Case Title: STATE v DICKENS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-412

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 81-412 I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1982 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- MICHAEL A L A N DICKENS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth 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 Cascade, The Honorable John M. McCarvel, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Michael S. Smartt, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent : Bon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : March 5, 1982 Decided: June 24, 1982 F i l e d : JUN 2 4 1982 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion o t t h e Court. Michael Alan Dickens ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d to a s a p p e l l a n t ) was charged b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l District of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of Cascade, w i t h t h e crime of aggravated kidnap- ping, a f e l o n y , and 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 , a f e l o n y . A j u r y t r i a l was h e l d on A p r l l 28, 1981, and a f t e r f o u r days of t r i a l , t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d g u i l t y v e r d i c t s on both c o u n t s . On June 3 , 1981, t h e c o u r t sentenced a p p e l l a n t t o twenty y e a r s f o r t h e crime 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 ; f o r t h e use of a dangerous weapon, he was g i v e n an a d d i t i o n a l ( c o n s e c u t i v e ) t e n y e a r s ; and, f o r t h e crime o f aggravated kidnapping, he was sentenced t o t h i r t y y e a r s ( t o be served c o n c u r r e n t l y ) of con£ inement i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . Appellant was found t o be a nondangerous o f f e n d e r f o r p a r o l e e l i g i b i l i t y purposes. A p p e l l a n t ' s motlon f o r a new t r i a l was d e n i e d , and t h l s a p p e a l followed. On New Y e a r ' s Eve, 1980, t h e v i c t i m , according t o h e r testimony, was abducted a t k n i f e p o i n t from a c i t y s t r e e t i n Great F a l l s , Montana, and f o r c e d i n t o a p p e l l a n t ' s v e h i c l e . She was t h e n taken to an a r e a n e a r Giant S p r i n g s where t h e a p p e l l a n t f o r c e d h e r , a t k n i f e p o i n t , t o engage In v a r i o u s s e x u a l a c t s i n c l u d i n g s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e . A f t e r t h e a c t s had been completed, he p u l l e d h e r from t h e v e h i c l e and gave h e r a c h o i c e of e i t h e r being k n i f e d or thrown over t h e nearby c l l f f s i n t o t h e r i v e r . A s t r u g g l e ensued, and t h e v l c t i m managed t o escape t h e a p p e l l a n t by k i c k i n g him i n t h e g r o i n . 'Though naked e x c e p t f o r h e r s o c k s , she managed t o make h e r way t o Malmstroin A i r Force Base about two miles away. Soon t h e r e a f t e r , she was rescued by base s e c u r i t y p e r s o n n e l . The sheriff's department was n o t i f i e d , and t h e v l c t i m was t a k e n t o a l o c a l h o s p i t a l f o r t r e a t m e n t . A t t h e h o s p i t a l she was examined by a D r . Miller, who d i s c o v e r e d , and l a t e r t e s t i f i e d , t h a t t h e r e was m o t i l semen i n h e r vagina and an a b r a s i o n on t h e l a b i a l a r e a of h e r v a g i n a l opening. Within s e v e r a l d a y s t h e v i c t i m had i d e n t i f i e d t h e a p p e l l a n t from a photograph and a t an informal l i n e u p iden- t l f l c a t l o n . I n c o n t r a s t , t h e a p p e l l a n t t e s t i f l e d t h a t he picked up t h e v i c t i m who was h i t c h h i k i n g . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e made advances towards him and suggested t h e y go t o G i a n t S p r i n g s " t o b r i n g i n t h e New Year." A p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y went t o G l a n t S p r i n g s , parked, g o t i n t h e b a c k s e a t of h i s c a r and had a s e x u a l e n c o u n t e r , i n c l u d i n g s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e . T h e r e a f t e r , a c c o r d i n g t o a p p e l l a n t ' s t e s t i - mony, t h e v i c t i m became u p s e t , g o t o u t of t h e c a r and r a n o f f . A p p e l l a n t test i f i e d t h a t h e r conduct angered him and t h a t a f t e r w a i t i n g a s h o r t time he drove o f f . The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d numerous w i t n e s s e s who t e s t i f i e d about c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e i n c i d e n t . The m o s t damaging t e s t i m o n y t o a p p e l l a n t ' s d e f e n s e was t h e testimony of h i s roommate and t h e medical testimony of D r . Mlller. The a p p e l l a n t ' s roommate t e s t i f i e d t h a t on t h e d a t e f o l l o w i n g t h e a t t a c k t h e a p p e l l a n t s t a t e d he had abducted a woman t h e n i g h t b e f o r e , had t a k e n h e r t o Giant S p r i n g s and had t h r e a t e n e d t o r a p e h e r o r throw h e r over t h e c l i f f s . D r . M i l l e r , a s p e c i a l i s t i n o b s t e t r i c s and gynecology, who a l s o had done approximately f i f t - y examinations o f r a p e v i c t i m s o v e r a ten-year p e r i o d , was allowed to t e s t i f y t h a t from h i s c l i n i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s , t h e v i c t i m had been raped. Appellant r a i s e s numerous i s s u e s o f e r r o r on a p p e a l and t h e s e can be summarized a s f o l l o w s : 1. Was t h e a p p e l l a n t . d e n i e d h i s r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l ? 2. Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t j u r y misconduct p r e s e n t to warrant. a r e v e r s a l ? 3. Was t h e t r i a l c o u r t committing r e v e r s i b l e error when it allowed t h e p h y s i c i a n t o v o i c e afi o p i n i o n a s t.o t h e u l t i m a t e i s s u e ? 4. Was t h e a p p e l l a n t d e n i e d a f a i r t r i a l because t h e S t a t e r e f used to s t i p u l a t - e ? Appellant. c o n t e n d s t h a t he was d e n i e d h i s r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l because t h e t r i a l c o u r t made an improper comment o n t h e e v i d e n c e ; impaired t h e cross-examination o f a key p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s ; d i s p l a y e d a nonj u d i c i a l a t t i t u d e toward d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ; and, improperly r e s t - r i c t e d t h e l e n g t h o f c l o s i n g argument. These c o n t e n t i o n s a r e n o t supported by t h e r e c o r d o r by t h e law. The a l l e g e d improper comments by t h e t r i a l c o u r t occurred when, d u r i n g d i r e c t examinat-ion of one of appel- l a n t ' s w i t n e s s e s , t h e c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t , " a l l t h i s l i n e o f testimony is i r r e l e v a n t , " and, " [i] t.'s about time" when t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o b j e c t e d . F i r s t . , t h e r e is no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d of t h e c o u r t e v e r s t a t i n g , " [ i ] t ' s a b o u t t i m e . " Counsel r e f e r s t o a page i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t where t h e remark is a l l e g e d to have o c c u r r e d , but it is c o u n s e l ' s own remark. Second, when t h e c o u r t s t a t - e d , " a l l t h i s l i n e of t.estimony is i r r e l e v a n t , " i t was r u l i n g on a l i n e of test-imony t h a t w a s indeed i r r e l e v a n t . A p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l was a s k i n g a w i t n e s s , t h a t had had s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h a p p e l l a n t i n t h e p a s t , w h e t h e r o t h e r women became u p s e t w i t h a p p e l l a n t . because he f a i l e d t.o c a r r y on r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h them. T h i s was c l e a r l y an improper l i n e of q u e s t i o n i n g . Rule 402, Mont . R. Evid. ; Rule 602, Mont. R. Evid. F u r t h e r , t h e "comment" was h a r m l e s s e r r o r and d o e s n o t p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t grounds f o r a r e v e r s a l . S t a t - e v. B i e r ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont . , 591 - P.2d 1115, 36 St.Kep. 466; S t a t e v. LaMere ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. , 621 P.2d 462, 37 St.Rep. 1936. - A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c o u r t impaired t h e c r o s s - examination of a key p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s by i n t e r r u p t . i n g c o u n s e l on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s . A review of t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e " i n t - e r r u p t i o n s " were merely a c t - i o n s by t h e t r i a l c o u r t to keep t-he t-rial running smoot.hly and t o pre- v e n t c o u n s e l from engaging i n frequent. s o j o u r n s i n t o s i d e i s s u e s . The c o u r t h a s a d u t y t o conduct t.he t r i a l i n a speedy and f a i r manner and h a s a g r e a t amount of d i s c r e t - i o n i n s o d o i n g . S t a t e v. LaMere, s u p r a ; S t a t e v. P i p p i ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 59 Mont.. 116, 123, 195 P. 556, 558-559. I t is argued by a p p e l l a n t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i s - played a n o n j u d i c i a l a t t i t u d e toward d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . T h i s a t t i t u d e is a l l e g e d t.o have d i s p l a y e d i t s e l f d u r i n g s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s , beginning w i t h v o i r d i r e and ending w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t o r e t u r n t o t h e d e f e n s e t a b l e d u r i n g examination of t h e a p p e l l a n t . Again, t h e r e c o r d does n o t support. t h e c o n t e n t i o n s . It. w a s s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. Cassil ( 1 9 2 4 ) , 70 Mont. " I t w i l l n o t s e r v e any u s e f u l purpose t o e n t e r i n t o a p a r t i c u l a r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s e a l l e g e d e r r o r s . I n view o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n reached w i t h r e s p e c t t h e r e t o , o f t h e c o r r e c t - n e s s of which we have no d o u b t whatever, w e s h a l l c o n t e n t o u r s e l v e s w i t h s a y i n g t h a t w h i l e we d o n o t approve of any o f t h e com- ments o r remarks made by t h e judge, which a r e complained o f , w e d o n o t f i n d t h a t any o f them, or a l l o f them c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r , worked p r e j u d i c e t o any s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , o r probably could have done S O . " Here, a s i n C a s s i l , t h e r e e x i s t s no b a s i s f o r c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e r i g h t of a p p e l l a n t t o a f a i r t r i a l was i n any way denied o r impeded by t h e a c t i o n o f t h e t - r i a l c o u r t . See a l s o : St.at.e v. McKenzie ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 608 P.2d 4 2 8 , 458, 37 St.Rep. 325; S t a t - e v. Metcalf ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153 Mont.. 369, 376-377, 457 P.2d 453; S t a t e v. P o k i n i (Haw. 1 9 7 4 ) , 526 A p p e l l a n t a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l w a s a f f e c t e d when t h e c o u r t l i m i t e d t h e t i m e f o r h i s c l o s i n g argument t o one-half hour. While it is t r u e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t infonned d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h a t he would o n l y a l l o w t h i r t y minutes t o conclude h i s c l o s i n g argument, i t is a l s o t r u e t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l had a l r e a d y been t-alking f o r one hour and seven minutes. The t r i a l court. d i d n o t abuse its d i s c r e t i o n by l i m i t i n g c o u n s e l t o a c l o s i n g argument t h a t was one hour and t h i r t y - s e v e n m i n u t e s long. S t a t e v. LaMere , s u p r a . The s e c o n d m a j o r i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t c o n c e r n s c e r t a i n a l l e g a t i o n s of j ury misconduct. T h i s a l i e g e d misconduct o c c u r r e d i n two forms: f i r s t , t h e r e was a p o s s i b i l i t - y t h a t s e v e r a l j u r o r s may have b r i e f l y conversed w i t h p r o s e c u t i o n wit-nesses; second, t h e b a i l i f f ' s s t a t e m e n t s t o t h e j u r o r s . A review of t h e r e c o r d and a p p l i c a b l e c a s e law r e v e a l s t h a t no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r took p l a c e . The f i r s t i n s t a n c e o f a l l e g e d misconduct took p l a c e , according t o t-he a p p e l l a n t . , d u r i n g t.he t . r i a l when s e v e r a l members of t h e j u r y were s e e n , by s e v e r a l of a p p e l l a n t ' s w i t n e s s e s , f a c i n g some of t h e p r o s e c u t i o r , ' ~ w i t n e s s e s and moving t h e i r mouths. It is not c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d whether any c o n v e r s a t i o n was a c t - u a l l y h e a r d , b u t t h e appel- l a n t . ' ~ w i t n e s s e s d i d t e s t i f y d u r i n g t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l t h a t it "appeared" some communication took p l a c e . I f t h e r e had i n d e e d b e e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n s o f a n improper n a t u r e between s e v e r a l of t h e j u r o r s and some o f t.he p r o s e c u t i o n ' s w i t n e s s e s d u r i n g t h e t . r i a l , d e f e n s e counsel had an o b l i g a t i o n a t t h a t t i m e t o inform t h e c o u r t of t h e m a t t e r . D i s c i p l i n a r y Rule 7-108(F), Montana Code of P r o f e s s i o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y . F u r t h e r , t h i s type of communi- c a t i o n , a p o s s i b i l i t y a t b e s t , is n o t s u f f i c i e n t r e v e r s i b l e error. In Turner v. Louisiana ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 379 U . S . 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 1 3 L.Ed.2d 424, a c a s e c i t e d a s c o n t r o l l i n g on t h i s i s s u e by a p p e l l a n t , t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court h e l d t h a t a v e r d i c t can be r e v e r s e d i f it can be shown t h a t communications of a dubious nat-ure t a k e s p l a c e between prosecut-ion w i t n e s s e s and j u r o r s . A review of t h e f a c t s i n Turner r e v e a l s t h a t what c o n s i s t e d of r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r t h e r e is a f a r c r y from what. t r a n s p i r e d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . I n Turfier, t h e t.wo key p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s were deputy s h e r i f f s who were a l s o i n charge of t h e j u r o r s . The Court noted : ". . . W e d e a l h e r e n o t w i t h a b r i e f encounter, but w i t h a continuous and i n t i m a t e a s s o c i a t i o n throughout a three-day t r i a l - - a n a s s o c i a t i o n which gave t h e s e w i t n e s s e s an o p p o r t u n i t y , a s Simmons ( o n e o f t h e d e p u t - i e s ) put. it, t o renew o l d f r i e n d s h i p s and make new a c q u a i n t a n c e s among t h e members o f t h e j u r y . " 85 St.Ct.. a t 550. There is a d i s t i n c t i o n drawn by t.he United S t a t - e s Supreme Court between a " b r i e f encounter" and an " i n t i m a t e a s s o c i a t i o n " and t h a t d i s t i n c t i o n is a p p l i c a b l e h e r e . A t b e s t , t h e record r e f l e c t s some innocuous t-ype of conversa- t i o n . A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t inform t h e c o u r t when t h e i n s t a n c e s took p l a c e and d i d n o t complain u n t i l t h e v e r d i c t was e n t e r e d ; n o r was t h e r e any a t ~ t e m p t t o submit a f f i d a v i t s from j u r o r s . There was, q u i t e simply, not. enough evidence pre- s e n t e d by a p p e l l a n t to w a r r a n t a new t - r i a l . C h a r l i e v. Foos ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 403, 503 P.2d 538. The second o c c u r r e n c e o f a l l e g e d misconduct t r a n s - p i r e d when t h e b a i l i f f informed t h e j u r y t h a t he was having some problems f i n d i n g t-hem a p l a c e t o s t a y o v e r n i g h t . How- e v e r , t-he r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e b a i l i f f informed t h e j u r o r s s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r t h a t he had procured them rooms. Also, t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e j u r o r s informed t h e b a i l i f f t h a t d e s p i t e t h e hour, i t was a f t e r 1:00 a.m., t h e y d i d n o t want t o b r e a k b u t i n s t e a d wanted to c o n t i n u e d e l i b e r a t i n g . I t cannot. be s e e n where any t y p e o f p r e j u d i c e r e s u l t e d t o t h e a p p e l l a n t from t h e b a i l i f f ' s conduct. I t is f u r t h e r contended by t h e a p p e l l a n t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r when i t allowed t h e p h y s i c i a n t o t e s t i f y a s t o t h e u l t i m a t e i s s u e . The testi- mony i n q u e s t i o n was a s follows: "(2. [ P r o s e c u t i o n ] Did you perform any t y p e of c l i n i c a l impression of t h i s womac? A. [ P h y s i c i a n ] M y o v e r a l l impression was t h a t she was raped." A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h i s t e s t i m o n y is i n a d m i s s i b l e because it g o e s to t h e u l t i m a t e i s s u e o f whether o r n o t t h e prosecu- t r i x was raped and is, t h e r e f o r e , i n v i o l a t i o n of Rules 702, 704 and 705, Mont.R.Evid. T h i s Court reviewed a s i m i l a r i s s u e i n a r e c e n t case. In S t a t e v. Howard ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 637 P.2d 15, 38 St.Rep. 1980, w e h e l d : "Under Rule 704 t h e t e s t i m o n y must b e ' o t h e r - wise a d m i s s i b l e . ' The a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y is governed by Rule 702, Montana R u l e s of Evidence: " ' I f s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n i c a l , o r o t h e r spe- c i a l i z e d knowledge w i l l assist t h e trier o f f a c t to understand t h e e v i d e n c e o r to d e t e r - mine a f a c t i n i s s u e , a w i t n e s s q u a l i f i e d as an e x p e r t by knowledge, s k i l l , e x p e r i e n c e , t r a i n i n g , o r e d u c a t i o n may t e s t i f y t h e r e t o i n t h e form of a n o p i n i o n o r o t h e r w i s e . ' "According t o t h i s r u l e , D r . E l l i o t t w a s c l e a r l y q u a l i f i e d to t e s t i f y as t o t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t of t h e v i c t i m ' s i n j u r i e s . Whether he could t-hen e x t r a p o l a t e from t h i s d a t a and g i v e an o p i n i o n is determined by whether t h e o p i n i o n would a s s i s t t h e t-rier o f f a c t . S t a t e d a n o t h e r way, t h e t e s t is: I1 I . . . whether t h e s u b j e c t . is one of such common knowledge t h a t men of o r d i n a r y educa- t i o n c o u l d r e a c h a c o n c l u s i o n as i n t e l l i - g e n t l y a s t h e w i t n e s s , or whether t h e m a t t e r is s u f f i c i e n t l y beyond common e x p e r i e n c e that. t h e o p i n i o n o f a n e x p e r t would assist t h e trier of f a c t . ' S t a t e v. Campbell ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 251, 258, 405 P.2d 978, 983. "Dr. E l l i o t t i n f e r r e d from t h e n a t u r e of t h e i n j u r i e s t h a t t h e p e r s o n who i n f l i c t e d them d i d s o w i t h an i n t e n t . t o murder. W e f i n d that. under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s case, t h e j u r y was as q u a l i f i e d a s t h e d o c t o r t o draw an i n f e r e n c e from t h e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a s t o i n t e n t , and t h e r e f o r e t h e d o c t o r ' s o p i n i o n on i n t e n t w a s i n a d m i s s i b l e under Rule 702, Mont.ana Rules o f Evidence. "We f u r t h e r f i n d t h a t , f o r a number o f r e a - s o n s , t h e e r r o r was h a r m l e s s under both t h e Montana and t h e f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l tests. Montana s t a t u t e s p r o v i d e t h a t no c a u s e o f a c t i o n s h a l l be r e v e r s e d by r e a s o n of any e r r o r committed by t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e e r r o r was p r e j u d i c i a l , s e c t i o n 46-20-701, MCA; and t h a t any e r r o r w h i c h d o e s n o t a f f e c t s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s s h a l l be d i s r e g a r d e d , s e c t i o n 46-20-702, MCA. The f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l test f o r h a r m l e s s e r r o r is whether t h e r e is a r e a s o n a b l e p o s s i - b i l i t y t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e complained of might have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e c o n v i c t i o n , Fahy v . C o n n e c t i c u t ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 375 U.S. 85, 84 S.Ct. 229, 1 1 L.Ed.2d 171; or whether t h e review- i n g c o u r t c a n d e c l a r e a b e l i e f t h a t t h e e r r o r was h a r m l e s s beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . Chapman v. C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 386 U . S . 1 8 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 1 7 L.Ed.2d 705." 637 P.2d a t 17-18. The c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h i s c a s e are indeed q u i t e similar to t h o s e p r e s e n t e d i n Howard, w i t h one i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e . The p h y s i c i a n i n Howard was asked t o g i v e an o p i n i o n as t o t h e i n t e n t . o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . Here, t h e p h y s i c i a n was merely asked t o g i v e h i s " c l i n i c a l impression" of t h e v i c t i m based upon h i s e x p e r i e n c e as a s p e c i a l i s t i n o b s t e t - r i c s , gynecology and a s a n e x p e r t t h a t h a s done ap- p r o x i m a t e l y f i f t y e x a m i n a t i o n s of r a p e v i c t i m s . There is a d e f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e c o n t e n t o f t.he testimony. I n t h i s c a s e , i n t e n t was n o t part. of t h e q u e s t i o n , so t h e phy- s i c i a n could p r o p e r l y t e s t i f y a s to h i s c l i n i c a l i m p r e s s i o n and g i v e an o p i n i o n based upon h i s v a r i e d e x p e r i e ~ c e and f irst-hand o b s e r v a t i o n . F u r t h e r , as i n Howard, t h e t e s t i m o n y was n o t p r e j u d i c i a l and was t h e r e f o r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t . t o c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . The f i n a l content-ion o f t h e a p p e l l a n t i s t h a t he w a s denied a f a i r t r i a l because t h e p r o s e c u t i o n r e f u s e d to s t i p u l a t e , and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e w a s an improper admission of p r e j u d i c i a l evidence. He c o n t e n d s t h a t because h e a d m i t t e d t.o numerous f a c t s t h e p r o s e c u t i o n was b a r r e d from p r e s e n t i n g any e v i d e n c e concerning t h o s e admi tt.ed f a c t s . The p r o s e c u t i o n was under no d u t y t o s t i p u l a t e , and no e r r o r r e s u l t e d from its r e f u s a l t o do so. S t a t e v. A d l e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 16 Wash.App. 459, 558 P.2d 817, 821. I n S t a t e v . Wilson ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 215 Kan. 28, 523 P.2d 337, t h e Kansas Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d : ". . . i t is a n e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e of l a w t h a t an a d m i s s i o n by a d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t p r e v e n t t h e s t a t e from p r e s e n t i n g s e p a r a t e and i n d e - p e n d e n t p r o o f o f t h e f a c t a d m i t t e d . ( B i z u p v. P e o p l e , 150 C o l o . 214, 371 P.2d 786, c e r t . den. 371 U.S. 873, 83 S.Ct. 1 1 4 , 9 L.Ed.2d 112; and P a r r v. United S t a t e s [ 5 t h C i r . 19581, 255 F.2d 86, c e r t . den. 358 U.S. 824, 79 S.Ct. 40, 3 L.Ed.2d 64.) "The p r e v a i l i n g r u l e i n t h i s r e g a r d is s t a t e d i n W h a r t o n ' s C r i m i n a l E v i d e n c e [ 1 2 t h Ed. 1972 C u m u l a t i v e S u p p . ] , C o n f e s s i o n s a n d Admis- s i o n s , $ 399: " ' T h e making o f a n a d m i s s i o n by t h e d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t b a r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n from p r o v i n g t h e f a c t i n d e p e n d e n t l y t h e r e o f a s t h o u g h no a d m i s s i o n had been made, p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e f a c t s when v o l u n t a r i l y a d m i t t e d o f t e n l o s e rauch of t h e i r p r o b a t i v e f o r c e i n t h e e y e s o f t h e j u r y . ' ( p . 63.) "To t h e same e f f e c t t h e r u l e is s t a t e d i n 31A C.J.S. E v i d e n c e 5 299: "'A p a r t y is n o t r e q u i r e d t o a c c e p t a j u d i - c i a l a d m i s s i o n of h i s a d v e r s a r y , b u t may i n s i s t on p r o v i n g t h e f a c t . ' (p. 766.) " I n t h e r e c e n t c r i m i n a l c a s e o f A r r i n g t o n v. S t a t e ( F l a . 1 9 7 0 ) , 233 So.2d 6 3 4 , t h e Supreme C o u r t of F l o r i d a p o i n t e d o u t t h a t an o f f e r t o s t i p u l a t e r e m a i n s m e r e l y a n o f f e r u n l e s s a c c e p t e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . The F l o r i d a c o u r t d e c l a r e d its p o s i t i o n on t h e s u b j e c t by a d o p t i n g l a n g u a g e q u o t e d from The P e o p l e v . Speck, 41 I11.2d 1 7 7 , 242 N.E.2d 288, a s f o l - lows : " ' I t h a s n e v e r been h e l d t h a t t h e s t a t e is b a r r e d f r o m p r o v i n g a f a c t b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t o f f e r s t o a d m i t i t , b u t , on t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r u l e is t h a t when a t r i a l is upon a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y , t h e s t a t e is p e r m i t t e d t o go a h e a d and i n t r o d u c e its f u l l p r o o f o f t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t . ' ( 2 3 3 So.2d pp. 636, 637.) " S e e , a l s o , The P e o p l e v . Sckieck, 356 I l l . 56, 198 N.E. 1 0 8 , 9 1 A.L.R. 1472, and 73 Am.Jur.2dr S t i p u l a t i o n s , S 1 8 , p. 557." 523 P.2d a t 341. A l s o , t h e C a l i f o r n i a Supreme C o u r t h e l d i n P e o p l e v . "Second, t h e r e is a s t r o n g p o l i c y a g a i n s t d e p r i v i n g t h e s t a t e ' s cause of its persua- s i v e n e s s and f o r c e f u l n e s s by f o r c i n g t h e p r o s e c u t o r t o a c c e p t s t i p u l a t i o n s t h a t s o f t e n t h e impact of t h e evidence i n its e n t i r e t y , ' P a r t i e s , a s a g e n e r a l r u l e , a r e e n t i t l e d t o prove t h e e s s e n t i a l f a c t s - - t o p r e s e n t t o t h e j u r y a p i c t u r e of t h e e v e n t s r e l i e d on.' (53 Am.Jur., S 105.) I n People v. P o l l o c k , 25 Cal.App.2d 448, 77 P.2d 885, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y i n a rzpe c a s e was n o t o b l i g a t e d t o a c c e p t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s o f f e r t o s t i p u l a t e t h a t t h e r e had been i n t e r c o u r s e . 'Except a s ordained by law, t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y , i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e performance of an o f f i c i a l a c t , is n o t r e q u i r e d t o a c c e p t t h e judgment of a s t r a n g e r t o t h e o f f i c e . ' ( I d . a t p. 444, 77 P.2d a t p. 887.)" 457 P.2d a t 877. W e f i n d no grounds f o r r e v e r s a l i n any of a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n s ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e judgment is a f f i r m e d , W e concur : Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., concurring: I concur in the result but not in everything that is said. The majority opinion treats the issue of whether expert testimony on "rape" was proper. Reliance is placed upon State v. Howard (1981), Mont. , 637 P.2d 15, 38 St.Rep. 1980. In my opinion Howard is clearly distinguishable. The court in Howard found it was error for a physician to give the following testimony: "A. Well, yeah, I have an opinion. I think that somebody tried to murder her. You know, I just can't believe that you can sustain that much trauma with any other intent." This testimony was found to be harmless error in light of the fact that: (1) The jury did not rely on the doctor's opinion because it returned a verdict finding defendant guilty of aggravated assault and kidnapping rather than guilty of attempted deliberate homicide. ( 2 ) The evidence was overwhelming that the defendant purposefully or knowingly inflcited bodily injury on the victim with a weapon. In the case now before the Court, the issue was whether defendant's sexual intercourse with the victim was had with consent. The jury resolved that issue contrary to defendant's position. The testimony here in question was as follows: "Q. [Prosecution] Did you perform any type of clinical impression of this woman? "A. [Physician] My overall impression was that she was raped." The answer here given could have influenced the jury's verdict since the answer is consistent with the guilty finding of the jury. Therefore, this case is distinguishable from Howard where the expert witness testified that the assailant intended to murder the victim but the jury aquitted on that charge. Under the state of the record before us I would affirm but not rely upon Howard. The only objection made to the answer here given was that the testimony went to the ultimate issue of fact. Under Rule 704, Montana Rules of Evidence, testimony in the form of an opinion is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue. The answer here was not responsive to the question asked. Furthermore, the answer appears to be vague. If proper foundation is Paid,: a physician may express an opinion about whether force was used to accomplish penetration. The physician could not give an opinion about the mental state of the defendant having never conducted an examination of the defendant, nor having any other adequate foundation to draw such a conclusion. Neither could the physician make legal conclusions. The physician's use of the word "raped" is somewhat unclear in that he may only have been giving a medical diagnosis or, on the other hand, he may have been drawing legal conclusions and conjecturing about the state of defendant's mind. The former is permissible. The latter is not. The objection made was not sustainable. The answer given is unresponsive and vague. However, I do not feel that the answer is sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. Therefore, I concur in affirming the verdict.