Opinion ID: 882116
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: independent examination of victim.

Text: Prior to trial the defendant moved for an independent examination of the alleged victim. The trial court denied that motion. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying him an independent medical examination of the victim, Dawn Goodwin. However, the defendant has not offered, nor suggested, any material evidence that could have resulted from an independent medical examination of the victim months after the alleged incidents occurred. This issue is controlled by our decision in State v. Liddell, 211 Mont. 180, 685 P.2d 918, 924 (1984), where we stated that: The next specification of error is whether the District Court erred by refusing to compel the victim to be examined by defendant's psychologist. There is no legal authority for such a procedure. Rule 35(a), M.R.Civ.P., allows for a mental or physical examination by a physician when the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy. The victim in this matter is a witness, not a party to this action. The issue in this matter is whether the sexual intercourse was effected against her will and without her consent. ... . Since the victim was a witness and not a party, and since her state of mind was not at issue, it was proper for the District Court to refuse to order her examination by defendant's psychologist. To hold otherwise would permit the defense to try the victim of the crime and divert the jury's attention from the primary issue  the guilt or innocence of the defendant.