No. 12758
I N T E SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
H F F OTN
STATE O M N A A
F OTN,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
WILLIAM ROBERT GLIDDEN ,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record :
For Appellant :
Daley and Sherlock, K a l i s p e l l , Montana
P a t r i c k D Sherlock argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana
.
For Respondent :
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
Carlan J. K r a f t , A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued,
Helena, Montana
Richard P. Heinz, County Attorney, argued, Polson,
Montana
Submitted: November 19, 1974
Decided : WC8 0 ll
g4
Filed : WC3 0
-
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court .
Defendant W i l l i a m R o b e r t G l i d d e n w a s 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 , Lake County, o f t h e crime of f o r c i b l e r a p e and
he a p p e a l s from t h a t c o n v i c t i o n .
The i s s u e s a r e : (1) Whether t h e v e r d i c t w a s c o n t r a r y
t o t h e e v i d e n c e and s e c t i o n 94-4101, R.C.M. 1947? ( 2 ) Whether
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s
a t t h e c l o s e of t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e i n c h i e f ?
The s t a t e a l l e g e d a p p e l l a n t p i c k e d up t h e g i r l i n ques-
t i o n i n t h e c i t y o f P o l s o n on t h e a f t e r n o o n o f August 1, 1973,
when s h e was t r y i n g t o h i t c h h i k e from town t o a nearby r a n c h
where s h e w a s l i v i n g . The g i r l worked i n town and on t h i s p a r -
t i c u l a r d a y s h e had done some shopping a f t e r work and t h e n t r i e d
t o p i c k up a r i d e t o t h e r a n c h some 1 2 m i l e s w e s t of P o l s o n .
The g i r l t e s t i f i e d s h e a c c e p t e d t h e r i d e when a p p e l l a n t
t o l d h e r h e was g o i n g p a s t t h e a r e a where s h e l i v e d . A s soon a s
a p p e l l a n t g o t t h e g i r l i n t o h i s t r u c k h e speeded up t o 60 m i l e s
p e r hour down t h e highway and w i t h i n a few m i n u t e s grabbed t h e
g i r l on t h e b r e a s t and p r o p o s i t i o n e d h e r . She t e s t i f i e d s h e w a s
t e r r i f i e d and a s k e d t o be l e t o u t of t h e t r u c k , b u t t h a t he con-
t i n u e d down t h e r o a d a t a h i g h r a t e of s p e e d . Several m i l e s o u t
of P o l s o n he p u l l e d o f f t h e r o a d and s t o p p e d i n a s e c l u d e d a r e a .
During t h i s p e r i o d t h e g i r l a t t e m p t e d t o g e t o u t o f t h e t r u c k
b u t w a s p h y s i c a l l y r e s t r a i n e d by a p p e l l a n t u n t i l t h e t r u c k came
t o a stop. He t h e n proceeded t o d r a g t h e s t r u g g l i n g g i r l a c r o s s
t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t from t h e p a s s e n g e r ' s s i d e and o u t t h e d o o r of
the driver's side. H e t h e n informed h e r o f h i s i n t e n t i o n s and
said: " I f you s t r u g g l e it w i l l be h a r d e r f o r you b e c a u s e I w o n ' t
l e t you go u n t i l I have f i n i s h e d . "
A p p e l l a n t makes no d e n i a l t h a t h e consummated a s e x u a l
a c t with the g i r l . H e a l l e g e s t h a t she freely-acquiesced. She
d e n i e d s u c h a c q u i e s c e n c e and t e s t i f i e d a s t o h e r f e a r s :
"Q. Were you i n f e a r o f him t h r o u g h t h e c o u r s e
o f t h e s e a c t i o n s you have d e s c r i b e d ? A . Y e s , He
w a s much b i g g e r t h a n I am and even though I am a
t a l l woman, I am n o t a s s t r o n g a s a man and I c o u l d
n o t f i g h t him any more t h a n I o r i g i n a l l y s t a r t e d t o .
Every t i m e I c o n t i n u e d t o f i g h t him, he would o n l y
h u r t me more and I was v e r y a f r a i d f o r my l i f e . "
Immediately a f t e r t h e r a p e t h e g i r l e s c a p e d from d e f e n d a n t and
h i d i n some g r a s s and bushes u n t i l he l e f t t h e a r e a . She t h e n
g o t back t o t h e r a n c h w i t h t h e h e l p of some p e o p l e who came a l o n g
and t o o k h e r home. Immediately upon h e r a r r i v a l a t t h e r a n c h
t h e g i r l r e p o r t e d what happened and t h e s h e r i f f was s e n t t o i n -
vestigate. She gave a f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e man t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s
d e p u t i e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e f a c t a p p e l l a n t had a b e a r d . In addition,
s h e d e s c r i b e d t h e t r u c k a s b e i n g r e d and d e s c r i b e d t h e i n t e r i o r .
The day a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t s h e went t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e where
s h e p i c k e d o u t , from t e n p h o t o g r a p h s , a p i c t u r e of a p p e l l a n t ,
even though it was a p i c t u r e o f him w i t h o u t a b e a r d . Several
weeks l a t e r s h e i d e n t i f i e d a p p e l l a n t a t a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g , even
though he had shaved o f f h i s b e a r d .
After picking o u t a p p e l l a n t ' s p i c t u r e a t t h e s h e r i f f ' s
o f f i c e , s h e was t a k e n t o h i s r e s i d e n c e t o s e e whether s h e c o u l d
i d e n t i f y him i n p e r s o n , b u t no one answered t h e d o o r when t h e
s h e r i f f ' s d e p u t y knocked.
A p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d i n h i s own d e f e n s e a t t r i a l . He ad-
m i t t e d t h e f a c t of i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h t h e g i r l , b u t d e n i e d t h a t he
raped h e r . He a d m i t t e d b e i n g a t home when t h e s h e r i f f ' s c a r came
t o h i s house t h e day a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t and that he saw t h e g i r l
i n the car. He a d m i t t e d b e i n g s c a r e d t h e n and a t t h a t t i m e he
shaved o f f h i s b e a r d and had some f r i e n d s t a k e h i m t o Coeur d '
Alene, I d a h o , t o s e e k h i s b r o t h e r ' s a d v i c e . He was n o t i f i e d by
h i s w i f e t h a t a w a r r a n t was o u t f o r h i s a r r e s t and he r e t u r n e d t o
Montana v o l u n t a r i l y .
During t h e t r i a l a w i t n e s s a p p e a r e d f o r a p p e l l a n t and
t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had had i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h t h e g i r l . When
corss-examined t h e w i t n e s s ' f a b r i c a t e d s t o r y blew up, l e a d i n g
t o a p e r j u r y charge a g a i n s t t h a t witness following t h e t r i a l .
Obviously t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f such t e s t i m o n y was n o t b e n e f i c i a l
t o a p p e l l a n t ' s cause.
I n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n t h e w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e
and c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e witness i s a matter e x c l u s i v e l y within
t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e j u r y and s h o u l d n o t be d i s t u r b e d by a c o u r t
of a p p e a l . S t a t e v . Doe, 1 4 6 Mont. 501, 409 P.2d 439; S t a t e v .
Lagge, 143 Mont. 289, 388 P.2d 792; S t a t e v. Pankow, 134 Mont.
519, 333 P.2d 1017. I n one of t h i s C o u r t ' s e a r l y c a s e s , S t a t e
v . G l e i m , 17 Mont. 1 7 , 2 9 , 4 1 P. 998, t h i s C o u r t h e l d :
" ' * * * The j u r y b e i n g t h e s o l e j u d g e s of 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 , t h e c o u r t
s h o u l d n o t t e l l them what p a r t i c u l a r w e i g h t t o
g i v e t o any p o r t i o n of t h e t e s t i m o n y . ' "
I n a r e c e n t o p i n i o n , S t a t e v . S t o d d a r d , 147 Mont. 402,
408, 412 P.2d 827, t h i s C o u r t commented:
" F i r s t , we should note t h a t t h i s c o u r t i s n o t a
t r i e r of f a c t * * *. I n view of t h e presump-
t i o n of i n n o c e n c e a t t h e t r i a l , t h e j u r y must
have been i n s t r u c t e d t o t h a t e f f e c t , b u t on
a p p e a l a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n t h e r u l e c h a n g e s . Then,
i f t h e r e c o r d shows any 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 judgment, t h e presumption i s i n f a v o r
o f s u c h judgment."
The i n s t a n t c a s e b e i n g a r a p e c a s e t h e r e a r i s e s a p e c u l i a r
problem a s t o t h e burden of proof and t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i -
dence. The t y p i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n such c a s e s i s t h a t t h e o n l y
witnesses t o t h e event are t h e p a r t i e s . While i t i s t r u e t h a t
a c o n v i c t i o n of r a p e depends upon t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e p r i m a r y
w i t n e s s e s , t h e a c c u s e r and t h e a c c u s e d , it h a s been a l o n g
s e t t l e d r u l e i n r a p e c a s e s , a s s t a t e d i n S t a t e v . Moe, 68 Mont.
" * * * a c o n v i c t i o n f o r r a p e may be s u s t a i n e d by t h e
uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix
[Citing cases], unless her testimony is so
inherently improbable or is so nullified by
material self-contradictions as to be unworthy
of belief."
See also: State v. Bouldin, 153 Mont. 276, 456 P.2d 830.
Here, the evidence was sufficient for conviction. Appel-
lant's argument that the girl did not fight or that she gave con-
sent is without merit. There is no clear rule as to how much
resistance is required of a woman in order to prove her lack
of consent to sexual intercourse with a man who intends to rape
her, apparently at all costs. The law does not put her life
into even greater jeopardy than it is already in. When a woman
is dealing with a man bent on rape, how can she know how much
resistance she can give without provoking him into killing her?
Continuous resistance to an attempted rape is not required. This
Court in State v. Metcalf, 153 Mont. 369, 376, 457 P.2d 453 (1969),
held :
"The defendant does not, however, have the right
to an instruction which, to the exclusion of
some elements of a crime, would mislead the jury
to believe that constant physical resistance
which required force to overcome was an essential
element. "
Here, there are no disputed legal issues involved, only
questions of fact. A prima facie case was presented to the court.
Appellant admitted having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix
and the jury chose to believe her testimony.
The conviction is affirmed.