No. 89-79 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vsRICK JEROME URNESS, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

i- . APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, .- 

In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, 

The Honorable Gordon Bennett, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Cannon & Sheehy; Edmund F. Sheehy, Jr., Helena, 

Montana 

For Respondent : 

Hon. Marc Racicot, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Dorothy McCarter, Asst. Atty. General, Helena 

Mike McGrath, County Attorney; Carolyn Clemens, 

Deputy, Helena, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: June 30, 1989 
Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

This is an appeal from the District Court of the First 

Judicial District, in and for the County of Lewis and Clark, 

State of Montana. The appellant, Rick Jerome Urness, was 

charged with burglary and sexual intercourse without consent. 

He was tried and convicted by a jury on both counts and was 

sentenced to ten years in prison, with seven years suspended 

on each count, the sentences to be served concurrently. In 

addition, the appellant was ordered to pay restitution and 

abide by certain conditions as ordered by the District Court. 

He now appeals. We affirm. 

The sole issue before this Court is whether the 

evidence presented at trial supports the verdicts of burglary 

and sexual intercourse without consent. 

The record indicates that at approximately 4:00 a.m., 

on March 24, 1988, two deputies from the Lewis and Clark 

County Sheriff's office were dispatched to the victim's home. 

Present at the home when the officers arrived were the victim 

and the victim's boyfriend. While taking the victim's 

statement, the officers found her very upset. The victim 

stated that she had been asleep in her bedroom and was 

awakened by the appellant, her estranged husband. After she 

and the appellant had gone into another room he physically 

assaulted her. She further stated that she attempted to call 

the police while the appellant was still in her home but the 

appellant ripped the telephone out of the wall, and continued 

to physically assault her. After the assault, the appellant 

left the home. The officers noticed that the lock on the 

side door of her house had been broken and that the victim 

had red marks on her arms and wrists. 
The officers left the house and searched for the 

appellant on foot and by car. While searching for the 

appellant, the officers were dispatched on another call. At 

approximately 6:00 a.m., the Sheriff's deputies were 

dispatched back to the victim's house. A call was received 

from the victim stating that someone was outside her house. 

However, the officers failed to find anyone. 

The victim's first statement form which she gave the 

Sheriff's deputies did not contain the details of a rape, 

only the assault. Later, on May 4, 1988, the victim 

completed another statement which contained more details of 

the offense which were testified to at trial. 

At trial, the victim testified that at the time of the 

incident she and the appellant were legally separated and 

awaiting the decree of dissolution. She testified that most 

of their marital problems were the result of the appellant's 

alcohol abuse. She stated that he reacted violently to both 

the separation and the pending divorce. The victim further 

testified that she had been dating another man during the 

separation, and when the appellant discovered she was dating, 

he threatened to kill the man involved. 

The victim's testimony at trial included the details of 

what occurred March 24, 1988. She testified that the 

appellant first appeared next to her bed wearing only his 

shirt and attempted to get into bed with her. She stated 

that she got the appellant out of her bedroom so he would not 

see her boyfriend in her bed. She further claimed the 

appellant became violent and pulled the phone out of the 

wall. She stated that despite repeated pleas for the 

appellant to leave, he grabbed her, mauled her and sexually 

assaulted her. Finally, she testified the appellant became 

even more angry, slammed. her into the kitchen cabinets, then 
picked her up over his head and threw her to the floor, 

causing her to lose consciousness. 

A friend of the victim also testified that the victim 

had come to her the next morning extremely upset and told her 

what transpired the previous night. The friend took Polaroid 

photographs of the bruises on the victim's body but the 

pictures were unclear, therefore they did not attempt to 

photograph other marks on the victim's body. The friend 

testified as to the type and severity of the marks on the 

victim, specifically that the marks on her arms were red 

welts in the shape of a hand. 

Others who testified at trial included the victim's 

boyfriend, the sheriff's deputy, the appellant's girlfriend, 

and a bartender from a local bar/casino. The bartender 

testified that the appellant entered the bar on the night of 

March 23, 1988, around midnight, and asked for his estranged 

wife, who had been employed there on a part-time basis. The 

bartender stated that the appellant was angry, argumentative 

and called the victim a "bitch, a slut and a no good wife." 

The bartender testified that while the appellant remained in 

the bar between 45 minutes and an hour, he did not appear 

drunk, only angry. 

The appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient 

to support the verdicts because he testified that he was 

invited to the victim's home and he did not rape her. He 

also asserts that her version of the facts were inherently 

incredible, and that the weight of the evidence and the 

credibility of the witnesses does not support the guilty 

verdicts. We disagree. 

The weight of evidence and credibility of witnesses is 

exclusively within the province of the trier of fact. It is 

the duty of this Court to uphold the verdict if there is 

substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached by the 
trier of fact. State v. Oman (1985), 218 Mont. 260, 707 P.2d 

1117; State v. Maxwell (1982), 198 Mont. 498, 647 P.2d 348. 

The jury heard the testimony of all the witnesses and 

concluded defendant was guilty of the crimes charged. There 

is nothing to support appellant's claim that the victim's 

testimony was inherently incredible. We conclude there is 

substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. 

Affirmed. 

We concur: / I