file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm

No. 99-197 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1999 MT 319[56 St.Rep. 1272]

297 Mont. 274

992 P.2d 1266

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v.

BRUCE HAMBY, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Yellowstone,

Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge Presiding 

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Taraneh L. Javid, Public Defender's Office, Billings, Montana

For Respondent: 

Honorable Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General; Tammy K. Plubell,

Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Dennis Paxinos, County Attorney; Beverly Tronrud, Deputy

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm (1 of 11)4/10/2007 3:01:24 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm

County Attorney, Billings, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: September 30, 1999

Decided: December 22, 1999

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶ Pursuant to § 45-5-503, MCA, a jury found Bruce Hamby guilty of sexually assaulting D.S.,

a ten-year old girl with Down's Syndrome. He was sentenced by the Thirteenth Judicial District

Court, Yellowstone County, to 50 years at the Montana State Prison. Hamby appeals his

conviction based on discretionary rulings involving the denial of a lesser included offense

instruction, a competency hearing, and admission of certain testimony. We affirm the District

Court as to each of these matters and uphold Hamby's conviction.

¶ We restate the dispositive issues as follows:

¶ 1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it refused to give a lesser included

offense instruction for misdemeanor assault?

¶ 2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it failed to hold a competency hearing

with D.S. on the record with counsel present?

¶ 3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Hamby's motion in limine and

his objection to testimony regarding hearsay statements allegedly made by D.S.?

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm (2 of 11)4/10/2007 3:01:24 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm

¶ 4. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it allowed a counselor to testify about her

observations of D.S.?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ Hamby was friends with D.S. and her mother, Betty. He visited them regularly and helped

them around their house. On the day in question, Hamby, Betty and other friends were visiting

outside, and D.S. was in her bedroom watching a movie. Hamby went inside to use the

bathroom. After about 15 minutes, Betty noticed that D.S. was unusually quiet so she went inside

to check on her. Betty found Hamby on D.S.'s bed lying on top of her and apparently kissing her.

When Betty asked what was going on, Hamby stood up and commented on how much D.S.

loved to wrestle. D.S. was grabbing her tongue, scratching at it and gagging.

¶8 Concerned, Betty took D.S. to the bathroom and asked Hamby to leave. In the bathroom,

D.S. grabbed at her crotch, performed licking motions and said that Hamby licked her

"ploop-ploop" (the word she uses for vagina). She also told Betty that Hamby sucked her tongue.

¶9 After the incident, D.S. became fearful and had unusual outbursts of anger. Because of this,

Betty arranged for D.S. to meet with a counselor. The counselor, Billie Wray, saw D.S. three

times. At trial, Wray testified about the observations she made during her visits with D.S. Betty

testified as to the events that took place immediately following the incident with Hamby. Anita

Powell, who was Hamby's girlfriend, testified that Hamby told her that to the best of his

knowledge he was wrestling with D.S. 

¶10 Hamby filed a motion in limine requesting in pertinent part that Wray not be allowed to give

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm (3 of 11)4/10/2007 3:01:24 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm

an opinion that D.S. was sexually abused or to make any reference to Hamby or name him as the

perpetrator. Hamby also requested that the court preclude the State from eliciting any of D.S.'s

statements through other witnesses. The District Court denied Hamby's requests but stated that

proper foundation for such testimony would be necessary. 

¶11 Immediately prior to trial, the court held a competency hearing with D.S. to determine

whether "certain statements of the victim c[ould] be admitted through another witness." In its

order, the court required both parties to appear at the hearing. However, the court conducted the

hearing with D.S. in the judge's chambers with neither party present. The judge then declared

D.S. incompetent, stating that:

[D.S. is] very obviously incompetent to testify and is not able to communicate. Most of what she

said was unintelligible, to the Court at least, and I will make proper findings, if necessary, . . ., in

regard to that. I'm making this finding, though, simply to show that she cannot be available for trial

and is incompe-tent, which should be of no surprise.

Despite Hamby's objection, the District Court admitted D.S.'s statements through Betty's

testimony.

¶12 When Hamby proposed a lesser included offense instruction for misdemeanor assault, the

District Court denied it. Ultimately, a jury found Hamby guilty of sexual assault and the District

Court sentenced him to 50 years in prison. Hamby appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶13 We review all of the issues on this appeal for an abuse of discretion. This Court gives

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm (4 of 11)4/10/2007 3:01:24 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm

broad discretion to a district court in formulating jury instructions so long as the instructions, as a

whole, fully and fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case. See State v. Robbins,

1998 MT 297, ¶ 27, 292 Mont. 23, ¶ 27, 971 P.2d 359, ¶ 27. The question of admissibility of

testimony under a hearsay exception is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. We will not

overrule the district court's decision that a hearsay exception applies absent an abuse of discretion.

See State v. Norgaard (1982), 201 Mont. 165, 176, 653 P.2d 483, 488. An abuse of

discretion applies to the admissibility of other testimony, as well. See, e.g., State v. Mason

(1997), 283 Mont. 149, 154, 941 P.2d 437, 441.

ISSUE 1

¶14 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it refused to give a lesser included offense

instruction for misdemeanor assault?

¶15 Hamby asked in his Proposed Instruction No. 4 that the court inform the jury that "[i]n the

event you find the defendant not guilty of felony sexual assault, you must then consider the lesser

included offense of misdemeanor assault." In his Proposed Instruction No. 6, Hamby asked the

court to define misdemeanor assault as a crime for which the State must prove "[t]hat the

defendant made a physical contact of a provoking or insulting nature." See § 45-5-502(1), MCA.

¶16 Hamby argues that a defendant should be afforded every opportunity to be granted a lesser

included offense instruction, otherwise his liberty will be put at stake. He cites § 46-16-607(2),

MCA, which provides that "[a] lesser included offense instruction must be given when there is a

proper request by one of the parties and the jury, based on the evidence, could be warranted in

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm (5 of 11)4/10/2007 3:01:24 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm

finding the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense." He reminds us that a "court's instructions

should cover every issue or theory having support in the evidence." See, e.g., State v. Ostwald

(1979), 180 Mont. 530, 538, 591 P.2d 646, 651.

¶17 However, two criteria must be met before a defendant is entitled to a lesser included

offense instruction. First, the offense must actually constitute a lesser included offense of the

offense charged and second, there must be sufficient evidence to support the included offense

instruction. See State v. Martinez, 1998 MT 265, ¶ 10, 291 Mont. 306, ¶ 10, 968 P.2d 705, ¶

10. In regard to the second criterion, we have stated that a lesser included offense instruction is

not supported by the evidence where the defendant's evidence or theory, if believed, would

require an acquittal. See Martinez, ¶ 10. 

¶18 Hamby contends that based on Betty and Anita's testimony regarding his statements that he

was wrestling with D.S., there was sufficient evidence to support a lesser included instruction for

misdemeanor assault. However, for this to be true Hamby's act of wrestling would have to have

been of an insulting or provoking nature. To the contrary, Hamby himself admitted that D.S. liked

to wrestle. Thus, Hamby's contention must fail. If the evidence supported Hamby's theory that he

was merely wrestling with D.S., there would not be sufficient evidence to establish that Hamby

knowingly made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature to constitute a misdemeanor

assault; therefore, an acquittal would result. Because we conclude that the evidence did not

support Hamby's proposed jury instruction, we need not address the threshold criterion of

whether misdemeanor assault is a lesser included offense of felony sexual assault. See Martinez, ¶

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm (6 of 11)4/10/2007 3:01:24 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm

10, ¶ 19. 

¶19 Thus, we conclude that the District Court fully and fairly instructed the jury on the law

applicable to the case, and it did not abuse its discretion.

ISSUE 2

¶20 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it failed to hold a competency hearing with

D.S. on the record with counsel present?

¶21 Hamby argues that his constitutional rights to confrontation and due process were violated

when the court failed to include counsel in a competency hearing with D.S., produce a record of

the hearing or, in the alternative, make any findings as to whether D.S.'s statements had guarantees

of trustworthiness and reliability before admitting them.

¶22 The State points out, however, that Hamby failed to object to the competency hearing or

to the court's finding that D.S. was incompetent to testify. Section 46_20_104(2), MCA,

provides that "[f]ailure to make a timely objection during trial constitutes a waiver of the

objection." An exception is found at § 46_20_701(2), MCA, which provides in part that a claim

alleging an error does not require an objection if the convicted person "establishes that the error

was prejudicial as to the convicted person's guilt or punishment" and one of three other factors

was present. Since Hamby failed to object and he has not shown how a possible error was

prejudicial to him, we hold that he has waived his right to have this Court consider his claim. See

State v. Maier, 1999 MT 51, ¶ 94, 293 Mont. 403, ¶ 94, 977 P.2d 298, ¶ 94. 

¶23 Below, we address Hamby's alternative argument that the court failed to make any findings

as to whether D.S.'s statements had guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm (7 of 11)4/10/2007 3:01:24 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm

ISSUE 3

¶24 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Hamby's motion in limine and his

objection to testimony regarding hearsay statements allegedly made by D.S.?

¶25 Pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay statements found at

Rule 803(2), M.R.Evid., the District Court allowed Betty to offer testimony as to the statements

D.S. allegedly made after Hamby was on top of her. Hamby contends that the District Court

should not have admitted these statements because there were no guarantees of trustworthiness to

them given D.S.'s age, her condition with Down's Syndrome, and her incompetence as

determined by the District Court. In support of his argument, he cites State v. J.C.E. (1988),

235 Mont. 264, 271-72, 767 P.2d 309, 314, in which we stated that "[t]he hearsay exceptions . .

. look to the circumstances surrounding a hearsay statement when it is made--the 'circumstantial

guarantees of trustworthiness' that lend reliability to the hearsay statements in lieu of

cross-examination." In essence, Hamby argues that once the court determined D.S. was

incompetent to testify, her statements lacked a guarantee of trustworthiness whether they were

offered by her or someone else.

¶26 However, Hamby fails to recognize that the guarantee of trustworthiness in the excited

utterance exception does not depend on the competency of the speaker. Instead, the excited

utterance exception relies on the spontaneity of the statement caused by the excitement of the

event. The Commission Comments to Montana's excited utterance exception provide that:

The guarantee of trustworthiness is provided by the spontaneity of the statement, caused by the

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm (8 of 11)4/10/2007 3:01:24 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm

excitement ". . . which temporarily stills the capacity of reflection and produces utterances free of

conscious fabrication."

3 M.C.A. Annot., Title 26 at 446 (1996). 

¶27 Hamby proposes that under the excited utterance exception the spontaneity of the

statement presupposes that the person making the excited utterance is competent and thus able to

make a reliable statement. In support of his proposition, he cites State v. Ryan (Wash. 1984),

691 P.2d 197, 203, a case in which the Supreme Court of Washington stated that if the declarant

was not competent at the time of making the statement, the statement may not be introduced

through hearsay repetition. Hamby fails to give sufficient attention, however, to the Washington

court's exception to this rule which specifically applies to excited utterances. See Ryan, 691 P.2d

at 203-04. He also fails to cite any Montana authority to support his proposition. 

¶28 Hamby contends that the District Court should not have used the excited utterance

exception because D.S.'s statements were not spontaneous. He argues that at least some of

D.S.'s statements were prompted by Betty's questions and made after any stress of the excitement

of the event subsided.

¶29 The facts do not support Hamby's argument, however. The record shows that D.S.

exhibited immediate signs of distress when Betty walked in and found Hamby on top of D.S. The

record does not suggest that D.S.'s distress subsided once Betty asked her questions, even when

they were in the bathroom. For these reasons, we conclude that D.S.'s reactions were

spontaneous and, therefore, admissible. The District Court did not abuse its discretion when it

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm (9 of 11)4/10/2007 3:01:24 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm

allowed Betty to introduce D.S.'s statements pursuant to the excited utterance exception.

¶30 Hamby contends that our conclusion violates his right to confront an adverse witness under

the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24, of the Montana

Constitution. Based on Montana law, we do not agree. Also, Hamby does not cite any federal

law contrary to our decision.

¶31 Because we affirm the District Court's application of the excited utterance exception, we

do not consider the parties' arguments regarding the residual hearsay exception found at Rule

804(a)(5), M.R.Evid. Furthermore, the District Court did not rely on the residual hearsay

exception to admit evidence of D.S.'s statements.

ISSUE 4

¶32 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it allowed a counselor to testify about her

observations of D.S.?

¶33 At trial, Wray testified as to a particular exercise she had D.S. perform. In one of their

counseling sessions, Wray drew a face and told D.S. the face was of Hamby. She then asked

D.S. if she wanted to hit it and handed her a soft rubberized bat. Wray testified that D.S. was

very intent on hitting the face. The first time D.S. hit the face for 30 minutes and the second time

for 20 minutes. Wray stated that D.S. exhibited a great deal of anger while doing this. 

¶34 Hamby argues that Wray's testimony was highly prejudicial because it had the same effect

on the jury as had Wray identified him as the perpetrator. In particular, Hamby argues that the

District Court abused its discretion by allowing Wray to identify him as the person represented in

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm (10 of 11)4/10/2007 3:01:24 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm

the drawing. Hamby admitted he was found on top of D.S. and claimed they were wrestling.

Therefore, his identity in that circumstance was never in question, only his actions were. Wray

did not speculate about the reason for D.S.'s reaction, nor did she provide any testimony to imply

that Hamby sexually abused D.S. Thus, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its

discretion by allowing Wray to testify about her observations of D.S.

¶35 We affirm the District Court on each of the issues presented and uphold Hamby's

conviction. 

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

We concur:

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER 

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

/S/ JIM REGNIER 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-197_(12-22-99)%20Opinion.htm (11 of 11)4/10/2007 3:01:24 PM