State v. Daffin

• Decision Date: 04 April 2017
• Docket Number: DA 15-0584
• Citation: 392 P.3d 150,387 Mont. 154
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Brad Edward DAFFIN, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

387 Mont. 154

392 P.3d 150

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.Brad Edward DAFFIN, Defendant and Appellant.

DA 15-0584

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: February 1, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

For Appellant: Colin M. Stephens, Nick K. Brooke, Smith & Stephens, P.C., Missoula, Montana

For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, C. Mark Fowler, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, William E. Fulbright, Ravalli County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana

Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Brad Edward Daffin (Daffin) appeals the judgment entered by the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, convicting him of eight counts of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, three counts of felony Sexual Assault, three counts of Sexual Abuse of Children, and two counts of Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs, and sentencing him to a cumulative total of five consecutive life sentences.¹ We affirm and restate the issues as follows:

1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of prior acts under M. R. Evid. 404(b) ?

2. Did the District Court err in applying § 45-5-511(2), MCA, Montana's Rape Shield Law?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On January 9, 2014, R.S. disclosed to her school counselor that she had been sexually assaulted by Daffin, at the end of the previous summer, while she was 12-13 years old. Later that day, at Emma's House, a Children's Advocacy Center in Hamilton, R.S. participated in a forensic interview with Valerie Widmer (Widmer), a licensed clinical social worker with specialized training in forensic interviews. R.S. stated that she had met Daffin through her friend B.M., whose father worked for Daffin. During the interview, R.S. revealed that Daffin had forced or coerced her to have sex multiple times, and induced her to send him a topless photo of herself. R.S.'s allegations resulted in Daffin being charged with two counts of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, two counts of Sexual Assault, and one count of Sexual Abuse of Children.

¶3 Widmer conducted a forensic interview of B.M. the following day at Emma's House. B.M. reluctantly revealed that she also had been coerced to have sex and was sexually assaulted multiple times by Daffin during the previous summer, while she was 13 years old. B.M.'s allegations resulted in Daffin being charged with three counts of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent.

¶4 As the investigation continued, additional victims, former victims, and witnesses were identified. The victims and witnesses provided evidence covering a 20-year period of sexually predatory behavior by Daffin, as well as his use and distribution of dangerous drugs. The victims and witnesses provided details of how Daffin selected and groomed young female victims, eventually leading to him sexually assaulting them. From these reports Daffin was charged with additional counts of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, Sexual Assault, and Sexual Abuse of Children, along with other crimes.

¶5 A.K. was one of the additional victims located during the investigation. A.K. was 18 years old at the time of her forensic interview. She revealed that, during the time she was 13-16 years old, she had been sexually assaulted by Daffin on multiple occasions; engaged in sex with Daffin in exchange for drugs; recruited other young girls to have sexual relations with Daffin; and helped to transport young girls and drugs, from Idaho to Montana, for Daffin. A.K.'s allegations resulted in Daffin being charged with two counts of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, one count of Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs, and one count of Sexual Abuse of Children.

¶6 A.K.'s older sister, K.C., testified that she had known Daffin her entire life because he and her father were friends. K.C. testified to "partying" with her father and Daffin as a young child. When she was 12 years old, K.C.'s father was sent to prison and Daffin began to "flirt" with her. From the time she was 12 years old until she was approximately 18 years old, she was sexually assaulted by Daffin; had sex with Daffin in exchange for drugs and money; recruited other young girls to have sex with Daffin in exchange for drugs and money; and transported drugs and young girls for Daffin. K.C.'s allegations resulted in Daffin being charged with one count of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, one count of Sexual Assault, one count of Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs, and one count of Sexual Abuse of Children.

¶7 K.D., a former victim, also came forward. K.D. testified that Daffin sexually assaulted her when she was 15 years old, shortly after she had completed a youth drug treatment program. K.D.'s allegation resulted in Daffin being charged with one count of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent.

¶8 At trial, these five girls and women testified in detail concerning Daffin's process of selecting, grooming, sexually assaulting, and, finally, coercing them to secrecy. Additionally, the State called 29 other witnesses. These witnesses testified to aspects of the investigation and about their knowledge of Daffin's patterns of victim grooming and abuse.

¶9 After R.S. made her initial disclosure concerning Daffin, a third-party reported to the school counselor that R.S. had been sexually assaulted in a park by a group of teen boys. When the school counselor questioned R.S. about this, R.S. denied making any such allegation, and said "no one had done anything" to her. Later, R.S. wrote letters of apology to the boys who had been named in the incident. While not explicitly acknowledging she had made false sexual allegations, she offered that the matter was intended as a joke. Around the same time, R.S. recanted her allegations against Daffin. Based on this information, Daffin requested a hearing pursuant to State ex rel. Mazurek v. Dist. Court of the Montana Fourth Judicial Dist. , 277 Mont. 349, 922 P.2d 474 (1996), to present evidence of the false allegations made by R.S. and her recantation. After hearing the testimony, the District Court applied § 45-5-511(2), MCA, by ruling that evidence about the alleged sexual assault in the park by the boys was inadmissible, but that the evidence concerning R.S.'s recantation was admissible because it related directly to R.S.'s allegations against Daffin.

¶10 Daffin also moved in limine to exclude "other acts" evidence under M. R. Evid. 404(b). The District Court reserved ruling until trial, citing "the highly inflammatory nature of the evidence of sexual conduct." Later, it denied the motion in limine, reasoning:

The State has adequately explained how it intends to use the evidence to show motive, intent and mental state, knowledge, and identity, which are all permissible purposes for admitting other acts evidence. Daffin's arguments that such evidence should be precluded because it is remote, is beyond the statute of limitations, and/or does not constitute a criminal offense are without merit—none of these bear on relevance or justify precluding admissible other acts evidence.

¶11 Daffin was convicted of 16 of the 17 charges against him. He appeals, challenging the District Court's admission of "other acts" evidence and the court's application of § 45-5-511(2), MCA, Montana's Rape Shield Law.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶12 District courts have broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence. State v. Madplume , 2017 MT 40, ¶ 19, 386 Mont. 368, 390 P.3d 142 (citing State v. Spottedbear , 2016 MT 243, ¶ 9, 385 Mont. 68, 380 P.3d 810 ). We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when a district court acts arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice. Madplume , ¶ 19 (citing Spottedbear , ¶ 9 ). To the extent an evidentiary ruling is based on a district court's interpretation of the Montana Rules of Evidence, our review is de novo . Madplume , ¶ 19 (citing Spottedbear , ¶ 9 ).

¶13 We review a district court's application of a statute for correctness. State v. Aguado , 2017 MT 54, ¶ 9, 387 Mont. 1, 390 P.3d 628 (citing State v. Colburn , 2016 MT 41, ¶ 6, 382 Mont. 223, 366 P.3d 258 ).

DISCUSSION

¶14 1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of prior acts under M. R. Evid. 404(b) ?

¶15 M. R. Evid. 404(b) states that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith." Rule 404(b) is designed to ensure that jurors "do not impermissibly infer that a defendant's prior bad acts make that person a bad person, and therefore, a guilty person." Madplume , ¶ 22, (citing State v. Dist. Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Dist. , 2010 MT 263, ¶ 47, 358 Mont. 325, 246 P.3d 415 (hereinafter " Salvagni ")). However, evidence of prior bad acts, including uncharged crimes, is admissible for other purposes such "as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." M. R. Evid. 404(b). "The distinction between admissible and inadmissible Rule 404(b) evidence turns on the intended purpose of the evidence, not its substance." Madplume , ¶ 23 (citing Salvagni , ¶¶ 47, 62-63 ). "To prevent the permissible uses from swallowing the general rule barring propensity evidence, the trial court must ensure that the use of Rule 404(b) evidence is " ‘clearly justified and carefully limited.’ " Madplume , ¶ 23 (quoting State v. Aakre , 2002 MT 101, ¶ 12, 309 Mont. 403, 46 P.3d 648 ). Rule 404(b) other acts evidence is admissible if the proponent can "clearly articulate how that evidence fits into a chain of logical inferences, no link of which may be the inference that the defendant has the propensity to commit the crime charged." State v. Clifford , 2005 MT 219, ¶ 48, 328 Mont. 300, 121 P.3d 489 (quoting and citing United States v. Himelwright , 42 F.3d 777, 782 (3rd Cir. 1994) ).

¶16 Daffin launches a broad-based attack on the...