State v. Goodman
| Docket Number | DA 21-0485 |
| Decision Date | 28 November 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CORY LEVI GOODMAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant:
Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Kristen L. Peterson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
William Fulbright, Ravalli County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Cory Goodman (Goodman) appeals from the July 27, 2021 Judgment and Commitment of the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the District Court to give Goodman credit for the 678 days of time he served from arrest to sentencing.
¶3 On August 15, 2018, N.G.'s maternal grandmother reported disclosures of sexual abuse by N.G. to law enforcement. N.G. reported she had been "sodomized" by Goodman over a five-year period. On September 11, 2019, Goodman was charged with Incest, a felony, for knowingly having sexual intercourse with his biological daughter, N.G., when she was 7-11 years old. Goodman was also charged with Intimidation, a felony, for threatening N.G. with physical harm if she disclosed the incest. Goodman denied the allegations, and the court held a jury trial. N.G. testified along with 17 other witnesses. As part of its evidentiary presentation, the State presented evidence of Goodman's use of pornography, his past sexual relations, and evidence of his historically deficient and neglectful parenting. Prior to trial, Goodman sought, through discovery, records maintained by the Child and Family Services Division (CFSD) which he believed contained exculpatory information. The District Court conducted an in camera review of the CFSD records containing years of reports made regarding Goodman, N.G., and her related household family. The court determined there was no exculpatory evidence in the records, and there were only two documents that may be relevant, but they had already been disclosed to Goodman.
¶4 The jury convicted Goodman of both Incest and Intimidation. The District Court sentenced Goodman to 100 years, none suspended, in the Montana State Prison (MSP) with a 25-year parole restriction for the Incest and 10 years to MSP, consecutive to the Incest sentence, for Intimidation. The District Court did not give Goodman credit for the 678 days he had already served from arrest to sentencing.
¶5 Goodman presents multiple issues on appeal. He claims the District Court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his private pornography use, his adult sexual relationships, and his deficient and neglectful parenting in violation of M. R. Evid. 403 and 404(b). Goodman also claims the District Court erred by not disclosing confidential CFSD records to him after the court conducted its in camera review. Goodman claims the District Court erred by sentencing him based on those undisclosed records and his refusal to admit to the allegations. Finally, Goodman claims the District Court erred when it omitted 678 days of credit for the time he served from arrest to sentencing.
¶6 Because district courts have broad discretion when determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence, this Court reviews evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. State v. Passmore, 2010 MT 34, ¶51, 355 Mont. 187, 225 P.3d 1229. "A court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily without the employment of conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice." Passmore, ¶ 51. This Court reviews a "district court's calculations crediting time served for legality under a de novo standard." State v. Spagnolo, 2022MT228, ¶5, 410Mont. 457, 520 P.3d 330.
Evidence of Goodman's private usage of pornography and adult sexual relationships
¶7 Goodman argues the District Court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of his use of pornography obtained from his cell phone, testimony from Viola Goodman (Viola) that they watched "daddy does daughter" pornography together, and evidence of Goodman's adult sexual relationships with Viola and Savanna Morris (Savanna). Goodman asserts this evidence was not relevant under M. R. Evid. 401, and even if it was relevant, it was prohibited by Rule 404(b) because the State used it as propensity evidence to show Goodman had the propensity to engage in anal sex, making N.G.'s allegations more likely to be true.
¶8 The State argues the evidence that Goodman viewed pornography in N.G.'s presence is admissible under the transaction rule to show how Goodman groomed N.G. and introduced sexuality into their familial relationship. The State also claims Goodman's pornography search terms extracted from his phone and related to incest and anal sex are relevant to show he had motive to sexually abuse his young daughter and also to establish his identity as the perpetrator.
¶9 M. R. Evid. 401 states "[r]elevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." M. R. Evid. 404(b) states "[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) prohibits using evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts to show the defendant acted in a particular way in the past, so he is likely to have acted in conformity with that conduct to commit a current charged offense. State v. Stryker, 2023 MT 63, ¶ 14, 412 Mont. 1, 527 P.3d 606. Rule 404(b) does allow such propensity or conformity evidence to be admitted for other purposes, "such as 'proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.'" Stryker, ¶ 15 (quoting M. R. Evid. 404(b)). The admissibility of the evidence relies on the "intended purpose of the evidence, not its substance." State v. Madplume, 2017 MT 40, ¶23, 386 Mont. 368, 390 P.3d 142.
¶10 Here, the District Court ruled evidence of Goodman's private pornography usage was relevant to prove his motive and identity as the perpetrator of the alleged abuse, citing State v. Colburn, 2018 MT 141, ¶ 13, 391 Mont. 449, 419 P.3d 1196, as authority for its determination. In Colburn, the defendant was charged with incest against his daughter. Over objection, the State introduced evidence of Colburn's internet search history related specifically to incest and sexual abuse-related child pornography. The district court found this evidence relevant to show Colburn's motive and identity as the perpetrator under M. R. Evid. 404. This Court affirmed the district court, concluding that "[e]vidence of Colburn's pervasive and specific sexual interest in incest and sexual abuse-related child pornography was relevant and probative of his identity as the perpetrator of incest against his daughter." Colburn, ¶ 13.
¶11 Similarly here, Goodman's specific sexual interest in incest and sexual abuse-related child pornography as shown by his search history is relevant and probative of his motive and identity as the perpetrator. It demonstrates his specific sexual interest in incest and child sexual abuse. Additionally, the search history shows the searches were made from Goodman's phone during the three months prior to N.G.'s twelfth birthday. This is relevant to show Goodman's specific sexual interest in incest and child sexual abuse manifested during the time of N.G.'s abuse and temporally links his mental state, motive, and identity during that time period to the alleged abuse. Finally, evidence of Goodman watching pornography with Viola was relevant under the same reasoning-it was probative of Goodman's specific interest in incest and child-related sexual abuse. We agree with the District Court and find it did not abuse its discretion in this regard.
¶12 Evidence of Goodman's sexual relationship with Savanna was not relevant to motive or identity but, as the District Court pointed out, provided context to explain to the jury the various relationships between the adults in the house. Additionally, Goodman's relationship with Savanna was relevant as to how Goodman's admission came about. Cyle Morris (Cyle) testified, that while Goodman and Savanna believed Cyle to be asleep in their room and immediately prior to Goodman and Savanna engaging in anal sexual intercourse, he overheard Goodman admit to Savanna that he sodomized N.G. We find that admission of these details of Goodman's adult sexual relations was harmless and did not contribute to Goodman's conviction in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting Goodman's guilt, including his own admission that he had anal intercourse with N.G.
Evidence of Goodman's prior acts as a bad father
¶13 Goodman argues the District Court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his deficient and neglectful bad parenting acts in violation of M. R. Evid. 404(b). Specifically, Goodman claims the State used evidence of his bad parenting-including putting A.E. into chokeholds physically abusing N.G., neglecting...
To continue reading
Request your trial