 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bauer1/15/2002
while refraining from mention of the specific prior crimes, and presents the same inference to the jury as the tainted evidence. We conclude the introduction of inadmissible unredacted dates did not contribute to Bauer's conviction, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not prejudice Bauer's right to a fair trial. The District Court properly exercised its discretion by denying Bauer's motion for a mistrial.
ISSUE 3
Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Bauer's request to admit the state crime lab's DNA report as exculpatory evidence?
In reviewing a district court's decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence relating to the extrinsic sexual conduct of victims of sexual crimes, we determine whether the district court abused its discretion. State v. Detonancour, 2001 MT 213, 19, 306 Mont. 389, 19, 34 P.3d 487, 19 (citing State ex. rel. Mazurek v. Dist. Court of Fourth Jud. Dist. (1996), 227 Mont. 349, 353, 922 P.2d 474, 477).
Four months after the incest incidents, investigators recovered the blanket Amanda believed covered the day bed when Bauer engaged in sexual intercourse with her. The blanket was submitted to the state crime lab for DNA analysis and some stains were tested for the presence of seminal fluid. Although semen was found, it did not match Bauer's DNA profile. The District Court excluded the report under the rape shield statute, but allowed the defense to make a limited inquiry to establish that no physical evidence linked Bauer to the scene.
At the trial, Lori E. Hutchinson from the state crime lab testified that she did not find Bauer's semen on the blanket. Later, the defense elicited a statement from Detective Dan Blume of the Anaconda-Deer Lodge Police Department that the report showed the presence of someone else's seminal fluid on the blanket. With the essential findings of the DNA report inadvertently admitted into evidence at trial, Bauer claims the court abused its discretion in excluding a report that contradicts Amanda's testimony.
Montana's rape shield statute, enacted in 1973, "reflects a compelling interest in favor of preserving the integrity of the trial and preventing it from becoming a trial of the victim." State v. Johnson, 1998 MT 107, 19, 288 Mont. 513, , 958 P.2d 1182, 19 (quoting State v. Anderson (1984), 211 Mont. 272, 283, 686 P.2d 193, 199). The statute provides in relevant part:
No evidence concerning the sexual conduct of the victim is admissible in prosecutions under this part except evidence of the victim's past sexual conduct with the offender or evidence of specific instances of the victim's sexual activity to show the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease which is at issue in the prosecution. Section 45-5-511(2), MCA.
The Compiler's Comments describe the two exceptions as: 1) evidence of the victim's prior sexual contact with the defendant and, 2) evidence that refutes an inference derived from physical evidence of the crime offered by the victim.
Since all sexual contact between Bauer and his daughter is criminal and the State offered no physical evidence to refute at trial, neither exception to the rape shield statute applies in this case. Moreover, even if the DNA test had been completed in a more timely fashion, the results bear no relevance to the issue of whether Bauer committed incest. Detective Blume's summary of the findings of the DNA report notwithstanding, admission of the report into evidence would violate § 45-5-511(2), MCA, and would serve only to confuse or divert the jury. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the report.
ISSUE 4
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|