Title: STATE v TECCA
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 85-477
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 11, 1986

No. 85-477 I N THE SIJPREME COURT OF T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1986 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- LEE TECCA, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t h 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 o f Park, The Honorable Byron Robb, Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O F RECORD: For Appellant: Knuchel & McGregor; Karl Knuchel, Livingston, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Kathy Seeley, A s s t . Atty. General, Helena, Montana Wm. N e l s Swandal, County Attorney, Livingston, Montana F i l e d : Submitted on B r i e f s : Jan. 9 , 1986 Decided: February 11, 1986 . - Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank R . Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant L e e Tecca appeals h i s J u l y 30, 1985, jury c o n v i c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s - t r i c t on one count of felony s e x u a l a s s a u l t . W e a f f i r m . O n t h e evening o f November 8 , 1984, t h e p r o s e c u t r i x , N.L., s t a y e d o v e r n i g h t w i t h h e r f r i e n d , Cindy Tecca, a t t h e Tecca residence. Defendant had r e c e n t l y f i n i s h e d a t e r m w i t h t h e A i r Force and was l i v i n g i n t h e Tecca home a t t h e t i m e . N.L. was e l e v e n y e a r s o l d and defendant 2 3 y e a r s o l d . Defen- d a n t was born of M r s . Tecca's previous marriage, and i s a h a l f - b r o t h e r t o Cindy, a s w e l l a s t h e o t h e r Tecca c h i l d r e n . About 8:00 p.m. t h a t evening, defendant brought a six-pack o f h e e r home and took t h e b e e r downstairs where Cindy and N.L. w e r e playing. Both g i r l s began d r i n k i n g h e e r . About 9:00 p.m., defendant, Cindy, and N.L. l e f t t h e house t o go d r i v i n g . M r s . Tecca was studying i n h e r bedroom, and was unaware t h e g i r l s w e r e d r i n k i n g and t h a t they had l e f t w i t h defendant. Defendant bought a twelve-pack of b e e r , which was placed i n t h e back s e a t w i t h t h e g i r l s . They drove around town f o r about an hour and a h a l f and then r e t u r n e d t o t h e Tecca home about 10:30 p.m. Ry t h i s t i m e , N.L. and Cindy had each consumed a t l e a s t f o u r o r f i v e b e e r s ; defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had n o t more t h a n two b e e r s d u r i n g t h e course of t h e evening. A s t h e y e n t e r e d t h e house, defendant suggested t h e g i r l s go r i g h t t o s l e e p and n o t make any n o i s e . The g i r l s had arranged t h e i r s l e e p i n g bags on t h e f l o o r i n t h e basement e a r l i e r i n t h e evening, and planned on s l e e p i n g t h e r e . N.L. t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e s l e p t f o r a w h i l e , b u t was awakened by defendant. Defendant was kneeling b e s i d e N.L. and had h i s hand in her underpants with his finger in her vagina. Defen- dant asked N.L. to roll over, but she wouldn't so he left. A light in the hallway was on, and N.L. could see that it was defendant; he was wearing only his underwear. About 20 minutes later Cindy became sick. After several trips to the bathroom, Mrs. Tecca heard the commotion and moved the girls upstairs. N.L. did not tell her parents about the incident until a week later. An information was filed January 4, 1985, charg- ing defendant with felony sexual assault, in violation of 5 45-5-502 ( 3 ) , MCA. On April 10, 1-985, the prosecution filed a Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence of Other Acts. Defense counsel responded with a motion in limine to bar introduction of prior acts evidence. A hearing was held before the district iud.ge on May 24, 1985, and the motion in limine denied. Defense counsel moved for reconsideration of the motion in limine, and the motion was again denied on July 29, 1985, prior to commencement of trial. Trial was held July 29, 1985. Following the testimony of N.L., testimony was given by R.T., S.W., K.W., and L.C., concerning prior acts of defendant. Prior to R.T.'s testimo- ny about defendant's previous acts, the trial judge instruct- ed the jury that they were to consider such evidence only for the limited purposes of proving a common scheme or nethod used in the commission of the alleged offense, identity of the offender, or existence of intent. R.T., defendant's half-sister, testified that she had moved out of the Tecca home a week prior to the incident, because on three occasions the previous month she had awakened at night to find defen- dant sitting next to her bed clothed in only his underwear with his hand resting on her bed. R.T. testified that s i m i l a r i n c i d e n t s occurred t h e previous two t i m e s defendant was on l e a v e , d u r i n g 1982 and 1983. R.T. f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t when she was e i g h t (nine y e a r s a g o ) , defendant climbed i n h e r bed a t n i g h t and touched h e r b r e a s t s and vagina. This occurred f o r n e a r l y two y e a r s , b u t t h e n stopped a f t e r defen- d a n t ' s f a t h e r became aware and spoke w i t h defendant. S .W. t e s t i f i e d about an i n c i d e n t involving defendant when she v i s i t e d t h e Tecca home about f i v e y e a r s ago. She went t o d e f e n d a n t ' s room w i t h Cindy, and defendant asked S.W. t o remove h e r c l o t h i n g . S.W. r e f u s e d , s o defendant p u t h i s a r m s around h e r from behind and unbuttoned h e r p a n t s . She buttoned them baclc up and l e f t . S.W. was nine y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e . K.W. t e s t i f i e d about two i n c i d e n t s w i t h defendant t h a t occurred while she was a t t h e Tecca home. O n each occasion K.W. was i n d e f e n d a n t ' s room and defendant asked h e r t o have sex w i t h him and he exposed himself. These i n c i d e n t s oc- c u r r e d approximately two and f o u r y e a r s ago, when K.W. was age e i q h t and t e n , r e s p e c t i v e l v . L.C. t e s t i f i e d t h a t when s h e was twelve, about t h r e e y e a r s b e f o r e , s h e s p e n t t h e n i g h t w i t h R.T. a t t h e Tecca home. L.C. awoke t h a t n i g h t t o f i n d defendant n e x t t o h e r bed w i t h h i s hand r e s t i n g on t h e bed, h u t l e f t immediately when he r e a l i z e d L.C. was awake. J u r y i n s t r u c t i o n no. 1 6 was a l i m i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n informing t h e j u r y t h a t t h e p r i o r a c t s evidence was admitted t o show proof o f motive, o p p o r t u n i t y , p l a n , knowledge, iden- t i t y and absence o f mistake o r a c c i d e n t , and t h a t such e v i - dence was n o t t o be used f o r any o t h e r purpose. A f t e r d e l i b e r a t i o n , t h e jury r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t o f g u i l t y o f s e x u a l a-ssault, a felony. The d i s t r i c t judge sentenced defendant t o 5 y e a r s , w i t h 4 y e a r s , 1 1 months c o n d i t i o n a l l y suspended. Defendant appeals his conviction and raises the following issue: Whether the District Court erred in allowing admission of prior acts evidence? Defendant contends that the admission of testimony relating to his prior acts was a violation of Rule 404(b), Mont.R.Evid, and d.id not meet the guidelines established by this Court in State v. Just (1979), 184 Mont. 262, 602 P.2d 957. Rule 404(b), Mont.R.Evid., provides: Other crimes, wrongs, acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Rule 403, Mont.R.Evid. requires the exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence: " . . . if its probative value is substan- tially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . ." In State v . Just, supra, we established a four-element test to determine the admissibility of defendant's prior acts or crimes. The four elements are: 1) The sirnil-arity of crimes or acts; 2 ) nearness i . n time; 3) tendency to establish a common scheme, plan, or system; and 4) the probative value of the evidence is not substan- tially outweighed by the prejudice to the defendant. 184 Mont. at 269, 602 P.2d at 961. Applying this test to the facts of the present case, we find the trial judge was correct in all-owing testimony con- cerning prior acts of d.efendant. While the prior acts were not identical to the offense committed in this case, there is sufficient similarity to s u s t a i n admission. Each of t h e i n c i d e n t s involved young g i r l s and occurred i n t h e Tecca home. The testimony of S.W., K.W., and R.T., c l e a r l y shows defendant's sexual i n t e r e s t i n young g i r l s . Defendant asked S.W. t o remove her c l o t h i n g and then unbuttoned h e r pa.nts; defendant asked K.W. f o r sex and exposed himself t o her; and defendant went t o bed with R.T. f o r almost two years and touched h e r a l l over. Both R.T. and L.C. t e s t i f i e d t h a t they had been awakened i n t h e middle of t h e n i g h t t o f i n d defendant next t o t h e bed dressed only i n h i s underwear. These i n c i d e n t s bear s u f f i c i e n t s i m i l a r i t y t o t h e charged offense t o uphold t h e i r admission. The p r i o r a c t s of defendant t e s t i f i e d t o by t h e s e w i t - nesses go back a s f a r a s nine years. Defendant a s s e r t s t h a t such evidence i s t o o remote, and v i o l a t e s t h e time l i m i t s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h i s Court f o r admitting p r i o r a c t s . See e.g., S t a t e v. Stroud (Mont. 1984), 683 P.2d 459; 4 1 St.Rep. 919 ( t h r e e and a h a l f y e a r s ) ; Sta.te v. Hansen (1980), 187 Mont. 91, 608 P.2d 1083, (two and a h a l f y e a r s ) . The t r i a l judge agreed with t h e prosecutor t h a t t h e s e a c t s showed a continuous p a t t e r n of conduct by defendant and t h e r e f o r e were admissible. I n S t a t e v. Doll (Mont. 1985), 692 P.2d 473, 4 2 St.Rep. 40 we s a i d : Whether evidence of p r i o r crimes i s t o o remote i s d i r e c t e d t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and i s a matter t h a t goes t o t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e evidence r a t h e r than i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y , u n l e s s t h e remoteness i s s o g r e a t t h a t t h e proffered evidence has no value. W e agree t h a t an i s o l a t e d i n c i d e n t from nine years ago i s t o o remote, however, where t h e r e i s a continuing p z t t e r n of s i m i l a r conduct, t h e remoteness problem i s a l l e v i a t e d . Accord, S t a t e v. Spence ( A r i z . 1985), 704 P.2d 272, 274. R.T. t e s t i f i e d t h a t defendant molested her f o r a period of nearly two years u n t i l defendant was confronted by h i s fa- t h e r . During t h e next four years, defendant was away i n t h e s e r v i c e , y e t when he was home on leave, i n c i d e n t s with o t h e r young g i r l s occurred. A f t e r defendant returned home from t h e s e r v i c e , R.T. t e s t i f i e d t h a t on many occasions defendant entered her room a t n i g h t i n h i s underwear, and t h a t , because of t h e s e occurrences, she moved o u t of t h e house about a week p r i o r t o t h e offense a g a i n s t N.L. This testimony shows t h a t defendant's devia.te sexual conduct has been occurring f o r approximately nine yea.rs. W e d-ecline t o e s t a b l i s h an a r b i - t r a r y time l i m i t f o r admitting p r i o r a c t s evidence where such a cut-off would exclude probative evidence. The p r i o r a c t s testimony shows defendant committed, o r attempted t o commit, sexual a c t s with young g i r l s f o r a period of nine years leading up t o t h e offense a g a i n s t N.L. W e f i n d t h e number and s i m i l a r i t y of i n c i d e n t s tends t o e s t a b l i s h a common scheme o r plan under t h e t h i r d prong of t h e J u s t t e s t . F i n a l l y , we f i n d t h a t t h e probative value of t h e p r i o r a c t s evidence was not s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed. by t h e preju- d i c e t o defendant. While defendant was l i k e l y prejudiced t o a c e r t a i n degree, we cannot say a s a matter of law t h a t such p r e j u d i c e c l e a r l y outweighed t h e probative value of t h i s evidence. The p r i o r a c t s evidence e s t a b l i s h e d a continuing course of conduct by defendant and aided i n determining opportunity, i n t e n t , and i d e n t i t y . The victim i n t h i s case was an 1 1 year-old who had consumed f i v e beers t h e n i g h t of t h e incident. Testimony t h a t defendant had made advances on o t h e r young g i r l s who had been i n t h e Tecca home tends t o corroborate t h e s t o r y of t h e victim. In State v. Just, supra, this Court set forth three procedural requirements for the admission of prior acts. The requirements are: (1) notice to the defendant prior to trial that evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts will be introduced; (2) an admonition by the judge to the jury when the evidence is introduced that it is admitted solely for one or more of the accepted purposes stated in Rule 404 (b) ; and (3) a caution- ary jury instruction to the same effect, providing in unequivocal terms that the evidence is admitted for the purpose earlier stated and not to try and convict the defends-nt for prior wrongful conduct. 184 Mont. at 262, 602 P.2d at 963-4. There is no dispute that the prosecution timely filed a notice of intent to introduce such evidence. Defendant asserts the District Court failed to meet the second and third requirements. We disagree. The trial judge delivered the following admonition to the jury before the prior acts testimony: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, evidence is about to be introduced for the purpose of showing the defendant committed crimes or acts other than the one for which he is on trial. You may not consider this evidence to prove that the defendant is a person of bad character, or that he has a disposi- tion to commit crimes. You may only consider this evidence for the limited purposes of providing a characteristic method, plan or scheme used in the commission of the offense in this case, or the identity of the person who committed the offense. You may also consider this evidence to prove exis- tence of intent, which is an element of the crime charged. You may not consider this evidence for any other purpose that would expose the defendant to unjust double punishment. There were four witnesses who testified as to defendant's prior acts. Defendant argues that the trial judge was required to deliver the admonition before each of these witnesses testified. Defendant has cited no cases in support of such a proposition, nor do we find Just requires the trial judge to deliver an admonition each time prior acts evidence is received. F i n a l l y , defendant a s s e r t s t h e t r i a l judge d i d n o t g i v e t h e proper c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e jury concerning p r i o r a c t s evidence. Court i n s t r u c t i o n no. 16 provided: The S t a t e h a s o f f e r e d evidence t h a t t h e defendant a t another t i m e engaged i n o t h e r crimes, wrongs, o r a c t s . That evidence was n o t admitted t o prove t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e defendant i n o r d e r t o show he a c t e d i n conformity therewith. The o n l y purpose o f a d m i t t i n g t h a t evidence was t o show proof o f mo- t i v e , o p p o r t u n i t y , p l a n , knowledge, i d e n t i t y and absence o f mistake o r a c c i d e n t . You may n o t u s e t h a t evidence f o r any o t h e r purpose. The defendant is n o t being t r i e d f o r t h a t o t h e r c r i m e , wrong o r a c t . He may n o t be convicted f o r any o t h e r o f f e n s e than t h a t charged i n t h i s c a s e . For t h e jury t o c o n v i c t t h e defendant o f any o t h e r o f f e n s e t h a n t h a t charged i n t h i s c a s e may r e s u l t i n u n j u s t double punishment o f t h e defendant. W e f i n d t h i s t o he a proper c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n meeting t h e t h i r d procedural requirement o f J u s t . W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Cou W e concur: