State v. William P. Given, 359 P.3d 90

In 2011, a Yellowstone County detective investigated K.F., a ten-year-old, who disclosed three incidents of sexual touching by Given.
Given was charged with felony sexual assault and later severed from a related failure-to-register charge; he was tried by jury in 2013.
The State sought to admit A.U., Given’s sister, testimony about a 1995 conviction for sexual assault; the court allowed limited 404(b) testimony.
The court excluded some DFS and stepfather-abuse evidence and instructed the jury on the limited purpose of A.U.’s testimony.
The State’s witnesses included K.F., his mother, his stepfather, Detective Cunningham, A.U., and expert Wendy Dutton; K.F. testified to three incidents and gifts from Given.
The jury found Given guilty of felony sexual assault; he pled nolo contendere to failure to register; sentences imposed concurrently.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of A.U.’s prior-abuse testimony under 404(b)	Given argues 404(b) precludes character-based proof of intent/mistake; evidence too remote and dissimilar.	State properly admitted for intent/absence of mistake with limiting instruction; similarities exist and probative value outweighs prejudice.	District Court did not abuse discretion; A.U. testimony admissible for intent/absence of mistake.
Whether cross-examination restrictions on specific conduct testimony violated confrontation	Defense claims restrictions hindered cross-exam and credibility challenges.	Court appropriately limited questioning to protect trial integrity and focus on credibility and disclosure of abuse.	District Court did not abuse discretion; limitations reasonable.
Admission of State expert Wendy Dutton’s testimony	Late notice and disclosure deficiencies render witness inadmissible or partial to the State.	Disclosure complied with statutes; expert was admissible and helpful under Rule 702.	District Court did not abuse discretion; Dutton’s testimony properly admitted.

State v. Dist. Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Dist., 2010 MT 263, 358 Mont. 325, 246 P.3d 415 (Mont. 2010) (post-Dist. Court 404(b) framework for proving other acts)
State v. Robins, 2013 MT 71, 369 Mont. 291, 297 P.3d 1213 (Mont. 2013) (admissibility of expert testimony and evidence under Rule 702)
State v. Morgan, 1998 MT 268, 291 Mont. 347, 968 P.2d 1120 (Mont. 1998) (scope of cross-examination and witness credibility evidence)
State v. MacKinnon, 1998 MT 78, 288 Mont. 329, 957 P.2d 23 (Mont. 1998) (confrontation and admissibility of prior accusations)
State ex rel. Mazurek v. District Court, 277 Mont. 349, 922 P.2d 474 (Mont. 1996) (credibility and admissibility considerations in witness cross-examination)
State v. Franks, 2014 MT 273, 376 Mont. 431, 335 P.3d 725 (Mont. 2014) (unfair prejudice vs. probative value of sexual abuse evidence)
State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317, 367 Mont. 503, 291 P.3d 1187 (Mont. 2012) (analysis of prejudice versus probative value in evidence rulings)