State v. K. Morris, DA 23-0252

Background

Morris was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent and solicitation of tampering with physical evidence after BB reported he raped her in February 2020. 1
Before trial, the State moved to exclude rape-shield evidence about BB’s prior sexual history and prior rape report unless first presented outside the jury’s presence. 2
Morris sought to use texts and investigator notes to show BB had previously made a false rape allegation and had been unfaithful to prior partners. 3
The District Court denied a Mazurek hearing, limited cross-examination on BB’s prior sexual conduct, and later imposed a discovery sanction when Morris disclosed Moore-related notes late in trial. 4
The jury convicted Morris, and the court imposed probation conditions restricting his contact with minors. 5
On appeal, Morris challenged the rape-shield rulings, the discovery sanction, and several minor-contact probation conditions. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BB’s prior rape history was admissible 7	Morris said texts showed a false prior rape allegation and entitled him to a Mazurek hearing.	The State said Morris offered only speculation and no proof of falsity.	The court affirmed exclusion and denial of a Mazurek hearing. 8
Whether the State opened the door to BB’s prior rape history 9	Morris said the State’s text evidence allowed questioning about falsity.	The State said the text was transactional and did not open the door.	The court held no abuse of discretion in limiting that inquiry. 10
Whether alleged infidelity evidence was admissible 11	Morris claimed BB’s infidelity showed motive to fabricate and untruthfulness.	The State said the evidence was speculative rape-shield material.	The court affirmed exclusion of the infidelity evidence. 12
Whether the discovery sanction was proper 13	Morris argued Moore’s statement was work product and was disclosed when relevant.	The State said the notes had to be disclosed and Morris waited too long.	The court upheld the sanction precluding the undisclosed evidence. 14
Whether minor-contact probation conditions lacked a nexus 15	Morris said conditions 28, 29, 36, 38, and 44 were unrelated to his adult-victim offense.	The State argued the psychosexual evaluation and sentencing record supported them.	The court reversed those conditions and remanded for reconsideration. 16
Whether plain error review applied to unobjected minor-contact conditions 17	Morris argued the conditions burdened his fundamental parental rights.	The State said he waived review by not objecting below.	The court exercised plain error review and reversed conditions 36, 38, and 44. 18

Key Cases Cited

State v. Santoro, 417 Mont. 92, 551 P.3d 822 (Mont. 2024) (district court legal rulings reviewed de novo 19)
State v. Daffin, 387 Mont. 154, 392 P.3d 150 (Mont. 2017) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion 20)
State v. DeMary, 318 Mont. 200, 79 P.3d 817 (Mont. 2003) (discovery sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion 21)
State v. Nauman, 376 Mont. 326, 334 P.3d 368 (Mont. 2014) (sentence conditions reviewed for abuse of discretion 22)
State v. Colburn, 382 Mont. 223, 366 P.3d 258 (Mont. 2016) (rape shield statute is not absolute and requires rights balancing 23)
State ex rel. Mazurek v. Fourth Judicial Dist., 277 Mont. 349, 922 P.2d 474 (Mont. 1996) (prior false rape allegations admissible only after threshold proof and hearing 24)
State v. Awbery, 382 Mont. 334, 367 P.3d 346 (Mont. 2016) (rape shield protects against harassing or irrelevant questions about past sexual behavior 25)
State v. Twardoski, 405 Mont. 43, 491 P.3d 711 (Mont. 2021) (evidence must be non-speculative, relevant, cumulative-free, and not unfairly prejudicial 26)
State v. Ring, 374 Mont. 109, 321 P.3d 800 (Mont. 2014) (Mazurek does not allow fishing expeditions for prior false allegations 27)
State v. Guill, 355 Mont. 490, 228 P.3d 1152 (Mont. 2010) (trial courts have broad discretion once a party opens the door 28)
State v. Johnson, 288 Mont. 513, 958 P.2d 1182 (Mont. 1998) (no blanket motive-to-fabricate exception to rape shield; speculation is insufficient 29)
Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1988) (Confrontation Clause can require cross-examination for bias, subject to reasonable limits 30)
State v. Miller, 231 Mont. 497, 757 P.2d 1275 (Mont. 1988) (investigator reports and witness statements used at trial may be discoverable 31)
State v. Weitzel, 299 Mont. 192, 998 P.2d 1154 (Mont. 2000) (evidence becomes discoverable when it becomes relevant at trial 32)
State v. Deezeeuw, 297 Mont. 379, 992 P.2d 1276 (Mont. 1999) (sanctions consider reason for nondisclosure, willfulness, and prejudice 33)
State v. Waters, 228 Mont. 490, 743 P.2d 617 (Mont. 1987) (same sanction factors apply under discovery rules 34)
State v. Zimmerman, 355 Mont. 286, 228 P.3d 1109 (Mont. 2010) (sentence conditions must relate to rehabilitation or protection of society 35)
State v. Ashby, 342 Mont. 187, 179 P.3d 1164 (Mont. 2008) (sentence condition requires a nexus to the offense or offender 36)
State v. Johnson, 362 Mont. 473, 265 P.3d 638 (Mont. 2011) (plain error review may be denied where nexus justifies minor-contact restrictions 37)
State v. Mehan, 395 Mont. 383, 440 P.3d 25 (Mont. 2019) (minor-contact restrictions reversed where adult-victim offense lacked nexus and evaluation gave no support 38)
State v. Melton, 364 Mont. 482, 276 P.3d 900 (Mont. 2012) (minor-contact restrictions upheld when evaluator identified adolescent-sexual-interest and denial issues 39)
State v. George, 399 Mont. 173, 459 P.3d 854 (Mont. 2020) (plain error review requires fundamental-right and fairness showing 40)
State v. Hatfield, 392 Mont. 509, 426 P.3d 569 (Mont. 2018) (plain error inquiry asks whether fundamental rights are implicated and review is necessary 41)
Planned Parenthood v. State, 417 Mont. 457, 554 P.3d 153 (Mont. 2024) (Montana recognizes a fundamental right to parent one's children 42)