State v. Murphy

Decision Date19 October 2021
Docket NumberDA 19-0657
Citation497 P.3d 263,406 Mont. 42
Parties STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ethan Joseph MURPHY, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

For Appellant: Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, James Reavis, Assistant Appellate Defender, Billings, Montana

For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Travis R. Ahner, Flathead County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana

Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Ethan Joseph Murphy pled guilty to Incest, § 45-5-507, MCA, reserving the right to appeal an order entered by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, denying his motion in limine to exclude admission of evidence of his other acts and statements involving Q.M., his half-sister and the victim. We affirm and state the issue as follows:

Did the District Court abuse its discretion by permitting admission of evidence regarding other acts and statements made by the Defendant?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In December 2017, Murphy was charged by Information with Sexual Intercourse Without Consent upon Q.M., in violation of § 45-5-503, MCA. In June 2017, Q.M. was forensically interviewed after disclosing to a counselor that she "had been molested" by Murphy on January 1, 2017, during an outdoor game of hide-and-seek she was playing with her siblings. Q.M. reported that Murphy, an adult, followed Q.M., then age 14, behind a shed, began touching Q.M., made her perform oral sex on him, and then forced her against the shed and engaged in anal intercourse. The affidavit supporting the Information also described an incident that occurred in 2012 between then 13-year-old Murphy and 9-year-old Q.M., which resulted in Murphy entering an admission in Missoula County Youth Court to sexually assaulting Q.M. During the investigation of that event and the youth court proceeding, Murphy described "having sexual thoughts of Q.M." and admitted "touching Q.M.’s genitals" and that he "spread [her] vagina. ... just [to] observe[ ]" while she was sleeping in a recliner.

¶3 Murphy entered a not guilty plea and moved in limine "to preclude the admission of evidence involving the occurrence of any other sexual acts or statements involving Q.M." Regarding such acts and statements occurring before the subject charge, Q.M. reported that, while she did not remember "a majority of the incidents," Murphy's sexual contact with her started before she was 9-years old. Murphy's mother learned of Murphy's inappropriate touching of Q.M. in 2010, two years before the incident leading to the youth court proceeding, when Murphy apparently disclosed to her that he had been, in her words, "exploring with his sister." Murphy admitted during a 2012 interview with a nurse interviewer that he was sexually inappropriate with Q.M., and when asked during the 2012 investigation if he had touched other persons in the same manner, Murphy answered "that he only thought about Q.M. ‘in that way’ and that when he was touching Q.M. he had no interest in touching anyone else." Murphy also sought to exclude reference to sexual actions he had taken with Q.M. approximately 30 minutes prior to the subject offense, during the same game of hide-and-seek. Q.M. reported that Murphy found her hiding in a vehicle, pulled down his and her clothing, and touched her "like down there" until Q.M.’s sister began to approach the vehicle. Q.M. stated that when Murphy began touching her, "I kinda just blanked out everything." Murphy has received counseling in the past for this behavior.

¶4 Regarding acts and statements after the subject charge, Murphy sought to exclude Q.M.’s disclosure to a forensic interviewer that Murphy used to threaten her not to disclose the sexual abuse, but as she grew older, Murphy stopped insisting on secrecy because he knew she would not disclose. When Murphy was asked by detectives in the subject investigation whether he had inappropriately touched other siblings, he stated, "[n]o, not really." The affidavit supporting the Information also alleged that "a similar incident" to the charged conduct occurred between Murphy and Q.M. "in [Murphy's] car a few weeks later." In reply to the limine motion, the State argued that Murphy's "prior sexual acts ... speak to [Murphy's] motive to sexually assault Q.M.," which it described as a "longstanding sexual fixation" with Q.M.

¶5 No party sought a hearing on the motion, and on October 16, 2018, the District Court denied it, holding that "evidence of Murphy's sexual conduct with Q.M., apart from the conduct alleged in the Information and its supporting affidavit, is relevant and admissible ... under Rule 404(b) and 403," agreeing with the State in its reasoning:

Murphy's identity as the alleged perpetrator, his intent, and his motive are primary issues in the case. One or more of Murphy's statements concerning the Missoula incident tend to show that Murphy experiences a desire to engage in sexual conduct with Q.M., which he does not experience with respect to other minor females. That Murphy has admitted subjecting Q.M. to sexual contact in the past tends to show ... that he has a longstanding sexual fixation with Q.M. The evidence, if offered at trial, would be both relevant and offered for the permissible purpose of demonstrating Murphy's motive to commit a sexual offense against Q.M.

Regarding § 26-1-103, MCA, the "transaction rule," the District Court further reasoned:

[t]he evidence Murphy seeks to exclude shows that he engaged in a pattern of escalating sexual conduct involving Q.M. properly characterized as ‘grooming’ ... accompanied by threats to Q.M. that she should not disclose the abuse or they would both get into trouble. The sexual conduct continued and escalated until Murphy was satisfied that his conduct would go unreported, if not unprosecuted.

Regarding Rule 403 ’s prejudice consideration, the District Court stated, "the charge may tend to arouse the jury's hostility or sympathy, but such hostility or sympathy may be inherent in the nature of the allegations against Murphy." The allegations of Murphy's past conduct with Q.M. were "not so much more abhorrent than the conduct alleged in the Information such that its admission is likely to arouse the jury's hostility or sympathy without regard for its probative value."

¶6 In April 2019, the Flathead County Attorney filed an Amended Information, charging Murphy instead with Incest, in violation of § 45-5-507, MCA. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Murphy entered an Alford Plea,1 reserving the right to appeal the District Court's order denying his motion in limine. At the sentencing hearing the plea agreement was amended to include: "[i]n the event the Defendant's appeal results in reversal of the District Court, then the Defendant may move to vacate the sentence and conviction and withdraw his guilty plea without objection from the State." The District Court designated Murphy a Level II sex offender under § 46-23-509, MCA, and imposed a 10-year suspended sentence.

¶7 Murphy appeals, challenging the denial of his motion in limine.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶8 Trial courts are empowered with broad discretion to decide "all questions of law, including the admissibility of testimony ... [,] other rules of evidence[,]" and "related statutory and jurisprudential rules." Section 26-1-201, MCA ; State v. McGhee , 2021 MT 193, ¶ 10, 405 Mont. 121, 492 P.3d 518 (citations omitted); State v. Derbyshire , 2009 MT 27, ¶ 19, 349 Mont. 114, 201 P.3d 811 (citing State v. Hicks , 2006 MT 71, ¶ 19, 331 Mont. 471, 133 P.3d 206 ). We review those decisions for an abuse of discretion, leaving them undisturbed unless made "arbitrarily without the employment of conscientious judgment or exceed[ing] the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice." Derbyshire , ¶ 19 (citations omitted). Any rationale based upon a conclusion of law, we review de novo , "according no measure of deference to the district court." State v. Guill , 2010 MT 69, ¶ 21, 355 Mont. 490, 228 P.3d 1152 (citing Derbyshire , ¶ 19 ).

DISCUSSION

¶9 "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by constitution, statute, these rules, or other rules applicable in the courts of this state." M. R. Evid. 402. To qualify as relevant, the evidence must have "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. 401. " Rule 401 ’s basic standard of relevance is a ‘liberal’ one." State v. Stewart , 2012 MT 317, ¶ 58, 367 Mont. 503, 291 P.3d 1187 (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 587, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2794, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) ). Here, the State alleged Murphy had non-consensual sex with 14-year-old Q.M., his half-sister. Facts demonstrating Murphy's individual attraction to Q.M., his admissions to sexually assaulting Q.M. in the past, and his statement that he does not act in this manner with anyone else have a "tendency" to make it more probable that Murphy knowingly engaged in sexual intercourse without consent with Q.M. on the subject occasion. The evidence is clearly relevant and admissible, unless otherwise excluded by law.

Rule 404(b)

¶10 The District Court admitted the evidence under § 26-1-103, MCA, the "transaction rule" and M. R. Evid. 404(b), and the parties present extensive arguments regarding both theories of admission. We conclude the evidence was properly admitted as motive evidence under Rule 404(b) and therefore we do not address the parties’ arguments regarding § 26-1-103, MCA. Despite the breadth of his motion in limine, which challenged a lengthy delineation of his other acts and statements, Murphy's appellate arguments address only the District Court's admission of evidence concerning his 2012 sexual assault of Q.M., while the State's arguments encompass all of Murphy's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Stryker
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • April 11, 2023
    ...judgment or exceed[ing] the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice.'" State v. Murphy, 2021 MT 268, ¶ 8, 406 Mont. 42, 497 P.3d 263 State v. Derbyshire, 2009 MT 27, ¶ 19, 349 Mont. 114, 201 P.3d 811 (citations omitted)). DISCUSSION ¶ 13 Stryker contends the District Court erre......
  • State v. Lake
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • February 8, 2022
    ... ... regarding the uncharged conduct-citing various authorities ... and parenthetically quoting 1 Christopher B. Mueller & ... Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 4:28, ... 746 (3d ed. Thomson/West 2007)) ... [ 20 ] See also State v. Murphy, ... 2021 MT 268, ¶¶ 39-40, 406 Mont. 42, 497 P.3d 263 ... (Gustafson, J., dissenting) ... [ 21 ] Cravens similarly testified in his ... pretrial deposition that he never heard Zitnik call Lake a ... child molester and simply did not know whether Zitnik had ... ever referred to Lake as ... ...
  • State v. Lake
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • February 8, 2022
    ...quoting 1 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 4:28, 746 (3d ed. Thomson/West 2007)).20 See also State v. Murphy , 2021 MT 268, ¶¶ 39-40, 406 Mont. 42, 497 P.3d 263 (Gustafson, J., dissenting).21 Cravens similarly testified in his pretrial deposition that he nev......
  • State v. Corena Marie Mountain Chief
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • August 1, 2023
    ...balancing test' favoring admission-'the risk of unfair prejudice must substantially outweigh the evidence's probative value.'" State v. Murphy, 2021 MT 268, ¶ 15, 406 Mont. 42, 497 P.3d 263 (quoting State Haithcox, 2019 MT 201, ¶ 16, 397 Mont. 103, 447 P.3d 452). M. R. Evid. 404(b) provides......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT