State v. Ayers
2003 MT 114, 68 P.3d 768, 315 Mont. 395 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible under Montana Rule of Evidence 404(b) only if it satisfies all four prongs of the Modified Just Rule: (1) similarity, (2) non-remoteness, (3) a permissible purpose other than proving character, and (4) its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Facts:
- Mary Phyllis Martz, 54, lived alone in the same apartment complex as Richard Ayers' mother, Marilyn Fournier.
- On December 2, 1999, Fournier asked Ayers to go to Martz's apartment to retrieve a hair dryer, which he did.
- On the evening of December 4, 1999, Ayers was seen at the apartment complex and later drove Martz's reddish Ford Taurus, which he said he borrowed from a friend who had 'passed out.'
- On December 7, 1999, Martz's body was discovered in her apartment; she had been beaten, sexually assaulted, stabbed, and her throat had been sliced. Her Taurus was missing.
- A newspaper dated December 4, 1999, was found near the body with Ayers' latent palm prints on it, and a torn piece of it was stuck to Martz's hand with dried blood.
- DNA analysis of swabs from Martz's breast indicated the presence of DNA from which Ayers could not be excluded as a contributor.
- After Martz's body was discovered, Ayers and a friend, Jake Fox, wiped down the Taurus with rubbing alcohol; the car was later found abandoned in an alley.
- Two throwing knives, later identified as belonging to Martz's husband, were turned over to police by Ayers' girlfriend.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Ayers was charged by information in the Sixth Judicial District Court with deliberate homicide and six other counts.
- The State filed a notice of intent to introduce evidence of Ayers' 1990 Wyoming conviction for first degree sexual assault under Rule 404(b).
- The District Court granted the State's motion, ruling the evidence admissible to prove motive and identity.
- Ayers filed a motion in limine to exclude DNA testimony that used the 'likelihood ratio,' which the District Court denied after holding hearings.
- Ayers also filed a motion to exclude evidence of his palm prints found at the scene, which the court denied while offering a continuance that Ayers declined.
- Following a jury trial, Ayers was convicted on six counts and later pled guilty to a seventh, which had been severed.
- The District Court sentenced Ayers to life in prison without the possibility of parole on the deliberate homicide count.
- Ayers appealed several of the District Court's evidentiary rulings to the Supreme Court of Montana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Montana Rule of Evidence 404(b), did the district court err in admitting evidence of a defendant's prior conviction for sexual assault for the purposes of proving motive and identity in a deliberate homicide trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cotter
No, the district court did not err in admitting the evidence. Evidence of a prior conviction is admissible if it satisfies the four-part Modified Just Rule. First, the prior sexual assault was sufficiently similar to the current charges, as both involved elderly-looking, frail victims who were alone, sexually assaulted, and had their vehicles stolen, with a knife being used or threatened in both instances. Second, the prior offense, committed nearly ten years earlier, was not too remote in time because Ayers was incarcerated for the majority of the intervening period, giving him no opportunity to re-offend. Third, the evidence was properly admitted for the permissible purposes of proving motive (to silence the victim and prevent apprehension) and identity (the similarities constituted a unique 'handiwork'), which were both at issue. Fourth, because the evidence met the first three prongs, it carried great probative weight that was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; Ayers waived any specific objection to the prejudicial details by failing to object at trial. This court re-affirms that all four prongs of the Modified Just Rule must be met for such evidence to be admissible.
Concurring - Justice Trieweiler
Yes, the result of affirming the conviction is correct, but the majority's reasoning on the issue of waiver is wrong. Ayers did properly preserve his objection to the prejudicial effect of the prior crimes evidence through his extensive pre-trial motions and briefs. The majority's holding that he waived the objection by not objecting to 'specific details' during trial creates an impractically high burden for attorneys to preserve issues for appeal. Although the objection was properly preserved, the evidence's probative value was not, in fact, outweighed by its prejudicial effect, so the conviction should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying and solidifying Montana's standard for admitting prior bad acts evidence under Rule 404(b). The court explicitly overruled prior cases that had suggested a more flexible application, establishing that all four prongs of the Modified Just Rule must be satisfied before evidence of other crimes can be admitted. This creates a stricter, more defendant-protective framework. Additionally, the court's acceptance of the 'likelihood ratio' for interpreting mixed-sample DNA evidence signals its willingness to admit sophisticated statistical methods, while confirming that challenges to the specific application of such methods go to the evidence's weight, not its admissibility.
