No. 14928
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
FORREST JORDAN SMITH,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District,
Honorable Gordon Bennett, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Harold H. Harrison argued, Helena, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Chris Tweeten argued, Assistant Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
Charles Graveley argued, County Attorney, Helena,
Montana
Submitted: February 19, 1980
Decided: MAR 2 7 la
g
Mr. ~ustice
Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
Defendant was c o n v i c t e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e
F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e c r i m e of 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 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 Montana
S t a t e P r i s o n , w i t h t h e l a s t n i n e y e a r s suspended. Defendant
a p p e a l s from t h e above c o n v i c t i o n and judgment.
T h i s c a s e a r o s e from a c o m p l a i n t f i l e d by Mary Rose
C l o n i n g e r a l l e g i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t f o r c e d h e r t o engage i n
s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e i n t h e e a r l y morning h o u r s of August 4 ,
1978. T h e r e i s no d i s p u t e t h a t on t h a t morning t h e d e f e n -
d a n t and t h e c o m p l a i n a n t engaged i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e . The
s o l e i s s u e a t t r i a l was whether t h e a c t w a s committed w i t h o u t
consent.
Evidence t a k e n d u r i n g t h e t r i a l r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e
p r o s e c u t r i x , a former barmaid, and d e f e n d a n t had known e a c h
o t h e r f o r a period of approximately t e n y e a r s ; t h a t during
t h e i r t e e n a g e y e a r s t h e p r o s e c u t r i x had o f t e n t e l e p h o n e d
d e f e n d a n t and w a s f a m i l i a r w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s v o i c e on t h e
t e l e p h o n e ; t h a t d u r i n g t h o s e y e a r s t h e y were on many o c c a -
s i o n s a l o n e t o g e t h e r ; t h a t b o t h t h e p r o s e c u t r i x and d e f e n -
d a n t w e r e involved i n rodeo a c t i v i t i e s as w e r e t h e i r respec-
t i v e f a m i l i e s ; t h a t d e f e n d a n t had p r e v i o u s l y gone w i t h t h e
p r o s e c u t r i x ' s younger s i s t e r C a r r i e f o r a b o u t a y e a r ; t h a t
C a r r i e had n e v e r complained t o t h e p r o s e c u t r i x of d e f e n d a n t
making any untoward o r i n s u l t i n g a p p r o a c h e s t o h e r ; and t h a t a t
t h e t i m e of t r i a l C a r r i e was s t i l l q u i t e f r i e n d l y w i t h
d e f e n d a n t and vehemently o b j e c t e d t o h e r s i s t e r ' s r a p e
c h a r g e s , a s d i d o t h e r members of t h e f a m i l y .
With r e s p e c t t o t h e i n c i d e n t o u t of which t h e p r e s e n t
case a r o s e , t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e p r o s e c u t r i x i n d i c a t e s t h a t
between 3 : 3 0 and 4 : 0 0 a.m. on August 4 , 1978, d e f e n d a n t
telephoned the prosecutrix and told her that he was at a
party and asked if she would cook breakfast for him. She
agreed to do so, and defendant arrived at her residence
shortly thereafter. She had not dressed and was wearing
only a light, clinging robe and nothing else.
After breakfast the prosecutrix testified she offered
to allow defendant to use a spare bedroom. She testified
she did this because she knew defendant had to be at work at
7:00 that morning at a location relatively close to the
Cloninger residence. When she was showing him to the room,
the defendant made a sexual advance at the prosecutrix,
which she rebuffed. She then returned to her bedroom. A
few minutes later, defendant entered her bedroom and forcibly
accomplished an act of sexual intercourse with her. She
testified that she screamed and struggled, but ceased her
resistance because of fear for her safety. This fear stemmed
in part from a previous incident where defendant had allegedly
assaulted her physically for calling him a "son-of-a-bitch."
Defendant's story is consistent with the prosecutrix's
testimony up to the point where she offered to allow defen-
dant to sleep at her house. According to defendant, he had
been drinking in a bar for several hours and had then gone
to a house party at the home of a friend. He testified that
he considered himself to have been drunk. He called the
prosecutrix because he desired some female companionship for
the night, though he admitted that there were no previous
instances of sexual relations between them. He testified
that he went over to the prosecutrix's house after his
request for breakfast was granted.
~ccordingto defendant, when Ms. Cloninger offered to
allow him to sleep at her house, she told him he could sleep
anywhere h e wanted t o , and t h e n s h e went t o bed; t h a t s h e
d i d n o t t a k e him t o any room; t h a t he was c o m p l e t e l y f a m i l -
i a r w i t h t h e l a y o u t of t h e house; t h a t i t would n o t have
been n e c e s s a r y f o r h e r t o show him t h e l o c a t i o n of any room;
t h a t he took h i s s h o e s and s o c k s o f f i n t h e k i t c h e n , went
i n t o t h e bedroom t h r o u g h a door t h a t was open and l i f t e d up
t h e c o v e r s and c r a w l e d i n t o bed b e s i d e h e r ; t h a t he s t i l l
had h i s s h i r t and p a n t s on; t h a t t h e y s t a r t e d necking and h e
k i s s e d h e r on t h e l i p s , neck, n i p p l e s and unzipped h e r
b a t h r o b e a l l t h e way; t h a t s h e o f f e r e d no o b j e c t i o n t o any
o f t h i s ; t h a t s h e d i d n o t c r y o r scream; t h a t he t o o k h i s
c l o t h e s o f f i n t h e c o u r s e of which he unbuckled h i s b e l t and
undid h i s b u t t o n s and z i p p e r and pushed h i s p a n t s down; t h a t
d u r i n g a l l t h a t t i m e h e w a s n o t h o l d i n g h e r i n any way
e x c e p t t h a t he had h i s a r m around h e r ; t h a t s h e d i d n o t
o b j e c t o r r e s i s t i n any way, n o r d i d s h e e v e r t e l l him t o
s t o p ; t h a t s h e responded t o him and he completed t h e s e x a c t
w i t h h e r and s h e a p p e a r e d t o c o o p e r a t e ; t h a t when i t w a s
o v e r he w a s l a y i n g b e s i d e h e r and t h e y s t a r t e d t a l k i n g ; t h a t
t h e p r o s e c u t r i x w a s t a l k i n g a b o u t h e r b o y f r i e n d Ed and s t a t e d
t h a t " a f t e r he went t o c o l l e g e t h i s f a l l t h a t we c o u l d s t a r t
g o i n g o u t " ; t h a t d e f e n d a n t t o l d h e r t h a t he had n e v e r men-
t i o n e d a n y t h i n g a b o u t g o i n g o u t t o g e t h e r and t h a t w i t h t h i s
s h e became v e r y a n g r y and t o l d d e f e n d a n t t o " g e t t h e h e l l
o u t of t h e house, you s o n - o f - a - b i t c h " ; t h a t with respect t o
t h e d o c t o r l a t e r f i n d i n g a l i t t l e r e d n e s s around h e r w r i s t
t h a t he d i d n o t h o l d h e r w r i s t , p i n c h i t o r a n y t h i n g of t h a t
s o r t ; a n d , t h a t when h e l e f t t h e home of t h e p r o s e c u t r i x
t h a t morning, he had no s u s p i c i o n whatever t h a t s h e would
a c c u s e him of r a p e .
The p r o s e c u t r i x d i d n o t phone f o r h e l p upon t h e d e p a r -
t u r e o f d e f e n d a n t b u t showered and went t o a g i r l f r i e n d ' s
h o u s e , Diane T r a n k e l , and from t h e r e , some t i m e l a t e r ,
t h e a u t h o r i t i e s were c a l l e d .
The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r
review:
1. Is t h e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t ?
2. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n r e f u s i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s
c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t " t h e c r i m e of 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 i s e a s y t o c h a r g e and d i f f i c u l t t o r e f u t e " ?
3. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o i n s t r u c t t h e
j u r y on t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t i n t r o d u c t i o n of
t h e v i c t i m ' s p r i o r sexual conduct?
4. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n r e f u s i n g t o i n s t r u c t t h e
j u r y t h a t knowledge of t h e v i c t i m ' s l a c k o f c o n s e n t i s a n
e l e m e n t of t h e o f f e n s e o f s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t ?
5. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s i m p r o p e r l y " g i v e
undue prominence" t o t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e ?
6. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n g i v i n g I n s t r u c t i o n Nos.
7 , 8 , and 1 0 on t h e ground t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s w e r e i r r e l e -
v a n t t o t h e i s s u e s and e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d ?
T h i s c a s e , l i k e s o many o t h e r s , i s c l o s e . The v e r y
f a c t t h a t the "consent" o r t h e very case i t s e l f i s h o t l y
c o n t e s t e d and r e s t s s o l e l y on t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e p r o s e c u t r i x
o r one p e r s o n and r e m a i n s u n c o r r o b o r a t e d p u t s a h a r d burden
on t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n s o f a r a s a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i s c o n c e r n e d ,
o r on t h i s C o u r t on s u f f i c i e n c y of e v i d e n c e . The l a w i s
almost as c l o s e a s t h e f a c t s i n t h e s e m a t t e r s .
I n i t i a l l y , defendant a l l e g e s t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n
denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t of a c q u i t -
tal. H e c o n t e n d s t h a t v a r i o u s i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s make t h e
p r o s e c u t r i x ' s v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s i n h e r e n t l y improbable.
The e v i d e n c e was t h e r e f o r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n v i c t . Defen-
d a n t s u b m i t s t h a t i n t h e t r i a l o f c a s e s of a l l e g e d r a p e , t h e
c o u r t s h o u l d view e v i d e n c e o v e r and above t h e s u b s t a n t i a l
e v i d e n c e r u l e a p p l i c a b l e i n o t h e r c a s e s t o d e t e r m i n e whether
o r n o t e v i d e n c e o f t h e a l l e g e d c r i m e i s i n h e r e n t l y improbable.
D e Armond v. S t a t e ( 0 k l a . C r . 1 9 5 5 ) , 285 P.2d 236; S t a t e v.
Shouse ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 57 N.M. 701, 262 P.2d 984; S t a t e v. R i c h a r d s o n
( 1 9 4 4 ) , 48 N.M. 544, 154 P.2d 224. Defendant a l s o c i t e s
Montana c a s e s which s u p p o r t t h e i n h e r e n t l y improbable t e s t
t o d e t e r m i n e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e i n r a p e c a s e s .
S t a t e v. Moe ( 1 9 2 3 ) , 68 Mont. 552, 219 P. 803-;S t a t e v .
McIlwain ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 60 Mont. 598, 201 P. 270.
The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n h e r e n t l y improba-
b l e a b o u t t h e s c e n a r i o p r e s e n t e d by t h e p r o s e c u t r i x . I t ar-
g u e s t h a t t h i s c a s e f a l l s i n t o t h e class of c a s e s t y p i f i e d
by S t a t e v . P e t e r s o n ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 102 Mont. 495, 59 P.2d 61,
and S t a t e v. Gaimos ( 1 9 1 6 ) , 53 Mont. 1 1 8 , 162 P. 596, where
t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e p r o s e c u t r i x , a l t h o u g h impeached t o a n
e x t e n t , was i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t and worthy of b e l i e f by a
jury so inclined.
S e c t i o n 46-16-403, MCA, provides:
"When, a t t h e c l o s e of t h e s t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e o r
a t t h e c l o s e of a l l t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e e v i d e n c e
i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support a finding o r v e r d i c t
of g u i l t y , t h e c o u r t may, on i t s own motion o r
on t h e motion of t h e d e f e n d a n t , d i s m i s s t h e a c -
t i o n and d i s c h a r g e t h e d e f e n d a n t . . ."
The g e n e r a l r u l e i n Montana a p p e a r s t o be t h a t a d i r e c t e d
v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l i s a p p r o p r i a t e i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s " o n l y
where t h e S t a t e f a i l s t o p r o v e i t s c a s e and t h e r e i s no
e v i d e n c e upon which a j u r y c o u l d b a s e i t s v e r d i c t . " State
v . Yoss ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 508, 409 P.2d 452, 455. "The
d e c i s i o n whether t o d i s m i s s t h e c h a r g e o r d i r e c t a v e r d i c t
o f a c q u i t t a l l i e s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l
c o u r t and w i l l be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l o n l y when a b u s e i s
shown." S t a t e v. J u s t ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. ,
- 602 P.2d 957,
D e f e n d a n t ' s second c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e r e f u s a l of
t h e t r i a l court t o give t h e cautionary i n s t r u c t i o n , "the
c h a r g e of r a p e i s e a s i l y made and d i f f i c u l t t o r e f u t e , "
e s p e c i a l l y where, a s h e r e , t h e proof of l a c k of c o n s e n t r e s t s
e n t i r e l y on t h e u n c o r r o b o r a t e d t e s t i m o n y o f t h e p r o s e c u t r i x ,
is reversible error.
This Court faced a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n r e c e n t l y i n S t a t e
v. J u s t , supra, wherein w e s t a t e d :
" I n s t r u c t i o n s s i m i l a r t o t h e one above were o f -
f e r e d i n t h e e a r l i e r c a s e s of S t a t e v . Keeler
( 1 9 1 6 ) , 52 Mont. 205, 211, 156 P. 1080, 1081,
and S t a t e v. M i h a l o v i c h ( 1 9 2 4 ) , 69 Mont. 579,
585, 22 P. 695, 697. I n e a c h of t h o s e c a s e s ,
t h i s Court held t h a t t h e t r i a l judge's r e f u s a l
t o g i v e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was p r o p e r when t h e r e
was n o t h i n g - -e r e c o r d t o s u g g e s t -t-
i n th t h a the
p r o s e c u t r i x was m o t i v a t e d by p r i v a t e m a l i c e o r
a d e s i r e f o r revenge . . . The t e s t f o
---r d e t e r -
mining t h e p r o p r i e t y o f g i v i n g a n i n s t r u c t i o n
- -as t h a t o f f e r e d
such - defendant w a s set f o r t h
- -e r e c e n t -s-o f S t a t e v . Ballew (19751,
i n th ca e
166 Mont. 270, 276, 532 P . 2 d 4 0 7 , 4 1 1 : ' ...
it i s c l e a r t h a t r e f u s a l s t o g i v e such an in-
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 i s 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 complaining w i t n e s s . Such c a u s e s might
i n c l u d e manifest malice, d e s i r e - revenge, for or
an absence of corroborating evidence tending -
- to
s u p p o r - = f --r-- ~--- s ~ i f i _ = - e complain-
t t h e - a + t ~ ------ e o bv t h t- -d &
ing witness.'" 602 P.2d a t 964. (Emphasis
added.) (Citations omitted.)
A s p o i n t e d o u t above, t h e m a t t e r a t hand i s t r o u b l e s o m e .
T h i s s h o u l d a l e r t a t r i a l judge t o p r o c e e d w i t h extreme
c a u t i o n , b e c a u s e t h e s e a r c h f o r t r u t h i s g o i n g t o be e l u s i v e
and d i f f i c u l t , and fundamental f a i r n e s s i s n o t e a s i l y ob-
t a i n e d under t h e s e k i n d s of c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The r e a s o n s are
c l e a r why a l l a v a i l a b l e means be used t o i m p r e s s upon t h e
j u r y t h a t u n c o r r o b o r a t e d t e s t i m o n y of one p e r s o n t o d e c i d e a
c r i m i n a l c a u s e i s n o t t h e u s u a l s i t u a t i o n , even though
a c c e p t a b l e by t h e l a w i n t h i s c a u s e , and t h a t t h e y s h o u l d
p r o c e e d f a i r l y b u t w i t h a d d i t i o n a l c a u t i o n i n t h i s k i n d of
matter.
H e r e t h e r e was u n d i s p u t e d d i r e c t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e
had been more t h a n c a s u a l t r o u b l e between t h e s e p a r t i e s i n
t h e p a s t when d e f e n d a n t a l l e g e d l y s t r u c k t h e p r o s e c u t r i x .
The i n c i d e n t s , however, stemming from d e f e n d a n t ' s r e l a t i o n -
s h i p w i t h t h e p r o s e c u t r i x ' s s i s t e r , w e r e n o t based on d r i n k
o r s e x , b u t on d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n t o b e i n g c a l l e d a "son-
of-a-bitch" by t h e p r o s e c u t r i x upon two of t h e o c c a s i o n s .
Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r t h e s e x a c t was com-
p l e t e d on t h e n i g h t o f t h e a l l e g e d r a p e , t h e p r o s e c u t r i x
suggested a "going o u t together r e l a t i o n s h i p , " a f t e r h e r
b o y f r i e n d "Ed" r e t u r n e d t o c o l l e g e . Defendant s t a t e s he
demurred, and a g a i n , w i t h o u t any a p p a r e n t f e a r of b e i n g
b e a t e n , s h e t o l d him, " g e t t h e h e l l o u t of m house you son-
y
of-a-bitch."
There i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e s e i n c i d e n t s , t r u e o r
f a l s e , a r e p r o p e r l y i n t h e r e c o r d , t o g e t h e r w i t h some o t h e r
impeachment on p e r i p h e r a l m a t t e r s . F u r t h e r , t h e r e i s no
q u e s t i o n t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e e n t i t l e d d e f e n d a n t t o t h e cau-
tionary instruction. The e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y m e e t s t h e s t a n -
d a r d of p r i v a t e m a l i c e , d e s i r e f o r r e v e n g e and a b s e n c e of
c o r r o b o r a t i o n on t h e c r i t i c a l m a t t e r s of c o n s e n t , a l l a s
r e q u i r e d by S t a t e v. Ballew ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 270, 275-76,
532 P.2d 407, 410-11, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . Failure t o
g i v e a c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s k i n d of m a t t e r , a s
p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , i s more s e r i o u s t h a n i n t h e o r d i n a r y
c r i m i n a l c a u s e s and r e q u i r e s r e v e r s a l .
Therefore, the remainder of defendant's issues for
review need not be considered. The judgment of the District
Court is reversed, and the cause for a new trial,
/ - Justice
We concur:
Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell, deeming himself dis-
qualified, did not participate.
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d i s s e n t i n g :
I dissent. I n m opinion t h e majority here improperly
y
s u b s t i t u t e s t h e i r o p i n i o n f o r t h a t of t h e j u r y . Admittedly,
t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n i s u n u s u a l b u t t h a t i s what j u r o r s a r e f o r
and t h e y , n o t t h i s C o u r t , h e a r d t h e t e s t i m o n y , saw t h e w i t -
n e s s e s and were i n a f a r b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o weigh t h e e v i d e n c e .
A s t o t h e g i v i n g of t h e p r e c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n , I
f a i l t o f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n e r r o r when i t f o l l o w s t h e
case l a w e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s S t a t e . A s recently a s last
y e a r w e upheld t h e 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 i n
S t a t e v. J u s t (1979), - Mont . , 602 P.2d 957, 3 6 St.Rep.
1649. See a l s o , S t a t e v. Ballew ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 270, 532
P.2d 407. I f i n d no need t o s e a r c h e l s e w h e r e f o r a u t h o r i t y
t o o v e r t u r n t h i s c a s e when w e have, i n m o p i n i o n , ample
y
a u t h o r i t y t o s u s t a i n t h e lower c o u r t .