No. 87-176 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1987 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vsROBERT BRADFORD, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, 

The Honorable R. D. McPhillips, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

John Keith, Public Defender, Great Falls, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Judy Browning, Asst. Atty. General, Helena 

Patrick L. Paul, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana 

Antonia Marra & Barbara Bell, Deputy County Attorneys 

Submitted on Briefs: Aug. 6, 1987 

Decided: September 29, 1987 

Filed: SEP 2 9 1987 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Defendant, Mr. Bradford, pled guilty to six felony 

counts relating to sexual abuse of his daughters. In sentencing, the District Court for the Eighth Judicial District, 

Cascade County, relied upon the recommendations of a psychologist who examined Mr. Bradford. Mr. Bradford appeals. We 

affirm. 

The issue is whether the District Court abused its 

discretion in refusing Mr. Bradford's request for a second 

psychological evaluation. 

Mr. Bradford was charged by information with sexual 

assault (3 counts) , tampering with witnesses, tampering with 

physical evidence, and sexual intercourse without consent. 

On the date scheduled for trial, he pled guilty on all 

counts. In exchange for Mr. Bradford's guilty pleas, the 

County Attorney's office agreed to rely upon the sentencing 

recommendations of the Presentence Report and a psychologist's evaluation, both of which would be prepared after 

entry of the plea. 

Mr. Bradford was examined by Phillip Russell, Ph.D., of 

the Yellowstone Treatment Program in Billings, Montana. Dr. 

Russell's report stated that " [i] n the examiner's experience 

with over 500 cases of sexual abuse, this stands as a hallmark of perversity and degredation." It also stated that Mr. 

Bradford exhibited almost no remorse for his acts and "is 

absolutely not amenable to treatment in an outpatient community based program." Mr. Bradford was provided with a copy 

of the report prior to sentencing. 

At the sentencing hearing, the defense moved for a 

continuance so that Mr. Bradford could obtain a second psychological evaluation at his own expense. The court denied 

the motion, and sentenced Mr. Bradford to 20 years on each of 
the sexual assault charges, 10 years on the charges of tampering with witnesses and evidence, and 30 years on the 

charge of sexual intercourse without consent, all to be 

served concurrently. 

Did the District Court abuse its discretion in refusing 

Mr. Bradford's request for a second psychological evaluation? 

Mr. Bradford argues that because Dr. Russell's report 

was extremely negative, the District Court abused its discretion when it refused to allow him to obtain another psychological report at his own expense. He also argues that Dr. 

Russell's report is inherently prejudiced because Dr. Russell 

saw two of Mr. Bradford's children prior to evaluating Mr. 

Bradford. His argument on the second point is sketchy, and 

we note that at the sentencing hearing the attorney for the 

State said that she believed the children were interviewed 

after, not before, Mr. Bradford. 

Section 46-18-112, MCA, allows a mental examination to 

be included in a presentence investigation "when it is 

desireable in the opinion of the court." That section leaves 

to the district court's discretion the decisions on mental 

examinations for sentencing purposes. Mr. Bradford has shown 

nothing that would require a second mental examination in 

this case. Dr. Russell's report contains extensive quotations from statements by Mr. Bradford's daughters, which Dr. 

Russell aptly summarizes the statements as descriptions of 

pornographic sexual abuse spanning a period of approximately 

14 years. That the report is highly unfavorable to Mr. 

Bradford is more a result of the horrifying statements of the 

children than of any comments by Dr. Russell. Mr. Bradford's 

lack of remorse about the crimes with which he was charged 

was demonstrated in his statement to the District Court that 

"I firmly don't believe that I am the terrible person the 
doctor portrays me to be, I really don't." The attitude 

conveyed in that statement when viewed in light of Mr. Bradford's own admissions regarding the crimes abundantly supports Dr. Russell's sentencing recommendation. Further, as 

the District Court noted, it was the defense which selected 

Dr. Russell to perform the psychological evaluation. 

We conclude that it was within the District Court's 

discretion to deny Mr. Bradford's request for a second psychological evaluation. ~ffirmed. 

We concur: 

/ 

/& Chief -T-v,f Justice 

#e Justices