Case Title: STATE v MACKIE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 79-55 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1980 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, TERRANCE ANDREW MACKIE, a/k/a J I M M A S O N , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Missoula. Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Murray and H o l t , Missoula, Montana Margaret Borg argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney, General, Helena~, Montana Chris Tweeten argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Karen S. Townsend, argued, Deputy County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted: November 1 4 , 1980 Decided: 2 1 1981 The Honorable Gordon R. B e n n e t t , d i s t r i c t judge, s i t t i n g f o r Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy, d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. A f t e r t r i a l by j u r y , d e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d i n t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Missoula County, o f s e x u a l 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 thereupon s e n t e n c e d t o 20 y e a r s a t Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . H e a p p e a l s b o t h t h e c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e . W e a f f i r m . . The f o l l o w i n g e r r o r s a r e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t : 1. Admitting a photograph d e p i c t i n g a b r a s i o n s on t h e v i c t i m ' s back. 2. Allowing t h r e e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s t o t e s t i f y about c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h e y had w i t h t h e v i c t i m . 3 . R e f u s i n g t o g i v e a s p e c i a l c a u t i o n a r y r a p e i n s t r u c t i o n . 4. U t i l i z i n g a t s e n t e n c i n g p s y c h i a t r i c and p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t s c o n t a i n i n g u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n . There was c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e e v e n t s which o c c u r r e d on t h e evening of August 29, 1977. The p r o s e c u t i o n p r e s e n t e d evidence t o prove d e f e n d a n t b r u t a l l y raped a young Missoula woman t h a t n i g h t . The d e f e n d a n t claimed t h e woman v o l u n t a r i l y engaged i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h him. The r a p e v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d s h e went f o r a d r i v e w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t , i n t e n d i n g t o go t o a c o f f e e shop and d i s c u s s p e r s o n a l problems d e v e l o p i n g between d e f e n d a n t and h i s g i r l f r i e n d , who was h e r roommate. I n s t e a d of d r i v i n g t o t h e c o f f e e shop, s h e s a i d d e f e n d a n t d r o v e h e r t o an i s o l a t e d a r e a , parked t h e c a r , and made s e x u a l advances. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t choked and raped h e r , when s h e r e s i s t e d t h e advances. Defendant t e s t i f i e d h e and t h e v i c t i m v o l u n t a r i l y engaged i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e i n t h e v i c t i m ' s apartment t h a t n i g h t . H e a d m i t t e d t h e y d i d go f o r a d r i v e b u t i n s i s t e d t h e y merely d r o v e around town. I n h i s f i r s t s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f e r r o r , d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h e c o u r t e r r e d by a l l o w i n g i n t o e v i d e n c e a photograph d e p i c t i n g l i n e a r a b r a s i o n s o r s c r a t c h e s a p p e a r i n g on t h e v i c t i m ' s back. H e m a i n t a i n s t h e p r o s e c u t i o n p r e s e n t e d a n i n s u f f i c i e n t f o u n d a t i o n t o p r o p e r l y p e r m i t t h e photograph i n t o evidence. W e d i s a g r e e . The n u r s e who took t h e p i c t u r e d u r i n g an examination of t h e v i c t i m immediately f o l l o w i n g t h e i n c i d e n t t e s t i f i e d a s f o l l o w s : "Q. Miss S l o a n , t h e o t h e r day I showed you a p i c t u r e which is marked a s S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t No. 1; is t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. Yes. "Q. You took t h a t p i c t u r e ? A . Yes, I d i d . "Q. Why d i d you t a k e t h a t p i c t u r e ? A. Because it was v i s u a l markings t h a t were c l e a r l y seen. "Q. Did [ t h e v i c t i m ] say a n y t h i n g t o you t h a t made you t h i n k t h a t it was n e c e s s a r y t o t a k e t h a t p i c t u r e ? A. Yes, s h e d i d remark t h a t s h e g o t them [ t h e s c r a t c h e s ] t h a t e v e n i n g , o r t h a t , you know, a t t h e i n c i d e n t . "Q. A s a r e s u l t o f t h e a l l e g e d i n c i d e n t ? A . Yes .'I The l o n g s t a n d i n g r u l e i n Montana is t h a t a photograph i s a d m i s s i b l e i f it " f a i r l y and a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t s r e l e v a n t evidence." S t a t e v. J o n e s ( 1 9 1 4 ) , 48 Mont. 505, 139 P. 441. I t is w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a l l o w i n t o e v i d e n c e d u l y v e r i f i e d photographs t o a i d t h e j u r y i n its f a c t - f i n d i n g p r o c e s s . F u l t o n v. Chouteau County Farmers' Co. ( 1 9 3 4 ) , 98 Mont. 48, 37 P.2d 1025. T h i s photo- graph, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t f o r c e was used by d e f e n d a n t d u r i n g t h e i n c i d e n t , was h i g h l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e of c o n s e n t . I t t e n d e d t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h e v i c t i m ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e i n c i d e n t . I t was o f such poor q u a l i t y t h a t it could n o t be c o n s i d e r e d inflammatory. I n f a c t , it was o f such poor q u a l i t y t h a t it could n o t be c o n s i d e r e d p r e j u d i c i a l even i f it was i n a d m i s s i b l e . Defendant n e x t c o n t e n d s a p o r t i o n of t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h r e e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s was i n a d m i s s i b l e hearsay. These w i t n e s s e s , two f r i e n d s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t and a r a p e c o u n s e l o r , met w i t h t h e v i c t i m t h e morning a f t e r t h e r a p e i n c i d e n t . Each w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h e v i c t i m appeared t o be f r i g h t e n e d and d i s o r i e n t e d . Over d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s o b j e c t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y was given: F i r s t w i t n e s s : "(2. Did s h e [ t h e v i c t i m ] s a y a n y t h i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t h i s r i d e : A. J u s t r a t t l i n g on, s a y i n g , ' G e t me o u t of h e r e . The son o f a b i t c h . G e t m e . . .' "Q. I ' m s o r r y . I c a n ' t h e a r you. . . A . I ' m s o r r y . 'Son of a b i t c h . Get m e o u t o f h e r e . I have t o g e t o u t o f h e r e . Go f a s t e r . ' You know, because I was d r i v i n g t h e Volkswagon . . . "Q. Did . . . [ t h e v i c t i m ] s a y a n y t h i n g e l s e ? A . She t o l d h e r , you know, t h a t t h e y -- "Q. What d i d s h e s a y . . . A . She s a i d s h e was s c a r e d ; s h e c o u l d n ' t t a l k t o L i z because s h e was a c o p . T h a t s h e was--I d o n ' t remember what e l s e . She was j u s t r a t t l i n g on, j u s t l i k e s h e was b e f o r e . Second w i t n e s s : "Q. What d i d [ t h e v i c t i m ] s a y t o you? A . She s a i d , 'Oh, m y God. ' "Objection . . . "Overruled . . . "Q. Go ahead, you may-- A . She s a i d , 'Why is God doing this t o m e . ' Rape counselor: "Q. . . . would you p l e a s e t e l l t h e j u r y what [ t h e v i c t i m ] t o l d you about any kind o f p h y s i c a l force-- " O b j e c t i o n . . . "Overruled . . . "Q. You may answer. A. Okay, [she] t o l d me t h a t he choked her s o much t h a t s h e thought s h e might black o u t , and t h a t he used a v e r y t h r e a t e n i n g v o i c e and used v e r b a l t h r e a t s towards her." Both p a r t i e s b e l i e v e t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h e s e s t a t e - ments is governed by Rule 803 ( 2 ) , Mont.R.Evid., t h e e x c i t e d u t t e r a n c e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e h e a r s a y r u l e , which p r o v i d e s : "The f o l l o w i n g a r e n o t excluded by t h e h e a r s a y r u l e , even though t h e d e c l a r a n t is a v a i l a b l e a s a w i t n e s s : . . . ( 2 ) Excited u t t e r a n c e . A s t a t e m e n t r e l a t i n g t o a s t a r t l i n g e v e n t o r c o n d i t i o n made w h i l e t h e d e c l a r a n t was under t h e s t r e s s of excitement caused by t h e e v e n t o r c o n d i t i o n . " Both p r o s e c u t i o n and d e f e n s e a g r e e t h e a l l e g e d r a p e would be s u f f i c i e n t l y s t a r t l i n g t o c a u s e t h e v i c t i m t o make e x c i t e d u t t e r a n c e s . They d i s a g r e e a s t o w h e t h e r t h e s t a t e m e n t s h e r e were made "under t h e s t r e s s of excitement" c a u s e d by t h e r a p e , t h e r e b y q u a l i f y i n g a s e x c i t e d u t t e r a n c e s . The d e f e n s e contends t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s a r e i n a d m i s s i b l e because t h e y were made up t o f o u r h o u r s a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d r a p e i n c i d e n t . The p r o s e c u t i o n r e b u t s d e f e n d a n t ' s argument by showing t h a t t h e r a p e v i c t i m h e r e was s u f f e r i n g from " r a p e trauma syndrome", a medical term f o r t.he d i s o r i e n t a t i o n and s h o c k e x p e r i e n c e d by r a p e v i c t i m s f o l l o w i n g a r a p e a s s a u l t . These arguments a r e n o t germane a s t h e testimony included above d o e s n o t c o n t a i n h e a r s a y under t h e Montana Rules of Evidence. The f i r s t two w i t n e s s e s ' s t a t e m e n t s do n o t f i t w i t h i n o u r d e f i n i t i o n o f a h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t . R u l e 8 0 1 ( c ) , Mont.R.Evid. d e f i n e s h e a r s a y a s f o l l o w s : "Hearsay. Hearsay is a s t a t e m e n t , o t h e r than one made by t h e d e c l a r a n t t e s t i f y i n g a t t h e t r i a l o r h e a r i n g , o f f e r e d i n evidence t o prove t h e t r u t h of t h e m a t t e r a s s e r t e d . " (Emphasis - added. ) Clearly, t h e s t a t e m e n t s made by t h e f i r s t two w i t n e s s e s were n o t o f f e r e d t o prove t h e t r u t h of t h e a s s e r t i o n s made t h e r e i n . While t h e y do t e n d t o show t h a t t h e v i c t i m was i n a high s t a t e of a n x i e t y and, p o s s i b l y , c o n f u s i o n , t h e pro- s e c u t i o n was o b v i o u s l y n o t p r e s e n t i n g them t o prove t h e l i n e a g e of t h e d e f e n d a n t o r a n y t h i n g about t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e v i c t i m and t h e d e i t y . The e x c l a m a t i o n s themselves cannot p o s s i b l y be viewed a s p r o b a t i v e o f any element of t h e crime. The o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e w i t n e s s e s r e c o u n t i n g them were p r o p e r l y o v e r r u l e d . The t h i r d s t a t e m e n t , a l t h o u g h h e a r s a y a s d e f i n e d by Rule 801(c), is a d m i s s i b l e a s a nonhearsay s t a t e m e n t under Rule " ( d ) S t a t e m e n t s which a r e n o t h e a r s a y . A s t a t e m e n t is n o t h e a r s a y i f : "(1) P r i o r S t a t e m e n t by w i t n e s s . The d e c l a r a n t t e s t i f i e s a t t h e t r i a l o r h e a r i n g and is s u b j e c t t o cross-examination c o n c e r n i n s t h e s t a t e m e n t , and t h e s t a t e m e n t is . . . ( ~ j s o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s t e s t i m o n y and i s o f f e r e d - - t o r e b u t an e x p r e s s o r implied c h a r q e a g a i n s t - him o f s u b s e q u e n t f a b r i c a t i o n , - - - - - - i m p r o p e r i n f l u e n c e o r motive . . ." (Emphasis added.) The d e f e n d a n t i n s i s t e d throughout t h a t t h e s e x u a l i n t e r - c o u r s e t h a t o c c u r r e d w i t h t h e v i c t i m was consensual. I n o r d e r t o prove l a c k of c o n s e n t , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n c a l l e d t h e v i c t i m t o t e s t i f y . Upon d i r e c t examination t h e v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t had choked h e r t o f o r c e h e r t o engage i n i n t e r c o u r s e . Defense c o u n s e l on cross-examination a t t e m p t e d t o impeach her by a s k i n g her t o e x p l a i n why s h e d i d n o t r e p o r t t h i s choking t o t h e d o c t o r who examined her a f t e r t h e r a p e i n c i d e n t . A f t e r f i v e more w i t n e s s e s were c a l l e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , t h e r a p e counselor was c a l l e d and she recounted t h e p u r p o r t e d h e a r s a y r e g a r d i n g t h e v i c t i m ' s s t a t e m e n t a b o u t t h e c h o k i n g . T h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s c l e a r l y q u a l i f y t h e c o u n s e l o r ' s t e s t i m o n y a s nonhearsay under Rule 8 0 1 ( d ) ( l ) ( B ) , s u p r a . The quoted d e c l a r a n t ( r a p e v i c t i m ) t e s t i f i e d a t t h e t r i a l , s h e was s u b j e c t t o cross-examination concerning h e r s t a t e m e n t , t h e c o u n s e l o r ' s s t a t e m e n t is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e v i c t i m ' s testimony, and it r e b u t s an implied c h a r g e o f f a b r i c a t i o n . The h e a r s a y r u l e i s i n t e n d e d t o i n s u r e t h a t o n l y r e l i a b l e evidence of out-of-court d e c l a r a t i o n s is p r e s e n t e d t o a jury. T e s t i m o n i a l e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l may be t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y by r e q u i r i n g t h e w i t n e s s o f f e r i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y t o t e s t i f y u n d e r o a t h , s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - examination. Hearsay e v i d e n c e , by d e f i n i t i o n , is e v i d e n c e t h a t cannot be t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h i s manner. See Commission Comment, Rule 801, Mont .R.Evid. U n l e s s t h e h e a r s a y evidence can be shown t o have some c i r c u m s t a n t i a l g u a r a n t y o f t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s , its admission is b a r r e d . See Commission Comment, Rule 803 and 804, Mont.R.Evid. P r i o r c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s a r e d e f i n e d a s nonhearsay s t a t e m e n t s because t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e s t a t e m e n t is s u b j e c t t o a d v e r s a r i a l t e s t i n g . The r u l e p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e d e c l a r e r o f t h e p r i o r s t a t e m e n t must be p r e s e n t and s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - examination concerning t h e s t a t e m e n t b e f o r e a n o t h e r w i t n e s s may he p e r m i t t e d t o r e p e a t t h e d e c l a r a n t ' s p r e v i o u s l y made s t a t e m e n t . The p r i o r c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t is a d m i s s i b l e a s e v i d e n c e o n l y when it is n e c e s s a r y t o redeem t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e d e c l a r a n t , p r e v i o u s l y brought i n t o q u e s t i o n by t h e opponent. Under Rule 8 0 1 ( d ) ( l ) ( B ) , t h e opponent "opens t h e door'' t o t h e admission of p r i o r c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s by a t t e m p t i n g t o d i s c r e d i t t h e d e c l a r a n t by c l a i m i n g f a b r i c a t i o n . See, Advisory Committee Note, Rule 8 O l ( d ) , Fed.R.Evid. That is e x a c t l y what was done h e r e and t h e c o u r t was t h e r e f o r e c o r r e c t i n o v e r r u l i n g t h e o b j e c t i o n t o t h e r e c o u n t i n g of t h e v i c t i m ' s p r i o r c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t . Defendant c l a i m s t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e an i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e j u r y t h a t " t h e a c c u s a t i o n of r a p e . . . is e a s y t o make, b u t hard t o defend a g a i n s t , " an i n s t r u c t i o n s i m i l a r t o one approved i n S t a t e v. Smith ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 609 P.2d 696, 37 St.Rep. 583. Smith was decided a f t e r t h e time t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was r e f u s e d i n t h i s case. The f a c t s h e r e , h o w e v e r , d o n o t j u s t i f y t h e u s e o f t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n . A s t h i s Court held i n S t a t e v. Pecora ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 619 P.2d 173, 37 St.Rep. 1742, t h e Smith i n s t r u c t i o n is a p p l i c a b l e o n l y i f t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l shows: (1) p e r s o n a l enmity e x i s t e d between t h e v i c t i m and t h e d e f e n d a n t , and ( 2 ) c o r r o b o r a t i n g evidence of t h e v i c t i m ' s account of t h e r a p e i n c i d e n t d o e s n o t e x i s t . The r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e is s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h e r e c o r d i n Smith. No evidence of m a n i f e s t m a l i c e o r motive f o r r e v e n g e b e t w e e n t h e v i c t i m and t h e d e f e n d a n t was p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g t h e t r ia.1. F u r t h e r , a good d e a l of c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g t h e t r i a l , i n c l u d i n g t h e testimony of t h e v i c t i m ' s f r i e n d s and t h e p h y s i c a l evidence of t h e v i c t i m ' s i n j ury. The i n s t r u c t i o n was p r o p e r l y r e f used. The f i n a l q u e s t i o n h a s t o do w i t h t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e d u r e . F o l l o w i n g c o n v i c t i o n , d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t e d t h e c o u r t t o o r d e r t h a t a p s y c h i a t r i c examination and e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t b e p r e p a r e d f o r t h e c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n s e n t e n c i n g . H e s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t e d t h a t Dr. Noel Hoell p r e p a r e t h e r e p o r t . The c o u r t acceded t o t h e r e q u e s t . Dr. Hoell submitted h i s r e p o r t t o t h e c o u r t a f t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s w i t h d e f e n d a n t and a review of m a t e r i a l s submitted by t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h e Missoula county a t t o r n e y . The p s y c h i a t r i c r e p o r t t u r n e d o u t t o be unfavorable t o d e f e n d a n t ' s argument f o r a l i g h t p r i s o n s e n t e n c e . I t s t r e s s e d d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e v i o u s r a p e c h a r g e s and d e s c r i b e d him a s a l i a r and a m a n i p u l a t o r . I t was used n o t o n l y by t h e c o u r t b u t by a p a r o l e and p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r i n p r e p a r i n g t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Defendant m a i n t a i n s t h e p s y c h i a t r i c r e p o r t was " t a i n t e d " by t h e m a t e r i a l s provided t o Dr. Hoe11 by t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e . These m a t e r i a l s i n c l u d e d r e f e r e n c e s t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c r i m i n a l r e c o r d . H e c l a i m s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was m i s l e a d i n g and c o n t a i n e d i n n u e n d o a n d c o n j e c t u r e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t s t a t e m e n t s o f a l l e g e d r a p e v i c t i m s made i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h p r e v i o u s s i m i l a r c h a r g e s , on which d e f e n d a n t was a c q u i t t e d , were i n c l u d e d i n t h e m a t e r i a l s and t h u s u n f a i r l y i n f l u e n c e d t h e p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s f i n d i n g s . He c o n t e n d s t h e c o u r t ' s u s e of t h i s " t a i n t e d " p s y c h i a t r i c r e p o r t v i o l a t e s t h e r u l e t h a t a c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t h a s a due p r o c e s s g u a r a n t e e a g a i n s t t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f a s e n t e n c e p r e d i c a t e d on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n . S t a t e v. Orsborn ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 480, 555 P.2d 509. The e n t i r e r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t e s d e f e n d a n t was c l e a r l y accorded s e n t e n c i n g due p r o c e s s , and t h a t t h e r u l e i n Orsborn, s u p r a , was n o t v i o l a t e d . He r e c e i v e d a copy o f both t h e p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n and t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t i n time t o p r e p a r e f o r t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g . The c o u r t was f u l l y informed of h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t a p o r t i o n o f t h e r e p o r t was " t a i n t e d . " H e was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l and was allowed t o p r e s e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e t a i n t a l l e g a t i o n and t o r e b u t t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o n c l u s i o n s and t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t . T h e r e was, t h e n , f u l l y s u f f i c i e n t p r o c e d u r a l p r o t e c t i o n t o r e a s o n a b l y a s s u r e t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e was n o t based on misinformation. See, S t a t e v. H i g l e y (No. 80-142, Decided 12/17/80, 37 St.Rep. 1 9 4 2 ) . There is no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e was, i n f a c t , based on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n . Cross-examination of a l l t h o s e c o n t r i b u t i n g t o a p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t r e s t s i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . S e c t i o n 46-18-113, MCA. W e f i n d no abuse of t h a t d i s c r e t i o n h e r e . The judgment and s e n t e n c e a r e t h e r e f o r e a f f irmed. Hon. Gordon R. B e n n e t t , D i s t r i c t Judge, S i t t i n g i n f o r Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e case Thisfwas s u b m i t t e d p r i o r t o J a n u a r y 5, 1981.