State v. Donald Pulst
2015 MT 184
| Mont. | 2015Background
- Pulst, uncle of A.B., molested her on drives when she was 7–11.
- Washington Assault occurred during a December 1999 visit; A.B. disclosed to her mother and led to police involvement.
- K.S. began frequent contact with Pulst as a child; Pulst assaulted her on drives and engaged in other explicit acts.
- Police investigated in 2000; no charges were filed until 2012 when information was filed in district court.
- Pulst moved to suppress Washington Assault evidence; district court initially granted then denied the motion after factual clarification.
- Trial began January 7, 2013; verdicts of sexual assault, sexual intercourse without consent, and indecent exposure; oral sentence May 24, 2013; written judgment June 12, 2013; remand to correct written terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of uncharged acts evidence | Pulst contends Washington Assault evidence was unfairly prejudicial | State asserts relevance under transaction rule and limited probative value | District court did not abuse discretion; evidence admitted with limiting instructions and proper safeguards |
| Relevance of bruising evidence to K.S.'s credibility | W.D.'s observations could impeach K.S. or explain injuries | Evidence is relevant to credibility and alternate explanations | District court did not err in excluding; not relevant or probative of material issues |
| Consistency between oral sentence and written judgment | Written conditions 4, 7, and 25 allegedly deviate from oral pronouncement | Some conditions align; others may be inconsistent | Condition 16 consistent; condition 25 inconsistent; condition 4 and 7 unlawfully increased; remand to correct written judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Passmore, 225 P.3d 1229 (2010 MT 34) (admission of evidence under Montana Rules of Evidence 403 balanced for probative value and prejudice)
- State v. Bieber, 170 P.3d 444 (2007 MT 262) (prejudice vs. probative value in admitting prior acts evidence)
- State v. Stewart, 367 Mont. 503 (2012 MT 317) (general admissibility framework for evidence; probative outweighs prejudice)
- State v. Hantz, 311 P.3d 800 (2013 MT 311) (limits on admitting evidence under 403; cures by limiting use)
- State v. Franks, 335 P.3d 725 (2014 MT 273) (highly inflammatory nature of certain evidence; caution in admission)