Case Title: STATE v HIGLEY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-12-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o s . 80-142 & 80-323 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A THE STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, V S . N o . 80-142 E D W A R D DENNIS HIGLEY Defendant and A p p e l l a n t , Appeal from: District C o u r t of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, I n and f o r t h e County of G a l l a t i n , The Honorable J o s e p h B. Gary, Judge p r e s i d i n g . THE STATE OF MONTANA, Relator, V S . THE DISTRICT COURT O F THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT e t a l . , Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING N o . 80-323 Counsel o f Record: F o r A p p e l l a n t : L a r r y W. Moran and Michael M. Nash, Bozeman, Montana Michael M. Nash a r g u e d , Bozeman, 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 , Helena, Montana Mark Murphy a r g u e d , A s s t . Atty. G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Donald E . White, County A t t o r n e y , Bozeman, Montana Michael L i l l y a r g u e d , Deputy County Atty. , Bozeman, Montana Submitted: November 25, 1980 Decided: DEC 5 7 198Q F i l e d : gF@ 1 ' 7 1980 -+."fi,, , - "' 9 ' 9 ' . , t'7tLq t:t: pi.,, j '+.,, ;ji;';p! C l e r k M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Defendant was c o n v i c t e d i n D i s t r i c t Court, G a l l a t i n County, of kidnapping and 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 . H e was s e n t e n c e d t o t e n y e a r s i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n on each c o u n t , to be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y . The d e f e n d a n t appealed t h e c o n v i c t i o n and w h i l e t h e a p p e a l was pending, he a p p l i e d to t h e d i s t r i c t judge, Powell County, f o r b a i l pending a p p e a l . The motion was g r a n t e d and d e f e n d a n t was r e l e a s e d from p r i s o n . The G a l l a t i n County A t t o r n e y a p p l i e d t o t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l , a s k i n g t h i s Court to f i n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge, Powell County, was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n to admit defmdant to b a i l . W e c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e a p p e a l and t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e w r i t . W e a f f i r m t h e c o n v i c t i o n and deny t h e S t a t e ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e w r i t , f i n d i n g t h e i s s u e of b a i l pending appeal to be moot by r e a s o n of o u r d e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m t h e c o n v i c t i o n . On J u n e 29, 1979, a t about 1:30 a . m . , L y n e t t e Church l e f t a b a r i n downtown Bozeman and began walking toward h e r home. Near t h e h o s p i t a l on North W i l l s o n , a man jumped from behind a hedge and grabbed h e r , knocking o f f h e r g l a s s e s . She screamed, and he clapped a hand o v e r h e r mouth. She w a s forced i n t o h i s car and he d r o v e to a s e c l u d e d s p o t i n B r i d g e r Canyon. During t h e d r i v e , and a t t h e s t o p p i n g p o i n t i n t h e Canyon, t h e d e f e n d a n t f o r c e d h e r t o engage i n v a r i o u s a c t s of v a g i n a l and o r a l s e x . During t h e a c t i v i t y , L i n n i e n o t i c e d a wallet l y i n g on t h e ground. She s l i p p e d it under h e r c o a t , which d e f e n d a n t had o r d e r e d h e r to p l a c e on t h e ground b e f o r e engaging i n i n t e r c o u r s e . She even- t u a l l y managed t o g e t t h e w a l l e t i n t o h e r p o c k e t . A t about 3:00 a . m . , t h e d e f e n d a n t dropped L y n e t t e o f f i n downtown Bozeman and s h e walked home. A t home s h e c a l l e d t h e Bozeman Help C e n t e r and l a t e r went t o t h e h o s p i t a l w i t h members o f t h e Help C e n t e r ' s Rape Outreach Team. P r i o r t o going t o t h e h o s p i t a l , L i n n i e examined t h e w a l l e t and found a d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e w i t h a p i c t u r e . She determined t h a t t h i s w a s a p i c t u r e of t h e man who had a t t a c k e d h e r . A t t h e h o s p i t a l s h e gave t h e wallet to Ron Green of t h e Bozeman p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t . H e showed h e r t h e w a l l e t photograph and L i n n i e p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n t h e p i c t u r e as h e r a s s a i l a n t . P u r s u a n t to a s e a r c h w a r r a n t , t h e Bozeman d e t e c t i v e s s e a r c h e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s car and found a p o r t i o n of a f i n g e r n a i l , and p u b i c h a i r belonging to t h e v i c t i m . Defendant was a r r e s t e d on F r i d a y , J u n e 29, 1979, and appeared b e f o r e t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace on t h a t day. On Monday, J u l y 2, d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y r e q u e s t e d t h a t a p r e l i m i n a r y exami- n a t i o n be h e l d t h a t a f t e r n o o n . The S t a t e o b j e c t e d and no exami- n a t i o n was h e l d . The d e f e n d a n t made no f u r t h e r r e q u e s t , and w a s r e l e a s e d on bond on J u l y 3, 1979. An i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d i n D i s t r i c t Court on J u l y 1 0 , 1979, and d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion to q u a s h . The motion was d e n i e d . T r i a l commenced on O c t o b e r 10, 1979, and d e f e n d a n t was found g u i l t y on October 15. The d e f e n d a n t was sentenced on November 9, 1979, f o l l o w i n g an i n t e r v i e w between t h e judge and t h e v i c t i m as to h e r f e e l i n g s about t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e . The d e f e n d a n t was n o t d e s i g n a t e d "dangerous" or llnon-dangerous" u n t i l f o u r months l a t e r , f o l l o w i n g t h e f i l i n g of a p s y c h i a t r i c r e p o r t by t h e Department of I n s t i t u t i o n s . Defendant raises t h i r t e e n i s s u e s on appeal: 1. Is a d e f e n d a n t e n t i t l e d to a p r e l i m i n a r y e x a m i n a t i o n i f an i n f o r m a t i o n h a s n o t been f i l e d w i t h i n t e n days af ter h i s a r r e s t ? 2. Is a p r e t r i a l p h o t o g r a p h i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by t h e v i c t i m , u t i l i z i n g o n l y one photograph, s o s u g g e s t i v e as t o r e q u i r e s u p p r e s s i o n of any i n - c o u r t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ? 3 . Is t h e d e f e n d a n t denied h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to c o n f r o n t h i s w i t n e s s e s , b y o p e r a t i o n of s e c t i o n 45-5-503 ( 5 ) , MCA, p r e c l u d i n g evidence of t h e v i c t i m ' s s e x u a l conduct, and Rule 608, Mont.R.Evid., p r e c l u d i n g t e s t i m o n y as to s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of a w i t n e s s 1 c o n d u c t and c e r t a i n cross-examination? 4. May t h e District Court allow i n t r o d u c t i o n of e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l which was n o t s p e c i f i e d i n t h e o r d e r drawn up f o l l o w i n g a n omnibus h e a r i n g ? 5. Was t h e d e f e n d a n t e n t i t l e d to a c a u t i o n a r y Smith-type i n s t r u c t i o n , because t h e s u b s t a n t i v e f a c t s were i n q u e s t i o n a t t r i a l and t h e r e was s c a n t y medical e v i d e n c e of i n t e r c o u r s e ? 6. Is d e f e n d a n t e n t i t l e d t o a n i n s t r u c t i o n as t o t h e n e c e s s i t y t h a t t h e v i c t i m m a n i f e s t l y o b j e c t e d t o t h e act of i n t e r - c o u r s e ? 7. 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 ? 8. Is t h e d i s t r i c t judge p e r m i t t e d to i n t e r v i e w t h e vic- t i m on t h e i s s u e of s e n t e n c i n g w i t h o u t a l l o w i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t to cross-examine t h e v i c t i m ? 9. Did t h e d i s t r i c t judge err i n denying d e f e n d a n t a new t r i a l , when d e f e n d a n t was a b l e , a f t e r t r i a l , to produce e v i d e n c e o f mental d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t ? 10. W a s d e f e n d a n t denied h i s due p r o c e s s r i g h t s by t h e use o f i n c o r r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n a t s e n t e n c i n g ? 11. Does d e f e n d a n t have a r i g h t to be p r e s e n t a t p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s ? 12. Was t h e f a i l u r e to d e s i g n a t e d e f e n d a n t a s "dangerous" or "non-dangerous" f o r f o u r months a v i o l a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t a g a i n s t c r u e l and unusual punishment and a v i o l a t i o n of t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t u n c e r t a i n or i n d e f i n i t e s e n t e n c i n g ? 13. W a s d e f e n d a n t denied h i s r i g h t t o a t r a n s c r i p t on appeal? Defendant w a s a r r e s t e d on F r i d a y , J u n e 29, 1979, and made an i n i t i a l appearance b e f o r e t h e J u s t i c e of t h e Peace t h a t day. On Monday, J u l y 2, h i s a t t o r n e y c o n t a c t e d j u s t i c e c o u r t and r e q u e s t e d t h a t a p r e l i m i n a r y examination be h e l d t h a t af t e r n o o n . The county a t t o r n e y r e c e i v e d o r a l n o t i c e t h a t a h e a r i n g would b e h e l d t h a t day. The S t a t e o b j e c t e d to t h e h e a r i n g on such s h o r t n o t i c e and it was not n o t h e l d . Defendant made no f u r t h e r r e q u e s t and he was r e l e a s e d on bond on J u l y 3. The c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f i l e d an i n f o r m a t i o n i n District Court on J u l y Defendant c o n t e n d s t h a t he h a s a r i g h t to a p r e l i m i n a r y exam i f he h a s n o t waived it or if t h e D i s t r i c t Court h a s n o t pre- v i o u s l y g r a n t e d l e a v e to f i l e d i r e c t . The r i g h t to a p r e l i m i n a r y e x a m i n a t i o n arises under s e c t i o n 46-7-103, MCA: P r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g i n j u s t i c e ' s c o u r t . A f t e r t h e i n i t i a l a p p e a r a n c e a j u s t i c e ' s c o u r t s h a l l , w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , hold a p r e l i m i n a r y e x a m i n a t i o n u n l e s s t h e d e f e n d a n t waives a p r e l i - minary e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s g r a n t e d l e a v e t o f i l e an i n f o r m a t i o n , an i n d i c t - ment h a s been r e t u r n e d , or t h e case is t r i a b l e i n j u s t i c e ' s c o u r t . (Emphasis added.) The purpose of t h e p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g is to d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e is p r o b a b l e cause t o b e l i e v e t h a t a f e l o n y h a s been committed. S e c t i o n 46-10-101, MCA. The p r o b a b l e cause d e t e r - m i n a t i o n may be made i n a p r e l i m i n a r y examination i n j u s t i c e c o u r t , o r it may be made by a p p l i c a t i o n to t h e District Court judge, p r e s e n t i n g by a f f i d a v i t such e v i d e n c e as t h e judge may r e q u i r e . S e c t i o n 46-11-201, MCA. The o n l y r e q u i r e m e n t is t h a t t h e r e is an i n d e p e n d e n t j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of p r o b a b l e cause and t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s no v e s t e d r i g h t t o e i t h e r p r o c e d u r e . G e r s t e i n v. Pugh ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 420 U.S. 103, 120, 95 S.Ct. 854, 866, 43 L.Ed.2d 54, 69; S t a t e v. Dunn ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 5 5 Mont. 319, 325, 472 Many s t a t e s set f o r t h p r e c i s e t i m e l i m i t s w i t h i n which t h e S t a t e must hold t h e p r e l i m i n a r y examination i f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s n o t g r a n t e d l e a v e to f i l e an i n f o r m a t i o n . The f e d e r a l s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s : "such e x a m i n a t i o n s h a l l b e h e l d w i t h i n a reaso- n a b l e t i m e b u t i n any event- later tKan 1 0 ---- - -- d a y s f o l l o w i n g t h e i n i t i a l a p p e a r a n c e i f t h e - d e f e n d a n t is i n c u s t o d y and no l a t e r t h a n 2 0 ----- -- d a y s i f he is n o t i n c u s t o d y , p r o v i d e d , however, ------ t h a t t h e p r e l i m i n a r y examination s h a l l n o t be h e l d i f t h e d e f e n d a n t is i n d i c t e d or i f an i n f o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t is f i l e d i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t . . ." (Emphasis added.) 18 U.S.C. Fed.R.Crim. P. 5 ( c ) . A s can be s e e n under t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e , t h e n , any t i m e beyond 20 d a y s is viewed as unreasonable i f t h e d e f e n d a n t is not i n custody. I n t h e i n s t a n t case, d e f e n d a n t was o u t on bond and w a i t e d o n l y 10 d a y s between h i s i n i t i a l appearance and t h e d e t e r - m i n a t i o n of p r o b a b l e c a u s e . The p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l r u l e r e q u i r e d a h e a r i n g i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e o n l y . I n James v. Lawrence (D.C. C i r . 1 9 4 9 ) , 176 F.2d 18, 20, t h e c o u r t found t h a t 18 d a y s w a s not u n r e a s o n a b l e . There t h e S t a t e asked f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e and t h e c o u r t noted t h a t it must c o n s i d e r time f o r t h e government to p r e p a r e , i n computing r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . A l a s k a ' s s t a t u t e l i k e w i s e r e q u i r e s a h e a r i n g w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . I n Martinez v. S t a t e (Alas.1967), 423 P.2d 700, t h e c o u r t d i s c u s s e d t h e i m p r a c t i c a l i t y of r e q u i r i n g a h e a r i n g w i t h i n a s p e c i f i c t i m e , and noted t h a t what c o n s t i t u t e s a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e must be determined by t h e f a c t s of t h e case. I f t h e c h a r g e is s e r i o u s , b o t h s i d e s need t i m e to p r e p a r e ; w h e t h e r t h e charged is o u t on bond is a n o t h e r f a c t o r which must be c o n s i d e r e d , because t h e purpose of t h e s t a t u t e is to p r o t e c t t h e accused from unwarranted i n c a r c e r a t i o n . Martinez, s u p r a , 423 P.2d a t 710-711. The Martinez c o u r t found t h a t 16 d a y s was n o t a n u n r e a s o n a b l e amount of t i m e . W e f i n d t h a t a 10-day d e l a y i n d e t e r m i n i n g p r o b a b l e cause was n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e . The d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t e d t h e exam b u t t h e S t a t e w a s g i v e n o n l y a few hours n o t i c e . On r e q u e s t of t h e S t a t e , t h a t h e a r i n g was v a c a t e d . Defendant w a s r e l e a s e d on bond t h e n e x t day. He d i d n o t r e q u e s t a n o t h e r s e t t i n g and l e a v e to f i l e was g r a n t e d less t h a n a week later. Defendant a r g u e s t h a t f a i l u r e t o h o l d a p r e l i m i n a r y exami- n a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e may have allowed an i m p o r t a n t w i t n e s s to g e t away w i t h o u t e v e r being i n t e r v i e w e d . But as t h i s Court i n d i c a t e d i n S t a t e v. Dunn, s u p r a , 1 5 5 Mont. a t 326, 472 P.2d a t 293, t h e p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g is n o t meant to be a " f i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n " f o r a l l p o s s i b l e e v i d e n c e , and i f p r o b a b l e cause is e s t a b l i s h e d t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t judge by t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s a f f i d a v i t , t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s l i t t l e r e a s o n to complain. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e d i s t r i c t judge found p r o b a b l e cause on t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d to him by af f i d a v i t . Based on t h e amount of e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l , w e can f i n d no error i n t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l i n g t o hold a p r e l i m i n a r y examination. There was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t a c o n v i c t i o n , and t h e d e f e n d a n t , who r e l i e d on t h e d e f e n s e of a l i b i , admitted t h a t t h i s w i t n e s s had no r e l e v a n c e t o h i s d e f e n s e of a l i b i and w a s not l i s t e d as a n a l i b i w i t n e s s . Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s it is d o u b t f u l t h a t a p r e l i m i n a r y examination would have secured any advantage to t h e d e f e n d a n t . See S t a t e v. Johnson ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 149 Mont. 173, 178, 424 P.2d 728, 731. A p p e l l a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p r e t r i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t by one photo was s o s u g g e s t i v e t h a t M s . Church s h o u l d n o t have been p e r m i t t e d t o make an in-court i d e n t i f i - c a t i o n . H e a r g u e s t h a t a l l e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d af t e r t h a t f i r s t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is t a i n t e d by t h e i l l e g a l i t y of t h e i d e n t i f i - c a t i o n . The United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t and t h i s Court have faced t h e problem of s u g g e s t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and have condemned t h e p r o c e d u r e of showing t h e v i c t i m o n l y one photo. T h i s p r o c e s s may b e so s u g g e s t i v e and so conducive t o mistaken i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as to deny due p r o c e s s . S t o v a l l v. Denno ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 388 U.S. 293, 302, 8 7 S.Ct. 1967, 1972, 1 8 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1206; N e i l v. B r i g g e r s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 409 U.S. 188, 198, 93 S.Ct. 375, 382, 34 L.Ed.2d 401, 411. However, n o t a l l s u g g e s t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s have r e s u l t e d i n a f i n d i n g of d e n i a l of due p r o c e s s . The Montana C o u r t , i n S t a t e v. Lara ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont . I 587 P.2d 930, 35 St.Rep. 1699, e n u n c i a t e d its two-pronged t e s t t o d e t e r m i n e whether or n o t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n should be s u p p r e s s e d : " F i r s t , was t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e imper- m i s s i b i l y s u g g e s t i v e ; and, second, i f so, d i d it u n d e r t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s have s u c h a tendency to g i v e rise to a s u b s t a n t i a l l i k e l i h o o d of i r r e p a r a b l e m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . . .I1 S t a t e v. Lara, s u p r a , Mont. a t , 587 P.2d a t 932, 35 St.Rep. a t 1 7 0 2 . Undoubtedly t h e p r o c e d u r e h e r e w a s v e r y s u g g e s t i v e . M s . Church t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e had made a p r e v i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t by viewing t h e photo i n t h e wallet which s h e had found a t t h e s c e n e of t h e crime. The p o l i c e were n o t p r e s e n t a t t h a t t i m e . A t t h e h o s p i t a l s h e gave t h e p o l i c e t h e wallet, and a t t h a t p o i n t t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r showed h e r t h e one p i c t u r e i n t h e wallet, a s k i n g i f t h a t was a p i c t u r e of h e r a s s a i l a n t . But we f i n d t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e p o i n t to suf- f i c i e n t r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to s a t i s f y due p r o c e s s . I n N e i l , s u p r q t h e Court set f o r t h some of t h e f a c t o r s to be con- s i d e r e d i n judging r e l i a b i l i t y : "We t u r n , t h e n , t o t h e c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n , whether under t h e ' t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ' t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was r e l i a b l e even though t h e con£ r o n t a t i o n p r o c e d u r e was s u g g e s t i v e . A s i n d i c a t e d by o u r cases, t h e f a c t o r s to be con- s i d e r e d i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e l i k e l i h o o d of misiden- t i f i c a t i o n i n c l u d e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of t h e w i t n e s s to view t h e c r i m i n a l a t t h e t i m e of t h e crime, t h e w i t n e s s ' d e g r e e of a t t e n t i o n , t h e a c c u r a c y of t h e w i t n e s s 1 p r i o r d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e c r i m i n a l , t h e l e v e l of c e r t a i n t y demonstrated by t h e w i t n e s s a t t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n , and t h e l e n g t h of t i m e between t h e crime and t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n . " N e i l , s u p r a , 409 U.S. a t 199-200, 93 S.Ct. a t 3 8 - 4 L.Ed.2d a t 411. Here t h e v i c t i m s p e n t about one and one-half hours w i t h d e f e n d a n t , b o t h i n h i s car and i n B r i d g e r Canyon, and s h e was f o r c e d to engage i n i n t i m a t e p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y w i t h him. A t two d i f f e r e n t times, t h e i n t e r i o r car l i g h t came on, g i v i n g t h e vic- t i m an o p p o r t u n i t y to view h e r a s s a i l a n t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a l t h o u g h t h e v i c t i m ' s p r i o r d e s c r i p t i o n of d e f e n d a n t was l i m i t e d i n d e t a i l , h e r d e s c r i p t i o n was a c c u r a t e . She t o l d t h e p o l i c e t h a t h e r a s s a i l a n t had blonde h a i r , was f a i r l y heavy set and was v e r y l i g h t s k i n n e d . She also s t a t e d t h a t h e r a s s a i l a n t ' s h a i r was s h o r t e r a t t h e t i m e of t h e o f f e n s e t h a n a t t h e time t h e photograph was t a k e n , and t h a t s h e d i d not remember t h a t h e r a s s a i l a n t had a mustache as was shown i n t h e p h o t o . I n f a c t , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s h a i r was s h o r t e r a t t h e t i m e of h i s arrest and he d i d n o t have a mustache. H i s h a i r was blonde and he had a l i g h t complexion. L i t t l e t i m e e l a p s e d between t h e v i c t i m ' s r e l e a s e and t h e p h o t o g r a p h i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The d e t e c t i v e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e demonstrated a v e r y h i g h d e g r e e of c e r t a i n t y when i d e n t i f y i n g d e f e n d a n t from t h e photograph. Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s case, we f i n d t h a t t h e r e was v e r y l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o d of m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Thus, t h e d i s t r i c t judge p r o p e r l y denied t h e motion to s u p p r e s s t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A p p e l l a n t n e x t c h a l l e n g e s s e c t i o n 45-5-503(5), MCA, and Rule 608, Mont .R. Evid., as u n n e c e s s a r i l y r e s t r i c t i n g a d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o cross-examine, and to i n t r o d u c e r e l e v a n t testimony. H e a l l e g e s t h a t t h e r e s u l t of t h e use of t h e s e s t a t u t e s is to deny t h e d e f e n d a n t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to c o n f r o n t w i t n e s s e s . S e c t i o n 45-5-503 ( 5 ) p r e v e n t s i n t r o d u c t i o n of e v i d e n c e of t h e v i c t i m ' s s e x u a l conduct and p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : " N o e v i d e n c e concerning t h e s e x u a l conduct of 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 . . .I1 The A n n o t a t o r ' s n o t e s t o t h a t s e c t i o n i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e purpose o f t h e r u l e is "to p r e v e n t t h e t r i a l of t h e charge a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t [ s i c ] b e i n g converted i n t o a t r i a l of t h e v i c t i m . " A n n o t a t o r 's Notes, MONTCLIRC1s Montana Criminal Code Annotated, Rule 608 ( b ) , M0nt.R. Evid . , p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " S p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of conduct. S p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of t h e conduct of a w i t n e s s , f o r t h e p u r p o s e of a t t a c k i n g or s u p p o r t i n g h i s c r e d i b i l i t y , may n o t be proved by e x t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e . They may, however, i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e c o u r t , i f p r o b a t i v e of t r u t h f u l n e s s o r u n t r u t h f u l n e s s , be i n q u i r e d i n t o on cross- examination of t h e w i t n e s s (1) concerning h i s c h a r a c t e r f o r t r u t h f u l n e s s o r u n t r u t h f u l n e s s . . ." Based on t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s t h e S t a t e o b t a i n e d an o r d e r i n l i m i n e t o p r e v e n t d e f e n d a n t from c a l l i n g Mrs. Sorenson, L i n n i e l s l a n d l a d y , who w a s expected t o t e s t i f y t h a t L i n n i e laughed a f t e r b e i n g asked by h e r roommate: "Where are a l l of Bozemanls r a p i s t s ? L i n n i e needs t o be raped a g a i n .I1 A p p e l l a n t ' s p o s i t i o n is t h a t by b e i n g p r e c l u d e d from b r i n g i n g i n t h i s w i t n e s s t h e d e f e n d a n t was denied i m p o r t a n t testimony as to t h e v i c t i m ' s views on s e x u a l matters. H e a l s o a l l e g e s e r r o r i n t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s which t h e judge imposed on h i s cross-examination of t h e v i c t i m c o n c e r n i n g h e r j a c k e t which had i n s c r i b e d on it, "Liquor i n t h e f r o n t , and poker i n t h e back." The S i x t h Amendment g u a r a n t e e s a c r i m i n a l t h e r i g h t to t e s t i m o n y of w i t n e s s e s i n h i s f a v o r . Washington v. Texas ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 388 U.S. 1 4 , 1 9 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923, 1 8 L.Ed.2d 1019, 1023. However, it does n o t g u a r a n t e e him t h e r i g h t to any and a l l w i t n e s s e s , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r competency or knowledge. There is t h e competing i n t e r e s t of t h e f a i r n e s s and r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e t r i a l . The United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t expressed t h i s con- s i d e r a t i o n i n Chambers v. M i s s i s s i p p i ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1049, 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 313: " I n t h e e x e r c i s e of t h i s r i g h t , t h e accused, as is r e q u i r e d of t h e S t a t e , must comply w i t h e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s of p r o c e d u r e and e v i d e n c e d e s i g n e d to a s s u r e b o t h f a i r n e s s and r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h e a s c e r t a i n m e n t of g u i l t and innocence." I n l i m i t i n g t h e r i g h t to c o n f r o n t and cross-examine, t h e r u l e s i n q u e s t i o n must be s c r u t i n i z e d to d e t e r m i n e whether they are a r b i t r a r y or whether t h e y s e r v e a l e g i t i m a t e competing i n t e r e s t . Chambers, s u p r a , 410 U.S. a t 295, 93 S.Ct. a t 1046, 35 L.Ed.2d a t 309. W e f i n d t h a t t h e s e r u l e s l i m i t i n g i n q u i r y i n t o s e x u a l con- d u c t of t h e v i c t i m are e s s e n t i a l to 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 to p r e v e n t it from becoming a t r i a l of t h e v i c t i m . The Commission Comments, Rule 405 ( b ) , M.R.Evid., sets o u t t h e j u s t i - f i c a t i o n f o r keeping o u t e v i d e n c e of s p e c i f i c acts of conduct: " T h i s method of proof is t h e most p e r s u a s i v e of 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 is also 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 , to con- f u s e and d i s t r a c t , to engender time-consuming s i d e i s s u e s and t o create r i s k of u n f a i r s u r p r i s e . ' McCormick, Handbook o f t h e Law of Evidence 443 (2d ed. 1972 ) . AS? r e s u r o c t h e e f f e c t of t h i s method of 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 to s i t u a t i o n s where c h a r a c t e r is i n i s s u e , when such proof is c e n t r a l to t h e outcome o f t h e case." Commission Comments, Rule 4 0 5 ( b ) , Mont .R. Evid. The v i c t i m ' s c h a r a c t e r is n o t i n i s s u e i n a case such as t h i s . Thus t h e p o t e n t i a l l y damaging e v i d e n c e of s p e c i f i c acts and p r i o r conduct s h o u l d be k e p t from t h e jury. W e f i n d no d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s i n t h i s l i m i t a t i o n nor do we f i n d t h a t t h e judge improperly l i m i t e d cross-examination as to t h e v i c t i m ' s s e x u a l views as evidenced by t h e q u o t e on h e r j a c k e t . Rule 608 ( b ) , M.R.Evid ., p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e judge may allow i n q u i r y i n t o s p e c i f i c acts on cross-examination, i f such a c t s are proba- t i v e of t h e t r u t h f u l n e s s or u n t r u t h f u l n e s s of t h e w i t n e s s . It is d o u b t f u l t h a t t e s t i m o n y concerning t h e v i c t i m ' s s e x u a l views comes w i t h i n t h i s r u l e a t a l l , and it is c l e a r l y w i t h i n t h e j u d g e ' s d i s c r e t i o n to exclude t h i s e v i d e n c e i f it is i r r e l e v a n t o r too p r e j u d i c i a l . See Commission Comments, Rule 608 ( b ) , M.R.Evid. I n a d d i t i o n to being p r e j u d i c i a l , t h i s kind of e v i d e n c e h a s l i t t l e i f any p r o b a t i v e v a l u e . Thus, we f i n d no merit i n d e f e n d a n t ' s argument, and f i n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge p r o p e r l y k e p t t h i s e v i d e n c e from t h e jury. A p p e l l a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge's d e n i a l o f h i s motion to s u p p r e s s t w o r e p o r t s from t h e Montana Criminal I n v e s t i g a t i o n Lab c o n s t i t u t e s r e v e r s i b l e error. H e claims p r e j u- d i c i a l s u r p r i s e because t h e s e r e p o r t s were n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e "Omnibus Hearing Order." P u r s u a n t t o local Rule 10A "Criminal Omnibus Hearing," t h e d i s t r i c t judge scheduled an omnibus h e a r i n g f o r September 25, 1979, a few weeks b e f o r e t r i a l . A t t h a t t i m e t h e S t a t e made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e d e f e n s e a r e p o r t from t h e Montana Criminal I n v e s t i g a t i o n Lab. The day b e f o r e t r i a l t h e S t a t e n o t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t t h a t two a d d i t i o n a l r e p o r t s had j u s t been made a v a i l a b l e by t h e l a b . The f o l l o w i n g day, a t t r i a l , t h e S t a t e c a l l e d Arnold Melnikof f , Bureau Chief of t h e Lab t o t e s t i f y . A t t h a t time d e f e n s e c o u n s e l moved t o s u p p r e s s t h e e v i d e n c e i n r e p o r t s t w o and t h r e e . The d i s t r i c t judge denied t h e motion, b u t g r a n t e d a c o n t i n u a n c e . A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e to i n c l u d e t h e s e t w o tests i n t h e omnibus o r d e r r e q u i r e s t h e i r s u p p r e s s i o n because of a n o t i c e problem i n h e r e n t i n v i o l a t i n g an omnibus o r d e r . I n S t a t e of Montana v. District Court, ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 590 P.2d 1104, 1109, 36 St.Rep. 161, 166- 167, t h i s Court d i r e c t e d t h e District C o u r t s to adopt an omnibus h e a r i n g proce- d u r e i n o r d e r t o "schedule, r e s o l v e and d e t e r m i n e p r e t r i a l m o t i o n s , a p p l i c a t i o n s and r e q u e s t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e c a l e n d a r i n g and s c h e d u l i n g of t h e t r i a l .I1 P u r s u a n t to t h i s d i r e c t i v e , t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District adopted Rule 10A. The omnibus h e a r i n g r e q u i r e s t h e c o u r t to " ( 2 ) See whether d i s c o v e r y h a s been complete and i f n o t , make o r d e r s a p p r o p r i a t e t o e x p e d i t e its completion"; and f u r t h e r t h a t " ( 7 ) a n y and a l l i s s u e s should be r a i s e d . . ." These r u l e s are c l e a r l y meant t o e x p e d i t e and s i m p l i f y t h e t r i a l of a c r i m i n a l case by g e t t i n g a l l p a r t i e s t o g e t h e r on t h e c o n t e s t e d i s s u e s and to f a c i l i t a t e d i s c o v e r y problems. The q u o t e d s e c t i o n s , s u p r a , d o n o t a p p e a r to be aimed a t s e t t i n g an a b s o l u t e d e a d l i n e on d i s c o v e r y , b u t r a t h e r s e r v e to implement t h e g e n e r a l d i s c o v e r y p r o c e d u r e s o u t l i n e d i n s e c t i o n 46-15-301 e t s e q . MCA. P a r t 3 o f S e c t i o n 46-15-302 sets f o r t h t h e o b l i g a t i o n of c o n t i n u i n g d i s c o v e r y : " ( b ) I f , s u b s e q u e n t to compliance w i t h an o r d e r i s s u e d p u r s u a n t t o t h i s r u l e and p r i o r to o r d u r i n g t r i a l , a p a r t y d i s c o v e r s a d d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l p r e v i o u s l y r e q u e s t e d which is s u b j e c t t o d i s c o v e r y o r i n s p e c t i o n under t h i s r u l e , he s h a l l promptly n o t i f y t h e o t h e r p a r t y o r h i s a t t o r n e y or t h e c o u r t of t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e a d d i t i o n a l material. The c o u r t s h a l l exclude a n y e v i d e n c e n o t p r e s e n t e d f o r i n s p e c t i o n o r copying p u r s u a n t to t h i s r u l e u n l e s s good cause is shown f o r f a . i l u r e to comply. I n t h e l a t t e r case t h e opposing p a r t y is e n t i t l e d to a recess or a c o n t i n u a n c e d u r i n g which it may i n s p e c t or copy t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e manner provided f o r i n t h i s s u b s e c t i o n ( 3 ) ." The h e a r i n g on t h e motion to s u p p r e s s t h i s e v i d e n c e i n d i - cates t h a t t h e S t a t e was unaware of t h e r e s u l t s of t h e two tests u n t i l t h e day b e f o r e t r i a l . The S t a t e n o t i f i e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a t t h a t t i m e . The d e f e n d a n t took no a c t i o n u n t i l t h e matter came up a t t r i a l . I n a somewhat analagous s i t u a t i o n , d e f e n d a n t i n S t a t e v. McKenzie ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 608 P.2d 428, 37 S t .Rep. 325, claimed t h a t he demanded c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e county a t t o r n e y which was not s u p p l i e d to him. A f t e r t r i a l began, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion to r e q u i r e t h e f u r n i s h i n g of t h i s material. The C o u r t found t h a t t h e r e was a waiver of h i s r i g h t t o o b j e c t because of " d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o f i l e a demand and motion f o r t h i s material u n t i l a f t e r t r i a l had begun." McKenzie, s u p r a , Mont. a t , 608 P.2d a t 443, 37 St.Rep. a t 337. A l s o as i n McKenzie, d e f e n d a n t h e r e claims s u r p r i s e . W e n o t e d i n t h a t case t h a t " t h e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e where s u r p r i s e is claimed . . . is to a s k f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e so t h a t d e f e n d a n t may p r e p a r e . " McKenzie , s u p r a , Mont. a t , 608 P.2d a t 441, 37 St.Rep. a t 335. D e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t d e f e n d a n t knew of t h e new i n f o r - m a t i o n p r i o r to t r i a l , he d i d n o t r e q u e s t a c o n t i n u a n c e . However, a f t e r t h e t r i a l had commenced, t h e d i s t r i c t judge g r a n t e d a c o n t i n u a n c e o v e r n i g h t to allow d e f e n d a n t to p r e p a r e . I t is w i t h i n t h e j u d g e ' s d i s c r e t i o n to e x c l u d e t h e e v i d e n c e , or t o allow it i n , s u b j e c t t o a c o n t i n u a n c e , based on h i s percep- t i o n s of t h e r e a s o n f o r n o n d i s c l o s u r e and p o s s i b i l i t i e s of p r e j u d i c e . See Commission Comments, s e c t i o n 95-1803 (c), R.C.M. 1947, (now s e c t i o n 46-15-302(3), MCA). There is no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e S t a t e p u r p o s e l y a t t e m p t e d t o w i t h h o l d e v i d e n c e from t h e d e f e n d a n t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e d e f e n d a n t by-passed h i s oppor- t u n i t y to have t h e t r i a l continued when he found o u t about t h e e v i d e n c e t h e day b e f o r e t r i a l . C l e a r l y t h e new e v i d e n c e was v e r y damaging t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , b u t t h e d i s t r i c t judge g r a n t e d him a n o v e r n i g h t c o n t i n u a n c e on l e a r n i n g of t h e e v i d e n c e . W e f i n d no e r r o r to d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s procedure. A p p e l l a n t n e x t a r g u e s t h a t a c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d have been g i v e n to t h e j u r y , because h e r e t h e s u b s t a n t i v e f a c t s were i n q u e s t i o n and t h e r e was s c a n t y medical e v i d e n c e of i n t e r c o u r s e . The a p p e l l a n t is c l e a r l y a s k i n g t h i s Court t o d e v i s e new s i t u a t i o n s i n which t h e f o l l o w i n g kind of i n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d be given: "You are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t no c h a r g e can be more e a s i l y made and none is more d i f f i c u l t to d i s p r o v e t h a n t h a t of ' r a p e ' . The j u r y is i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e y must examine t h e c o m p l a i n a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y w i t h c a u t i o n and be s a t i s f i e d w i t h a l l a s p e c t s t h e r e o f beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt." W e have c o n s i d e r e d t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n i n s e v e r a l cases o v e r t h e p a s t few y e a r s and have s a n c t i o n e d its use o n l y i n v e r y l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n t h e case of S t a t e v. B a l l e w ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 270, 532 P.2d 407, we noted s e v e r a l s i t u a t i o n s i n which t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n is a p p r o p r i a t e : " [ I ] t is clear t h a t r e f u s a l t o g i v e such an i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l be error o n l y when some s p e c i - f i c c a u s e is shown f o r d i s t r u s t i n g t h e testimony of t h e complaining w i t n e s s . Such c a u s e s might i n c l u d e m a n i f e s t m a l i c e , d e s i r e f o r revenge, or a n absence of c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g to s u p p o r t t h e f a c t s t e s t i f i e d to by t h e complaining w i t n e s s . " S t a t e v. B a l l e w , s u p r a , 166 Mont. a t 276, 532 P.2d a t 411. S i n c e t h e B a l l e w case was d e c i d e d , t h i s Court h a s narrowed t h e r u l e , f i n d i n g t h a t absence of c o r r o b o r a t i o n a l o n e is n o t suf- f i c i e n t r e a s o n 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 w i t n e s s . W e hold t h a t t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n should be g i v e n o n l y where "a showing of some t y p e of p e r s o n a l enmity coupled w i t h a l a c k of c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e on t h e d i s p u t e d a r e a of t e s t i m o n y may g i v e rise t o d i s t r u s t . " S t a t e v. Pecora ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . I P.2d , 37 St.Rep. 1742, 1744. See also S t a t e v. Smith (1980 I Mont . , 609 P.2d 696, 699, 37 St.Rep. 583, 587. The s i t u a t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t case would not n e c e s s i t a t e t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n under e i t h e r Ballew o r Pecora. There was no e v i d e n c e of any d e s i r e f o r revenge, or any i n d i c a t i o n of any malice. I n f a c t , t h e v i c t i m and t h e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d to h a v i n g n e v e r even s e e n each o t h e r p r i o r to t h e n i g h t i n q u e s t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e r e c o r d shows e v i d e n c e c o r r o b o r a t i n g t h e v i c t i m ' s testimony. A neighbor heard a woman scream a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same t i m e t h a t t h e v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d to being abducted. A p i e c e of t h e v i c t i m ' s g l a s s e s was found i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e claimed abduc- t i o n . A m i c r o s c o p i c a l l y s i m i l a r pubic h a i r of t h e v i c t i m ' s was found i n d e f e n d a n t 's car. A pubic h a i r m i c r o s c o p i c a l l y similar t o t h e v i c t i m ' s was found i n d e f e n d a n t ' s pubic h a i r s . A hand p r i n t matching t h e v i c t i m ' s was found on t h e ground a t t h e p l a c e where s h e t e s t i f i e d to being f o r c e d to h e r hands and knees f o r a s e x u a l act. A wallet was i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e which t h e vic- t i m t e s t i f i e d t o f i n d i n g d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e s e x u a l acts. Based on t h i s e v i d e n c e and a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , w e conclude t h a t t h e r e w a s no b a s i s f o r o f f e r i n g t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n to t h e jury. A p p e l l a n t also claims e r r o r i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n to t h e j u r y on "without c o n s e n t , " a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n s h i f t e d t h e burden t o d e f e n d a n t of proving to t h e j u r y t h a t t h e act was done w i t h c o n s e n t . H e r e q u e s t e d an i n s t r u c t i o n s t a t i n g t h a t some m a n i f e s t a t i o n of l a c k of c o n s e n t must be shown by t h e v i c t i m . W e f i n d t h a t t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s as a whole c o r r e c t l y i n s t r u c t e d on c o n s e n t and on t h e burden of p r o o f . Defendant o f f e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n which was r e f used: "The c o u r t i n s t r u c t s t h e j u r y t h a t it is t h e l a w o f t h i s S t a t e t h a t a woman a s s a u l t e d w i t h an i n t e n t to c o m m i t r a p e upon h e r is n o t r e q u i r e d to resist by a l l v i o l e n t means w i t h i n h e r power. The l a w r e q u i r e s o n l y t h a t s h e does n o t c o n s e n t , and t h a t she do a l l t h a t h e r age, s t r e n g t h and t h e a t t e n d a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s make it r e a s o n a b l e f o r h e r to do i n o r d e r to m a n i f e s t h e r o p p o s i t i o n . She is n o t r e q u i r e d to resist beyond e x h a u s t i o n of h e r s t r e n g t h or beyond t h e p o i n t where t h e f o r c e used a g a i n s t h e r would make f u r t h e r r e s i s t a n c e u s e l e s s or impossible." The i n s t r u c t i o n which was g i v e n c o n t a i n e d t h e same l a n g u a g e , b u t w i t h one a d d i t i o n : "You are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t c o n t i n u o u s r e s i s t a n c e is n o t r e q u i r e d t o show t h a t s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e was w i t h o u t consent." The judge f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on t h e meaning of " w i t h o u t c o n s e n t , " a s found i n s e c t i o n 45-5-501, MCA: "You are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t an act is done ' w i t h o u t c o n s e n t ' i f t h e v i c t i m is compelled to submit by f o r c e or t h r e a t of b o d i l y i n j u r y o r t h r e a t of kidnapping, to be in£ l i c t e d on anyone." A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s do n o t a d e q u a t e l y i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on t h e n e c e s s i t y of t h e v i c t i m ' s showing a c t i v e r e s i s t a n c e to t h e a s s a i l a n t , and r e q u e s t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n : "To c o n s t i t u t e c a r n a l knowledge of a female r a p e , [ s i c ] t h e law r e q u i r e s something more t h a n mere absence of c o n s e n t ; t h e r e must be a c t u a l r e s i s t a n c e , o r excuse, imcompatible w i t h c o n s e n t , f o r its absence. Thus, g e n e r a l l y , r e s i s t a n c e by t h e female is a n e c e s s a r y element o f t h e crime. I n f a c t , t h e e s s e n t i a l element of nonconsent, or t h a t t h e act be a g a i n s t t h e woman's w i l l , s i g n i f i e s , and is i n d i c a t e d by, r e s i s t a n c e by t h e female. " F u r t h e r , it must be real o r genuine and a c t i v e , and n o t f e i g n e d , or p a s s i v e , or p e r f u n c t o r y . " The District Court must i n s u r e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to have i n s t r u c t i o n s s t a t i n g t h e law a p p l i c a b l e to h i s case, S t a t e v. Metcalf ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 3 Mont. 369, 376, 457 P.2d 453, 457, b u t t h e c o u r t is n o t r e q u i r e d t o i n s t r u c t on i n c o r r e c t l a w , S t a t e v . C a r y l (1975),, 168 Mont. 414, 425, 543 P.2d 389, 395, or on e v e r y nuance of a d e f e n s e t h e o r y . S t a t e v. Hamilton (1980 ), Mont . , 605 P.2d 1121, 1129, 37 St.Rep. 70, 78-79. I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether or n o t t h e j u r y w a s p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d as t o t h e d e f e n s e ' s t h e o r y , t h i s Court w i l l look a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s as a whole. S t a t e v. C a r y l , s u p r a , 168 Mont. a t 430, 543 P.2d a t 398. I n s t r u c t i o n No. 6 t o l d t h e j u r y t h a t defen- d a n t w a s charged w i t h " 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 t h a t "every material f a c t n e c e s s a r y to c o n s t i t u t e such crime must b e proved by t h e S t a t e by competent e v i d e n c e , beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . " I n being so i n s t r u c t e d , t h e j u r y was a d e q u a t e l y informed t h a t t h e S t a t e had to prove "without c o n s e n t " beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt; t h e burden was n o t s h i f t e d to t h e d e f e n d a n t t o p r o v e "consent. " Montana law d o e s n o t r e q u i r e r e s i s t a n c e to t h e p o i n t of t h e v i c t i m ' s p u t t i n g h e r l i f e i n jeopardy, nor does t h e l a w r e q u i r e c o n t i n u o u s r e s i s t a n c e . S t a t e v. Glidden ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5 Mont. 470, 474, 529 P.2d 1384, 1386. Here t h e j u r y w a s i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e v i c t i m need o n l y resist to t h e e x t e n t t h a t is r e a s o n a b l e , and t h a t c o n t i n u e d r e s i s t a n c e is n o t n e c e s s a r y to show t h a t t h e act was done w i t h o u t c o n s e n t . T h i s is a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t of t h e law and we f i n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge p r o p e r l y r e f used d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s . The d e f e n d a n t n e x t asserts t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t sup- p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , c i t i n g s e v e r a l items of incons i s t e n t testimony. The d e f e n d a n t was i n poor p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n , and seemingly n o t a b l e t o s u s t a i n t h i s r i g o r o u s s e x u a l a c t i v i t y . The d e f e n d a n t ' s b e h a v i o r a f t e r t h e crime was i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t of a p e r s o n who had committed kidnapping and r a p e . H e went t o work and behaved normally. H e d i d n o t b o t h e r to c l e a n h i s v e h i c l e , e i t h e r i n s i d e o r o u t . No sperm was found i n t h e v a g i n a nor on t h e c l o t h i n g or o t h e r p a r t s of t h e v i c t i m . I n reviewing t h e e v i d e n c e , t h i s Court w i l l view it i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . S t a t e v. C a r y l ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 414, 422, 543 P.2d 389, 394. T h i s Court is n o t t h e trier of f a c t and w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t i f 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 to s u p p o r t it. S t a t e v. Stoddard ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 147 Mont. 402, 408, 412 P.2d 827, 831; S t a t e v. K i r k a l d i e (19781, Mont. , 587 P.2d 1298, 1305, 35 St.Rep. 1532, 1539. I n a d d i t i o n to t h e testimony of t h e complaining w i t n e s s , 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 i n t h e r e c o r d which c o r r o b o r a t e s h e r testimony. The t e s t i m o n y concerning t h e whereabouts of d e f e n d a n t and t h e v i c t i m placed them both a t t h e s c e n e of t h e a b d u c t i o n a t about t h e same t i m e . A woman i n t h e neighborhood h e a r d a scream a t t h e time of t h e a b d u c t i o n . She also heard a f l a p p i n g n o i s e l i k e someone wearing s a n d a l s . M s . Church was wearing s a n d a l s a t t h e t i m e of t h e a b d u c t i o n . The p o l i c e found a p i e c e of t h e v i c t i m ' s f i n g e r n a i l and t h e v i c t i m ' s pubic h a i r i n d e f e n d a n t ' s car. One of d e f e n d a n t ' s head h a i r s w a s d i s c o v e r e d on t h e v i c t i m ' s b l o u s e , and a pubic h a i r m i c r o s c o p i c a l l y similar to t h e v i c t i m ' s was found i n d e f e n d a n t ' s pubic h a i r combings. The v i c t i m h e r s e l f found t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s wallet on t h e ground a t t h e s c e n e of t h e r a p e , and it c o n t a i n e d a p i c t u r e of t h e d e f e n d a n t . She p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d h e r a s s a i l a n t from t h e wallet photo s h o r t l y a f t e r h e r release, and later i d e n t i f i e d him i n Court. W e w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e v e r d i c t of t h e jury, based as it is on s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence. P r i o r to s e n t e n c i n g , t h e d i s t r i c t judge conducted a n in- chambers i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e v i c t i m i n o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e h e r f e e l i n g s as to an a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e . The d e f e n d a n t was n o t p r e s e n t . Both t h e S t a t e and d e f e n s e c o u n s e l were denied any cross-examination. Defense counsel o b j e c t e d to t h e i n t e r v i e w and c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s was a d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to c o n f r o n t and cross-examine. The United S t a t e s Supreme Court h a s found no v i o l a t i o n of due p r o c e s s r i g h t s i n denying c o n f r o n t a t i o n and cross-examination o f w i t n e s s e s i n a s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , W i l l i a m s v. New York ( 1 9 4 9 ) I 337 U.S. 241, 250- 251, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1085, 93 L.Ed 1337, 1344, and t h i s Court i n S t a t e v. Orsborn (1976), 170 Mont. 480, 485, 555 P.2d 509, 512, noted t h a t "under s e c t i o n 95-2205 (now 46-18-113, MCA), t h e r i g h t of cross-examination i n a presen- t e n c i n g h e a r i n g is a d i s c r e t i o n a r y matter w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " The Orsborn c o u r t was concerned w i t h t h e p o s s i b l e use of inac- c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n , and t h e e f f e c t t h a t a s e n t e n c i n g d e c i s i o n , based on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n , h a s on t h e due p r o c e s s r i g h t s of t h e d e f e n d a n t . I n Orsborn, t h e c o u r t found t h a t d e s p i t e a d e n i a l of cross-examination, t h e r e were s u f f i c i e n t s a f e g u a r d s , under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , to p r e v e n t a v i o l a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s . The d e f e n d a n t w a s p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e judge t o l d t h e defen- d a n t t h e f a c t s t h a t he was r e l y i n g on, and he gave t h e d e f e n d a n t a n o p p o r t u n i t y to r e f u t e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . S t a t e v. Orsborn, s u p r a , 170 Mont. a t 485-86, 555 P.2d a t 512, 513. The s i t u a t i o n i n t h e i n s t a n t case does n o t p r e s e n t t h e same p r o t e c t i o n s to d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s . The i n t e r v i e w was conducted o n t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e ' s own i n i t i a t i v e and was h e l d i n chambers w i t h o u t t h e d e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t . No cross-examination was a l l o w e d , n o r was any o p p o r t u n i t y g i v e n t o t h e a b s e n t d e f e n d a n t to r e f u t e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . W e f i n d t h i s procedure to v i o l a t e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to be s e n t e n c e d under c i r c u m s t a n c e s f r e e from m i s i n f o r - mation. I n so h o l d i n g , w e have not determined t h a t i n t e r v i e w i n g t h e v i c t i m of t h e crime is p e r s e v i o l a t i v e of a d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s . W e are r e a f f i r m i n g o u r h o l d i n g i n Orsborn t h a t a s e n t e n c i n g judge may u t i l i z e i n f o r m a t i o n from s o u r c e s o t h e r t h a n t h e t e s t i m o n y of w i t n e s s e s i n open c o u r t , i f t h e r e is a d e q u a t e pro- t e c t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s . But i n t h i s c a s e , we f i n d a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e manner i n which t h e i n t e r v i e w was conducted. The United S t a t e s Supreme Court noted i n W i l l i a m s v. New York, s u p r a , t h a t " l e a v i n g a s e n t e n c i n g judge f r e e to a v a i l him- s e l f of out-of-court i n f o r m a t i o n . . . d o e s s e c u r e to him a broad d i s c r e t i o n a r y power, one s u s c e p t i b l e of abuse." Williams, s u p r a , 337 U.S. a t 251, 69 S.Ct. a t 1085, 93 L.Ed a t 1344. Here, d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge d i d n o t f o l l o w t h e v i c t i m ' s recommendation as to t h e s e n t e n c e , we have no way to d e t e r m i n e whether t h e judge s d i s c r e t i o n concerning t h e l e n g t h o f t h e s e n t e n c e was a f f e c t e d by t h i s i n t e r v i e w . F o r t h a t r e a s o n , w e must v a c a t e t h e s e n t e n c e imposed on t h e d e f e n d a n t and remand f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g . Defendant n e x t a l l e g e s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g him a new t r i a l , i n t h a t d e f e n d a n t was a b l e to b r i n g new e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . H e submitted a n a f f i d a v i t t o t h e c o u r t c o n t a i n i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y of D r . S t r a t f o r d , a p s y c h i a t r i s t , who examined d e f e n d a n t a f ter t r i a l . Defense counsel i n d i c a t e s t h a t p r i o r to t r i a l he had r e p e a t e d l y asked d e f e n d a n t to submit t o an examination, b u t d e f e n d a n t r e f u s e d to do so. When he f i n a l l y was examined, d e f e n d a n t was found to have been e i t h e r unconscious or i n a d i s a s s o c i a t i v e mental state a t t h e time of t h e crime. S e c t i o n 46-16-702, MCA, governs t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c i - s i o n to g r a n t a new t r i a l . The d i s t r i c t judge may do so " i f r e q u i r e d i n t h e i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e . " T h a t d e c i s i o n is based on t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l judge and w i l l n o t be o v e r t u r n e d u n l e s s t h i s Court f i n d s an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . S t a t e v. Lewis ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont.474, 582 P.2d 346, 351, 35 St.Rep. 1089, 1095. T h i s Court h a s noted t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r new t r i a l s on t h e ground of newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e are n o t f a v o r e d , f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t a d e f e n d a n t h a s a l r e a d y had ample o p p o r t u n i t y to pre- p a r e and p r e s e n t h i s case. S t a t e v. Greeno ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 1 3 5 Mont. 580, 586, 342 P.2d 1052, 1055. However, i n c e r t a i n i n s t a n c e s , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n d i s c o v e r e d may r e q u i r e a new t r i a l . I n Greeno, s u p r a , t h i s Court set o u t c e r t a i n r u l e s : " (1) T h a t t h e e v i d e n c e must have come t o t h e knowledge of t h e a p p l i c a n t s i n c e t h e t r i a l ; " ( 2 ) t h a t it w a s n o t through want of d i l i g e n c e t h a t it was n o t d i s c o v e r e d earlier; " ( 3 ) t h a t it is s o material t h a t it would pro- b a b l y produce a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t upon a n o t h e r t r i a l ; " " . . ." S t a t e v. Greeno, s u p r a , 1 3 5 Mont. a t 586, 342 P.2d a t 1055. C e r t a i n l y , each case must be decided on its own f a c t s . I n t h e p r e s e n t case, w e f i n d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e could have been d i s c o v e r e d w i t h due d i l i g e n c e . Defendant w a s encouraged by coun- sel to have an e v a l u a t i o n b e f o r e t r i a l , b u t it w a s o n l y a f t e r a g u i l t y v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t decided to look i n t o a p o s s i b l e d e f e n s e of mental d i s e a s e or d e f e c t . T h i s is n o t a suf- f i c i e n t r e a s o n f o r t h e District Court to g r a n t a new t r i a l . Defendant waived h i s r i g h t to r e l y on t h a t d e f e n s e and to allow him t o do so now would create a problem of p o s s i b l e m u l t i p l e t r i a l s . A d e f e n d a n t could gamble on a v e r d i c t of "not g u i l t y " a t t r i a l , b u t i f c o n v i c t e d , he could t h e n come back to c o u r t w i t h t h e d e f e n s e of mental d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t . The d i s t r i c t judge d i d n o t abuse h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l . D e s p i t e t h e e x i s t e n c e of newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , t h e judge was c o r r e c t i n f i n d i n g t h a t it c o u l d have e a s i l y been d i s c o v e r e d p r i o r to t r i a l . A p p e l l a n t n e x t p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge concluded t h a t d e f e n d a n t was e i t h e r a l i a r or a s c h i z o p h r e n i c . Defense c o u n s e l c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , set o u t i n t h e j u d g e ' s " r e a s o n s f o r s e n t e n c i n g n memorandum, was based on i n c o r r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n which d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e f u t e . Because of o u r d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e must b e vacated and t h e case remanded f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g , we need n o t a d d r e s s t h i s i s s u e . Defendant is aware of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n con- t a i n e d i n t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t and can p r e p a r e t o r e f u t e any i n f o r m a t i o n which he c o n s i d e r s to be e r r o n e o u s . The j u r y found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y on October 15, and he w a s s e n t e n c e d on November 9 to t e n y e a r s on each count, to be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y . A t t h a t t i m e , Judge Gary r e f u s e d to d e s i g n a t e him as e i t h e r "dangerous" or "nondangerous" because he wanted a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t done. Defendant was d e c l a r e d "nondangerousn on March 14, 1980. A p p e l l a n t contends t h a t t h i s d e l a y i n d e s i g n a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s c r u e l and unusual punishment and should be void f o r l a c k of c e r t a i n t y . A p p e l l a n t cites no a u t h o r i t y to s u p p o r t h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h i s f a i l u r e to so d e s i g n a t e him c o n s t i t u t e s c r u e l and unu- s u a l punishment and we f i n d no merit i n t h i s claim. I n Gregg v. Georgia ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2925, 49 L.Ed.2d 859, 874-75, t h e Supreme C o u r t determined t h a t " a t least . . . t h e punishment must n o t i n v o l v e unnecessary and wanton i n f l i c t i o n of p a i n . . . Second, t h e punishment must n o t be g r o s s l y o u t of p r o p o r t i o n to t h e s e v e r i t y of t h e crime ." T h e r e are no such a l l e g a t i o n s h e r e . A s t o t h e u n c e r t a i n t y caused by t h e d e l a y , s e c t i o n 46-18-102, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e must be rendered w i t h i n a " r e a s o n a b l e time." T h i s Court h a s n o t d e f i n e d " r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , " b u t most j u r i s d i c t i o n s r e l e g a t e t h e d e c i s i o n o f r e a s o n a b l e t i m e to t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge. A. Campbell, -- Law o f S e n t e n c i n g , ( 1 9 7 8 ) , S71. Delays w i l l be upheld i f t h e y are found to be i n t h e i n t e r e s t s of j u s t i c e , T r e a k l e v. United S t a t e s ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 6 4 ) , 327 F.2d 82, 83, and a l l o w i n g t h e judge to o b t a i n more i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e o f f e n d e r h a s been found t o be i n t h e i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e . Bolduc v. U.S. ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 6 ) , 363 F.2d 832, 833-34. I n t h i s c a s e , it a p p e a r s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge w a s con- c e r n e d w i t h t r e a t i n g d e f e n d a n t j u s t l y by r e q u e s t i n g t h e e v a l u a t i o n . Any d e l a y a p p e a r s to have been i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t and w a s r e a s o n a b l e under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e l a c k of d e s i g n a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t b e c o n s i d e r e d nondangerous f o r purposes of p a r o l e . S e c t i o n 46-18-404(3), MCA. Thus w e f i n d t h a t t h e r e was no p r e j u d i c e to t h e d e f e n d a n t . The d i s t r i c t judge denied d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t to be pre- s e n t a t a p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n h e a r i n g h e l d to d e t e r m i n e whether d e f e n d a n t was e l i g i b l e f o r b a i l pending a p p e a l . A p p e l l a n t con- t e n d s t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e s e n c e was r e q u i r e d . Defendant is n o t r e q u i r e d to be p r e s e n t a t p r o c e e d i n g s o c c u r r i n g af t e r t h e v e r d i c t , because such p r o c e e d i n g s are not p a r t of t h e t r i a l . S t a t e v. P e t e r s ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 188, 405 P.2d 642. I n P e t e r s , d e f e n d a n t was not p r e s e n t a t a motion f o r a new t r i a l , which t h i s Court found was n o t error. S t a t e v. P e t e r s , s u p r a , 146 Mont. a t 197, 405 P.2d a t 647. The same r e a s o n i n g a p p l i e s h e r e . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o u r t should have had t h e bene- f i t of s e e i n g H i g l e y ' s demeanor and h i s a t t i t u d e toward t h e c o u r t . T h i s argument is also w i t h o u t merit. The d i s t r i c t judge had a week-long t r i a l d u r i n g which t o view d e f e n d a n t . A p p e l l a n t ' s last claim is t o t a l l y f r i v o l o u s . The S t a t e concedes t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s a r i g h t to a l l r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t f o r purposes of a p p e a l . However, t h e S t a t e asserts t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a s n o t r e q u e s t e d any p o r t i o n s of t h e t r a n s c r i p t which have n o t been f u r n i s h e d to him, n o r does t h e a p p e l l a n t s p e c i f y any p o r t i o n s which he h a s n o t r e c e i v e d . There is no error. W e a f f i r m t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n . W e v a c a t e t h e sen- t e n c e and remand f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g . Chief J u s t i c e