State v. Lamb

No. 81-302
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1982

THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

VS.

JOHN WALL LAMB,
Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Beaverhead
Honorable Frank Blair, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appeliant:
~oolingLaw Office, Biilon, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
W e G. Gilbert, 111, County Attorney, Uilion, Montana

Submitted on briefs: March 18, 1982
Decided: June 10, 1982

Filed: 3UN 10 1982
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered by the

District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Beaverhead

County, upon a jury verdict in which defendant was found

g u i l t y o f s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t and a g g r a v a t e d

kidnapping. Defendant was sentenced to a total of fifty

years a t t h e Montana State Prison, forty years for sexual

intercourse without consent and ten years for aggravated

kidnapping, t o be served consecutively.

A t a b o u t 1 2 : 3 0 a.m., S e p t e m b e r 3 , 1 9 8 0 , Zane Tams, a n

eighteen-year-old woman, entered the Truck Inn Cafe in

Dillon, Montana. S h e h a d h a d a few d r i n k s w i t h f r i e n d s a n d

stopped a t t h e Truck Inn t o e a t .

D e f e n d a n t , J o h n Lamb, t w e n t y - f o u r y e a r s o l d , was a l s o

e a t i n g a t t h e Truck I n n j u s t a f t e r m i d n i g h t on September 3 .

Tams s a t b e s i d e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e f r o n t c o u n t e r . They

did not know e a c h other and talked only briefly. After

e a t i n g , Tams l e f t t h e c a f e .

Tams g o t into her car t o g o home a n d d i s c o v e r e d it

would n o t s t a r t .

D e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h i s t i m e , Tams waved t o

him a n d a s k e d him t o h e l p h e r w i t h h e r c a r . Tams t e s t i f i e d

t h a t defendant drove up n e x t to her car and asked if she

needed h e l p .

D e f e n d a n t c h e c k e d u n d e r t h e c a r hood t o f i n d t h a t t h e

c o i l w i r e was m i s s i n g . H e s a i d he might have an e x t r a c o i l

w i r e a t h i s h o u s e a n d a s k e d Tams i f s h e would come w i t h him

to get it. She agreed. Instead of going to his home,

defendant drove t o a secluded place o f f a c o u n t r y road and

had sexual intercourse with Tams. Needless to say, the
a c c o u n t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d Tams v a r y c o n s i d e r a b l y a s t o

what happened a f t e r Tams a g r e e d to ride with defendant in

h i s pickup.

Defendant testified that Tams initiated sexual ad-

v a n c e s t o w a r d him a n d t h a t s h e e n c o u r a g e d a n d c o o p e r a t e d i n

the sexual intercourse. He then drove Tams back to the

Truck Inn.

Tams t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s t h e y were d r i v i n g in defen-

dant's pickup, he k e p t s a y i n g t h a t t h e y would s o o n come t o

his house. Eventually, deferidant turned onto a dark side

road, p u l l e d o f f t h e r o a d and s t o p p e d t h e t r u c k . He t u r n e d

t o w a r d s Tams a n d s a i d t h a t s i n c e h e was d o i n g a favor for

her, s h e s h o u l d d o a f a v o r f o r him.

D e f e n d a n t t h e n a t t a c k e d Tams, g r a b b i n g h e r a n d jump-

ing on her, causing her to hit her head against t h e pas-

senger door of t h e t r u c k . She r e s i s t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t a c k ,

but d e f e n d a n t f o r c e d h e r t o have s e x u a l intercourse. Tams

testified that defendant hit her several times, one blow

c a u s i n g a c u t on t h e i n s i d e o f h e r m o u t h a n d s w e l l i n g a r o u n d

her l i p . A f t e r i n t e r c o u r s e , and w h i l e d e f e n d a n t was o u t s i d e

of: t h e t r u c k p u t t i n g on h i s p a n t s , Tams d r o p p e d p a r t o f h e r

key c h a i n behind t h e t r u c k s e a t . Before leaving t h e scene,

d e f e n d a n t h a n d e d Tarns a c o i l wire t h a t h a p p e n e d t o f i t h e r

car.

O n t h e way b a c k t o t o w n , Tams made a c o n s c i o u s e f f o r t

t o remember d e t a i l s a b o u t d e f e n d a n t a n d h i s t r u c k , including

the year, model and c o l o r o f n i s p i c k u p , that t h e r e was a

large dent near the gas cap, and that he was carrying a

yellow motorcycle. Defendant dropped h e r o f f n e a r town, and

she purposefully watched his truck leave, memorizing the
l a s t f o u r d i g i t s o f h i s l i c e n s e number.

With her broken belt, coil wire and purse in her

h a r l d s , Tams r a n t o a n e a r b y t r a i l e r and y e l l e d f o r h e l p . A

husband and wife occupied the trailer. Awakened by the

yelling, t n e h u s b a n d a n s w e r e d t h e d o o r and l e t Tams i n . The

wife talked with Tams and tried to cornfort her while the

husband c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e .

The w i f e ' s t e s t i m o n y , i n t h i s c a s e , is v e r y t e l l i n g .
She testified with regard to Tams that her "hair was a l l

messed up, h e r f a c e was c o v e r e d w i t h m a s c a r a , h e r makeup was

coinpletely- d i s t o r t e d , and s h e was, o f c o u r s e , c r y i n g l i k e I

s a i d , v e r y much, and t h e t e a r s t r e a k s w e r e down h e r c h e e k s ,

h e r f a c e and l i p s w e r e q u i t e p u f f y and v e r y d i s t o r t e d . " She

testified further that Tams seemed hysterical but could

r e s p o n d t o q u e s t i o n s and k e p t r e p e a t i n g t h e l a s t f o u r d i g i t s

o f d e f e n d a n t ' s l i c e n s e p l a t e number.

The p o l i c e a r r i v e d and Tams d e s c r i b e d d e f e n d a n t , h i s

truck, and r e p e a t e d t h e l i c e n s e number. She was t a k e n t o a

hospital where s h e was e x a m i n e d . She had a b r u i s e on t n e

i n s i d e of her r i g h t k n e e and b r u i s e s on h e r a r m s and u p p e r

chest. She a l s o had a v e r y n o t i c e a b l e b r u i s e on h e r l i p a n d

a c u t on t h e i n s i d e o f h e r mouth. The n e x t d a y , a bruise

was d i s c o v e r e d on t h e b a c k o f h e r h e a d .

Defendant was a r r e s t e d . The key c h a i n b e l o n g i n g to

Tams was found i n his p i c k u p . The s e a t c o v e r was removed

from h i s p i c k u p and examined by f o r e n s i c s c i e n t i s t s . Experts

testified that the s t a i n s on t h e s e a t c o v e r were a m i x t u r e

o f semen and b l o o d . Tams had b e e n m e n s t r u a t i n g a t t h e t i m e

of t h e i n c i d e n t .

Prior to trial, the District Court granted the
S t a t e ' s m o t i o n i n l i m i n e p r o h i b i t i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l o r any

w i t n e s s from r e f e r r i n g t o p a s t s e x u a l c o n d u c t of t h e v i c t i m .

D e f e n s e c o u n s e l o b j e c t e d t o t h e m o t i o n on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t

t h e r e was p o t e n t i a l l y c e r t a i n evidence indicating that the

c h a r g e s by 'Tams may h a v e been m o t i v a t e d by a p s y c h o l o g i c a l

syndrome r e s u l t i n g from a p r e v i o u s s e x u a l a s s a u l t .

D e f e n d a n t r a i s e s f o u r i s s u e s on a p p e a l :

1. Whether t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t

the conviction.

2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by g r a n t i n g t h e

State's motion in limine prohibiting reference to past

s e x u a l conduct of t h e v i c t i m .

3. Whether the District Court erred by permitting

'rains t o r e m a i n i n t h e c o u r t r o o m w h i l e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d .

4. Whether t h e S t a t e u n l a w f u l l y s e q u e s t e r e d a sub-

poenaed w i t n e s s who may h a v e p r o v i d e d e x c u l p a t o r y t e s t i m o n y

for the defense.

The c o n v i c t i o n m u s t be u p h e l d b e c a u s e i t i s s u p p o r t e d

by substantial evidence and because the District Court

properly prohibited reference to the victim's past sexual

conduct, including a possible p r i o r sexual a s s a u l t .

The t e s t f o r s u f f i c i e n c y o f e v i d e n c e i s w h e t h e r t h e r e

is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n , viewed i n

the light most favorable to the State. S t a t e v. Wilson

(1981) t Mont. , 631 P.2d 1273, 38 St.Rep. 1040.
'"Substantial evidence' is such r e l e v a n t evidence a s a rea-

s o n a b l e mind m i g h t a c c e p t a s a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t a c o n c l u -

sion." See, Wilson, 631 P.2d at 1278, and cases cited

there.

Here, t h e record is r e p l e t e w i t h e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t
defendant's conviction: t h e testimony of Tams, the victim;

the testimony of t h e w i f e who saw t h e v i c t i m when s h e came

to her trailer for help; testimony of p o l i c e o f f i c e r s who

t o o k 'rams t o t h e h o s p i t a l ; and t h e b r u i s e s o n t h e v i c t i m ' s

body. A l l t h i s e v i d e n c e is s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s

f i n d i n g t h a t Tams was f o r c e d t o h a v e s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e a n d

t h a t d e f e n d a n t i n f l i c t e d b o d i l y harm i n t h e p r o c e s s .

Defendant c o n t e n d s i n h i s second i s s u e t h a t t h e D i s -

t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by g r a n t i n g t h e S t a t e ' s m o t i o n i n l i m i n e ,

thereby excluding evidence of the victim's past sexual

conduct, including a possible prior sexual a s s a u l t charge.

B e c a u s e s u c h e v i d e n c e s h o u l d o n l y b e u s e d when i t i s c e n t r a l

to the outcome of the case, the District Court properly

granted t h e S t a t e ' s motion i n limine.

S e c t i o n 45-5-503 ( 5 ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s :

"No e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e s e x u a l c o n d u c t o f
t h e v i c t i m is a d m i s s i b l e i n p r o s e c u t i o n s
under t h i s s e c t i o n , e x c e p t :

( a ) e v i d e n c e o f t h e v i c t i m ' s p a s t s e x u a l con-
duct with t h e offender;

" ( b ) evidence of s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of t h e
v i c t i m ' s s e x u a l a c t i v i t y t o show t h e o r i g i n
o f semen, p r e g n a n c y , o r d i s e a s e which is a t
i s s u e i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n under t h i s s e c t i o n . "

The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o p r e s e r v e t h e i n t e -

g r i t y of t h e t r i a l and t o p r e v e n t i t from becoming a t r i a l

of t h e victim. S t a t e v. Higley (1980), Mont. , 621

P.2d 1843, 1858-1051, 37 S t . R e p . 1 9 4 2 , 1 9 4 9 . In R i g l e y , t h i s

C o u r t acknowledged t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r excluding evidence

of s p e c i f i c a c t s o f conduct:

" ' T h i s method o f p r o o f is t h e most p e r s u a s i v e
o f t h e t h r e e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r u l e , and i s
a l s o t h e most l i k e l y " t o a r o u s e undue p r e j u -
d i c e , t o c o n f u s e and d i s t r a c t , t o e n g e n d e r
time-consuming s i d e i s s u e s and t o c r e a t e r i s k
o f u n f a i r s u r p r i s e .'I McCornnick, Handbook o f
 t h e Law o f E v i d e n c e , 443 ( 2 d e d . 1 9 7 2 ) . A s a
r e s u l t o f t h e e f f e c t o f t h i s method o f p r o o f ,
it is g e n e r a l l y r e s t r i c t e d t o s i t u a t i o n s
w h e r e c h a r a c t e r i s i n i s s u e , when s u c h p r o o f
is c e n t r a l t o t h e outcome o f t h e c a s e . ' Com-
m i s s i o n Comments, R u l e 405 ( b ) , Plont.R.Evid."
6 2 1 P.2d a t 1 0 5 1 .

Here, t h e e v i d e n c e n e i t h e r c o n t r o l s t h e outcorrle o f the case

because of t h e overwhelming e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e v i c t i m ' s

testimony, nor f a l l s within t h e exceptions of s e c t i o n 45-5-

503 ( 5 ) , MCA. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h e r e f o r e p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d

t h e S t a t e ' s notion i n liinine.

The n e x t two i s s u e s r a i s e d b y d e f e n d a n t c a n b e t a k e n

c a r e of summarily. D e f e n s e c o u n s e l made no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e

presence of the victim in the courtroom wl-lile defendant

testified. Absent the objection of defense counsel, the

issue is n o t legitimately presented for review. S t a t e v.

Owens (1979), Ivlont . , ,597 P.2d 72, 77, 36 S t . R e p .

1182, 1188; and S t a t e v. O'Donnell ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 5 9 Mont. 138,

Concerning the last issue, there is n o t h i n g on the

record about t h e s e q u e s t e r i n g of a w i t n e s s . This Court w i l l

not consider i s s u e s w i t h o u t a r e c o r d t o which we c a n l o o k .

See, S t a t e v. Rumley ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. ,
- 6 3 4 P.2d 446,

450, 38 S t . R e p . 1351A, 1 3 5 1 F , a n d c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n .

F i n d i n g s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t

the conviction and no error on the part of the District

Court, t h e judgment is a f f i r m e d .
We concur:

=?A.cpA $.$Ad&
Chief Justice