State v. Hoff
| Decision Date | 04 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | DA 14-0417 |
| Citation | 385 P.3d 945,385 Mont. 85,2016 MT 244 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jory Robert HOFF, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Kristen L. Peterson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana.
For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Leo Gallagher, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Melissa Broch, Deputy County Attorney, Helena, Montana.
Jory Robert Hoff (Hoff) appeals from final judgment entered in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, after a jury found him guilty of sexual assault and sexual intercourse without consent. We affirm.
¶ 2 Hoff raises three issues on appeal:
¶ 3 I.L. was born in 2002, and her parents separated soon thereafter. I.L. lived with her mother, except for a period between 2008 and 2010, when I.L. lived on and off with her father, her father's sister, and her maternal grandparents. In 2011, I.L.'s mother began dating and living with Hoff. I.L.'s mother worked evenings twice a week and left I.L. in the care of Hoff or I.L.'s maternal grandfather on those nights.
¶ 4 In July 2013, when I.L. was 11 years old, she had an argument with her mother and said she wanted to live with her father. I.L.'s parents arranged for her father to take I.L. to his house, where he lived with his new wife. Because I.L.'s father traveled for work, I.L. was often left in her stepmother's care. This living arrangement lasted for about two weeks, until I.L's father and stepmother were both scheduled to travel out of state. I.L.'s stepmother offered to take I.L. with her, but I.L.'s mother refused to give permission to take I.L. out of state.
¶ 5 Because both her father and stepmother would be away, I.L.'s stepmother told I.L. she would have to go back to her mother's house. I.L. became upset and started crying. When her stepmother asked what was wrong, I.L. said Hoff had sexually assaulted her when she was staying with Hoff and her mother. I.L.'s stepmother then called the police and relayed what I.L. had said. I.L. underwent a forensic interview two days later, during which she said Hoff had been touching her inappropriately almost every night for two years. Hoff was arrested the day of I.L.'s forensic interview. He has denied that he touched I.L. inappropriately.
¶ 6 During pretrial discovery, the State and Hoff jointly moved for an in camera review of certain records maintained by the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) pertaining to I.L.'s accusations against Hoff. The District Court conducted its in camera review and released relevant records. These records contained references to statements I.L. made when she was four, which accused two other men of sexual assault. Hoff then filed a second motion for in camera inspection of additional DPHHS records regarding these prior accusations. The District Court reviewed and released four more pages of DPHHS records, with redactions.
¶ 7 Before trial, Hoff requested a preliminary hearing on the admissibility of the prior accusations made by I.L. Hoff maintained those accusations were false and therefore relevant to the veracity of I.L.'s present accusations against Hoff. In State ex rel. Mazurek v. Dist. Court of the Mont. Fourth Judicial Dist. , 277 Mont. 349, 357–58, 922 P.2d 474, 479–80 (1996), we adopted a three-part test governing the admissibility of prior accusations of sexual assault. That test requires a district court to determine, among other things, that the prior accusations were in fact false. Mazurek , 277 Mont. at 358, 922 P.2d at 480. Hoff requested the Mazurek hearing to give him the opportunity to show the prior accusations were false and therefore admissible at trial.
¶ 8 On the day of the Mazurek hearing, the State asked the District Court to close the hearing to the public. The State reasoned that the hearing would involve confidential and sensitive records detailing the prior accusations, which necessitated closure to maintain confidentiality. Hoff objected to closing the hearing, arguing that no statute or precedent supported closing the hearing simply because it dealt with sensitive material. Because the whole trial concerned sensitive material, Hoff maintained that the hearing should remain open. Ultimately, the District Court closed the hearing to the public, although witnesses slated to testify at the hearing remained in the courtroom throughout the hearing.
¶ 9 After the hearing, the District Court issued a written order denying the admission of the prior accusations. The District Court stated:
[T]he evidence does not show, as required by Mazurek , that the accusations were in fact false. Further, while the accusations are certainly suspicious and raise question in the Court's mind, it has not been shown to the satisfaction of this Court that the prior accusations were in fact false. Here, the Court is focusing on Mazurek 's requirement that the accusations be "in fact false." In the view of this Court, this requirement was fleshed out by the Supreme Court's holding that the prior assault allegations need to be adjudicated to be false or admitted to be false. Here, there has been no such adjudication or admission.
(emphasis in original). Because the District Court found the second condition of Mazurek was not satisfied, it prohibited Hoff from cross-examining I.L. about the prior accusations at trial.
¶ 10 Following a four-day trial, the jury found Hoff guilty on both counts.
¶ 11 This Court's review of constitutional questions is plenary. State v. Johnson , 2015 MT 221, ¶ 10, 380 Mont. 198, 356 P.3d 438. We review a district court's evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. State v. MacKinnon , 1998 MT 78, ¶ 12, 288 Mont. 329, 957 P.2d 23. A court abuses its discretion if it "acts arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice." State v. Henson , 2010 MT 136, ¶ 19, 356 Mont. 458, 235 P.3d 1274. To the extent a court's evidentiary ruling is based on an interpretation of a constitutional right, our review is de novo. State v. Patterson , 2012 MT 282, ¶ 10, 367 Mont. 186, 291 P.3d 556.
¶ 12 1. Did the District Court violate Hoff's constitutional right to a public trial when it closed to the public a hearing on the admissibility of the victim's prior allegations of sexual abuse?
¶ 13 The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides criminal defendants the "right to a speedy and public trial." U.S. Const. amend. VI. The public trial right benefits the accused to the extent "the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions." Waller v. Ga. , 467 U.S. 39, 46, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 2215, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984) (internal quotation omitted). Open proceedings are particularly important in pretrial suppression hearings. Waller , 467 U.S. at 47, 104 S.Ct. at 2216.
Nevertheless, the right to a public trial may yield to " ‘an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’ " Waller , 467 U.S. at 45, 104 S.Ct. at 2215 ). Following Waller , the right to a public trial may give way if: (1) the party seeking to close the hearing advances an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; (2) the closure is no broader than necessary to protect that interest; (3) the court considers alternatives to closing the proceeding that would still protect the interest; and (4) the court makes findings adequate to support the closure. Waller , 467 U.S. at 48, 104 S.Ct. at 2216.
¶ 15 Preventing the disclosure of sensitive information is a sufficiently strong interest to override the general presumption of openness in trials. Waller , 467 U.S. at 45, 104 S.Ct. at 2215. Few cases present that interest more starkly than the sexual assault of a minor. In Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Court , 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court noted that "safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor" is a compelling interest, but held unconstitutional a law that required automatic closure during a minor victim's testimony. Globe Newspaper Co. , 457 U.S. at 607–08, 102 S.Ct. at 2620–21. Instead, courts should consider the nature of the crime, the age and maturity of the victim, and the victim's wishes before making a case-by-case decision to close the trial for the victim's testimony. Globe Newspaper Co. , 457 U.S. at 608, 102 S.Ct. at 2621. No one factor is determinative, and the decision to close a hearing is ultimately left to the trial court's discretion. Bell v. Jarvis , 236 F.3d 149, 171 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Globe Newspaper Co. , 457 U.S. at 609, 102 S.Ct. at 2621 ).
¶ 16 While the final element of the Waller test requires findings that support closure, the findings do not need to be exceptionally detailed. Rather, the trial court's findings need only be "specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered." Press–Enter. Co. , 464 U.S. at 510, 104 S.Ct. at 824 ; accord Waller , 467 U.S. at 45, 104 S.Ct. 2210 ; Bell , 236 F.3d at 172.
¶ 17 Hoff argues the District...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hansen
...150. To the extent a court's evidentiary ruling is based on an interpretation of a constitutional right, our review is de novo. State v. Hoff , 2016 MT 244, ¶ 11, 385 Mont. 85, 385 P.3d 945 (citing State v. Patterson , 2012 MT 282, ¶ 10, 367 Mont. 186, 291 P.3d 556 ).DISCUSSIONWhether the D......
-
State v. Ragner
...150. To the extent a court's evidentiary ruling is based on an interpretation of a constitutional right, our review is de novo. State v. Hoff , 2016 MT 244, ¶ 11, 385 Mont. 85, 385 P.3d 945 (citing State v. Patterson , 2012 MT 282, ¶ 10, 367 Mont. 186, 291 P.3d 556 ). ¶13 A review of a dist......