State v. Morse
378 Mont. 249
| Mont. | 2015Background
- Morse appeals a conviction for sexual intercourse without consent and a denied motion for new trial in Montana's Third Judicial District.
- H.S. is Morse's girlfriend's adult daughter who testified Morse digitally penetrated her during a five-hour massage on Sept. 17, 2012.
- Morse and H.S.'s mother were present; the mother walked in during the massage and Morse allegedly restrained H.S. from answering.
- The State introduced a photo of shorts with stains; the crime lab could not test for semen or vaginal fluid; lab results were inconclusive.
- H.S. testified post-trial that vaginal fluid evidence was urine, not vaginal fluid, and later recanted core trial testimony, leading Morse to file an amended motion for a new trial on Sept. 4, 2013, which was untimely.
- The district court held a second hearing and ultimately denied Morse’s untimely motion, deciding not to grant a new trial but to wait for postconviction relief; Morse was sentenced on Dec. 3, 2013, but remained released pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Morse’s untimely motion for a new trial and directing postconviction relief | Morse argues the court should consider a new trial under the inherent power to remedy miscarriage of justice | State argues the 30-day deadline in §46-16-702(2) bars review of untimely motions and sua sponte authority is limited | Reversed; remanded for consideration of a new trial under §46-16-702(1) |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing testimony about Morse’s past conduct | Morse contends such testimony was improper prior bad acts evidence | State maintains the evidence was admissible to support the State’s theory of the crime | Not reached on remand (Issue One controls) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brummer, 953 P.2d 250 (Mont. 1998) (inherent power to order a new trial sua sponte; 30-day limit for defense motions does not apply to sua sponte actions)
- State v. Marker, 15 P.3d 373 (Mont. 2000) (time/notice requirements do not apply to district court acting sua sponte under §46-16-702(1))
- State v. Gollehon, 906 P.2d 697 (Mont. 1995) (narrow construction of §46-16-702 prior to 1999 amendments)
- State v. Perry, 758 P.2d 268 (Mont. 1988) (recognizes procedural exceptions to time limits in some circumstances)