w i s and C l a r k C o u n t y D i s t r i c t
Court i n October, 1978. S t a t e v. Pendergrass (1978), Mont. ,
5 8 6 P.2d 691, 3 5 St.Rep. 1512. ( H e r e i n a f t e r P e n d e r g r a s s -. )
I A
t r i a l was h e l d a n d d e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d o f s e x u a l intercourse
w i t h o u t consent. He a g a i n a p p e a l s.
A r o u n d m i d n i g h t on J u n e 26, 1977, t h e l o n e employee a t
T e r r y ' s C o n v e n i e n t Foods i n Helena, M o n t a n a , was f i n i s h i n g h e r
shift. She h a d l e t t h e l a s t c u s t o m e r o u t t h e f r o n t d o o r , locked
it, shut o f f the outside l i g h t s , a n d was s t a n d i n g a t t h e c h e c k o u t
c o u n t e r w r i t i n g a note t o h e r employer. Suddenly, s h e was
g r a b b e d f r o m b e h i n d b y someone who p u t h i s r i g h t arm a r o u n d h e r
w a i s t and h i s l e f t arm a r o u n d h e r s h o u l d e r , covering her face
w i t h h i s l e f t hand w h i c h h e l d a k n i f e . A male voice t o l d her not
t o scream o r f i g h t .
W h i l e f o r c i n g h e r t o t h e back o f t h e s t o r e , t h e man a s k e d
t h e g i r l w h e r e t h e k e y was. T h i n k i n g t h a t t h e man i n t e n d e d t o
rob the store, she r e p l i e d t h a t t h e s a f e was a c o m b i n a t i o n
safe. He a s k e d t h e c o m b i n a t i o n and w h e t h e r t h e r e was a n y money
l e f t i n t h e cash r e g i s t e r s .
T h e man t h e n f o r c e d h e r i n t o a r e s t r o o m i n t h e r e a r o f t h e
s t o r e and r a p e d h e r . The g i r l , who h a d b e e n t o l d i n a c o l l e g e
c o u r s e t h a t a v i c t i m o f s u c h an a s s a u l t s h o u l d make e v e r y e f f o r t
n o t t o see h e r a t t a c k e r , t o minimize t h e danger o f r e p r i s a l
s h o u l d he l a t e r f e a r he m i g h t be i d e n t i f i e d , k e p t h e r eyes
a v e r t e d and h e r hands o v e r h e r f a c e t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e
incident. She d o e s n o t k n o w w h a t h e r a s s a i l a n t l o o k e d l i k e .
T h e v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was g r a b b e d a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y
1 2 : 0 5 a.m., t h a t i t t o o k l e s s t h a n f i v e m i n u t e s f o r t h e man t o
f o r c e h e r t o t h e back o f t h e s t o r e and t h a t t h e r a p e l a s t e d
- 2 -
perhaps t e n minutes.
A f t e r t h e rape, t h e man b o u n d t h e g i r l ' s h a n d s and f e e t
w i t h t i e s t r i n g s f r o m a g r o c e r y a p r o n and asked h e r where t h e k e y
t o t h e f r o n t d o o r was. She t o l d h i m t h e k e y was o n t h e c o u n t e r .
He l e f t h e r l y i n g o n t h e r e s t r o o m f l o o r . A f t e r two unsuccessful
a t t e m p t s t o f i n d t h e key, he f i n a l l y l o c a t e d i t and l e f t . The
girl, s t i l l bound and u n c l o t h e d , hopped t o t h e f r o n t o f t h e s t o r e
and c o n t a c t e d t h e p o l i c e by t e l e p h o n e . I t was 1 2 : 3 4 a.m.
When p o l i c e o f f i c e r s a r r i v e d a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e c r i m e , a
r e s i d e n t o f t h e a r e a i n f o r m e d t h e m t h a t an u n f a m i l i a r r e d p i c k u p
t r u c k h a d b e e n p a r k e d i n f r o n t o f h i s home. He l a t e r t e s t i f i e d
t h a t he n o t i c e d t h e t r u c k a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 1 : 3 0 p.m., t h a t it
was s t i l l p r e s e n t a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 2 : l O a.m. o r 12:15 a.m., and
t h a t i t was n o l o n g e r i n t h e a r e a a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 2 : 3 0 a.m.
w h e n he h e a r d p o l i c e s i r e n s . Another witness t e s t i f i e d t h a t
i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r h e a r i n g t h e p o l i c e r e p o r t o n h i s s c a n n e r he saw
a r e d d i s h t r u c k proceeding toward E a s t Helena. At approximately
2:30 a.m. the police, a c c o m p a n i e d b y t h e w i t n e s s who h a d f i r s t
described the truck, l o c a t e d t h e v e h i c l e i n an a l l e y i n E a s t
He1 e n a .
S e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s p l a c e d t h i s t r u c k i n t h e 1800 b l o c k on
N i n t h Avenue, one b l o c k s o u t h o f t h e scene o f t h e c r i m e , between
1 1 : 3 0 p.m. a n d 1 2 : 2 0 a.m., t h e p e r i o d o f t i m e i n which t h e crime
occurred. One o f t h e s e w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he l e f t h i s home
t o w a l k t o T e r r y ' s C o n v e n i e n t Foods, a d i s t a n c e o f one b l o c k , at
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 1 : 3 0 p.m. On h i s way home he n o t i c e d a s p a r k l y
r e d d i s h p i c k u p t r u c k " c r u i s i n g v e r y s l o w l y " a l o n g N i n t h Avenue.
The w i t n e s s c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e movements o f t h e t r u c k as " s o r t o f
peculiar." He saw a we1 1 - m u s c l e d , stockily-buil t caucasion w i t h
h i g h c h e e k b o n e s and c o l l a r l e n g t h l i g h t b r o w n h a i r g e t o u t o f
t h e t r u c k and w a l k t o w a r d s T e r r y ' s . The w i t n e s s t h e n r e c o r d e d
t h e t r u c k ' s l i c e n s e number, 5T-11046. T h i s general d e s c r i p t i o n
matches t h a t o f the defendant, and t h e d e f e n d a n t i s t h e
r e g i s t e r e d owner o f a t r u c k w i t h t h a t l i c e n s e number. The w i t -
n e s s l a t e r t o l d a p o l i c e o f f i c e r t h a t he was n o t s u r e t h a t
h e w o u l d r e c o g n i z e t h e p e r s o n i f he saw h i m f a c e t o f a c e .
However, when t h i s w i t n e s s was shown a p h o t o g r a p h i c a r r a y , he
s e l e c t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p i c t u r e as t h e one i n t h e s e l e c t i o n o f
s i x w h i c h " m o s t c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e d t h e man I saw g e t o u t o f t h a t
truck." On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h i s w i t n e s s , defense counsel
b r o u g h t o u t t h a t each o f t h e persons i n t h e photographs n o t
s e l e c t e d had d i f f e r e n t f e a t u r e s t h a n t h e d e f e n d a n t . These
d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s included eyeglasses, different
hair color, d i f f e r e n t h a i r lengths, and d i f f e r e n t b u i l d s .
A n o t h e r w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he saw a man b e h i n d t h e
c o u n t e r a t T e r r y ' s when he d r o v e p a s t t h e s t o r e a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y
12:15 t o 1 2 : 2 0 a.m. He d e s c r i b e d t h e man a s b e i n g f a i r l y t a l 1 ,
b u t under s i x f o o t , with c o l l a r length, sandy brown h a i r .
M e d i c a l e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d f r o m t e s t i n g semen s t a i n s on t h e
v i c t i m ' s c l o t h i n g and f r o m t e s t i n g samples t a k e n i n a p h y s i c a l
examination o f the v i c t i m s h o r t l y a f t e r the crime, reveals that
t h e p e r p e t r a t o r was a t y p e " A " b l o o d t y p e and a s e c r e t o r , as i s
t h e defendant. However, 32% o f t h e male p o p u l a t i o n a r e t y p e "A"
secretors.
On J u l y 1 3 , 1 9 7 7 , d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e c r i m e s o f
a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y and s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e without consent i n t h e
L e w i s and C l a r k C o u n t y D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
T h e c a s e came on f o r t r i a l o n O c t o b e r 3 , 1977. On O c t o b e r
7, 1977, a j u r y found defendant g u i l t y o f both offenses. In a
j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d o n N o v e m b e r 4, 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t sen-
t e n c e d d e f e n d a n t t o t h e M o n t a n a S t a t e P r i s o n f o r 20 y e a r s f o r t h e
c r i m e o f sexual i n t e r c o u r s e without consent, and 4 0 y e a r s f o r t h e
crime o f attempted robbery, t h e sentences t o run consecutively.
T h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e c o n v i c t i o n s and r e m a n d e d t h e c a s e
for retrial, holding t h a t a tape recording o f the v i c t i m ' s
t e l e p h o n e c a l l t o t h e p o l i c e f o r a s s i s t a n c e was u n d u l y p r e j u d i -
c i a l u n d e r R u l e 403, Mont.R.Evid.
A t t h e commencement o f t h e s e c o n d t r i a l , on J a n u a r y 2 2 ,
1 9 7 9 , t h e h a n d c u f f e d d e f e n d a n t was l e d p a s t t h e j u r y p a n e l
- 4 -
i n t h e h a l l w a y o u t s i d e t h e c o u r t r o o m b y o f f i c e r s o f t h e L e w i s and
C l a r k County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e . Immediately thereafter, the
d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r a m i s t r i a l was d e n i e d .
T h e f o l l o w i n g " o m n i b u s " j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n was g i v e n w i t h o u t
objection:
" Y o u a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t e v i d e n c e i s t o be c o n -
s i d e r e d n o t o n l y b y i t s own i n t r i n s i c w e i g h t ,
b u t a l s o according t o t h e evidence which i s
w i t h i n t h e p o w e r o f o n e s i d e t o p r o d u c e and o f
t h e o t h e r t o c o n t r a d i c t ; and t h e r e f o r e , i f
w e a k e r and l e s s s a t i s f a c t o r y e v i d e n c e i s
o f f e r e d , when i t a p p e a r s t h a t s t r o n g e r o r m o r e
s a t i s f a c t o r y c o u l d have been produced, t h e e v i -
d e n c e o f f e r e d s h o u l d be v i e w e d w i t h d i s t r u s t . "
The d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d n o r c a l l any
witnesses. A m o t i o n f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s o n b o t h c h a r g e s was
denied. The j u r y f o u n d t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f s e x u a l inter-
c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t and n o t g u i l t y o f a t t e m p t e d r o b b e r y . He
was s e n t e n c e d t o 2 0 y e a r s i n t h e M o n t a n a S t a t e P r i s o n .
The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s have been r a i s e d on a p p e a l :
1. Whether t h e 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 procedures
were c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n f i r m .
2. W h e t h e r i t was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o
d e n y t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r a m i s t r i a l because t h e s t a t e had
caused t h e defendant t o appear i n handcuffs before t h e j u r y panel.
3. W h e t h e r i t was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r t h e c o u r t t o d e n y
t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t
t h e r e was n o t 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 t h e c h a r g e o f s e x u a l
in t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t .
4. W h e t h e r i t was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r t h e t r i a l court to
i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t o v i e w w e a k e r e v i d e n c e w i t h d i s t r u s t when i t
a p p e a r s s t r o n g e r e v i d e n c e was a v a i l a b l e .
T h e 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 i s s u e was r a i s e d i n
P e n d e r g r a s s - a n d d i s p o s e d o f as f o l l o w s :
I
" F o r t h e g u i d a n c e o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on
r e t r i a l , we a d d r e s s t h e r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s w h i c h
may r e c u r a t t h e s e c o n d t r i a1 .
" D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p r e t r i a1 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 p r o c e d u r e and t h e t r i a1
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the defendant v i o l a t e d h i s
due p r o c e s s r i g h t s . He a r g u e s t h a t o f t h e a r r a y
o f p h o t o g r a p h s shown t h e w i t n e s s p r i o r t o t r i a l ,
o n l y h i s p h o t o g r a p h matched t h e d e s c r i p t i o n t h e
w i t n e s s had p r e v i o u s l y g i v e n t h e p o l i c e .
"We h a v e e x a m i n e d t h e a r r a y o f p h o t o g r a p h s and
f i n d defendant's c o n t e n t i o n w i t h o u t substance.
H i s photograph i s not the only photograph
matching t h e d e s c r i p t i o n p r e v i o u s l y g i v e n by
t h e witness. The a r r a y i s n o t u n d u l y s u g g e s t i v e
i n o u r view. ' .. .[u]nless the error i s
o b v i o u s and t h e p r e j u d i c e c l e a r , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
remedy i s i n e f f e c t i v e c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n w i t h
t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n q u e s t i o n t h e n becoming one o f
w e i g h t t o be d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e j u r y and n o t o n e
o f admissibility.' S t a t e v. M i n e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9
M o n t 2 6 0 , 5 4 6 P.2d 2 5 2 , 2 5 6 . We f i n d n o e r r o r
here." P e n d e r g r a s s 1,5 8 6 P.2d a t 6 9 5 , 3 5
St.Rep. a t 1516.
The d e f e n d a n t , i n t h i s appeal, contends t h a t t h e cross-
e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e i d e n t i f y i n g w i t n e s s i n t h e second t r i a l ,
e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t 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 s were u n d u l y p r e j u -
d i c i a l because o f t h e w i t n e s s ' s a b i l i t y to eliminate the other
f i v e p h o t o g r a p h s due t o t h e p e r s o n s ' b u i l d , g l a s s e s , h a i r length,
o r h a i r c o l o r and b e c a u s e t h e w i t n e s s m e r e l y i d e n t i f i e d
defendant's p h o t o g r a p h as m o s t n e a r l y r e s e m b l i n g t h e man he saw.
I n f i n d i n g the defendant's contention without merit, we
adhere t o our discussion i n Pendergrass -
I. I n a d d i t i o n , this
case d i f f e r s s u b s t a n t i a l l y from the t y p i c a l photographic array
c a s e where t h e w i t n e s s l o o k s a t a p h o t o g r a p h , makes a p o s i t i v e
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n which i s cemented i n h i s mind, and t h e n p o s i t i v e l y
i d e n t i f i e s the defendant i n court. Here, the witness merely
i d e n t i f i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p h o t o g r a p h as t h e p h o t o g r a p h w h i c h m o s t
c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e d t h e man he saw g e t o u t o f t h e p i c k u p t r u c k and
w a l k t o w a r d T e r r y ' s C o n v e n i e n t Foods. No i n - c o u r t identification
was made. T h e w i t n e s s a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t o l d a p o l i c e
o f f i c e r t h a t he was n o t s u r e he c o u l d i d e n t i f y t h e man he saw i f
h e saw h i m f a c e - t o - f a c e . Cross-examination brought out the fact
t h a t t h e w i t n e s s was a b l e t o e l i m i n a t e t h e o t h e r f i v e p h o t o g r a p h s
because o f e i t h e r a d i f f e r e n c e i n b u i l d , hair color, h a i r length,
o r eyeglasses. Thus, t h e d e f e n d a n t was a b l e t o d i m i n i s h t h e
w e i g h t t h a t a j u r o r would g i v e t o t h e a l r e a d y l i m i t e d testimony
t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s p h o t o g r a p h was t h e o n e i n t h e s i x - p h o t o a r r a y
" w h i c h m o s t c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e d " t h e man he saw.
A l t h o u g h Manson v. B r a t h w a i t e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 4 3 2 U.S. 98, 97
S.Ct. 2243, 5 3 L.Ed.2d 140, i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on t h e f a c t s , we
f i n d t h e f o l l o w i n g language i n t h a t o p i n i o n t o b e s t summarize o u r
d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s issue.
" S u r e l y , we c a n n o t s a y t h a t u n d e r a1 1 t h e c i r -
cumstances o f t h i s case t h e r e i s ' a v e r y
s u b s t a n t i a l lik e l ih o o d o f i r r e p a r a b l e
misidentification.' (Cite omitted.) Short of
t h a t p o i n t , such e v i d e n c e i s f o r t h e j u r y t o
weigh. We a r e c o n t e n t t o r e l y u p o n t h e g o o d
s e n s e and j u d g m e n t o f A m e r i c a n j u r i e s , f o r e v i -
d e n c e w i t h some e l e m e n t o f u n t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s i s
c u s t o m a r y g r i s t f o r t h e j u r y m i l 1. Juries are
n o t so s u s c e p t i b l e t h a t t h e y c a n n o t measure
i n t e l l i g e n t l y the weight of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
t e s t i m o n y t h a t h a s some q u e s t i o n a b l e f e a t u r e . "
4 3 2 U.S. a t 1 1 6 , 97 S . C t . a t 2 2 5 4 , 5 3 L.Ed.2d at
155.
T h e d e f e n d a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t he was d e n i e d a f a i r
t r i a l by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s denial o f h i s m i s t r i a l motion. The
b a s i s o f t h i s c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t a l l o w i n g h i m t o be s e e n b y t h e
j u r y p a n e l i n h a n d c u f f s p r i o r t o t h e commencement o f t r i a l
a f f e c t e d t h e presumpt i o n o f innocence.
A s i m i l a r i s s u e was p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v.
Baugh ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 456, 5 7 1 P.2d 779. F i v e days a f t e r t h e
t r i a l commenced, t h e d e f e n d a n t was b r o u g h t i n t o t h e c o u r t r o o m i n
handcuffs. D e f e n d a n t ' s i m m e d i a t e m o t i o n f o r a m i s t r i a l was
denied; however, a r u l i n g was r e s e r v e d u n t i l a f t e r t h e v e r d i c t in
order f o r the D i s t r i c t Court t o question the jurors as t o t h e
c r e a t i o n o f any p r e j u d i c e because o f t h e scene. The c o u r t d e t e r -
mined t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t d i d not a f f e c t t h e j u r y ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n .
I n a d d r e s s i n g t h e i s s u e on a p p e a l t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d :
"The m a j o r i t y r u l e i s t h a t , absent unusual
circumstances, a prisoner brought i n t o court f o r
t r i a l i s e n t i t l e d t o a p p e a r f r e e f r o m a l l bonds
o r s h a c k l e s , t h i s r i g h t b e i n g an i m p o r t a n t com-
p o n e n t o f a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l . However,
i n S t a t e v. J o n e s , 1 3 0 N.J. S u p e r . 5 9 6 , 3 2 8 A.2d
4 1 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , t h e c o u r t h e l d d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o be
f r e e o f s h a c k l e s d u r i n g t r i a l n e e d n o t be
e x t e n d e d t o t h e r i g h t t o be f r e e o f s h a c k l e s
w h i l e b e i n g t a k e n back and f o r t h b e t w e e n t h e
c o u r t h o u s e and t h e j a i l . M o s t c o u r t s now a g r e e
w i t h Sawyer t h a t a d e f e n d a n t i s n o t d e n i e d a
f a i r t r i a l - d s -- t e n t i t l e - - o m i s t r i a i
an- no d t
s o l e l y because - - m o m e n t a r i l y and i n a d v e r -
h e was
t e n t l y - -i n h a n d c u f f s by j u r y members.
seen
" I n t h e i n s t a n t case counsel f o r d e f e n d a n t
a d m i t s t h e j u r y was we1 1 a w a r e o f t h e f a c t
d e f e n d a n t was i n c u s t o d y and n o t f r e e o n b a i l .
T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h i s o c c u r r e n c e was
prejudicial. - -e a b s e n c e - - i n d i c a t i o n
I n th o f an
p r e j u d i c i a l c o n s e q u e n c e s , --a n o c c u r r e n c e
such
d o e s n o t w a r r a n t t h e p a n t i n g - a new t r i a l .
of
( E m p h a s i s added.)"174 Mont. a t 762-463, 571
P.2d a t 44%783.
I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e d e f e n d a n t was " m o m e n t a r i l y and i n a d -
v e r t e n t l y s e e n i n h a n d c u f f s " b y p r o s p e c t i v e j u r y members. There
i s no i n d i c a t i o n o f p r e j u d i c i a l consequences i n t h e r e c o r d . In
addition, t h e j u r o r s knew t h a t an i n f o r m a t i o n h a d b e e n f i l e d and
t h e defendant arrested, and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g a v e n u m e r o u s
i n s t r u c t i o n s o n t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f i n n o c e n c e and t h e b u r d e n o f
proof. U n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s we f i n d n o d e n i a l of a f a i r
trial.
The d e f e n d a n t a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t
evidence t o support the c o n v i c t i o n o f sexual intercourse without
consent. T h i s C o u r t a l s o a d d r e s s e d an i s s u e c o n c e r n i n g s u f -
f i c i e n c y o f t h e evidence i n Pendergrass - i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e
I
p r i o r attempted robbery conviction. We t h e r e s t a t e d :
" ... ' T h i s C o u r t r e m a i n s e v e r m i n d f u l o f one
f u n d a m e n t a l r u l e - - t h a t q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t m u s t be
d e t e r m i n e d s o l e l y b y t h e j u r y , and t h a t g i v e n a
c e r t a i n l e g a l minimum o f e v i d e n c e , t h i s C o u r t on
r e v i e w w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t
o f the jury ... On a p p e a l we e x a m i n e t h e e v i -
d e n c e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e v e r d i c t i s sup-
p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. I n so d o i n g , we
v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o
t h e State.' S t a t e v. M e r s e a l ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 7 M o n t .
4 1 2 , 4 1 5 , 5 3 8 P.2d 1 3 6 6 , 1 3 6 7 - 1 3 6 8 . (Citing
cases.) S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s d e f i n e d as
' s u c h r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e as a r e a s o n a b l e m i n d
m i g h t a c c e p t as a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t a
conclusion.' M e r s e a l , 167 Mont. a t 416, 538
P.2d a t 1 3 6 8 . " 5 8 6 P.2d a t 6 9 7 - 6 9 8 , 3 5 St.Rep. at
1520.
I n o u r p r e s e n t c a s e t h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t a r a p e
occurred, a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e was a d d u c e d a t t r i a l which
tends t o prove t h a t the defendant committed t h e crime: (1)
defendant owns a d i s t i n g u i s h e d r e d p i c k u p t r u c k w h i c h was
seen b e i n g parked n e a r t h e scene o f t h e c r i m e s h o r t l y a f t e r 11:30
p.m. by a witness; ( 2 ) t h i s w i t n e s s o b s e r v e d a man g e t o u t o f t h e
t r u c k and b e g i n w a l k i n g t o w a r d s T e r r y ' s C o n v e n i e n t Foods; ( 3 ) he
a l s o r e c o r d e d t h e l i c e n s e number w h i c h had b e e n i s s u e d t o t h e
defendant; ( 4 ) h e f u r t h e r d e s c r i b e d t h e man t o t h e p o l i c e as
s t o c k i l y b u i l t , 5 ' 1 0 " , c a u c a s i a n w i t h l i g h t brown, c o l l a r - l e n g t h
h a i r and h i g h cheek bones, and l a t e r s e l e c t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s p i c t u r e
f r o m s i x p h o t o g r a p h s as t h e o n e m o s t c l o s e l y r e s e m b l i n g t h e man
h e saw; ( 5 ) a n o t h e r w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t a r e d t r u c k had b e e n
p a r k e d i n f r o n t o f h i s r e s i d e n c e b e t w e e n 1 1 : 3 0 p.m. and 1 2 : l O
a.m. b u t t h e t r u c k was no l o n g e r p r e s e n t a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 2 : 3 0
a.m.; ( 6 ) t h i s w i t n e s s l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d t h e t r u c k as t h a t o f t h e
d e f e n d a n t a n d t h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was c o r r o b o r a t e d b y a h o u s e
guest o f the witness; ( 7 ) t h r e e other witnesses placed
defendant's truck i n front of the witness's r e s i d e n c e between
1 1 : 3 0 p.m. a n d 1 2 : 2 0 a.m.; ( 8 ) a w i t n e s s who d r o v e b y T e r r y ' s
testified t h a t he saw a man n e a r t h e c o u n t e r i n T e r r y ' s a t
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 2 : 2 0 a.m.; ( 9 ) h e d e s c r i b e d t h e man a s s i x f e e t o r
under w i t h sandy-colored h a i r , b e t w e e n c o l l a r and s h o u l d e r
length; (10) Kim Gardner, t h e v i c t i m , t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had
l o c k e d t h e s t o r e a t 1 1 : 5 6 p.m. and was a t t a c k e d s h o r t l y
t h e r e a f t e r by a person h i d i n g i n t h e s t o r e ; ( 1 1 ) she a l s o s a i d
t h a t t h e a s s a i l a n t made t w o u n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t s t o l o c a t e a k e y
w h i c h s h e h a d t o l d h i m was o n t h e c o u n t e r ; (12) medical evidence
r e v e a l s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s blood t y p e matches t h a t o f t h e
perpetrator.
I n v i e w i n g t h e p r e c e d i n g e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most
favorable t o the State, we f i n d " s u c h r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e a s a
r e a s o n a b l e m i n d m i g h t a c c e p t as a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n "
o f g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt.
The d e f e n d a n t ' s f i n a l c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g
and
j u r y instruction i s constitutional l y i n f i rm/constitutes rever-
sible error:
" Y o u a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t e v i d e n c e i s t o be c o n -
s i d e r e d n o t o n l y b y i t s own i n t r i n s i c w e i g h t ,
b u t a l s o according t o t h e evidence which i s
w i t h i n t h e p o w e r o f o n e s i d e t o p r o d u c e and o f
t h e o t h e r t o c o n t r a d i c t ; and t h e r e f o r e , i f
w e a k e r and l e s s s a t i s f a c t o r y e v i d e n c e i s
o f f e r e d , when i t a p p e a r s t h a t s t r o n g e r o r m o r e
s a t i s f a c t o r y c o u l d have been produced, t h e e v i -
d e n c e o f f e r e d s h o u l d be v i e w e d w i t h d i s t r u s t . "
I t i s argued t h a t t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n adversely a f f e c t s t h e
p r e s u m p t i o n of i n n o c e n c e a n d a1 l o w s t h e j u r y t o d r a w a n i n f e r e n c e
f r o m defendant's f a i l u r e t o t a k e t h e stand. Although t h i s
i n s t r u c t i o n m i g h t be o b j e c t i o n a b l e i n a c a s e w h e r e t h e d e f e n d a n t
t e s t i f i e s o r o f f e r s evidence, the i n s t r u c t i o n i s not p r e j u d i c i a l
where, as h e r e , t h e d e f e n d a n t does n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d o r o f f e r
any evidence. The i n s t r u c t i o n s t a t e s " i f w e a k e r and l e s s s a t i s -
f a c t o r y evidence - o f f e r e d
i s . . . the e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d s h o u l d be
viewed w i t h d i s t r u s t . " Only t h e S t a t e o f f e r e d evidence, and p u r -
suant t o t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n , o n l y t h e S t a t e ' s evidence o f f e r e d can
be viewed w i t h d i s t r u s t . Nothing i n t h i s instruction affects the
presumption o f innocence o r defendant's r i g h t against sel f-
i n c r i m i n a t i o n when h e d o e s n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d .
We m u s t a l s o p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x t e n s i v e l y
i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f i n n o c e n c e , t h e burden o f
p r o o f and t h e i m p r o p r i e t y o f d r a w i n g an i n f e r e n c e f r o m d e f e n d a n t ' s
f a i l u r e t o t a k e t h e stand.
Affirmed.
Chief Justice
y - 8 - L - A & -- - 3- - - -
u tices --