State v. Colburn
2016 Mont. LEXIS 119
| Mont. | 2016Background
- In 2013 Colburn was charged with two counts of incest (against daughter C.C.), one count of sexual intercourse without consent, and two counts of sexual assault (against neighbor R.W.); a jury convicted him in October 2013 and he was sentenced in February 2014.
- R.W. (age 11) testified she had been sexually touched by Colburn and Hansen, a nurse practitioner and forensic interviewer, concluded R.W.’s statements were consistent with sexual abuse and that R.W. displayed sexual knowledge beyond that of a typical child.
- C.C. (age 11) testified largely denying abuse by Colburn; a recorded forensic interview of C.C. conducted by Hansen was admitted and was central to the incest charges.
- Colburn sought to call Dr. Donna Zook, a clinical psychologist and experienced forensic interviewer, to critique Hansen’s interview techniques (alleging leading/suggestive questions); the court excluded Zook as an expert because she lacked specific training in the NICHD protocol.
- Colburn also sought to introduce evidence that R.W. later disclosed abuse by her own father (who was later charged/convicted) and that R.W. may have been "testing the waters"—evidence Colburn said bore on motive to fabricate and an alternative source for R.W.’s sexual knowledge; the district court excluded this evidence under Montana’s Rape Shield statute.
- The Montana Supreme Court held the district court abused its discretion by (1) excluding Zook’s expert testimony and (2) mechanically applying the Rape Shield Law to exclude probative evidence of R.W.’s motive and alternative source of sexual knowledge; convictions were reversed and a new trial ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Colburn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Exclusion of defense expert on forensic interviewing | Expert lacked specific NICHD protocol training; therefore not qualified to critique Hansen | Zook was qualified by education/experience to opine on leading/suggestive questions and effect on child statements | Court: Exclusion was an abuse of discretion; Zook was sufficiently qualified and her testimony was improperly barred |
| 2. Exclusion under Rape Shield of evidence that R.W. was later abused by her father | Rape Shield bars evidence of victim’s sexual conduct with others; such evidence risks turning trial into a trial of the victim | Evidence was probative of motive to fabricate and alternative source of sexual knowledge and was supported (father was later convicted) | Court: District Court applied statute mechanically; it failed to balance defendant’s right to present a defense against Rape Shield interests; exclusion was an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Beehler v. Eastern Radiological Assoc., 289 P.3d 131 (Mont. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for expert admissibility; encourage liberal admission of expert testimony)
- State v. Anderson, 686 P.2d 193 (Mont. 1984) (Rape Shield protects victims but evidence may be admitted when narrowed to witness veracity/motive)
- State v. Van Pelt, 805 P.2d 549 (Mont. 1991) (attack on credibility alone insufficient for Rape Shield exception where prior acts not probative of issues)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (states have latitude to exclude evidence but rules must not be arbitrary relative to their purposes)
- Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) (right to present evidence may bow to legitimate trial interests; evidentiary rules must not be applied mechanistically)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (exclusion of critical exculpatory evidence and denial of meaningful cross-examination can violate due process)