State v. Ford
| Decision Date | 14 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-158,95-158 |
| Citation | 278 Mont. 353,926 P.2d 245,53 St.Rep. 947 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Earl Dallas FORD, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
William Boggs, Missoula, for Appellant.
Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Pamela P. Collins, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Robert L. "Dusty" Deschamps III, Missoula County Attorney, Missoula, for Respondent.
The Defendant, Earl Dallas Ford, was charged by information filed in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in Missoula County, with the offense of sexual intercourse without consent, a felony, in violation of § 45-5-503, MCA. Following a trial by jury, Ford was convicted and sentenced. He appeals the District Court's judgment. We affirm the District Court.
The issues on appeal are:
1. Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict?
2. Did the District Court err when it denied Ford's motion for a mistrial?
3. Did the District Court err when it overruled Ford's objections to questions asked during his cross-examination, and to statements made during the State's closing argument regarding his sexual preference?
4. Did the sentence imposed by the District Court violate Ford's rights pursuant to Article II, Section 22, of the Montana Constitution?
Earl Dallas Ford was charged with the offense of sexual intercourse without consent, a felony, in violation of § 45-5-503, MCA. The information alleged that Ford drugged and incapacitated Brad Stahl, and then engaged in sexual intercourse with Stahl, without Stahl's consent. He entered a plea of not guilty.
During pretrial proceedings, the State filed a "Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence of Other Acts," pursuant to State v. Just (1979), 184 Mont. 262, 602 P.2d 957, and the notice requirements of § 46-13-109, MCA. The State sought to present evidence of a 1991 conviction in California for felony child molestation for which Ford was sentenced to prison for three years. The State also filed a "Notice of Intent to Seek Increased Punishment," pursuant to the persistent felony offender statutes, §§ 46-18-501, -502, and -503, MCA.
Trial by jury commenced on October 11, 1994. The District Court granted Ford's motion opposing the State's "Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence of Other Acts." The District Court also granted the State's motion to allow the investigating officer, Tom Lewis, to testify that, at the time of arrest, Ford admitted to raping a boy in California.
Brad Stahl, the complaining witness, testified that on July 14, 1994, after attending a barbecue in East Missoula, he slept on the living room couch in Earl Ford's trailer. He was not quite asleep when he felt something placed over his mouth, and was then unable to breathe. When he regained consciousness, he realized that someone's penis was in his anus. Although awake, he was disoriented and unable to move. When finally able to move, he went into the bathroom and discovered that he was not wearing any clothes. He walked back into the living room, found his clothes under the couch, and put them on. Ford then sat down next to him on the couch. Brad attempted to leave the trailer, but Ford rubbed baby-oil on his back, and tried to convince him to lie down and go back to sleep. Again, Brad attempted to leave, but Ford pushed him into his bedroom and onto the bed. Brad exited the bedroom, and was finally able to leave the trailer. Feeling unable to drive, he slept in his truck for one hour. He then woke up, drove to his uncle's house, and slept in his truck for three more hours.
The next day, Brad, accompanied by his cousin, Charlie, and his uncle, Kevin, confronted Ford. Ford apologized, admitted what he had done, and told Brad he was "a good man." Brad demanded the return of his underwear, which Ford retrieved from his bedroom.
Several days later, Brad went to the police and to a doctor. Although Ford had not ejaculated in him, Brad suffered some tearing of his anus. He told the nurse that he had been drugged, that anal intercourse had been performed upon him, that he had not consented to intercourse, and that he was angry and emotional. At the time of trial, he was seeing a counselor.
Charlie Stahl confirmed that on July 14, 1994, Brad was not intoxicated. He described the confrontation between Ford and Brad on July 15, 1994, noting that Ford apologized repeatedly. He also recounted Brad's emotional distress.
Likewise, Kevin Stahl confirmed that Brad was not intoxicated, and provided a similar description of the confrontation between Ford and Brad. Furthermore, he testified that on the morning of July 15, 1994, Kevin had found Brad asleep in his truck. As Brad exited the truck and asked for a hug, Kevin immediately knew something was wrong. The two men then drove around for an hour while Brad relayed the events of the rape. Kevin also recounted the physical and emotional pain Brad was experiencing.
Officer Tom Lewis, a deputy sheriff with the Missoula County Sheriff's Department, was the investigating and arresting officer. Lewis testified regarding his interview with Brad, his attempts to locate Ford, and that, pursuant to a search of Ford's trailer, he found a small bottle of Johnson's baby oil. During his testimony, the following exchange occurred:
At that point, Ford objected based on the District Court's ruling regarding evidence of other acts. After the District Court overruled his objection, Ford moved for a mistrial, which the District Court denied. The State proceeded to question Officer Lewis. No further information regarding Ford's prior offenses was elicited. Immediately following Lewis's testimony, the District Court issued a cautionary instruction. The jury was told to consider only the merits of the instant case and not any other factors, particularly whether Ford was wanted in any other jurisdiction.
Earl Ford testified on his own behalf, and denied having sexual intercourse with Brad Stahl. He admitted that he had rubbed baby-oil on Brad's back, but claimed he was merely soothing Brad, who had complained of a bad hangover. His apologies the next day, he alleged, were only for his grumpy behavior. During the State's cross-examination of Ford, the following exchange occurred:
MR. BECCARI (defense counsel): Your honor, I am going to object, that is so incredibly prejudicial. It is nothing I brought up in my direct examination.
Subsequently, during the State's closing argument, the following statements were made:
The jury returned a guilty verdict, and a presentence investigation report was ordered. At the sentencing hearing, the District Court designated Ford as a persistent felony offender, pursuant to §§ 46-18-501,-502, and -503 MCA; and a dangerous offender for purposes of parole. The District Court sentenced him to 100 years, and ordered that he shall not be eligible for parole or participation in a supervised release program while serving his term.
Ford now appeals to this Court. It should be noted that his appeal is accompanied by an Anders brief, filed by the Missoula Public Defender Office, contending that there are no meritorious appealable issues in this case. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict?
When we review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Licht (1994), 266 Mont. 123, 131, 879 P.2d 670, 675.
The Anders brief, while contending that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, provides notice to this Court that Ford wishes to raise the following issue: That he was unfairly arrested, charged, and convicted on the word of Brad Stahl, who was lying. In essence, Ford claims that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
The jury was presented with the conflicting testimony of Brad Stahl and Earl Ford. Ultimately, they decided to accept Brad's version, and to reject Ford's version. This is the jury's prerogative according to the law in Montana. Section 25-7-103, MCA, provides that in a jury trial all questions of fact, with limited exceptions, are to be decided by the jury.
Our prior decisions establish that in sex offense cases the victim's testimony need not be corroborated. State v. Gilpin (1988), 232 Mont. 56, 70, 756 P.2d 445, 453. In State v. Biehle (1992), 251 Mont. 257, 824 P.2d 268, the victim testified that the sexual contact was committed by the defendant. We held that such testimony was sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. Biehle, 251 Mont. at 260, 824 P.2d at 271. Additionally, the jury heard the testimony of Charlie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Strizich
..., 1999 MT 216, ¶ 15, 295 Mont. 528, 985 P.2d 734 ; State v. Couture , 1998 MT 137, ¶ 18, 289 Mont. 215, 959 P.2d 948 ; State v. Ford , 278 Mont. 353, 361, 926 P.2d 245, 249-50 (1996) ; Waller v. Hayden , 268 Mont. 204, 210, 885 P.2d 1305, 1308 (1994). This Court does not weigh the facts in ......
-
State v. Strizich
... ... 354, 394 ... P.3d 179; O'Connor v. George , 2015 MT 274, ... ¶ 17, 381 Mont. 127, 357 P.3d 323; Benjamin v ... Torgerson , 1999 MT 216, ¶ 15, 295 Mont. 528, 985 ... P.2d 734; ... State v. Couture , 1998 MT 137, ¶ 18, 289 Mont ... 215, 959 P.2d 948; State v. Ford" , 278 Mont. 353, ... 361, 926 P.2d 245, 249-50 (1996); Waller v. Hayden , ... 268 Mont. 204, 210, 885 P.2d 1305, 1308 (1994). This Court ... does not weigh the facts in isolation of district court ... ¶35 ... Probative evidence always is prejudicial to some degree ... Madplume , \xC2" ... ...
-
State v. Rodriguez
...denied, 531 U.S. 881, 121 S.Ct. 193, 148 L.Ed.2d 134 (2000); United States v. Pina, 844 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1988); State v. Ford, 278 Mont. 353, 359-60, 926 P.2d 245 (1996); see also generally 13 Royce A. Ferguson, Jr., Washington Practice: Criminal Practice and Procedure § 4216 (1997). Wher......
-
State v. Strizich
... ... 354, 394 ... P.3d 179; O'Connor v. George , 2015 MT 274, ... ¶ 17, 381 Mont. 127, 357 P.3d 323; Benjamin v ... Torgerson , 1999 MT 216, ¶ 15, 295 Mont. 528, 985 ... P.2d 734; ... State v. Couture , 1998 MT 137, ¶ 18, 289 Mont ... 215, 959 P.2d 948; State v. Ford" , 278 Mont. 353, ... 361, 926 P.2d 245, 249-50 (1996); Waller v. Hayden , ... 268 Mont. 204, 210, 885 P.2d 1305, 1308 (1994). This Court ... does not weigh the facts in isolation of district court ... ¶35 ... Probative evidence always is prejudicial to some degree ... Madplume , \xC2" ... ...