Title: STATE v GLIDDEN
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12758
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 30, 1974

No. 12758 I N T H E S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, WILLIAM R O B E R T GLIDDEN , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Daley and Sherlock, Kalispell, Montana Patrick D . Sherlock argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Carlan J. Kraft , Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Richard P. Heinz, County Attorney, argued, Polson, Montana Submitted: November 19, 1974 Decided : WC 8 0 l g l 4 Filed : WC 3 0 - M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court . Defendant W i l l i a m Robert Glidden w a s convicted i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lake County, of t h e crime of f o r c i b l e rape and he appeals from t h a t conviction. The i s s u e s are: (1) Whether t h e v e r d i c t w a s contrary t o t h e evidence and s e c t i o n 94-4101, R.C.M. 1947? ( 2 ) Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t erred i n denying defendant's motion t o dismiss a t t h e c l o s e of t h e s t a t e ' s case i n c h i e f ? The s t a t e alleged appellant picked up t h e g i r l i n ques- t i o n i n t h e c i t y of Polson on t h e afternoon of August 1, 1973, when she was t r y i n g t o h i t c h hike from town t o a nearby ranch where she w a s l i v i n g . The g i r l worked i n town and on t h i s par- t i c u l a r day she had done some shopping a f t e r work and then t r i e d t o pick up a r i d e t o t h e ranch some 1 2 miles west of Polson. The g i r l t e s t i f i e d she accepted t h e r i d e when a p p e l l a n t t o l d her he was going p a s t t h e area where she lived. A s soon a s appellant g o t t h e g i r l i n t o h i s truck he speeded up t o 60 m i l e s per hour down t h e highway and within a few minutes grabbed t h e g i r l on t h e b r e a s t and propositioned her. She t e s t i f i e d she w a s t e r r i f i e d and asked t o be l e t out of t h e t r u c k , but t h a t he con- tinued down t h e road a t a high r a t e of speed. Several m i l e s o u t of Polson he pulled off t h e road and stopped i n a secluded area. During t h i s period t h e g i r l attempted t o g e t o u t of t h e truck but w a s physically r e s t r a i n e d by appellant u n t i l t h e truck came t o a stop. He then proceeded t o drag t h e struggling g i r l across t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t from t h e passenger's s i d e and o u t t h e door of t h e d r i v e r ' s side. H e then informed her of h i s i n t e n t i o n s and said: " I f you struggle it w i l l be harder f o r you because I won't l e t you go u n t i l I have finished." Appellant makes no d e n i a l t h a t he consummated a sexual a c t with t h e g i r l . H e a l l e g e s t h a t she freely-acquiesced. She denied such acquiescence and t e s t i f i e d a s t o her f e a r s : "Q. Were you i n f e a r of him through t h e course of these a c t i o n s you have described? A. Y e s , He w a s much bigger than I am and even though I a m a t a l l woman, I am not a s strong as a man and I could not f i g h t him any more than I o r i g i n a l l y s t a r t e d t o . Every t i m e I continued t o f i g h t him, he would only h u r t me more and I was very a f r a i d f o r m y l i f e . " Immediately a f t e r t h e rape t h e g i r l escaped from defendant and hid i n some g r a s s and bushes u n t i l he l e f t t h e a r e a . She then g o t back t o t h e ranch with t h e help of some people who came along and took her home. Immediately upon her a r r i v a l a t t h e ranch t h e g i r l reported what happened and t h e s h e r i f f was s e n t t o in- v e s t i g a t e . She gave a f u l l description of t h e man t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s deputies, including t h e f a c t appellant had a beard. I n addition, she described t h e truck a s being red and described t h e i n t e r i o r . The day a f t e r the incident she went t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e where she picked o u t , from t e n photographs, a p i c t u r e of a p p e l l a n t , even though it was a p i c t u r e of him without a beard. Several weeks l a t e r she i d e n t i f i e d appellant a t a preliminary hearing, even though he had shaved off h i s beard. After picking o u t a p p e l l a n t ' s p i c t u r e a t t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e , she was taken t o h i s residence t o see whether she could i d e n t i f y him i n person, but no one answered t h e door when t h e s h e r i f f ' s deputy knocked. Appellant t e s t i f i e d i n h i s own defense a t t r i a l . He ad- mitted t h e f a c t of intercourse with t h e g i r l , but denied t h a t he raped her. He admitted being a t home when t h e s h e r i f f ' s c a r came t o h i s house t h e day a f t e r t h e incident and that he saw t h e g i r l i n t h e c a r . He admitted being scared then and a t t h a t time he shaved o f f h i s beard and had some f r i e n d s take h i m t o Coeur d ' Alene, Idaho, t o seek h i s b r o t h e r ' s advice. He was n o t i f i e d by h i s wife t h a t a warrant was o u t f o r h i s a r r e s t and he returned t o Montana voluntarily. During t h e t r i a l a witness appeared f o r a p p e l l a n t and t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had had i n t e r c o u r s e with t h e g i r l . When corss-examined t h e witness' f a b r i c a t e d s t o r y blew up, leading t o a p e r j u r y charge a g a i n s t t h a t witness following t h e t r i a l . Obviously t h e introduction of such testimony was not b e n e f i c i a l t o a p p e l l a n t ' s cause. I n a criminal prosecution t h e weight of t h e evidence and c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e witness is a matter e x c l u s i v e l y within t h e province of t h e jury and should not be d i s t u r b e d by a c o u r t of appeal. S t a t e v. Doe, 1 4 6 Mont. 501, 409 P.2d 439; S t a t e v. Lagge, 143 Mont. 289, 388 P.2d 792; S t a t e v. Pankow, 134 Mont. 519, 333 P.2d 1017. I n one of t h i s C o u r t ' s e a r l y c a s e s , S t a t e v. G l e i m , 17 Mont. 17, 2 9 , 4 1 P. 998, t h i s Court held: " ' * * * The jury being t h e s o l e judges of t h e weight t o be given t o t h e testimony, t h e c o u r t should not t e l l them what p a r t i c u l a r weight t o g i v e t o any portion of t h e testimony.'" I n a r e c e n t opinion, S t a t e v. Stoddard, 147 Mont. 402, 408, 412 P.2d 827, t h i s Court commented: " F i r s t , we should note t h a t t h i s c o u r t i s n o t a t r i e r of f a c t * * *. In view of t h e presump- t i o n of innocence a t t h e t r i a l , t h e jury must have been i n s t r u c t e d t o t h a t e f f e c t , but on appeal a f t e r conviction t h e r u l e changes. Then, i f t h e record shows any s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e judgment, t h e presumption i s i n favor of such judgment." The i n s t a n t case being a rape c a s e t h e r e a r i s e s a p e c u l i a r problem a s t o t h e burden of proof and t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i - dence. The t y p i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n such cases is t h a t t h e only witnesses t o t h e event are t h e p a r t i e s . While it is t r u e t h a t a conviction of rape depends upon t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e primary witnesses, t h e accuser and t h e accused, it has been a long s e t t l e d r u l e i n rape c a s e s , a s s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. Moe, 68 Mont. " * * * a conviction f o r rape may be sustained by t h e uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix [Citing cases], unless her testimony is so inherently improbable or is so nullified by material self-contradictions as to be unworthy of belief." See also: State v. Bouldin, 153 Mont. 276, 456 P.2d 830. Here, the evidence was sufficient for conviction. Appel- lant's argument that the girl did not fight or that she gave con- sent is without merit. There is no clear rule as to how much resistance is required of a woman in order to prove her lack of consent to sexual intercourse with a man who intends to rape her, apparently at all costs. The law does not put her life into even greater jeopardy than it is already in. When a woman is dealing with a man bent on rape, how can she know how much resistance she can give without provoking him into killing her? Continuous resistance to an attempted rape is not required. This Court in State v. Metcalf, 153 Mont. 369, 376, 457 P.2d 453 (1969), held : "The defendant does not, however, have the right to an instruction which, to the exclusion of some elements of a crime, would mislead the jury to believe that constant physical resistance which required force to overcome was an essential element. " Here, there are no disputed legal issues involved, only questions of fact. A prima facie case was presented to the court. Appellant admitted having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and the jury chose to believe her testimony. The conviction is affirmed.