State v. Hibbs
| Decision Date | 26 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-93,89-93 |
| Citation | 780 P.2d 182,239 Mont. 308 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Martin HIBBS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Deirdre Caughlan, Dunlap & Caughlan, Butte, for defendant and appellant.
Marc Racicot, Atty. Gen., Kathy Seeley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Robert M. McCarthy, County Atty., and Brad Newman, Deputy County Atty., Butte, for plaintiff and respondent.
A jury empaneled in the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Silver Bow County, found William Martin Hibbs, defendant, guilty under Sec. 45-5-502(1) and (3), MCA, of three counts of sexual assault. The District Court sentenced Hibbs to twenty years in the Montana State Prison on each count to be served consecutively. He was also found to be a persistent felony offender under Sec. 46-18-501(1) and (2), MCA, and was sentenced to fifteen years in the Montana State Prison to be served consecutively with the term imposed on count three. Hibbs appeals. We affirm.
The following issues are raised on appeal:
1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it offered and admitted an exhibit on its own motion.
2. Whether the District Court properly allowed the prosecution to use leading questions with two child witnesses, ages six and seven, on direct examination.
3. Whether the District Court erred in allowing three prosecution witnesses to testify to out-of-court statements made to them by four child witnesses.
On July 13, 1988, a six-year-old girl, referred to as Misty, told her mother that she, her sister, referred to as April, age ten, and two neighbor girls, referred to as Carol, age six, and Carol's sister, referred to as Crystal, age seven, had been sexually assaulted the previous day at the Hibbs' residence. April's mother reported the incident to the police.
On July 14, 1988, a social worker, employed by the Department of Family Services, Butte, Montana, interviewed the four girls in which the girls claimed that Hibbs forced them to touch his penis with their hands and mouths and that he touched their vaginas with his hands. The four girls also claimed that Hibbs prevented them from leaving his residence by wedging knives into his door which prevented it from being opened. The four girls stated that Hibbs gave them some change after sexual contact had ceased. Two of the girls claimed that Hibbs warned them not to tell their parents about the contact or the girls would go to jail. Another girl claimed that Hibbs threatened to kill her if she told her parents about the contact.
Also, on July 14, 1988, a Butte police detective took a voluntary, recorded statement from Hibbs after Hibbs was advised of his Miranda rights and after he signed and initialed a waiver form acknowledging his rights. Hibbs stated that he was 58 years old. He further stated that while he did have sexual contact with several juvenile girls from the neighborhood, it was the girls who initiated the contact by unzipping his pants and then fondling and sucking his penis. Hibbs claimed that this occurred while he was asleep and incapacitated by alcohol. At trial, Hibbs testified that as soon as he became aware of what was happening, he ran into the bathroom and Crystal followed him and demanded money.
On August 4, 1988, Hibbs was charged by information with four counts of sexual assault committed against four juveniles in violation of Sec. 45-5-502(1) and (3), MCA. On January 3, 1989, a jury trial commenced. Witnesses for the prosecution included the four girls, April, Misty, Crystal and Carol, their mothers, and Terri Waldorf, a social worker who interviewed the children following the reported assaults.
On January 4, 1989, the jury found Hibbs guilty on three of the four counts of sexual assault. On February 3, 1989, Hibbs was sentenced to twenty years in the Montana State Prison on each count to be served consecutively and fifteen years in the Montana State Prison as a persistent felony offender to be served consecutively with count three. Hibbs was designated a dangerous offender for purposes of parole eligibility under Sec. 46-18-404, MCA, and was given credit for time served.
The first issue raised on appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion when it offered and admitted an exhibit on its own motion. Specifically, the court ordered the Miranda waiver form admitted into evidence after the prosecution had fully cross-examined Hibbs on the document. The prosecutor stated that he did not intend to enter the form into evidence.
Hibbs argues that by ordering the admission of the form into evidence, the court, in effect, was commenting on the evidence in violation of Rule 614(b), M.R.Evid., which provides:
The court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by itself or a party; provided, however, that in trials before a jury, the court's questioning must be cautiously guarded so as not to constitute express or implied comment.
It is true that under the rule, the court may examine witnesses to fully elicit or clarify facts. See State v. Martin (1987), 226 Mont. 463, 736 P.2d 477, 44 St.Rep. 804; State v. Bier (1979), 181 Mont. 27, 591 P.2d 1115. The authority for the court to call or examine witnesses is discretionary and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion or manifest prejudice. State v. Hart (1981), 625 P.2d 21.
Nonetheless, the issue raised is not the examination of witnesses but the actual admission of an exhibit by the court's own order. There is no provision under Rule 614, M.R.Evid., nor anywhere in Montana law, that directly permits the court to offer its own exhibits into evidence. Here, the exhibit had been read into evidence in full to the jury. It could hardly constitute error.
If it were error, it was harmless. Section 46-20-701, MCA, provides in part:
No cause shall be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the appellant unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.
Under State v. Gray (1983), 207 Mont. 261, 268, 673 P.2d 1262, 1266, we stated:
The test of prejudicial error requiring reversal is whether there is a reasonable possibility the inadmissible evidence might have contributed to the conviction. (Citations omitted.)
The next issue raised on appeal is whether the District Court properly allowed the prosecution to use leading questions with two child witnesses, ages six and seven, on direct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aker v. Fletcher
... 1 JIMMIE LEE AKER, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL FLETCHER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Respondents. No. CV 17-86-H-JTJ United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division August 22, 2022 ... ... 1997); Scheffelman , 820 P.2d at ... 1296-97; State v. Newman , 790 P.2d 971, 975 (Mont ... 1990); State v. Hibbs , 780 P.2d 182, 185 (Mont ... 1989); State v. Mackie , 622 P.2d 673, 675-76 (Mont ... 1981) (all holding statements admissible because ... ...
-
State v. Medina
...State's rebuttal and not its case-in-chief. This Court has previously addressed these arguments in a similar case. In State v. Hibbs, 239 Mont. 308, 780 P.2d 182 (1989), this Court held that the use of prior consistent statements made by the victim and testified to by certain prosecution wi......
-
State v. Lacey
...678 P.2d 644, 648 (1984). Yet, as the State points out, judges may in fact question witnesses. M.R. Evid. 614(b); State v. Hibbs, 239 Mont. 308, 311, 780 P.2d 182, 184 (1989). Had these particular instances of conduct occurred in front of a jury, they may have raised significant concerns. H......
-
State v. Higgins
...¶ 10, 307 Mont. 34, 36 P.3d 405. We review a district court’s examination of a witness for abuse of discretion. State v. Hibbs , 239 Mont. 308, 311, 780 P.2d 182, 184 (1989). We review a district court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict de novo. State v. Swann , 2007 MT 126, ¶ 17, 33......