No. 79-55
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1980
STATE O M N A A
F O T N ,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
TERRANCE ANDREW M A C K I E ,
a/k/a J I M MASON,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth 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 M i s s o u l a .
Honorable James B. W h e e l i s , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
Murray and H o l t , M i s s o u l a , Montana
M a r g a r e t Borg a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , 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
R o b e r t Deschamps 111, County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a ,
Montana
Karen S. Townsend, a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y ,
M i s s o u l a , Montana
Submitted: November 1 4 , 1980
Decided: 2 1 1981
The H o n o r a b l e Gordon R. B e n n e t t , d i s t r i c t j u d g e , s i t t i n g f o r
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C . S h e e h y , d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e
Court.
After trial by jury, d e f e n d a n t was convicted in the
Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Missoula County, o f s e x u a l
intercourse without c o n s e n t and t h e r e u p o n sentenced t o 20
years at Montana State Prison. He appeals both the
c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e . W affirm.
e .
The f o l l o w i n g e r r o r s a r e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t :
1. A d m i t t i n g a p h o t o g r a p h d e p i c t i n g a b r a s i o n s on t h e
v i c t i m ' s back.
2. Allowing three prosecution witnesses to testify
a b o u t c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h e y had w i t h t h e v i c t i m .
3. Refusing to give a special cautionary rape
instruction.
4. U t i l i z i n g a t s e n t e n c i n g p s y c h i a t r i c and p r e s e n t e n c e
investigation reports containing unsubstantiated
information.
There was conflicting evidence regarding the events
which occurred on the evening of August 29, 1977. The
prosecution presented evidence t o prove defendant b r u t a l l y
raped a young Missoula woman that night. The d e f e n d a n t
c l a i m e d t h e woman v o l u n t a r i l y e n g a g e d i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e
w i t h him. The r a p e v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d s h e went f o r a d r i v e
with the defendant, intending t o g o t o a c o f f e e s h o p and
d i s c u s s p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s d e v e l o p i n g b e t w e e n d e f e n d a n t and
h i s g i r l f r i e n d , who was h e r roommate. I n s t e a d of d r i v i n g t o
t h e c o f f e e shop, s h e s a i d defendant drove her t o an i s o l a t e d
area, parked the car, and made sexual advances. She
testified that defendant choked and raped her, when she
resisted the advances. Defendant testified he and the
victim voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse in the
v i c t i m ' s apartment t h a t night. H e admitted t h e y d i d go f o r
a d r i v e b u t i n s i s t e d t h e y m e r e l y d r o v e a r o u n d town.
In h i s f i r s t s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r , defendant claims
the court erred by allowing into evidence a photograph
depicting linear abrasions or scratches appearing on the
v i c t i m ' s back. H e maintains t h e prosecution presented an
insufficient foundation t o properly permit t h e photograph
i n t o evidence. W e disagree. The n u r s e who t o o k t h e p i c t u r e
d u r i n g an examination of t h e v i c t i m immediately following
the incident t e s t i f i e d a s follows:
"Q. Miss S l o a n , t h e o t h e r d a y I showed you a
p i c t u r e which i s marked a s S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t
No. 1; i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. Yes.
"Q. You t o o k t h a t p i c t u r e ? A. Yes, I d i d .
"Q. Why d i d you t a k e t h a t p i c t u r e ? A.
B e c a u s e i t was v i s u a l m a r k i n g s t h a t w e r e
c l e a r l y seen.
"Q. Did [ t h e v i c t i m ] s a y a n y t h i n g t o you
t h a t made you t h i n k t h a t i t was n e c e s s a r y t o
take that picture? A. Yes, s h e d i d r e m a r k
t h a t s h e g o t them [ t h e s c r a t c h e s ] t h a t
e v e n i n g , o r t h a t , you know, a t t h e i n c i d e n t .
"Q. As a result of the alleged incident?
A. Yes . ' I
The l o n g s t a n d i n g r u l e i n Montana i s t h a t a p h o t o g r a p h
is admissible if it "fairly and accurately represents
r e l e v a n t evidence." S t a t e v. Jones ( 1 9 1 4 ) , 48 Mont. 505,
1 3 9 P. 441. 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 c o u r t
t o allow i n t o evidence duly v e r i f i e d photographs t o a i d t h e
jury i n its fact-finding process. F u l t o n v. Chouteau County
F a r m e r s ' Co. ( 1 9 3 4 ) , 98 Mont. 48, 37 P.2d 1025. T h i s photo-
graph, suggesting t h a t f o r c e was u s e d b y d e f e n d a n t d u r i n g
t h e i n c i d e n t , was h i g h l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e o f c o n s e n t .
It tended to corroborate the victim's account of the
incident. I t was o f s u c h p o o r q u a l i t y t h a t i t c o u l d n o t b e
considered inflammatory. In fact, it was of such poor
q u a l i t y t h a t it c o u l d n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d p r e j u d i c i a l e v e n i f
i t was i n a d m i s s i b l e .
Defendant n e x t contends a p o r t i o n of t h e testimony of
t h r e e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s was i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y . These
witnesses, two friends of the defendant and a rape
c o u n s e l o r , met w i t h t h e v i c t i m t h e m o r n i n g a f t e r t h e rape
incident. Each w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h e v i c t i m a p p e a r e d t o b e
frightened and disoriented. Over defense counsel's
o b j e c t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y was g i v e n :
F i r s t witness:
"(2. Did s h e [ t h e v i c t i m ] s a y a n y t h i n g
specifically in t h i s ride: A. Just rattling
o n , s a y i n g , ' G e t me o u t o f h e r e . The s o n o f
a bitch. G e t m e . .' .
"Q. I ' m sorry.
I ' m sorry.
I
'Son o f
c a n ' t h e a r you.
a bitch.
..
Get m e o u t of
A.
here. I have t o g e t out of here. Go
f a s t e r . ' You know, b e c a u s e I was d r i v i n g t h e
Volkswagon .. .
"Q. Did .S h.e t.o l d t hhee r ,v i youm ]know, y t ha n y t hhi n g
[ cti sa
a t t ey
else? A.
--
"Q. What d i d s h e s a y ... A. She s a i d s h e
was s c a r e d ; s h e c o u l d n ' t t a l k t o L i z b e c a u s e
s h e was a c o p . T h a t s h e was--I don't
remember what e l s e . S h e was j u s t r a t t l i n g
o n , j u s t l i k e s h e was b e f o r e .
Second w i t n e s s :
"Q. What d i d [ t h e v i c t i m ] s a y t o you? A.
S h e s a i d , 'Oh, my God. '
"Objection ...
"Overruled ...
"Q. Go a h e a d , you may-- A. She s a i d , 'Why
is God d o i n g this t o m e . '
Rape c o u n s e l o r :
"Q. . . . would you p l e a s e t e l l t h e j u r y
w h a t [ t h e v i c t i m ] t o l d you a b o u t a n y k i n d o f
p h y s i c a l force--
"Objection ...
"Overruled ...
"Q. You may a n s w e r . A. Okay, [ s h e ] t o l d me
t h a t he choked h e r s o much t h a t s h e thought
s h e m i g h t b l a c k o u t , and t h a t h e u s e d a very
t h r e a t e n i n g v o i c e and u s e d v e r b a l threats
towards her."
Both p a r t i e s b e l i e v e t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of these state-
m e n t s i s g o v e r n e d by R u l e 803 ( 2 ) , Mont.R.Evid., the excited
u t t e r a n c e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e h e a r s a y r u l e , which p r o v i d e s :
"The f o l l o w i n g a r e n o t e x c l u d e d by t h e h e a r s a y
r u l e , even though t h e d e c l a r a n t is a v a i l a b l e
a s a witness: ... ( 2 ) Excited utterance. A
statement relating t o a s t a r t l i n g event or
c o n d i t i o n made w h i l e t h e d e c l a r a n t was u n d e r
t h e s t r e s s o f e x c i t e m e n t c a u s e d by t h e e v e n t
or condition. "
Both prosecution and defense agree the alleged rape
would be s u f f i c i e n t l y s t a r t l i n g t o c a u s e t h e v i c t i m t o make
excited utterances. They disagree as to whether the
s t a t e m e n t s h e r e w e r e made " u n d e r t h e s t r e s s o f e x c i t e m e n t "
caused by the rape, thereby qualifying as excited
utterances. The defense contends these statements are
i n a d m i s s i b l e b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e made up t o f o u r h o u r s a f t e r
the alleged rape incident. The prosecution rebuts
defendant's a r g u m e n t by showing t h a t t h e r a p e v i c t i m h e r e
was s u f f e r i n g f r o m " r a p e t r a u m a s y n d r o m e " , a m e d i c a l term
for t.he disorientation and shock experienced by rape
victims following a rape assault. These arguments a r e n o t
germane as the testimony included above d o e s n o t contain
h e a r s a y u n d e r t h e Montana R u l e s of E v i d e n c e .
The f i r s t two w i t n e s s e s ' s t a t e m e n t s do n o t f i t w i t h i n
our definition of a hearsay statement. Rule 801(c),
Mont.R.Evid. defines hearsay a s follows:
"Hearsay. Hearsay is a s t a t e m e n t , o t h e r than
o n e made by t h e d e c l a r a n t t e s t i f y i n g a t t h e
t r i a l or hearing, o f f e r e d i n evidence t o prove
- e t r u t h of t h e m a t t e r a s s e r t e d . "
th (Emphasis
added. )
Clearly, t h e s t a t e m e n t s made by t h e f i r s t two w i t n e s s e s were
not offered to prove the truth of the assertions made
therein. W h i l e t h e y d o t e n d t o show t h a t t h e v i c t i m was i n
a high s t a t e of a n x i e t y and, p o s s i b l y , confusion, t h e pro-
s e c u t i o n was obviously not presenting them to prove the
l i n e a g e of t h e defendant o r anything about t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
between the victim and the deity. The exclamations
themselves c a n n o t p o s s i b l y be viewed a s probative of any
element of the crime. The objections t o the witnesses
r e c o u n t i n g them w e r e p r o p e r l y o v e r r u l e d .
The t h i r d s t a t e m e n t , a l t h o u g h h e a r s a y a s d e f i n e d by R u l e
8 0 1 ( c ) , is a d m i s s i b l e a s a n o n h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t u n d e r R u l e
"(d) S t a t e m e n t s which a r e n o t hearsay. A
s t a t e m e n t is n o t h e a r s a y i f :
"(1) P r i o r S t a t e m e n t by w i t n e s s . The
declarant t e s t i f i e s a t the t r i a l or hearing
and is s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n s
t h e s t a t e m e n t , and t h e s t a t e m e n t i s ... ( ~ j
s o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s t e s t i m o n y- i s o f f e r e d
a n-
d
-o r e b u t a n e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d c h a r q e a g a i n s t
t
him of s u b s e q u e n t f -b- i c a t i o n ,
a- r -
-- improper
influence or motive . . ." (Emphasis added.)
The d e f e n d a n t insisted throughout that the sexual inter-
course that o c c u r r e d w i t h t h e v i c t i m was c o n s e n s u a l . In
order t o prove l a c k of consent, the prosecution called the
victim to testify. Upon direct examination the victim
t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t had c h o k e d h e r t o f o r c e h e r t o e n g a g e i n
intercourse. D e f e n s e c o u n s e l on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n a t t e m p t e d
to impeach h e r by a s k i n g h e r to e x p l a i n why s h e d i d not
r e p o r t t h i s c h o k i n g t o t h e d o c t o r who e x a m i n e d h e r a f t e r t h e
rape incident. A f t e r f i v e more w i t n e s s e s were c a l l e d by t h e
p r o s e c u t i o n , t h e r a p e c o u n s e l o r was c a l l e d and s h e r e c o u n t e d
t h e purported hearsay regarding t h e v i c t i m ' s statement about
the choking. These circumstances clearly qualify the
c o u n s e l o r ' s testimony a s nonhearsay under Rule 8 0 1 ( d ) ( l ) ( B ) ,
supra. The q u o t e d d e c l a r a n t ( r a p e v i c t i m ) t e s t i f i e d a t t h e
trial, s h e was s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n concerning her
statement, the counselor's statement is c o n s i s t e n t with t h e
victim's testimony, and it rebuts an implied charge of
fabrication.
The hearsay rule is intended to insure that only
r e l i a b l e evidence of out-of-court d e c l a r a t i o n s is p r e s e n t e d
t o a jury. T e s t i m o n i a l e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l may b e
t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y by r e q u i r i n g t h e w i t n e s s o f f e r i n g t h e
testimony to testify under oath, subject to cross-
examination. Hearsay e v i d e n c e , by d e f i n i t i o n , is evidence
t h a t c a n n o t be t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h i s manner. See
Commission Comment, Rule 801, Mont .R.Evid. Unless the
h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e c a n b e shown t o h a v e some c i r c u m s t a n t i a l
guaranty of t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s , i t s a d m i s s i o n is b a r r e d . See
Commission Comment, Rule 803 and 804, Mont.R.Evid. Prior
c o n s i s t e n t statements a r e defined a s nonhearsay s t a t e m e n t s
because the reliability of the statement is subject to
adversarial testing. The r u l e p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e d e c l a r e r o f
the prior s t a t e m e n t m u s t b e p r e s e n t and s u b j e c t t o c r o s s -
examination concerning t h e statement before another witness
may h e p e r m i t t e d t o r e p e a t t h e d e c l a r a n t ' s p r e v i o u s l y made
statement. The p r i o r c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t i s a d m i s s i b l e a s
e v i d e n c e o n l y when it i s n e c e s s a r y t o redeem t h e c r e d i b i l i t y
of the declarant, p r e v i o u s l y b r o u g h t i n t o q u e s t i o n by t h e
opponent. Under R u l e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( l ) ( B ) , t h e o p p o n e n t " o p e n s t h e
door'' to the admission of prior consistent s t a t e m e n t s by
attempting to discredit the declarant by claiming
fabrication. See, Advisory Committee N o t e , Rule 8Ol(d),
Fed.R.Evid. That i s e x a c t l y w h a t was done h e r e and the
c o u r t was t h e r e f o r e c o r r e c t i n o v e r r u l i n g t h e o b j e c t i o n t o
t h e recounting of t h e v i c t i m ' s p r i o r c o n s i s t e n t statement.
Defendant c l a i m s t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e an
i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r y t h a t " t h e a c c u s a t i o n of r a p e ...
i s e a s y t o make, b u t h a r d t o d e f e n d a g a i n s t , " a n i n s t r u c t i o n
s i m i l a r t o one a p p r o v e d i n S t a t e v . Smith ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont .
, 609 P.2d 6 9 6 , 37 S t . R e p . 583. S m i t h was d e c i d e d a f t e r
the time the instruction was refused in this case. The
facts here, however, do not justify the use of this
instruction. A s t h i s Court held i n S t a t e v. Pecora ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,
Mont. , 619 P.2d 173, 37 S t . R e p . 1742, t h e Smith
i n s t r u c t i o n is applicable only i f the evidence presented a t
t r i a l shows: (1) p e r s o n a l e n m i t y e x i s t e d b e t w e e n t h e v i c t i m
and the defendant, and ( 2 ) corroborating evidence of the
v i c t i m ' s account of t h e rape i n c i d e n t does n o t e x i s t . The
record in this case is significantly different than the
record i n Smith. No e v i d e n c e o f m a n i f e s t m a l i c e o r m o t i v e
for revenge between the victim and the defendant was
presented during the t r ia.1. Further, a good deal of
corroborating e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g t h e t r i a l ,
including the testimony of the victim's friends and the
p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e of the victim's i n j ury. The i n s t r u c t i o n
was p r o p e r l y r e f u s e d .
The f i n a l q u e s t i o n h a s t o do w i t h t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e
sentencing procedure. Following conviction, defendant
requested the c o u r t t o order t h a t a p s y c h i a t r i c examination
and evaluation report be prepared for the court's
consideration i n sentencing. H e s p e c i f i c a l l y requested t h a t
Dr. Noel H o e l l p r e p a r e t h e r e p o r t . The c o u r t a c c e d e d t o t h e
request. Dr. H o e l l s u b m i t t e d h i s r e p o r t t o t h e c o u r t a f t e r
p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s w i t h d e f e n d a n t and a r e v i e w o f m a t e r i a l s
s u b m i t t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h e M i s s o u l a c o u n t y a t t o r n e y .
The p s y c h i a t r i c r e p o r t t u r n e d o u t t o be u n f a v o r a b l e t o
defendant's argument for a light prison sentence. It
s t r e s s e d d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e v i o u s r a p e c h a r g e s and d e s c r i b e d him
a s a l i a r and a m a n i p u l a t o r . I t was u s e d n o t o n l y by t h e
c o u r t b u t by a p a r o l e and p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r i n p r e p a r i n g t h e
presentence investigation.
D e f e n d a n t m a i n t a i n s t h e p s y c h i a t r i c r e p o r t was " t a i n t e d "
by the materials provided to Dr. Hoe11 by the county
attorney's office. These m a t e r i a l s i n c l u d e d r e f e r e n c e s t o
defendant's criminal record. H c l a i m s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was
e
misleading and contained innuendo and conjecture.
Specifically, defendant contends t h a t statements of alleged
rape v i c t i m s made in connection with previous similar
c h a r g e s , on w h i c h d e f e n d a n t was a c q u i t t e d , w e r e i n c l u d e d i n
the materials and thus unfairly influenced the
psychiatrist's findings. He c o n t e n d s the court's use of
t h i s "tainted" psychiatric report violates the rule that a
convicted defendant has a due process guarantee a g a i n s t t h e
imposition of a sentence predicated on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n .
S t a t e v. O r s b o r n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 4 8 0 , 555 P.2d 509.
The entire record demonstrates defendant was clearly
accorded sentencing due process, and that the rule in
Orsborn, s u p r a , was n o t v i o l a t e d . He r e c e i v e d a c o p y o f
b o t h t h e p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n and t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t
i n time t o p r e p a r e f o r the sentencing hearing. The c o u r t
was f u l l y i n f o r m e d o f h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t a p o r t i o n o f t h e
r e p o r t was " t a i n t e d . " H e was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l and was
allowed t o p r e s e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e t a i n t a l l e g a t i o n
and t o r e b u t t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o n c l u s i o n s and t h e p r e s e n t e n c e
report. There was, then, fully sufficient procedural
p r o t e c t i o n t o r e a s o n a b l y a s s u r e t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e was n o t
b a s e d on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n . S e e , S t a t e v . H i g l e y (No. 80-142,
Decided 12/17/80, 37 St.Rep. 1942). T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n
that the s e n t e n c e was, in fact, based on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n .
Cross-examination of a l l t h o s e c o n t r i b u t i n g t o a presentence
r e p o r t r e s t s i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Section
46-18-113, MCA. W f i n d no a b u s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n h e r e .
e
The j u d g m e n t and s e n t e n c e a r e t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m e d .
Hon. Gordon R. B e n n e t t ,
D i s t r i c t Judge, S i t t i n g
i n f o r Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C .
Sheehy
W e Concur:
Chief J u s t i c e
case
Thisfwas s u b m i t t e d p r i o r t o J a n u a r y 5, 1981.