No. 79-84
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F
1981
STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
VS .
WAYNE A. CAMITSCH,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f S i l v e r Bow.
Honorable Arnold O l s e n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
J o s e p h C . E n g e l 111, a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana
F o r 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 r i s Tweeten a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ,
Helena, Montana
J o h n G. Winston, County A t t o r n e y , B u t t e , Montana
Michael Wheat a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , B u t t e ,
Montana
Submitted: F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1981
Decided :
Wdfl- (2. &&At&.
/ Clerk
M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r .
J u s t i c e F r a n k B. M o r r i s o n , d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .
D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from a c o n v i c t i o n o f t h r e e c o u n t s 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 o n e c o u n t o f s e x u a l
a s s a u l t , f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n S i l v e r Bow County. We affirm
h i s c o n v i c t i o n , b u t remand t h e c a u s e to D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r f i n -
d i n g s t o s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e s i g n a t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t as
a dangerous of fender.
Based o n a s t a t e m e n t g i v e n t o p o l i c e by a j u v e n i l e boy
t h a t he and t w o j u v e n i l e g i r l s had b e e n g i v e n w i n e and m a r i j u a n a
b y t h e d e f e n d a n t and a c e r t a i n "Doc West," and t h a t t h e two men
t h e n " m o l e s t e d " t h e g i r l s , B u t t e p o l i c e O f f i c e r Graham and
D e t e c t i v e Johnson went t o d e f e n d a n t ' s a u t o r e p a i r g a r a g e on A p r i l
2 , 1979. They t o l d t h e a c c u s e d t h a t t h e y were i n v e s t i g a t i n g a
crime and t h a t t h e y wanted d e f e n d a n t t o accompany them t o p o l i c e
headquarters. Though t h e o f f i c e r s d i d n o t t h e n s p e c i f y t h e
crime, t h e d e f e n d a n t v o l u n t a r i l y a c c o m p a n i e d them t o p o l i c e
headquarters. Upon a r r i v a l , D e t e c t i v e J o h n s o n i n f o r m e d d e f e n d a n t
o f h i s r i g h t s and i n f o r m e d him of t h e a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t h e had
engaged i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h j u v e n i l e g i r l s . According to
t h e o f f i c e r s , t h e d e f e n d a n t i n d i c a t e d t h a t he understood h i s
r i g h t s , r e a d t h e M i r a n d a c a r d p r e s e n t e d to him, and waived h i s
r i g h t s by s i g n i n g i t . The o f f i c e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t
a p p e a r e d s o b e r and i n c o n t r o l o f h i s f a c u l t i e s ; t h e d e f e n d a n t
t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had b e e n p a i n t i n g a c a r b e f o r e t h e a r r e s t , and
t h a t h i s f a c u l t i e s were i m p a i r e d from t h e p a i n t fumes.
While a t t h e s t a t i o n , d e f e n d a n t gave a n a r r a t i v e s t a t e m e n t
i n h i s own h a n d w r i t i n g , a d m i t t i n g a n a c t o f s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e
w i t h A.R.B., a juvenile. Defendant w a s t h e n placed under arrest.
H e t h e n gave a taped s t a t e m e n t similar to h i s w r i t t e n c o n f e s s i o n ,
w h i c h was l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d . The lower c o u r t s u p p r e s s e d t h e
t r a n s c r i b e d s t a t e m e n t , f i n d i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had b e e n
i n d u c e d t o s i g n b l a n k p a g e s o n t o which t h e t a p e d s t a t e m e n t was
l a t e r typed.
On May 3 , 1 9 7 9 , t h e S t a t e c h a r g e d t h e d e f e n d a n t and a
c o d e f e n d a n t by i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h m u l t i p l e c o u n t s of s e x u a l a s s a u l t
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 . The d e f e n d a n t moved t o
s e v e r h i s t r i a l from t h a t of h i s c o d e f e n d a n t . On J u n e 1 9 , 1 9 7 9 ,
t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n t o s e v e r and t h e S t a t e f i l e d a
s e p a r a t e information against the defendant. On J u n e 25, 1 9 7 9 , t h e
d e f e n d a n t moved t o s u b s t i t u t e a n o t h e r j u d g e f o r J u d g e A r n o l d
O l s e n , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t under t h e r u l e on s u b s t i t u t i o n , a c a s e is
n o t a s s i g n e d u n t i l t h e i n f o r m a t i o n is f i l e d and t h a t t h e r e f o r e
t h e m o t i o n was t i m e l y . The c o u r t d i s a g r e e d and d e n i e d t h e
motion.
P r i o r to t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion i n D i s t r i c t
C o u r t , a s k i n g t h a t he be g r a n t e d t h e r i g h t t o i n s p e c t t h e Y o u t h
C o u r t r e c o r d s o f t h e p r o s e c u t i n g w i t n e s s e s , a l l o f whom were
j u v e n i l e s , on t h e grounds t h a t t h e r e c o r d s might have a b e a r i n g
o n t h e c o m p e t e n c y and v e r a c i t y of t h o s e w i t n e s s e s . 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 , r e l y i n g o n t h e con£ i d e n t i a l i t y p r o v i -
s i o n s o f t h e Youth C o u r t A c t , s e c t i o n s 41-5-601, 41-5-602, MCA,
a n d R u l e 609, Mont.R.Evid.
D e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d o f t h r e e c o u n t s 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 o n e c o u n t o f s e x u a l a s s a u l t . The
d i s t r i c t j u d g e s e n t e n c e d d e f e n d a n t t o 40 y e a r s i n p r i s o n o n e a c h
c o u n t o f s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e , and 1 0 y e a r s o n t h e c o u n t of s e x u a l
a s s a u l t , a l l t o run concurrently. The c o u r t d e s i g n a t e d t h e
defendant a dangerous offender. Judgment w a s e n t e r e d on August
6 , 1979.
Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e c o n v i c t i o n s on a l l c o u n t s , t h e
d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l , and t h e c o u r t ' s d e s i g n a t i o n
o f d e f e n d a n t as a dangerous o f f e n d e r . H e raises s i x i s s u e s :
1. Did t h e d e f e n d a n t v o l u n t a r i l y and k n o w i n g l y w a i v e h i s
Miranda r i g h t s ?
2. Was t h e d e f e n s e m o t i o n t o s u b s t i t u t e t i m e l y , when f i l e d
52 d a y s a f t e r d e f e n s e c o u n s e l r e c e i v e d n o t i c e of t h e j u d g e ' s
a s s u m p t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , b u t w i t h i n t e n d a y s of t h e S t a t e ' s
f i l i n g of a s e p a r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f n d a n t ?
3. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l to d i s c l o s e t h e Y o u t h
Court r e c o r d s of c e r t a i n p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s f o r use on
cross-examination v i o l a t e d e f e n d a n t ' s S i x t h Amendment r i g h t t o
con£r o n t h i s w i t n e s s e s ?
4. Did t h e c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y e x c l u d e t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g
coercion of a prosecution witness?
5. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o m m i t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n
r e j e c t i n g c e r t a i n o f d e f e n d a n t 1s p r o p o s e d j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s ?
6. Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n d e s i g n a t i n g d e f e n d a n t a
dangerous of fender?
D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c o n f e s s i o n h e made a t t h e
p o l i c e s t a t i o n was n o t v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e h e w a s i n c a p a b l e o f
w a i v i n g h i s r i g h t s , and b e c a u s e t h e p o l i c e used c o e r c i v e t a c t i c s
i n i n t e r r o g a t i n g him. T h e r e f o r e , he a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g h i s s t a t e m e n t t o be used as e v i d e n c e
a g a i n s t him.
I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a c o n f e s s i o n s h o u l d be s u p p r e s s e d ,
t h e t r i a l j u d g e m u s t d e c i d e w h e t h e r or n o t it was v o l u n t a r y .
S t a t e v. Lenon ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. 264, 271, 5 7 0 P.2d 9 0 1 , 906.
The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f v o l u n t a r i n e s s d e p e n d s o n t h e " t o t a l i t y o f
t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , " w i t h t h e burden of proof on t h e S t a t e to
p r o v e v o l u n t a r i n e s s by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e e v i d e n c e . S t a t e v.
A l l i e s ( 1980 ) , Mont . , 6 2 1 P.2d 1 0 8 0 , 1086-1087, 37
St.Rep. 2089, 2097.
Based o n t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n
h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l judge determined t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n f e s s i o n
was v o l u n t a r y . V o l u n t a r i n e s s is a f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n a d d r e s s e d to
t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e c o u r t , and t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be
o v e r t u r n e d i f it is s u p p o r t e d by 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 .
S t a t e v. A l l i e s , s u p r a , Mont. a t , 6 2 1 P.2d a t 1 0 8 7 , 37
St.Rep. a t 2097-2098.
The d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d a t t h e h e a r i n g t h a t he had b e e n
u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f p a i n t fumes when he made t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g
s t a t e m e n t , and t h a t he was a d v i s e d o f h i s r i g h t s o n l y a f t e r t h e
s t a t e m e n t had b e e n g i v e n . He further t e s t i f i e d t h a t police
o f f i c e r s had t o l d him t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t would n o t be used
a g a i n s t him, b u t would o n l y be used a s a n a i d i n a r r e s t i n g "Doc
West", a s u s p e c t e d c h i l d m o l e s t e r . The d e f e n d a n t f u r t h e r te st-
i f i e d t h a t O f f i c e r J o h n s o n t o l d him to s i g n s e v e r a l d o c u m e n t s .
Johnson a l l e g e d l y r e p r e s e n t e d one of t h e documents to be a
" r e l e a s e " t h a t , when s i g n e d , would a l l o w d e f e n d a n t t o l e a v e t h e
i n t e r r o g a t i o n room; i n r e a l i t y it was a w a i v e r of d e f e n d a n t ' s
Miranda r i g h t s .
P o l i c e o f f i c e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was a d v i s e d o f
h i s r i g h t s f o u r times b e f o r e d e f e n d a n t made h i s s t a t e m e n t . In
e a c h i n s t a n c e , t h e a c c u s e d i n d i c a t e d t h a t he u n d e r s t o o d h i s
rights. T h e i r t e s t i m o n y was c o r r o b o r a t e d by d e f e n d a n t ' s w r i t t e n
s t a t e m e n t , w h i c h was r e c o r d e d o n a " v o l u n t a r y s t a t e m e n t " d o c u m e n t
a n d t h e M i r a n d a w a i v e r c a r d s i g n e d by d e f e n d a n t . The o f f i c e r s
d e n i e d t e l l i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t t h a t t h e y wanted t h e s t a t e m e n t o n l y
a s a t o o l i n g e t t i n g "Doc West': B o t h o f f i c e r s were e x p e r i e n c e d i n
d e a l i n g w i t h s u s p e c t s under t h e i n £ l u e n c e of i n t o x i c a n t s ; t h e y
t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t a p p e a r e d s o b e r and c o h e r e n t .
Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e words " s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e "
were w r i t t e n o n t h e " v o l u n t a r y s t a t e m e n t " d o c u m e n t by D e t e c t i v e
Johnson. The p o l i c e o f f i c e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t wrote
t h e w o r d s a f t e r t h e y i n q u i r e d w h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t m e a n t by t h e
s t a t e m e n t , "I d i d it t o a d e g r e e w i t h [A.R.B.] ." ( o n e of the
juvenile g i r l s . )
The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f v o l u n t a r i n e s s t u r n e d s o l e l y o n t h e
c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s . Two i n c o n s i s t e n t v e r s i o n s o f t h e
e v e n t s surrounding t h e c o n f e s s i o n were p r e s e n t e d t o t h e judge,
a n d h i s d e n i a l of t h e m o t i o n n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e s a f i n d i n g t h a t
he chose to b e l i e v e t h e o f f i c e r s 1 testimony. S t a t e v. Robuck
( 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 2 6 Mont. 302, 3 0 9 , 248 P.2d 8 1 7 , 820. W must d e f e r to
e
t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e who is i n a s u p e r i o r p o s i t i o n to j u d g e t h e
c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s . S t a t e v. L u c e r o ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont.
5 3 1 , 543, 4 4 5 P.2d 7 3 1 , 737.
W e find t h a t the d i s t r i c t judge's f i n d i n g of v o l u n t a r i n e s s
i s s u p p o r t e d by 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 . W w i l l not
e
s u b s t i t u t e o u r judgment f o r h i s when 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 to s u p p o r t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . S t a t e v. A l l i e s , supra,
Mont. a t , 6 2 1 P.2d a t 1087, 37 St.Rep. a t 2097-2098. The
d i s t r i c t j u d g e c o r r e c t 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 .
A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge should have
e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w o n t h e q u e s t i o n
o f v o l u n t a r i n e s s , b e c a u s e t h e r e was c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e i n t h e
record. W h i l e w e a g r e e t h a t it would be a b e t t e r p r a c t i c e to d o
t h i s , we have never held t h a t a judge's f a i l u r e to e n t e r f i n d i n g s
a n d c o n c l u s i o n s i n a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g would r e s u l t i n a
reversal. Here, t h e b a s i s o f t h e j u d g e ' s d e c i s i o n is o b v i o u s :
h e r e s o l v e d c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y i n f a v o r of t h e S t a t e . We
f i n d no e r r o r i n h i s f a i l u r e t o e n t e r s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s , p a r -
t i c u l a r l y w h e r e d e f e n d a n t n e v e r a s k e d t h a t f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u -
s i o n s be e n t e r e d .
A p p e l l a n t n e x t claims e r r o r i n t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e ' s r e f u s a l
t o g r a n t h i s motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge. W e hold t h a t the
j u d g e r u l e d c o r r e c t l y i n f i n d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n was
untimely.
On May 3 , 1 9 7 9 , t h e d e f e n d a n t and a c o d e f e n d a n t , R a n d o l p h
S c o t t , were c h a r g e d by i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h m u l t i p l e c o u n t s o f s e x u a l
a s s a u l t 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 . On t h a t d a t e t h e
S t a t e f i l e d a t i m e l y m o t i o n to s u b s t i t u t e a j u d g e f o r t h e p r e -
s i d i n g judge. On t h e same d a y , J u d g e A r n o l d O l s e n assumed
jurisdiction . The f o l l o w i n g d a y d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a c k n o w l e d g e d
r e c e i p t o f n o t i c e t h a t J u d g e O l s e n had assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n . The
d e f e n d a n t t h e n moved t o s e v e r h i s t r i a l f r o m t h a t o f h i s c o d e f e n -
dant Scott. The c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n t o s e v e r o n J u n e 1 9 ,
1979. On J u n e 25, 1 9 7 9 , t h e d e f e n d a n t moved t o s u b s t i t u t e
a n o t h e r judge f o r Judge Olsen. The m o t i o n was d e n i e d a s n o t
timely.
The d e f e n s e m o t i o n , f i l e d 5 2 d a y s a f t e r d e f e n s e c o u n s e l
was i n f o r m e d t h a t J u d g e O l s e n had b e e n a s s i g n e d to t h e case, w a s
c l e a r l y untimely. D e f e n s e c o u n s e l c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y , and w e
f i n d none, h o l d i n g t h a t t h e f i l i n g of a s e p a r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n a f t e r
s e v e r a n c e o f a c r i m i n a l t r i a l somehow r e v i v e s t h e r i g h t t o
p e r e m p t o r i l y d i s q u a l i f y t h e judge. The u s u a l r u l e , u n d e r p r i o r
law, i s t h a t a r i g h t o f d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n , o n c e l o s t , c a n n o t be
revived. Town Pump, Inc. v. District Court ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont.
, 590 P.2d 1126, 1129, 36 St.Rep. 282, 286; S t a t e ex r e l . L e a v i t t
v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 2 Mont. 1 2 , 1 8 , 5 6 0 P.2d 5 1 7 , 5 2 1 .
N o r does d e f e n d a n t c i t e any a u t h o r i t y holding t h a t t h e f i l i n g
o f a s e p a r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n a f t e r s e v e r a n c e of a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n
i n i t i a t e s a new c a u s e o r p r o c e e d i n g w h i c h would g i v e r i s e to a
new r i g h t o f s u b s t i t u t i o n .
D e f e n d a n t m i s t a k e n l y c i t e s F a r r v. S u p e r i o r C o u r t o f
M a r i c o p a C o u n t y ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 1 4 A r i z . 485, 562 P.2d 365, f o r t h e p r o -
p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e r i g h t of a p a r t y to d i s q u a l i f y a judge " c a n n o t
b e a b r i d g e d by a n o r d e r s e p a r a t i n g t h e case ." In Farr, defendant
w a s i n i t i a l l y charged with rape. D e f e n s e c o u n s e l moved to c h a n g e
judges. The m o t i o n was g r a n t e d and t h e case w a s t r a n s f e r r e d to
t h e respondent judge. T h e r e a f t e r , t h e county a t t o r n e y f i l e d a
second i n f o r m a t i o n , c h a r g i n g t h e accused w i t h kidnapping. This
s e c o n d case was a l s o a s s i g n e d t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t j u d g e . Defense
c o u n s e l moved t o c h a n g e j u d g e s i n t h i s s e c o n d c a u s e . A f e w days
l a t e r t h e S t a t e moved t o c o n s o l i d a t e t h e t w o c a u s e s , r a p e and
kidnapping. N o t i n g t h a t t h e k i d n a p p i n g case b o r e a s e p a r a t e
f i l i n g d a t e , a s e p a r a t e case number, and r e q u i r e d a s e p a r a t e
a r r a i g n m e n t from t h e r a p e p r o s e c u t i o n , t h e A r i z o n a Supreme C o u r t
h e l d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was s t a t u t o r i l y e n t i t l e d t o h a v e h i s
m o t i o n t o s u b s t i t u t e j u d g e s i n t h e s e c o n d case g r a n t e d r e g a r d l e s s
o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e two c a u s e s f i l e d a g a i n s t him were
consolidated. F a r r , s u p r a , 562 P.2d a t 3 6 6 . The c o u r t n o t e d
t h a t t h e county a t t o r n e y could have charged b o t h o f f e n s e s i n one
i n f o r m a t i o n , b u t c h o s e n o t t o d o so. The c o u r t a l s o i n t i m a t e d
t h a t i f t h e m o t i o n t o c o n s o l i d a t e had b e e n g r a n t e d b e f o r e t h e
m o t i o n t o c h a n g e j u d g e s had b e e n made i n t h e s e c o n d c a u s e , t h e
d e f e n d a n t c o u l d h a v e b e e n deemed t o h a v e w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o a
peremptory change of judge.
F a r r d e a l s o n l y w i t h t h e e f f e c t of a motion t o c o n s o l i d a t e
c l e a r l y s e p a r a t e p r o c e e d i n g s on a peremptory r i g h t of d i s q u a l -
i f i c a t i o n - - n- w i t h t h e e f f e c t of a m o t i o n t o s e v e r o n t h e r i g h t
ot
of substitution.
The d e f e n d a n t ' s a r g u m e n t h a s no m e r i t . He was o n n o t i c e
t h a t J u d g e O l s e n would p r e s i d e o v e r t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b o t h b e f o r e
and a f t e r s e v e r a n c e . The 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
motion f o r d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n .
On J u n e 29, 1 9 7 9 , s h o r t l y b e f o r e d e f e n d a n t w e n t t o t r i a l ,
t h e d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a m o t i o n a s k i n g t h e c o u r t t o allow c o u n s e l
f o r d e f e n d a n t t o i n s p e c t t h e Youth C o u r t r e c o r d s of a n y
c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s e s on t h e grounds t h a t t h e r e c o r d s might have
a b e a r i n g o n t h e c o m p e t e n c y and v e r a c i t y o f t h o s e w i t n e s s e s . The
S t a t e countered w i t h a motion i n l i m i n e t o exclude r e f e r e n c e t o
s u c h r e c o r d s , r e l y i n g o n t h e c o n £ i d e n t i a l i t y p r o v i s i o n s of t h e
Youth C o u r t A c t , s e c t i o n s 41-5-601 and 41-5-602, MCA, and R u l e
6 0 9 , Mont .R. E v i d . In denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion, Judge Olsen
s t a t e d t h a t h e would p e r s o n a l l y e x a m i n e t h e w i t n e s s e s ' r e c o r d s t o
d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a n y o f t h e g i r l s s h o u l d be examined by a
p s y c h i a t r i s t before testifying.
D e f e n d a n t ' s motion to i n s p e c t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s '
y o u t h r e c o r d s was e x p r e s s l y b a s e d o n a d e s i r e to e x a m i n e them f o r
i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n s e c o u l d u s e to c h a l l e n g e t h e w i t n e s s -
e s ' t e s t i m o n i a l c o m p e t e n c y and t o impeach t h e i r c r e d i b i l i t y . He
a s s e r t s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o allow s u c h a n examina-
t i o n v i o l a t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s S i x t h Amendment r i g h t t o c o n f r o n t
t h e a d v e r s e w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t him, r e l y i n g o n D a v i s v. A l a s k a
( 1 9 7 4 ) , 415 U.S. 3 0 8 , 94 S . C t . 1 1 0 5 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347.
The S i x t h Amendment g u a r a n t e e s t h e r i g h t of a n a c c u s e d t o
" b e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t him," and t h i s r i g h t is
g u a r a n t e e d t o d e f e n d a n t s i n s t a t e p r o c e e d i n g s as w e l l a s i n
f e d e r a l proceedings. P o i n t e r v. T e x a s ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 380 U.S. 400, 8 5
The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s c a u t i o n e d t h a t
c o n f r o n t a t i o n m u s t i n c l u d e more t h a n d e f e n d a n t ' s b e i n g a l l o w e d t o
confront the witness physically. A p r i m a r y i n t e r e s t s e c u r e d by
t h e con£ r o n t a t i o n c l a u s e is t h a t o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , D a v i s v.
A l a s k a , s u p r a , 415 U.S. a t 315, 94 S . C t . a t 1 1 1 0 , 39 L.Ed.2d a t 353:
" C r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n is t h e p r i n c i p a l means by
w h i c h t h e b e l i e v a b i l i t y o f a w i t n e s s and t h e
t r u t h of h i s t e s t i m o n y are t e s t e d . .. [Tlhe
c r o s s - e x a m i n e r is n o t o n l y p e r m i t t e d to d e l v e
i n t o the witness' s t o r y to test the witnesst
p e r c e p t i o n s and memory, b u t t h e c r o s s - e x a m i n e r
h a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y b e e n a l l o w e d t o i m p e a c h , i .e.,
discredit, the witness ... A more p a r t i c u l a r
a t t a c k on t h e w i t n e s s ' c r e d i b i l i t y i s e f f e c t e d
b y means o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n d i r e c t e d t o w a r d
r e v e a l i n g p o s s i b l e b i a s e s , p r e j u d i c e s , or
u l t e r i o r m o t i v e s o f t h e w i t n e s s as t h e y may
r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to i s s u e s or p e r s o n a l i t i e s i n
t h e case a t h a n d . The p a r t i a l i t y o f a w i t n e s s
i s s u b j e c t t o e x p l o r a t i o n a t t r i a l , and is
' a l w a y s r e l e v a n t as d i s c r e d i t i n g t h e w i t n e s s and
a f f e c t i n g t h e w e i g h t o f h i s t e s t i m o n y . ' 3A J.
Wigmore, E v i d e n c e 5 940, p. 7 7 5 ( C h a d b o u r n r e v .
1970). W e have recognized t h a t t h e exposure of
a w i t n e s s ' m o t i v a t i o n i n t e s t i f y i n g is a p r o p e r
and i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y
p r o t e c t e d r i g h t of cross-examination. G r e e n e v.
M c E l r o y ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 360 U.S. 474, 496, 3 L.Ed.2d
1 3 7 7 , 79 S . C t . 1 4 0 0 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . "
I n Davis, d e f e n s e counsel argued t o the Court t h a t t h e
p r i n c i p a l w i t n e s s f o r t h e S t a t e , a j u v e n i l e o n p r o b a t i o n , had
r e a s o n t o be b i a s e d and t o c o l o r h i s t e s t i m o n y i n f a v o r o f t h e
State. However, b a s e d o n t h e A l a s k a s t a t u t e p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e
con£ i d e n t i a l i t y of j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s , t h e t r i a l judge r e f used t o
l e t c o u n s e l i n q u i r e i n t o t h e w i t n e s s t j u v e n i l e r e c o r d and h i s
p o s s i b l e motivations t o a l t e r h i s testimony. The U n i t e d S t a t e s
Supreme C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h i s t o be e r r o r , f i n d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t
was 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 o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n .
The Supreme C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h e c o m p e t i n g i n t e r e s t i n
m a i n t a i n i n g t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of a j u v e n i l e 's r e c o r d s . But
t h e Court concluded :
"In t h i s setting ... t h e r i g h t of confron-
t a t i o n is paramount t o t h e S t a t e ' s p o l i c y of
p r o t e c t i n g a j u v e n i l e of f e n d e r . Whatever t e m -
p o r a r y embarrassment might r e s u l t t o [ t h e
j u v e n i l e ] o r h i s f a m i l y by d i s c l o s u r e o f h i s
juvenile record--if t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i n s i s t e d on
u s i n g him t o make i t s case--is o u t w e i g h e d by
[ d e f e n d a n t ' s ] r i g h t to probe i n t o t h e i n f l u e n c e
o f p o s s i b l e b i a s i n t h e testimony of a c r u c i a l
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t n e s s .I1 D a v i s , s u p r a , 415 U.S. at
3 1 9 , 94 S . C t . a t 1 1 1 2 , 39 L.Ed.2d a t 355.
W e find t h a t the judge's r u l i n g h e r e denying d e f e n d a n t ' s
m o t i o n t o i n s p e c t d e n i e d him h i s r i g h t t o c o n f r o n t t h e w i t n e s s e s
a g a i n s t him. But o u r s u b s e q u e n t r e v i e w o f t h o s e j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s
c o n v i n c e s u s t h a t t h e e r r o r i n t h i s case is h a r m l e s s . See Salaz
v. State (1977), Wyo . , 5 6 1 P.2d 238, 2 4 1 ; S t a t e v . Myers
( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 1 5 R. I . 1 5 8 3 , 350 A. 2d 6 1 1 , 614-615.
W e d e c l i n e t o a d o p t a r u l e a s b r o a d as t h a t which h a s b e e n
a d o p t e d i n many s t a t e s , which a l l o w s e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r j u v e n i l e
c o n v i c t i o n s t o be u s e d as e v i d e n c e t o a t t a c k t h e g e n e r a l c r e d i b i -
l i t y of a w i t n e s s . S e e S t a t e v. D e f f e n b a u g h ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 217 Kan.
4 6 9 , 536 P.2d 1030. M o n t a n a , u n l i k e many s t a t e s , d o e s n o t
r e c o g n i z e t h e u s e o f p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s t o impeach t h e g e n e r a l
c r e d i b i l i t y of a w i t n e s s . R u l e 609, Mont .R. E v i d . Therefore, we
con£ i n e t h e p e r m i s s i b l e use of t h e s e j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s t o
demonstrating, by cross-examination, a witness' bias, prejudice,
o r motive. S e e S t a t e v. Brown ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 3 2 N . J . S u p e r . 584, 3 3 4
I n t h i s case, d e f e n d a n t a t t e m p t e d t o a t t a c k b o t h com-
p e t e n c y and c r e d i b i l i t y . The t r i a l j u d g e examined t h e j u v e n i l e
r e c o r d s of t h e j u v e n i l e w i t n e s s e s i n o r d e r t o determine whether
t h e j u v e n i l e s were c o m p e t e n t u n d e r R u l e 6 0 1 , Mont.R.Evid. He
e x c l u d e d t e s t i m o n y f r o m L. B . , f i n d i n g t h a t b a s e d o n r e p o r t s from
W a r m S p r i n g s , s h e was s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill and s h o u l d n o t
testify. H i s examination of t h e o t h e r j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s r e v e a l e d
t h a t a l l o f t h e o t h e r w i t n e s s e s were c o m p e t e n t . The t r i a l j u d g e
s p e c i f i c a l l y v o i r d i r e d J.S.E., t h e w i t n e s s whose c o m p e t e n c y w a s
i n q u e s t i o n , and f o u n d h e r t o be c o m p e t e n t . W e f i n d no e v i d e n c e
i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t J.S.E. w a s i n c a p a b l e of t r u t h -
f u l n e s s o r i n a n y way i n c o m p e t e n t t o t e s t i f y . I t is w i t h i 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 t o d e t e r m i n e c o m p e t e n c y and h i s
f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t b e o v e r t u r n e d a b s e n t a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n .
S t a t e v. Shambo ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 1 3 3 Mont. 305, 309, 3 2 2 P.2d 6 5 7 , 659.
Here t h e C o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n a l l o w i n g t h e j u v e n i l e w i t n e s s e s t o
testify.
W e f u r t h e r c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s p r o v i d e d no
b a s i s f o r i m p e a c h i n g t h e w i t n e s s e s by s h o w i n g b i a s o r p r e j u d i c e .
Two o f t h e j u v e n i l e w i t n e s s e s had no j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s u n t i l t h e
t r i a l was c o m p l e t e d ; o n e w i t n e s s (L.B.) was d i s q u a l i f i e d from
t e s t i f y i n g by t h e j u d g e ; o n e w i t n e s s had b e e n o n p r o b a t i o n f o r
o n e month, b u t t h e p r o b a t i o n had b e e n c o m p l e t e d b e f o r e d e f e n d a n t
was a r r e s t e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s crime; t h e o t h e r w i t n e s s
(J.S.E.) was i n f a c t i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s y s t e m a t
t h e time o f t r i a l . But d e f e n d a n t w a s g i v e n p l e n t y of o p p o r t u n i t y
t o cross-examine J.S.E. a s t o h e r m o t i v e s f o r t e s t i f y i n g , and h e r
c r e d i b i l i t y was a t t a c k e d many times w h i l e s h e was o n t h e w i t n e s s
stand. She a d m i t t e d l y i n g when s h e was i n i t i a l l y q u e s t i o n e d by
the police. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e o r i g i n a l l y d i d n o t w a n t t o
t a l k t o t h e p o l i c e , b u t c h a n g e d h e r mind i n o r d e r t o t e a c h t h e
c o d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s case a l e s s o n . Defense counsel e l i c i t e d t h e
i n f o r m a t i o n from J.S.E. t h a t s h e was p r e s e n t l y a r e s i d e n t o f t h e
M o u n t a i n V i e w Home, and a s k e d h e r w h e t h e r s h e had b e e n p r o m i s e d
a n y f a v o r s f o r t e s t i f y i n g , a l l o f which i n d i c a t e d to t h e j u r y
t h a t s h e was i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e j u v e n i l e a u t h o r i t i e s .
I n sum, w e f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d h a v e b e e n p e r m i t t e d
t o i n s p e c t t h e j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s , - camera, i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e
in
w h e t h e r t h e r e were f a c t o r s p r e s e n t w h i c h would g i v e t h e w i t n e s s e s
a m o t i v e to t e s t i f y i n t h e S t a t e ' s f a v o r , o r r e n d e r them somehow
b i a s e d or p r e j u d i c e d . B u t h a v i n g made t h i s i n s p e c t i o n s i n c e t h e
t i m e of t r i a l , we have determined t h a t i n t h i s c a s e , t h e d e n i a l
o f t h e m o t i o n t o i n s p e c t was h a r m l e s s e r r o r . Because d e f e n d a n t ' s
r i g h t s were n o t p r e j u d i c e d i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , w e f i n d no r e a s o n
t o g r a n t d e f e n d a n t a new t r i a l .
A t t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y from B i l l M u r r a y ,
a B u t t e a t t o r n e y , who was c a l l e d t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n o n A p r i l
5, 1 9 7 9 b y D e b b i e F o s t e r , t h e s i s t e r o f c o d e f e n d a n t , R a n d o l p h
Scott. The d e f e n d a n t made a f o r m a l o f f e r o f p r o o f s t a t i n g t h a t
M u r r a y would t e s t i f y t h a t F o s t e r had t o l d him t h a t J . S . E . , a pro-
s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s and o n e o f t h e v i c t i m s , w a s b e i n g q u e s t i o n e d i n
v i o l a t i o n o f h e r r i g h t t o c o u n s e l and h e r r i g h t to r e m a i n s i l e n t .
The c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h e o f f e r as h e a r s a y . The d e f e n d a n t a l s o
o f f e r e d E x h i b i t "J", a p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i v e r e p o r t , r e l a t i n g a
s t a t e m e n t t a k e n from J.S.E. i n which s h e a l l e g e d l y r e p u d i a t e d h e r
p r i o r incriminatory statements regarding the defendant. The
c o u r t excluded t h e r e p o r t .
Defendant p r e d i c a t e s error on t h e s e r u l i n g s of t h e t r i a l
j u d g e , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e c o u r t s h o u l d have allowed t h e " j u r y to
l e a r n t h a t o n e o f t h e c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s e s was t e s t i f y i n g a f t e r
h a v i n g b e e n d e n i e d h e r r i g h t s t o r e m a i n s i l e n t and be r e p r e s e n t e d
b y c o u n s e l and had s u b s e q u e n t l y r e p u d i a t e d t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a -
t e m e n t s h e had made a g a i n s t t h e D e f e n d a n t ."
The d i s t r i c t j u d g e ' s r u l i n g a s t o M u r r a y ' s t e s t i m o n y w a s
correct. Murray i n t e n d e d t o t e s t i f y a s t o w h a t D e b b i e F o s t e r had
t o l d him, and F o s t e r ' s t e s t i m o n y was b e i n g o f f e r e d f o r i t s t r u t h .
R u l e 8 0 1 , Mont.R.Evid. T h i s t e s t i m o n y was c l e a r l y h e a r s a y and
was i n a d m i s s i b l e . R u l e 8 0 2 , Mont .R. E v i d . F u r t h e r , d e f e n d a n t was
n o t d e n i e d h i s r i g h t to g e t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e t h e j u r y ; h e
c o u l d h a v e c a l l e d D e b b i e F o s t e r to t e s t i f y a b o u t h e r
observations.
D e f e n d a n t c o n c e d e s t h a t e x h i b i t "J" may h a v e b e e n h e a r s a y ,
b u t h e a r g u e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e which it c o n t a i n e d s h o u l d h a v e
been presented t o the jury nonetheless. W e a g r e e t h a t it w a s
inadmissible hearsay. R u l e s 8 0 3 ( 8 ) , 8 0 2 , Mont .R. E v i d . We do
n o t e t h a t d e f e n d a n t was f r e e t o q u e s t i o n t h e p o l i c e as t o t h e
p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s made by J . S . E . c o n t a i n e d i n t h a t
r e p o r t , R u l e 8 0 1 ( d ) , Mont.R.Evid, and h e was f r e e to q u e s t i o n
J.S.E. about those statements. The c o u r t r u l e d c o r r e c t l y i n
denying t h i s e x h i b i t s admission i n t o evidence.
Appellant next a l l e g e s e r r o r i n the d i s t r i c t judge's refu-
s a l t o g i v e s e v e r a l of h i s o f f e r e d j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s .
D e f e n d a n t ' s p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n No. 4 w o u l d h a v e t o l d t h e j u r y
that:
"A c h a r g e s u c h as t h a t made a g a i n s t t h e D e f e n d a n t
i n t h i s c a s e i s o n e w h i c h i s e a s i l y made, a n d , o n c e
made, d i f f i c u l t t o d e f e n d a g a i n s t , e v e n i f t h e per-
s o n a c c u s e d is i n n o c e n t .
" T h e r e f o r e , t h e l a w r e q u i r e s t h a t you e x a m i n e t h e
t e s t i m o n y o f t h e f e m a l e p e r s o n s named i n t h e i n f o r -
mation with caution."
W e a p p r o v e d a s i m i l a r i n s t r u c t i o n i n S t a t e v. Smith
(1980 1 Mont. , 609 P.2d 696, 37 S t . R e p . 583, and d e t e r -
mined t h a t it s h o u l d be g i v e n i n t h o s e cases i n which t h e e v i -
d e n c e a t t r i a l shows (1) p e r s o n a l e n m i t y b e t w e e n t h e v i c t i m and
t h e d e f e n d a n t , - ( 2 ) n o c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e
and
victirrls account of t h e rape. S t a t e v. P e c o r a ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mon t .
, 619 P.2d 1 7 3 , 37 S t . R e p . 1742. S e e a l s o S t a t e v. H i g l e y
(1980 t Mont. , 6 2 1 P.2d 1 0 4 3 , 37 S t . R e p . 1942.
Here, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y r e f u s e d to g i v e t h e
Smith i n s t r u c t i o n . A s t o C o u n t s I1 and 111, c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t
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 a g a i n s t A. R. B. and
L.A.W., t h e r e was no b a s i s i n t h e e v i d e n c e f o r o f f e r i n g t h i s
instruction. No e v i d e n c e was a d d u c e d showing a n y p e r s o n a l e n m i t y
b e t w e e n t h e d e f e n d a n t and A . R . B . o r L.A.W. In addition, t h e r e
was c o r r o b o r a t i n g t e s t i m o n y f r o m A . R . B . I s b r o t h e r and from M r .
N i c h o l s o n , b o t h o f whom had w i t n e s s e d t h e a c t s o f d e f e n d a n t
a g a i n s t A.R.B. The j u d g e c o r r e c t l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e j u r y
s h o u l d n o t be i n s t r u c t e d t o v i e w t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e s e two w i t -
n e s s e s a n y d i f f e r e n t l y from t h a t o f a n y o t h e r w i t n e s s .
The e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l d i d show p e r s o n a l e n m i t y b e t w e e n t h e
d e f e n d a n t and J . S . E . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e wanted to t e a c h
C a m i t s c h ' s c o d e f e n d a n t a l e s s o n , and t h e c o d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d
t h a t J.S.E. had t h r e a t e n e d t h a t s h e would g e t e v e n w i t h d e f e n d a n t
f o r keeping h e r from s e e i n g t h e c o d e f e n d a n t . Additionally, the
o n l y e v i d e n c e o f t h e crime w a s t h a t g i v e n by J.S.E. h e r s e l f , and
s h e a d m i t t e d to changing h e r s t o r y i n s e v e r a l p a r t i c u l a r s . In
sum, t h e r e w a s a s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s i n t h e e v i d e n c e f o r t h i s t y p e
o f i n s t r u c t i o n , under Smith, b u t t h e d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d to l i m i t
t h e i n s t r u c t i o n to a d v i s i n g t h e j u r y to l o o k w i t h c a u t i o n a t t h e
t e s t i m o n y o f o n l y J.S.E.
The i n s t r u c t i o n as o f f e r e d was e r r o n e o u s and i n c o r r e c t
w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e testimony of t h e o t h e r complaining w i t n e s s e s ,
A.R.B. and L.A.W. Accordingly, it was c o r r e c t y r e f u s e d i n i t s
o f f e r e d form. W e f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e j u d g e ' s refusal t o give
t h e i n s t r u c t i o n under t h e s e circumstances. S t a t e v. Pecora,
supra, Mont. a t , 619 P.2d a t 1 7 5 , 37 S t . R e p . a t 1745.
Defendant also p r e d i c a t e s error on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s
f a i l u r e t o g i v e t w o i n s t r u c t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o impeachment.
Proposed I n s t r u c t i o n No. 5 c o n t a i n e d a d e f i n i t i o n of
" i m p e a c h m e n t " and a n e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t t h e l a w allows a w i t n e s s t o
b e impeached by p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s . Proposed I n s t r u c -
t i o n No. 6 o u t l i n e d f o r t h e j u r y c e r t a i n t y p e s o f e v i d e n c e which
c o u l d s e r v e t o impeach a w i t n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y .
Defendant agreed a t t r i a l t h a t t h e e x p l a n a t i o n i n proposed
I n s t r u c t i o n No. 5 a b o u t p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s w a s ade-
q u a t e l y c o v e r e d by t h e c o u r t ' s I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 3. T h e r e f o r e we
need o n l y c o n s i d e r whether a d e f i n i t i o n of "impeach" s h o u l d have
been given to t h e jury. A l t h o u g h t e c h n i c a l w o r d s and e x p r e s s i o n s
u s e d i n j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s m u s t be d e f i n e d f o r t h e j u r y , w o r d s o f
common u n d e r s t a n d i n g need n o t be so e x p l a i n e d . McGuinn v. S t a t e
( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 215, 225, 5 8 1 P.2d 4 1 7 , 4 2 3 ; S t a t e v. ~ u m p h r i e s
( 1 9 7 8 ) , 2 1 Wash.App. 4 0 5 , 586 P.2d 130, 135. None o f 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 c o n t a i n e d t h e term " i m p e a c h , " b u t
t h e j u r y w a s t o l d by t h e j u d g e i n I n s t r u c t i o n No. 3 t o c o n s i d e r
c e r t a i n f a c t o r s i n a s s e s s i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s .
I n s t r u c t i o n No. 3 t o l d t h e j u r y how t o a n a l y z e t h e t e s t i m o n y
w i t h o u t e v e r t e l l i n g them t h a t t h e y were t o c o n s i d e r c e r t a i n e v i -
dence a s "impeaching" evidence. A d e f i n i t i o n of impeach was n o t
n e c e s s a r y i n t h a t t h e j u r y was f u l l y i n s t r u c t e d on t h i s a s p e c t o f
t h e l a w and d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was n o t p r e c l u d e d from a r g u i n g h i s
t h e o r y of t h e c a s e . S e e S t a t e v. K i r k a l d i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont.
, 587 P.2d 1 2 9 8 , 1304-1305, 35 St.Rep. 1 5 3 2 , 1538-1539; State
v. L e e ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 2 2 1 Kan. 1 0 9 , 5 5 8 P.2d 1096, 1099.
Defendant's proposed I n s t r u c t i o n No. 6 was a d e q u a t e l y
c o v e r e d by t h e c o u r t ' s I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 3. No. 6 contained a
nonexhaustive list of evidence t h a t a j u r o r could c o n s i d e r i n
a s s e s s i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f a w i t n e s s , as s e t f o r t h i n t h e com-
m e n t s t o R u l e 607, Mont.R.Evid. A l t h o u g h i t would n o t h a v e b e e n
e r r o r t o g i v e s u c h a s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n , it was u n n e c e s s a r y f o r
t h e c o u r t t o d o so. The i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n c o n t a i n e d t h e
s u b s t a n c e o f d e f e n d a n t 1s i n s t r u c t i o n :
"You a r e t h e s o l e j u d g e s o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f
a l l t h e w i t n e s s e s who h a v e t e s t i f i e d i n t h i s
c a s e , and o f t h e w e i g h t t o be g i v e n t h e i r
testimony. You w i l l j u d g e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f a
w i t n e s s by t h e manner i n w h i c h h e t e s t i f i e s , b y
t h e n a t u r e of h i s testimony, or by e v i d e n c e
a f f e c t i n g h i s c h a r a c t e r f o r t r u t h , honesty o r
i n t e g r i t y , o r h i s m o t i v e s , o r by c o n t r a d i c t o r y
e v i d e n c e ; and i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e w e i g h t t o be
g i v e n t o t h e t e s t i m o n y of a n y w i t n e s s , you h a v e
a r i g h t to c o n s i d e r t h e a p p e a r a n c e of each w i t -
n e s s o n t h e s t a n d , h i s manner of t e s t i f y i n g , h i s
a p p a r e n t c a n d o r o r l a c k of c a n d o r , h i s a p p a r e n t
f a i r n e s s o r l a c k of f a i r n e s s , h i s a p p a r e n t
i n t e l l i g e n c e o r l a c k of i n t e l l i g e n c e , h i s
k n o w l e d g e and means o f k n o w l e d g e o n t h e s u b j e c t
upon w h i c h h e t e s t i f i e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h a l l t h e
o t h e r circumstances appearing i n evidence on t h e
trial.
" I f you b e l i e v e t h a t a n y w i t n e s s who h a s
t e s t i f i e d i n t h i s case h a s w i l f u l l y t e s t i f i e d
f a l s e l y a s to any material m a t t e r i n t h e c a s e ,
y o u m u s t r e j e c t s u c h o f h i s t e s t i m o n y a s you
b e l i e v e t o h a v e b e e n f a l s e and you h a v e t h e
r i g h t t o view t h e rest of h i s t e s t i m o n y w i t h
d i s t r u s t and i n y o u r d i s c r e t i o n d i s r e g a r d i t ,
u n l e s s , a f t e r e x a m i n a t i o n of a l l t h e e v i d e n c e ,
you f i n d such t e s t i m o n y worthy of b e l i e f ."
Court's Instruction No. 3.
I t was c l e a r l y u n n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e c o u r t t o g i v e
d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n . The s u b s t a n c e o f it was con-
t a i n e d i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n , and w e w i l l l o o k t o t h e
i n s t r u c t i o n s a s a whole i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e y are a d e q u a t e .
S t a t e v. C a r y l ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 8 Mont. 4 1 4 , 430, 5 4 3 P.2d 389, 398.
The l a s t s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f e r r o r i n v o l v e s t h e d i s t r i c t
j u d g e ' s d e s i g n a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t a "dangerous o f f e n d e r " f o r
parole purposes. D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t o
s u p p o r t t h i s d e s i g n a t i o n and t h a t t h i s d e s i g n a t i o n was a s c o n c l u -
s o r y as t h e d e s i g n a t i o n which t h i s C o u r t s t r u c k down i n Matter o f
McFadden ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 6 0 5 P.2d 599, 37 S t . R e p . 55.
S e c t i o n 46-18-404, MCA, a l l o w s t h e d i s t r i c t judge, i n h i s
discretion, t o d e s i g n a t e a c r i m i n a l as d a n g e r o u s f o r p u r p o s e s o f
parole. I n McFadden , supra, Mont. a t , 6 0 5 P.2d a t 600,
37 S t . R e p . a t 56, w e h e l d t h a t a c o u r t m u s t a r t i c u l a t e i t s
r e a s o n s f o r t h e d e s i g n a t i o n , and t h a t mere r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e s t a -
t u t o r y l a n g u a g e was i n s u f f i c i e n t . The r e a s o n a r t i c u l a t e d h e r e by
J u d g e O l s e n was t h a t " [ d e f e n d a n t ] r e p r e s e n t s a s u b s t a n t i a l
d a n g e r t o o t h e r p e r s o n s i n s o c i e t y i n t h e o p i n i o n of t h i s
Court ."
W e f i n d t h i s t o be a mere r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e , and
v i o l a t i v e o f McFadden. B u t b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s case
r e v e a l s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e which c o u l d h a v e l e d t h e d i s t r i c t
j u d g e to d e s i g n a t e d e f e n d a n t " d a n g e r o u s , " we remand t h e c a u s e to
t h e d i s t r i c t judge f o r f i n d i n g s t o s u p p o r t h i s c o n c l u s i o n .
U n l i k e t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e i n McFadden, J u d g e O l s e n made a
f i n d i n g t h a t defendant w a s dangerous. However, w i t h o u t h a v i n g
t h e r e a s o n s a r t i c u l a t e d i n t h e judgment, we c a n n o t de t e n n i n e
w h e t h e r t h e r e was a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e j u d g e .
W e a£f i r m t h e c o n v i c t i o n s i n t h i s c a u s e , and remand i t t o
t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r f i n d i n g s t o s u p p o r t t h e d e s i g n a t i o n of
d e f e n d a n t as " d a n g e r o u s . "
Mr. 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
s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e
F r a n k B. M o r r i s o n .
Mr. ~usf%&red J. Weber s i t t i n g
i n p l a c e o f M r . J u s t i c e D a n i e l J.
Shea.