Case Title: STATE v A D M

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-525

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 84-525 I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1985 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- A. D. M., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t 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 Lewis & Clark, The Honorable Henry Loble, Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O F RECORD: For Appellant: Cannon & Sheehy; Edmund F. Sheehy, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Mike McGrath, County Attorney, Helena, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : A p r i l 11, 1985 Decided: June 25, 1985 /- I I ; + , 9 g - d Clerk M r . J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court Defendant appea 1s from a c o n v i c t i o n o f felony sexua 1 a s s a u l t pursuant t o s e c t i o n 45-5-502, MCA, following a jury t r i a l i n t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Lewis and Clark County, on May 16, 1984. W e a f f i r m . School o f f i c i a l s n o t i f i e d t h e a u t h o r i t i e s on October 2 4 , 1983, t h a t defendant was a l l e g e d t o have committed sexual a s s a u l t upon h i s five-year-old daughter. R i t a P i c k e r i n g , a s o c i a l worker from t h e w e l f a r e department, removed t h e c h i l d from school on October 26 i n o r d e r t o i n t e r v i e w h e r . P i c k e r i n g and a s h e r i f f ' s department d e t e c t i v e conducted and recorded an i n t e r v i e w o f t h e c h i l d and a s a r e s u l t she was removed from d e f e n d a n t ' s home and placed i n f o s t e r c a r e . I n t h e i n t e r v i e w , t h e c h i l d d e s c r i b e d how h e r f a t h e r had forced h e r t o p l a y w i t h h i s "winker d i n k e r ; " s h e used anatomically c o r r e c t d o l l s t o demonstrate how s h e was forced t o masturbate defendant and perform o r a l sex; she d e s c r i b e d t h e c o l o r , t a s t e and s m e l l o f e j a c u l a t e ; she t o l d P i c k e r i n g t h a t t h e defendant had touched h e r , sucked h e r "boobies" and g o t t e n on t o p o f h e r and p u t h i s p e n i s i n s i d e h e r ; she used t h e d o l l s t o demonstrate how h e r f a t h e r had "humped" h e r ; she s a i d t h a t she "bleeded" a f t e r t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s ; and she described a videotape h e r f a t h e r made o f t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s . The defendant was a r r e s t e d on February 1, 1984 and charged w i t h s e x u a l l y a s s a u l t i n g h i s daughter on a number o f occasions over t h e period o f a y e a r , w i t h t h e l a s t a s s a u l t o c c u r r i n g October 25, 1983. He pled n o t g u i l t y and a j u r y t r i a l was held on May 1 4 , 15 and 16, 1984. A t t r i a l , t h e S t a t e produced t h e c h i l d ' s testimony through a videotape taken a t h e r f o s t e r home. R i t a P i c k e r i n g and t h e f o s t e r mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s e a r l i e r s t a t e m e n t s and i n t e r v i e w s were c o n s i s t e n t with t h e videotaped testimony. A c l i n i c a l psychologist who had examined t h e c h i l d t e s t i f i e d t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f sexual a c t i v i t y was beyond t h a t which she would be a b l e t o f a n t a s i z e ; h e r terminology was c o n s i s t e n t with t h a t o f a f i v e o r s i x y e a r o l d ; and it would be v e r y u n l i k e l y t h a t she could have picked up such information from watching pornography o r o t h e r people engaged i n s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s . The defendant o f f e r e d testimony t h a t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o engage i n t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s was r a r e because o f t h e presence o f o t h e r a d u l t s i n t h e house and h i s absence from home. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e terms t h e c h i l d used came from family f r i e n d s and t h a t t h e c h i l d may have seen some s e x u a l l y e x p l i c i t videotapes he owned. The i s s u e s presented on appeal a r e : (1) Was t h e v i c t i m ' s uncorroborated testimony, due t o h e r age, s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n v i c t defendant? ( 2 ) Was t h e evidence i n s u f f i c i e n t a s a whole t o c o n v i c t defendant? The defendant contends t h a t when a c h i l d o f t h i s age t e s t i f i e s a f t e r undergoing therapy and counseling, h e r testimony should be corroborated. H e p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e information from t h e c h i l d became less r e l i a b l e due t o t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e between t h e o f f e n s e s and h e r testimony and because she was r e q u i r e d t o recount t h e e v e n t s i n counseling and on o t h e r occasions. I n Montana, a v i c t i m ' s testimony does n o t r e q u i r e c o r r o b o r a t i o n i n a sexual a s s a u l t c a s e . S t a t e v. J u s t (1979), 184 Mont. 262, 270-1, 602 P.2d 957, 962; S t a t e v. Metcalf (1969), 153 Mont. 369, 378, 457 P.2d 453, 458. On a t l e a s t two p r i o r o c c a s i o n s , t h i s Court has found four-year o l d sexual a s s a u l t v i c t i m s competent t o t e s t i f y . I n S t a t e v. Rogers (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 692 P.2d 2, 4 1 St.Rep. 2131, t h e c h i l d ' s testimony was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h e a r l i e r s t a t e m e n t s t o o t h e r s except f o r d e t a i l s a s t o d a t e s and t i m e s . I n a n o t h e r r e c e n t c a s e , S t a t e v. D.B.S. (Mont. 19851, P.2d , 42 St.Rep. 770, t h e four-year o l d ' s testimony was corroborated by only one o t h e r w i t n e s s , t h e c h i l d ' s mother. H e r e , t h e victim's testimony was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h e r p r i o r r e p o r t s and supported by t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t ' s testimony. She was competent t o t e s t i f y . Defendant' s arguments a l s o go t o t h e weight o r c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e testimony. The jury had a l l t h e evidence b e f o r e it and found t h e c h i l d ' s testimony c r e d i b l e . W e h o l d , i n accordance with p r i o r Montana law, t h a t t h e v i c t i m ' s testimony i n a sexual a s s a u l t c a s e does n o t r e q u i r e c o r r o b o r a t i o n . The defendant a l s o argues t h a t t h e evidence was i n s u f f i c i e n t a s a whole t o support t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t o f g u i l t y o f felony sexual a s s a u l t . The test f o r determining i f s u b s t a n t i a l evidence s u p p o r t s a c o n v i c t i o n i s whether, a f t e r viewing t h e evidence i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , any r a t i o n a l trier o f f a c t could have found t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f t h e crime beyond a reasonable doubt. S t a t e v. Rodriguiz (Mont. 1981), 628 P.2d 280, 283, 38 St.Rep. 578F, 5781; and Jackson v. V i r g i n i a (1979), 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560. Even i f t h e evidence i s weak and i n c o n f l i c t with o t h e r evidence, it may s t i l l be s u b s t a n t i a l enough t o support a v e r d i c t . S t a t e v. Hall (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 662 P.2d 1306, 1308, 40 St.Rep. 621, 624. Section 45-5-502(l), MCA on sexual a s s a u l t provides: "A person who knowingly s u b j e c t s a n o t h e r n o t h i s spouse t o any sexual c o n t a c t without consent commits t h e o f f e n s e o f sexual a s s a u l t . " Sexual c o n t a c t i s defined a s "any touching o f t h e sexual o r o t h e r i n t i m a t e p a r t s o f t h e person o f a n o t h e r f o r t h e purpose o f arousing o r g r a t i f y i n g t h e sexual d e s i r e o f e i t h e r p a r t y . " Section 45-2-101(60), MCA. The v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d e x t e n s i v e l y by videotape about h e r sexual a c t i v i t i e s w i t h defendant. She provided d e t a i l s about t h e surrounding circumstances and h e r testimony was c o n s i s t e n t with e a r l i e r i n t e r v i e w s . The p s y c h o l o g i s t t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was capable o f providing r e l i a b l e information; t h a t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n o f sexual a c t i v i t i e s f a r exceeded t h a t which could be expected from someone who had n o t engaged i n t h o s e a c t i v i t i e s ; and t h a t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n used terminology c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t o f a f i v e o r six-year-old c h i l d . Although t h e videotape o f t h e s e sexual a c t i v i t i e s a l l e g e d t o have been made was never found, testimony a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d defendant had a t l e a s t one h o u r ' s n o t i c e b e f o r e t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p u t i e s a r r i v e d w i t h a s ~ a r c h warrant and t h e d e p u t i e s found a video camera, t a p e p l a y e r and t a p e s on t h e premises. W e hold t h a t t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t was supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence and w e w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e c o n v i c t i o n on appeal. __-- W e concur: