No. 12821
I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A
H OR F OTN
T E STATE O MONTANA,
H F
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
DEAN WILLIAM BALLEW,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For A p p e l l a n t :
John L. Adams, Jr. argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued,
Helena, Montana
Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana
Charles A. Bradley, Deputy County Attorney, argued,
B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted: January 17, 1975
Decided : 2 5 1975
Mr. 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 C o u r t .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a c o n v i c t i o n of d e v i a t e s e x u a l
c o n d u c t , e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County.
Defendant r a i s e s f i v e i s s u e s on a p p e a l :
(1) Is s e c t i o n 94-5-505, R.C.M. 1947, u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y
vague, i n d e f i n i t e and u n c e r t a i n ?
(2) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r by g i v i n g a n i n c o r r e c t
i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e s t a t u t o r y e l e m e n t s of t h e o f f e n s e ?
(3) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g a n i n s t r u c -
t i o n on t h e n e c e s s i t y of viewing t h e c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s ' t e s t i -
mony w i t h c a u t i o n ?
(4) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s
proposed i n s t r u c t i o n on impeachment of w i t n e s s e s ?
(5) Does t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t ?
The d e v i a t e s e x u a l c o n d u c t a l l e g e d l y o c c u r r e d on t h e
e v e n i n g of F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 1974, i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. The p r o s e -
c u t i o n and t h e d e f e n s e e a c h p r e s e n t e d a d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n of t h e
e v e n t s of t h a t e v e n i n g .
The complaining w i t n e s s ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e
"victim"), a sixteen-year-old boy, t e s t i f i e d h e was walking home
from a f r i e n d ' s house s h o r t l y a f t e r 10:OO p.m. on t h e day i n
question. H e c r o s s e d t h e p a r k i n g l o t of a s t o r e and c o n t i n u e d
a c r o s s a nearby f i e l d . He was t h e n a c c o s t e d by d e f e n d a n t , who
d r o v e up t o him i n a p r i v a t e a u t o m o b i l e , accompanied by two young
ladies. The c o n v e r s a t i o n which e n s u e d , o u t s i d e t h e h e a r i n g o f
t h e women, was t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t d e f e n d a n t s u s p e c t e d t h e v i c t i m ' s
involvement i n b u r g l a r i e s of t h e s t o r e which t h e v i c t i m had j u s t
passed. Although t h e v i c t i m had n e v e r s e e n t h e d e f e n d a n t b e f o r e ,
he e n t e r e d t h e c a r w i t h him, t h i n k i n g h e was a s e c u r i t y g u a r d f o r
the store.
One o f t h e women d r o v e t h e c a r back t o t h e s t o r e p a r k i n g
1 o t . w h e r e t h e two women g o t o u t and l e f t i n a n o t h e r v e h i c l e .
Defendant t h e n d r o v e t o a remote p a r t o f t h e c i t y a n d , a f t e r
t h r e a t e n i n g t o g e t mean i f t h e v i c t i m d i d n o t c o o p e r a t e , h e
performed a c t s of o r a l and a n a l i n t e r c o u r s e on t h e v i c t i m .
H e t h e n r e t u r E T t h e v i c t i m t o a p o i n t n e a r where he had p i c k e d
him up and l e t him o u t of t h e c a r . The v i c t i m went t o t h e
n e a r e s t p u b l i c phone amd c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e . Defendant w a s
a r r e s t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g a f t e r n o o n , a f t e r t h e v i c t i m had i d e n t i f i e d
him and t h e v e h i c l e which he was d r i v i n g t h e p r e v i o u s n i g h t .
Defendant t e s t i f i e d h e worked a s a s t o c k boy i n a s t o r e
i n B i l l i n g s , and t h a t he had been approached by t h e v i c t i m , who
r e q u e s t e d a r i d e home a f t e r t h e s t o r e c l o s e d . Defendant a g r e e d
and when he l a t e r saw t h e v i c t i m i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t , he assumed
t h a t he s t i l l needed a r i d e . A f t e r some d i f f i c u l t y i n l o c a t i n g
him, he approached t h e v i c t i m and o f f e r e d t o d r i v e him home.
A f t e r d r o p p i n g t h e women o f f a t t h e i r c a r , he t h e n t o o k t h e
v i c t i m d i r e c t l y t o t h e l o c a t i o n i n d i c a t e d by t h e v i c t i m , and l e t
him o u t of t h e c a r . H e d e n i e d t h a t he e v e r made s e x u a l advances
toward t h e v i c t i m .
The o n l y o t h e r e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d was c e r t a i n p h y s i c a l
e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e v i c t i m ' s v e r s i o n of t h e
e v e n t s , and c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r e v i d e n c e f a v o r i n g d e f e n d a n t . The
p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e i n c l u d e d l a b o r a t o r y a n a l y s i s of semen s t a i n s
and h a i r s found on t h e v i c t i m s c l o t h i n g and c l o t h i n g t a k e n from
d e f e n d a n t when he was a r r e s t e d . The c h a r a c t e r e v i d e n c e showed
t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had n o t m o l e s t e d o t h e r y o u n g s t e r s a l t h o u g h
h e had o p p o r t u n i t y t o do s o w h i l e b a b y - s i t t i n g young boys. De-
f e n d a n t d i d admit t o h a v i n g engaged i n homosexual a c t i v i t i e s f o r
o v e r f i v e y e a r s , b u t i n d i c a t e d he had d i s c o n t i n u e d t h i s p r a c t i c e
more t h a n s i x months b e f o r e t h i s i n c i d e n t .
Defendant was c h a r g e d w i t h v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 94-5-505,
R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
l 1 (1) A p e r s o n who knowingly engages i n
d e v i a t e s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s , o r who c a u s e s a n o t h e r
t o engage i n d e v i a t e s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s commits
t h e o f f e n s e of d e v i a t e s e x u a l c o n d u c t .
" ( 3 ) A person convicted of d e v i a t e sexual
c o n d u c t w i t h o u t c o n s e n t s h a l l be imprisoned
* *- *'I*
R e l y i n g p r i m a r i l y on H a r r i s v . S t a t e , ( A l a s . 1 9 6 9 ) , 457 P - 2 d 6381
d e f e n d a n t u r g e s t h e q u o t e d s t a t u t e i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y vague
and ambiguous. I n H a r r i s , t h e Alaska c o u r t was c o n s i d e r i n g a
s t a t u t e which employed t h e t e r m "crime a g a i n s t n a t u r e " . That
c o u r t h e l d , c i t i n g L a n z e t t a v . New J e r s e y , 306 U.S. 451, 59 S.Ct.
618, 8 3 L.Ed. 888, t h a t t h e t e r m was s o vague i t f a i l e d t o g i v e
f a i r warning of t h e a c t s p r o h i b i t e d and t h e r e f o r e it worked a
d e p r i v a t i o n of due p r o c e s s i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amend-
ment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n .
Defendant a l l e g e s t h e Montana s t a t u t e does n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y
e n u n c i a t e t h e p r o h i b i t e d c o n d u c t a n d , l i k e t h e Alaska s t a t u t e , it
must t h e r e f o r e be h e l d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . W e disagree.
The a t t a c k on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e s t a t u t e was
r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time i n d e f e n d a n t ' s supplemental a p p e l l a t e
brief. However, s i n c e t h i s i s a c r i m i n a l c a s e , w e w i l l n o t con-
t e n t o u r s e l v e s w i t h d i s p o s i n g of t h e c h a l l e n g e on t h a t b a s i s a l o n e .
See e . g . S t a t e v . Braden, 163 Mont. 1 2 4 , 515 P.2d 692, 30 St.Rep.
961. The a l l e g a t i o n of vagueness i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e s t a t u t e
i t s e l f when viewed i n t h e c o n t e x t of Montana's c r i m i n a l code.
S e c t i o n 94-2-101, R.C.M. 1947, d e f i n e s t h e t e r m s used i n
t h e s t a t u t e proscribing d e v i a t e sexual conduct. The s p e c i f i c i t y
of those d e f i n i t i o n s avoids a r e s u l t s i m i l a r t o t h a t reached i n
Harris, urged by d e f e n d a n t . In pertinent p a r t , those definitions
provide :
" (14) ' D e v i a t e s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s ' means s e x u a l
c o n t a c t o r s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e between two ( 2 )
p e r s o n s of t h e same s e x , o r any form of s e x u a l
i n t e r c o u r s e with an animal.
" ( 5 5 ) ' S e x u a l c o n t a c t 1 means any t o u c h i n g of
t h e s e x u a l o r o t h e r i n t i m a t e p a r t s of t h e p e r s o n of
a n o t h e r f o r t h e p u r p o s e of a r o u s i n g o r g r a t i f y i n g
t h e s e x u a l d e s i r e of e i t h e r p a r t y .
" ( 5 6 ) ' S e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e ' means p e n e t r a t i o n of
t h e v u l v a , a n u s o r mouth of o n e p e r s o n by t h e p e n i s
of a n o t h e r p e r s o n , o r p e n e t r a t i o n of t h e v u l v a o r
a n u s of one p e r s o n by any body member of a n o t h e r
p e r s o n o r p e n e t r a t i o n o f t h e v u l v a , o r a n u s of o n e
p e r s o n by any f o r e i g n i n s t r u m e n t o r o b j e c t m a n i p u l a t e d
by a n o t h e r p e r s o n f o r t h e p u r p o s e of a r o u s i n g o r
g r a t i f y i n g t h e s e x u a l d e s i r e o f e i t h e r p a r t y . Any
p e n e t r a t i o n , however s l i g h t , i s s u f f i c i e n t .
"(68) 'Without c o n s e n t ' means:
" ( a ) t h e v i c t i m i s compelled t o submit by f o r c e o r
by t h r e a t of imminent d e a t h , b o d i l y i n j u r y , o r
k i d n a p i n g , t o be i n f l i c t e d on anyone * * *."
The t e x t of t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s i s s e t f o r t h c o m p l e t e l y
t o show t h e s p e c i f i c i t y and a b s o l u t e l a c k of vagueness i n t h e
s t a t u t o r y f o r m u l a t i o n of t h e o f f e n s e of d e v i a t e s e x u a l c o n d u c t .
D e f e n d a n t ' s second i s s u e i s a l s o r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t
t i m e on a p p e a l . He o b j e c t s t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n
i n f o r m i n g t h e j u r y of t h e e l e m e n t s of t h e o f f e n s e . The c h a l l e n g e d
p o r t i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 5 r e a d s :
"SECOND: That t h e Defendant d i d s o [performed
t h e a c t ] w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t of [ t h e v i c t i m ] ,
s a i d c o n s e n t h a v i n g been overcome by t h r e a t s o r
p u t t i n g i n f e a r of h i s , [ t h e v i c t i m ' s ] s a f e t y . "
[Bracketed words s u p p l i e d o r s u b s t i t u t e d . ]
Defense r a i s e d no o b j e c t i o n when t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n was o f f e r e d .
T h i s , i n i t s e l f , i s s u f f i c i e n t t o d e f e a t d e f e n d a n t ' s arguments
on a p p e a l . See: S t a t e v . Braden, 163 Mont. 1 2 4 , 515 P.2d 692,
30 St.Rep. 961; S e c t i o n 9 5 - 1 9 1 0 ( d ) , R.C.M. 1947; Rule 2 , M.R.App.
However, a p a r t from t h i s p r o c e d u r a l d e f i c i e n c y we c a n
f i n d no p r e j u d i c e r e s u l t i n g from ;he instruction. It i s t r u e
t h a t , i n a vacuum, t h e i n s t r u c t i o n might be c o n s t r u e d t o i n -
c l u d e f e a r f o r s a f e t y o t h e r t h a n i n t h e s e n s e of d e a t h , b o d i l y
i n j u r y o r kidnapping. An i n s t r u c t i o n u s i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y
l a n g u a g e of s e c t i o n 94-2-101 ( 6 8 ) , R.C.M. 1947, would have been
preferable.
However, under t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , we can f i n d no
o t h e r p l a u s i b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n f o r t h e language of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n .
The t h r e a t made a g a i n s t t h e v i c t i m h e r e c l e a r l y i n v o l v e d h i s
p h y s i c a l well-being. I f t h e j u r y had c o n s i d e r e d t h e meaning
which d e f e n d a n t a t t a c h e s - t o t h e i . n s t r u c t i o n , it would have d i s -
c a r d e d it as u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . F i n d i n g no p r e j u d i c e ,
w e f i n d no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r .
Defendant n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u r y s h o u l d have been
i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y of a c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s i n a s e x
o f f e n s e case s h o u l d be viewed w i t h c a u t i o n , s i n c e t h e c h a r g e i s
e a s i l y made and d i f f i c u l t t o d i s p r o v e . The i n s t r u c t i o n which
d e f e n d a n t proposed i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l t o
t h e one q u o t e d i n S t a t e v . Boe, 143 Mont. 1 4 1 , 148, 388 P.2d 372.
S i m i l a r i n s t r u c t i o n s were p r e s e n t e d i n S t a t e v . S t e v e n s , 119 Mont.
1 6 9 , 172 P.2d 299; S t a t e v . P e t e r s o n , 102 Mont. 495, 59 P.2d 61;
S t a t e v . M i h a l o v i c h , 69 Mont. 579, 222 P . 695; S t a t e v . Gaimos,
53 Mont. 1 1 8 , 1 6 2 P . 596; and S t a t e v. K e e l e r , 52 Mont. 205, 156
P. 1080. These c a s e s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t s u c h i n s t r u c t i o n s may be
given but t h a t , a t l e a s t i n t h e s e c a s e s , it w a s not r e v e r s i b l e
e r r o r t o r e f u s e t o do s o .
Given t h i s a u t h o r i t y i n o u r own j u r i s d i c t i o n , we need
n o t c o n s i d e r t h e C a l i f o r n i a c a s e s c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t i n s u p p o r t
of h i s contention. Under t h e c a s e s c i t e d above, it i s c l e a r
t h a t r e f u s a l t o g i v e s u c h an i n 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 witness. Such causes might include manifest malice,
desire for revenge, or an absence of corroborating evidence
tending to support the facts testified to by the complaining
witness. Apart from the bald assertion that defendant was framed,
we find no facts in the instant record which suggest the necessity
of such an instruction. Defendant's unsubstantiated allegation
is insufficient to make the refusal of the instruction reversible
error.
Defendant's assertion that the district court erred in
refusing to give his proposed instruction on the weight which
should be accorded to testimony of impeached witnesses is equally
unimpressive. The omnibus instruction which was given to the
jury covered all the material points raised by defendant's pro-
posed instruction. The district court alluded to that fact at
the time it refused the offered instruction. Under such circum-
stances, we have previously recognized that the refusal of a
similar instruction was not error, even though the language applied
more directly to the factual situation presented by the case.
State v. Black, 163 Mont. 302, 516 P.2d 1163, 30 St.Rep. 1106.
That reasoning is equally applicable here, particularly when the
scarcity of impeachment evidence is considered.
Defendant's final argument is that the evidence does not
support the verdict. Without further detailing the facts which
were before the jury, we have reviewed the entire record and find
ample, credible evidence upon which the verdict could be grounded.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
Justice
Justices ;
I - 7 -