State v. James

410 Mont. 55

517 P.3d 170

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.Vaughn David JAMES, Defendant and Appellant.

DA 18-0597

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: July 27, 2022

Decided: September 13, 2022

For Appellant: Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana

For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Brendan D. McQuillan, Deputy Lake County Attorney, Polson, Montana

Justice James Jeremiah Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Defendant Vaughn David James appeals from the July 31, 2018 Judgment by the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, convicting him of sexual intercourse without consent. We restate and address the following issues:

1. Whether the District Court misapplied M. R. Evid. 404(b) by excluding evidence James contended demonstrated his accuser was motivated to falsely testify to avoid jail time for violating the terms of her conditional release.

2. Whether the District Court unduly curtailed James's right to mount a complete defense when it denied him broad latitude to cross-examine and impeach his accuser about leniency she allegedly received in an unrelated DUI charge.

3. Whether the chief prosecutor's conflict of interest deprived the entire Lake County Attorney's Office of authority to prosecute James.

¶2 We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 The State charged James with Count I: Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, in violation of § 45-5-503, MCA, and Count II: Aggravated Burglary, in violation of § 45-6-204, MCA. The Information alleged that, on September 17, 2016, James unlawfully entered his mother's home and had sexual intercourse with his aunt, M.N., who had been asleep on a small couch in the living room and did not consent.

¶4 At the time of the incident, M.N. was staying with James's mother because she had recently been released from jail. The parties agreed that M.N.’s criminal history was inadmissible at trial. However, James moved to introduce evidence that M.N. also had a pending felony driving under the influence (DUI) charge in Sanders County and, the days before and after the alleged rape occurred, she had failed to comply with the 24/7 drug and alcohol monitoring conditions of her release by missing two breathalyzer tests. James argued the evidence tended to prove that M.N. fabricated the rape allegations against him as an excuse for violating the conditions of her bond and to avoid having her bond revoked. The State opposed the motion, arguing the evidence was inadmissible under M. R. Evid. 403, 404(b), 608, and 609, as it was irrelevant, highly prejudicial, and merely speculative. The District Court denied James's motion, reasoning that James had not clearly articulated how the evidence fits into a chain of logical inferences, as required by this Court's holding in State v. Madplume , 2017 MT 40, ¶ 23, 386 Mont. 368, 390 P.3d 142. The District Court relied on the fact that James's mother, not M.N., had actually reported the offense, and reasoned James's theory was inconsistent with his own testimony that M.N. did not want to involve law enforcement. The court denied James's motion because it could not "make the leaps that the defense is asking me to make to allow this evidence in."

¶5 After the incident, M.N. obtained housing at an emergency shelter for victims of domestic violence. When Sanders County prosecutors sought to revoke M.N.’s release in January 2017, her attorney argued that M.N.’s bond should not be revoked because the missed breathalyzer test was due to the fact that she had been sexually assaulted the night before. Before trial, James also sought permission to cross-examine M.N. about leniency he contended she received from the Lake County Attorney's Office and Sanders County Attorney's Office prosecutors because of her status as a rape victim. The State insisted that the LCAO had not offered M.N. anything in exchange for her testimony against James, and there was no evidence to corroborate James's speculation that M.N. fabricated a rape in Lake County to obtain housing or favorable treatment from prosecutors in Sanders County. The District Court ruled that James could question M.N. about her circumstances at the time of the offense, including the fact that she was staying with a family member, but could not ask about her recent release from jail or pending criminal charges.

¶6 The matter proceeded to trial in June 2017. On the third day of the trial, James's counsel expressed concerns to the District Court that Lake County Attorney Steve Eschenbacher, who had represented James in a 2011 sexual assault charge while employed as a public defender, had not been adequately screened from the prosecution. James's counsel overheard a conversation between the State's prosecuting attorney, Brendan McQuillan, and a paralegal, who had allegedly asked McQuillan whether Eschenbacher had approved playing a DVD of a 911 call during the trial. The District Court held a conference outside the presence of the jury where the court warned counsel that "everybody's on notice that this is an issue," and admonished McQuillan that "there can't be any conversation with a prior defense counsel with regard to any representation that they would have had with the defendant." The court stated, "If it becomes the subject of any post-trial motion then the Court will review it once that's reduced to writing." The District Court initiated a formal investigation with the Montana Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC). After the investigation, ODC determined Eschenbacher had not committed any ethical violations.

¶7 James's first trial resulted in a hung jury and the District Court declared a mistrial. James was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent after a second trial in July. The court sentenced James to 100 years in prison with no parole for 50 years and designated him a tier 3 sexual offender.

¶8 In January 2020, James successfully moved this Court to remand for an evidentiary hearing on whether the entire LCAO should have been disqualified from prosecuting him. James alleged that Eschenbacher, who had learned about sensitive childhood sexual abuse that could be "triggers" for James, had not been properly screened from other staff at the LCAO who were involved in James's prosecution. The District Court conducted hearings on December 7, 2020, and March 29, 2021. Eschenbacher testified that he did not review discovery, provide direction, or speak with any LCAO attorneys about his prior representation of James. McQuillan testified that he never had a direct conversation with Eschenbacher about the case or Eschenbacher's prior representation of James. McQuillan's paralegal testified that, while she may have asked Eschenbacher whether to play the 911 call during trial, McQuillan had resolved the issue prior to receiving Eschenbacher's input. The District Court concluded that James's disqualification claim was without merit and that a new trial was not warranted. The court reasoned that the 2016 case was "not a matter in which Eschenbacher had personally and materially participated as a public defender." Further, the court found there was no evidence that Eschenbacher had communicated to anyone in the LCAO any confidential information he received from James during his representation in the 2011 case.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶9 We review discretionary trial court rulings, including evidentiary rulings by the trial court, for an abuse of discretion. State v. Nelson , 2002 MT 122, ¶ 9, 310 Mont. 71, 48 P.3d 739. A court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice. Madplume , ¶ 19. To the extent the trial court's ruling is based on an interpretation of a rule of evidence, a statute, or a constitutional right, however, this Court's review is de novo. State v. Lotter , 2013 MT 336, ¶ 13, 372 Mont. 445, 313 P.3d 148 ; State v. Daniels , 2011 MT 278, ¶ 11, 362 Mont. 426, 265 P.3d 623.

¶10 A district court's application of the Rules of Professional Conduct to disqualify an attorney is reviewed for correctness. Keuffer v. O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc., 2016 MT 127, ¶ 9, 383 Mont. 439, 373 P.3d 14.

DISCUSSION

1. Whether the District Court misapplied M. R. Evid. 404(b) by excluding evidence James contended demonstrated his accuser was motivated to falsely testify to avoid jail time for violating the terms of her conditional release.

¶11 "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by constitution, statute, these rules, or other rules applicable in the courts of this state." M. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." M. R. Evid. 401. Rule 403 provides that "[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Trial courts have broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and weigh the relative probative value of evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice. Madplume , ¶¶ 19, 32.

¶12 Rule 404 generally excludes evidence of a person's character or character trait when its purpose is to prove the person acted in conformity with that trait on a particular occasion. M. R. Evid. 404(a). Under Rule 404(b), however, "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts" may be admissible for non-propensity purposes, such as "proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." Rule 404(b) aims to "ensure jurors do not impermissibly infer that a defendant's prior bad acts make that person a bad person, and therefore, a...