State v. B. Daffin, 2017 MT 76

Background

Defendant Brad Edward Daffin was convicted after trial of numerous sex offenses (including multiple counts of sexual intercourse without consent, sexual assault, sexual abuse of children) and criminal distribution of dangerous drugs based on allegations from multiple victims spanning ~20 years; sentences totaled multiple life terms.
Initial disclosures began when a 12–13-year-old victim, R.S., reported sexual assaults and related conduct (including coerced topless photo) and a forensic interview identified additional victims (B.M., A.K., K.C., K.D.).
Prosecution presented testimony from five primary victims plus 29 other witnesses describing a consistent pattern of grooming: supplying drugs/alcohol, isolating victims (driving, partying, “mudding”), escalating sexual contact, and coercing secrecy.
Defendant moved to exclude other-acts evidence under M. R. Evid. 404(b) and to admit evidence of an alleged prior false report by R.S.; the court reserved and then admitted much of the other-acts evidence but limited testimony about the separate park allegation under the Rape Shield / Mazurek standard.
District Court admitted prior-acts testimony to prove identity, motive, purpose/mental state, and rebut a defense that victims conspired or lied; it excluded McMillan’s hearsay-based testimony about R.S.’s alleged false park accusation but allowed testimony about R.S.’s recantation.
On appeal Daffin challenged admission of 404(b) other-acts evidence (volume and prejudice) and the trial court’s application of § 45-5-511(2), MCA (Rape Shield / Mazurek threshold). The Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of other-acts evidence under M. R. Evid. 404(b)	Prior acts evidence was admissible to show identity (distinctive grooming), motive, intent/purpose, knowledge, and absence of mistake; it explained and contextualized charged acts	Volume of other-acts evidence was prejudicial, showed propensity, and the court failed to properly gatekeep under Rule 403	Court affirmed: evidence admissible for proper non-propensity purposes; similarities in grooming formed a "criminal signature" and probative value outweighed unfair prejudice
Rule 403 balancing (prejudice vs. probative value)	Highly probative given defense theory (victims conspired/lied); necessary given multiple charges across years	Cumulative and inflammatory evidence substantially outweighed probative value and misled jury	Court held district court did not abuse discretion; Rule 403 favors admission unless unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value
Application of Montana Rape Shield Law §45-5-511(2) / Mazurek standard to alleged prior false accusation by R.S.	Court properly applied Mazurek: required proof that prior accusation was made and false before permitting cross-examination or extrinsic evidence; permitted recantation evidence but excluded hearsay lacking competent proof	Excluding McMillan’s testimony deprived Daffin of impeachment evidence and ability to show R.S. lies or mental-health basis for false accusation	Court affirmed: exclusion of hearsay-based testimony was proper; district court admitted recantation evidence but properly excluded unreliable hearsay and any error was harmless
Scope of defendant's confrontation/presentation rights versus victim-protection statute	State: Rape Shield balanced against confrontation right; exclusions must be based on competence, not arbitrary application	Daffin: Rape Shield was misapplied to exclude non-sexual evidence about mental health and credibility	Court agreed Rape Shield does not reach non-sexual conduct but found excluded testimony was inadmissible hearsay; result affirmed as correct or harmless

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Mazurek v. District Court of the Montana Fourth Judicial District, 277 Mont. 349, 922 P.2d 474 (Mont. 1996) (sets threshold test for admitting evidence of alleged prior false sexual accusations)
State v. Kordonowy, 251 Mont. 44, 823 P.2d 854 (Mont. 1991) (discusses identity exception for crimes with distinctive modus operandi)
State v. Stewart, 367 Mont. 503, 291 P.3d 1187 (Mont. 2012) (other-acts evidence may be used to prove actus reus and mens rea)
State v. Crider, 375 Mont. 187, 328 P.3d 612 (Mont. 2014) (prior bad acts admissible to show common motive explaining charged and uncharged acts)
State v. Higley, 190 Mont. 412, 621 P.2d 1043 (Mont. 1980) (Rape Shield statute prevents trial from becoming a trial of the victim's sexual history)
State v. Ellison, 364 Mont. 276, 272 P.3d 646 (Mont. 2012) (appellate court will affirm correct result even if trial court gave wrong reason)