State v. Ring

• Decision Date: 25 February 2014
• Docket Number: No. DA 12–0457.,DA 12–0457.
• Citation: 374 Mont. 109,321 P.3d 800
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Randy Bill RING, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

374 Mont. 109

321 P.3d 800

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.Randy Bill RING, Defendant and Appellant.

No. DA 12–0457.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Jan. 22, 2014.

Decided Feb. 25, 2014.

For Appellant: Deborah S. Smith, Clinical Professor, University of Idaho College of Law, Legal Aid Clinic, Moscow, Idaho.

For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Leo J. Gallagher, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Tara Harris, Deputy County Attorney, Helena, Montana.

Justice MICHAEL E. WHEAT delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Randy Bill Ring (Ring) appeals from the judgment of Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, following his jury conviction for incest in violation of § 45–5–507, MCA. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

ISSUES

¶ 2 We review the following issues:

1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion and correctly apply this Court's decision in Anderson when it prohibited Ring from examining the victim out of the presence of the jury regarding alleged false accusations of sexual assault?

2. Did a jury instruction stating that intoxication is not a defense violate Ring's right to due process, when he testified that he had taken prescription medication?

3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Ring's motion for a new trial based on an allegation of juror bias?

4. Did the District Court err when it imposed conditions of the sentence that imposed restitution in an unspecified amount and ordered Ring to pay for the cost of his incarceration?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On February 2, 2011, Ring's then twenty-four-year-old daughter, S.H., was staying with him with her two children, ages seven and two. S.H. does not own a car. S.H. had come to stay with Ring after a falling out with her mother, with whom she had been staying previously. Another woman and her eight-year-old daughter were also staying in Ring's three bedroom house at the time. Ring slept in one bedroom, while each woman shared a bedroom with her child or children. The other woman was out of town on February 2, but her daughter was at Ring's house.

¶ 4 S.H., Ring, and the children ate dinner, then watched television. S.H. drank some liquor. Around 8:30 or 9:00 p.m., S.H. put the children to bed. After she had put the children to bed, S.H. testified that Ring made her a Captain Morgan spiced rum and water in a “regular-size bar” glass. Then, she went out to the garage and smoked about half a gram of marijuana and a cigarette. When she returned to the house she testified she was “buzzed,” but not incapacitated. She testified that Ring handed her a third, stronger, Captain Morgan and water drink. She was sipping it, then chugged it after Ring made fun of her for drinking it too slowly. After chugging the drink, S.H. testified, she was “pretty much black-out drunk.” She testified that she got up and went to sleep in Ring's bed because she did not want to disturb her sleeping children. She “pretty much laid down and passed out” with all her clothes on. She testified: “I remember waking up with—with him on top of me.... And, like, I couldn't move. And I didn't want to scream or do anything because there were kids in the house. I remember heavy breathing and him just kind of talking to himself.” S.H. just laid there and “took it” because she was “blacked out” and he was too big to push off of her. When “everything got finished” she went into her bedroom and, at 3:30 in the morning, called people to come pick her up. Her brother came and picked her up at 8:00 a.m. the next day. She showed him some text messages she received from Ring. The messages read:

Why did u call patti to come get u at three thirty this morning

U started it and it has been along time. If u did not what it to happen all u had to do is say no. I am sorry but it was just as much as me. I think this should be kept between us When she told her brother what had happened, he called the police.

¶ 5 Ring's version of events differs. Ring is a veteran who suffers from pain, for which he is prescribed medications. To manage his pain, he is prescribed one hydrocodone pill per day and two Naproxen, twice a day. He testified that he was suffering from pain on February 2, 2011, and also had a cold. Before he went to bed, around 11:30 p.m., he had taken four hydrocodone pills, as well as three Naproxen and NyQuil Nighttime. He had been taking Tylenol Cold—and some morphine—during the day. He testified that he never poured S.H. any drinks. Instead, he testified that S.H. poured her third drink while she was on the phone with her brother, and that he went to bed before S.H. did. He was wearing his underwear and had put on the breathing machine he uses to treat his sleep apnea. After Ring was asleep, he testified, S.H. came into the room. She woke him up, saying she was cold and asking him to hold her. He said no. She slept on top of the covers with a blanket, initially, but somehow ended up nude, under the covers. He testified that she initiated the sexual contact, but also that he was asleep or barely aware at the time, and that he stopped the contact as soon as he realized what was happening. The next day, when interviewed by a detective, he admitted that he had intercourse with S.H.

¶ 6 Ring was charged by Amended Information with incest, a felony, in violation of § 45–5–507, MCA. Following a three-day jury trial, he was found guilty of the offense.

¶ 7 Before trial began, Ring's counsel filed subpoenas duces tecum to discover evidence related to past, allegedly false, accusations of rape S.H. had made against other men in her life. The State filed a motion in limine to exclude such evidence on the grounds that it would not be admissible at trial. The discovery attempt uncovered a one-page, Child and Family Services report written by a social worker, which referred to one such incident. The allegations referred to in the report, which were not documented in any sort of detail, had not been adjudicated or admitted to be false. On the day trial began, the District Court refused Ring's counsel's request to question S.H. to locate documentation of any additional accusations. The court further determined that the evidence pertaining to the documented previous accusation was not admissible, pursuant to this Court's decision in State v. Anderson, 211 Mont. 272, 686 P.2d 193 (1984).

¶ 8 Over Ring's objection, the District Court submitted to the jury an instruction concerning the effect of being in an “intoxicated condition,” which essentially reiterated the provisions of § 45–2–203, MCA. The jury instruction provided that intoxication from having ingested “intoxicating substances” is not a defense to the mental state element of a crime. The instruction, as permitted by §§ 45–2–203, 45–2–101(32) and 50–32–224(1)(a)(x), MCA, specified that hydrocodone is an “intoxicating substance.”

¶ 9 Following Ring's conviction by the jury, Ring's counsel learned that one of the jury members had been a victim of incest. The jury member had not disclosed her experience during voir dire. Ring's counsel moved for a new trial, arguing that the nondisclosure amounted to intentional concealment. The court concluded that investigation of the issue was necessary and conducted a hearing. The juror submitted a statement that Ring's counsel had never asked whether she had been a victim of incest, only whether she could hear the case fairly and impartially. The juror felt that she could, in part because the incest she experienced happened during childhood, whereas S.H. was an adult. In fact, she had initially doubted that Ring was guilty. The District Court denied Ring's motion after considering the juror's statement and the voir dire transcript. The court observed that, because neither counsel asked if any member of the jury pool was a victim of incest, the juror's decision not to disclose that history was not intentional concealment. In addition, she had shown no indication of bias.

¶ 10 The District Court sentenced Ring to twenty years in the Montana State Prison, imposing twenty-one “conditions” on his sentence. These conditions included requirements that he pay “all future medical expenses that his victim can reasonably be expected to incur” as a result of his conduct, as well as “all future costs of incarceration and medical costs while incarcerated.”

¶ 11 Ring appeals.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶ 12 This Court reviews a district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Puccinelli v. Puccinelli, 2012 MT 46, ¶ 12, 364 Mont. 235, 272 P.3d 117. Notwithstanding this deferential standard, however, judicial discretion must be guided by the rules and principles of law; thus, our standard of review is plenary to the extent that a discretionary ruling is based on a conclusion of law. Puccinelli, ¶ 12. In such circumstances, we review a district court's decision de novo, to determine whether the court interpreted the law correctly. Puccinelli, ¶ 12.

¶ 13 We review jury instructions “to determine whether the instructions as a whole fully and fairly instruct the jury on the applicable law.” State v. Myran, 2012 MT 252, ¶ 16, 366 Mont. 532, 289 P.3d 118 (quotation omitted). District courts are given broad discretion when instructing a jury and reversible error occurs only if the jury instructions prejudicially affect the defendant's substantial rights. Myran, ¶ 16. Statutes are presumed constitutional and the challenger bears the burden of proving that the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt; any doubts are resolved in favor of the statute. Myran, ¶ 16.

¶ 14 A district court's ruling on a motion for a new trial and its decision as to the impartiality of a jury should not be set aside unless there is an abuse of discretion. State v. Dunfee, 2005 MT 147, ¶ 14, 327 Mont. 335, 114 P.3d...