State v. Hall

• Decision Date: 20 August 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-331,89-331
• Citation: 244 Mont. 161,47 St.Rep. 1501,797 P.2d 183
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Jack HALL, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 183

797 P.2d 183

244 Mont. 161

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Jack HALL, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 89-331.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted May 10, 1990.

Decided Aug. 20, 1990.

Daniel A. Boucher, Altman & Boucher, Havre, for defendant and appellant.

Marc Racicot, Atty. Gen., John Paulson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, David G. Rice, Hill County Atty., Patricia Jensen, Deputy County Atty., Havre, for plaintiff and respondent.

SHEEHY, Justice.

A jury in the Twelfth Judicial District, Hill County, found defendant William Jack Hall guilty of sexual assault. He now appeals his conviction. We affirm.

The defendant raises four issues on appeal:

1. Whether the District Court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial.

2. Whether the District Court properly admitted defendant's statement concerning his acts at the scene of the crime.

3. Whether the District Court properly refused defendant's proposed jury instruction concerning eyewitness identification.

4. Whether the District Court improperly allowed expert testimony.

On July 21, 1988, six-year-old D.B. went to Havre-Hill County Public library with her mother and two brothers. After walking downstairs with the children to the children's section so that D.B. and her brothers could choose some books to check out for themselves, D.B.'s mother went upstairs to attend a meeting.

While D.B. was looking at books in the children's section, defendant approached D.B. and asked her to follow him into a periodical storage room. While inside the room, Hall had D.B. sit down on a chair. Hall then showed his penis to D.B. and touched D.B.'s leg with his penis. Hall asked D.B. to pull down her pants, but she refused. Defendant than reached his hand up inside D.B.'s shorts and touched her vagina and buttocks.

That evening D.B. told her mother about the incident in the library. D.B.'s mother reported the incident to officer Ross Magnuson of the Havre Police Department the following day. Magnuson examined the periodical room and found three hairs and a dried substance on the floor.

On July 30, 1988, Magnuson interviewed Hall. Hall initially stated that he had not been in the library for quite a while. When Magnuson informed Hall of the hair evidence found at the scene and that the police had obtained a search warrant to collect samples of his hair to compare with the evidence at the scene, Hall changed his story. He explained that he had been in the library the day before the incident, had gone into the same periodical storage room, and became aroused by a picture he had found in a magazine. Hall stated that he then masturbated in the storage room. Subsequent analysis by both the F.B.I. and Hall's expert determined, however, that hairs found in the periodical storage room could not match Hall's hair sample.

On August 1, 1988, the State charged Hall, by complaint, with felony sexual assault. Section 45-5-502(1), MCA. The Justice of the Peace initially set bail at $7,500. After receiving leave to file an information, on August 19, 1988, the State filed an information alleging Hall sexually assaulted D.B. On August 26, 1988, Hall was arraigned in District Court, at which time the court reduced his bail to $4,000. Hall was unable to post bail and remained incarcerated.

Subsequent to Hall's arraignment, the District Court set the trial for October 26, 1988. On October 6, 1988, the State moved to continue the trial date because the results of the trace evidence had not yet been received and Hall's expert would have insufficient time to examine the evidence. The court granted the State's motion. Later, the District Court reset the trial for December 12, 1988. Next on December 8, 1988, the parties entered a stipulation to continue the December 12, 1988 trial date. The stipulation was based on two grounds: 1) Hall's expert had recently suffered serious heart ailments and was temporarily unavailable and 2) the State had recently endorsed an expert witness for which there had not been any opportunity for exchange of discovery. Once again, on January 5, 1989, the District Court rescheduled the trial for February 22, 1989.

On January 26, 1989, Hall filed a motion in limine with the District Court requesting prohibition of the use of statements by Hall to officer Magnuson. The District Court granted Hall's motion, and ordered that the State could introduce evidence of defendant's presence in the library but not of defendant's acts as admitted in his statement. The District Court reasoned that evidence of those acts had little probative value, and were inflammatory and prejudicial.

Next, on February 16, 1989, Hall filed a motion to dismiss, based upon a failure to provide a speedy trial. The District Court denied Hall's motion.

The trial commenced on February 22, 1989. At trial D.B. and her brother J.B., age nine, identified Hall as the offender. Hall chose not to testify at trial. On February 25, 1989, a Hill County jury found Hall guilty as charged. Hall now appeals his conviction.

I.

Whether the District Court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial.

The right of any defendant to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the federal and Montana Constitutions. U.S. Const., Amend. VI; Art. II, Sec. 24, Mont. Const.; State v. Fife (Mont.1981), 632 P.2d 712, 714.

The United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 101, 117, established a four-pronged balancing test to determine speedy trial claims. In Montana, when a speedy trial issue is presented to the District Court, the court must resolve the issue by applying the balancing test of Barker. Briceno v. District Court (1977), 173 Mont. 516, 518, 568 P.2d 162, 163-64. The four factors to be evaluated and balanced are:

1) length of delay;

2) reason for delay;

3) assertion of the right by defendant; and

4) prejudice to the defendant.

Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. at 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d at 117; Briceno, 568 P.2d at 164.

In speedy trial analysis, the length of delay acts a "triggering" mechanism and the other above enunciated factors need not be examined unless presumptive prejudicial delay is present. State v. Wombolt (1988), 231 Mont. 400, 402, 753 P.2d 330, 331; State v. Armstrong (1980), 189 Mont. 407, 424, 616 P.2d 341, 351; State v. Harvey (1979), 184 Mont. 423, 433, 603 P.2d 661, 667. If the court finds the delay to be presumptively prejudicial, the State has the burden of rebutting the presumption by providing a reasonable explanation for the delay and showing that the defendant was not prejudiced. Wombolt, 753 P.2d at 331; State v. Curtis (Mont.1990), 787 P.2d 306, 313, 47 St.Rep. 277, 283.

From the date of arrest on July 30, 1988, to the trial of February 22, 1989, amounts to a delay of 207 days. The State argues that we should deduct time attributable to Hall before considering whether the delay was long enough to establish a presumption. In Curtis, 787 P.2d at 313, we expressly overruled this method of calculating the length of the delay:

... The parties' briefs exhibit some confusion concerning at what point delay attributable to the defendant should be considered. Some confusion is not surprising considering the recent case law. Some cases deduct time attributable to the defendant before determining whether the delay was long enough to establish a presumption of prejudice. Other cases did not consider such delay until after the presumption of prejudice had been established and dealt with it under the second analytical element, the reason for the delay.

We believe that the second procedure is more appropriate. The length of delay is considered twice in speedy trial analysis. In the first instance, it acts merely as a trigger to determine whether further inquiry is warranted. If further inquiry is warranted, the length of the delay is again considered as an inextricable component of the second element, the reason for delay. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. at 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d at 117; United States v. Colombo (1st Cir.1988), 852 F.2d 19, 24.

In this case, the delay of 207 days is sufficient to raise a presumption of prejudice and require further inquiry. Fife, 632 P.2d at 714-15. (194 days). The State now has the burden of providing a reasonable explanation for the delay and to show that the defendant was not prejudiced by the delay. Curtis, 787 P.2d at 314; Wombolt, 753 P.2d at 331.

We next examine the reasons for the delay. Hall contends that the 207 days of delay should be credited against the State. We disagree with Hall's contention. The District Court set Hall's original date for October 26, 1988. On October 6, 1988, the State moved to continue the trial date because the State had not received the results of the trace evidence test. The District Court reset the trial for December 12, 1988. The State, therefore, is responsible for the delay up to December 12, 1988. Next, on December 8, 1988, the State stipulated to Hall's motion to continue the December 12, 1988 trial date. The parties' stipulation was based on two reasons:

1) Hall's expert witness suffered serious heart ailments and had been unable to complete his evaluation of the physical evidence.

2) The State had recently endorsed an expert witness for which there had not been any opportunity for exchange of discovery.

The District Court granted the motion, and vacated the December 12, 1988, trial date. Later, the District Court reset the trial for February 22, 1989. While the State is responsible for the first delay of 135 days, both parties bear responsibility for the delay caused by the December 8, 1988, stipulation.

The State concedes that Hall satisfied the third element by moving to dismiss on speedy trial grounds on February 16, 1989.

The last factor relating to the right to a speedy trial is the degree of prejudice suffered by the defendant. The degree of prejudice is determined...