State of Montana v. Richard Lance Gowan
13 P.3d 376 (2000)
Rule of Law:
Under Rule 404(a)(1) of the Montana Rules of Evidence, only the accused can place their character at issue, thereby opening the door to rebuttal character evidence from the prosecution. A defense witness cannot inadvertently open this door with a gratuitous statement made during cross-examination by the State.
Facts:
- Richard Lance Gowan was charged with two counts of criminal sale of dangerous drugs.
- Gowan intended to rely on the defense of entrapment.
- Gowan called his girlfriend, Kris McPherson, as a witness at his trial.
- On direct examination, McPherson did not offer any testimony about Gowan's character.
- During cross-examination by the prosecutor, McPherson was asked why she didn't tell Gowan to go to the police instead of selling drugs.
- In a non-responsive portion of her answer, McPherson stated that Gowan "is a very honest and trusting person."
- The prosecutor then immediately questioned McPherson about her basis for that statement.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Lance Gowan was charged by information with two felony counts of criminal sale of dangerous drugs in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County.
- In a pretrial omnibus hearing, the State indicated it would not rely on Gowan's prior convictions.
- The District Court made a pretrial ruling that evidence of Gowan's prior perjury conviction was not admissible.
- During the jury trial, defense witness Kris McPherson made a statement about Gowan's honesty during cross-examination.
- The District Court ruled that McPherson's statement had 'opened the door' and allowed the State to introduce evidence of Gowan's prior perjury conviction.
- The jury found Gowan guilty on both counts.
- Gowan, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Montana Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the District Court err in holding that a defense witness's unsolicited, non-responsive testimony about a defendant's good character, offered during cross-examination by the State, opened the door for the prosecution to introduce rebuttal evidence of the defendant's bad character?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hunt
Yes, the District Court erred. A defense witness cannot inadvertently open the door to rebuttal character evidence through a gratuitous statement made during cross-examination. The decision to place a defendant's character at issue is a precarious one that belongs solely to the accused. Character evidence is generally excluded because it poses a high risk of undue prejudice, leading a jury to convict based on a defendant's bad character rather than the evidence of the specific crime charged. While a defendant may choose to introduce evidence of good character, they do so at their own peril, as this 'opens the door' for the State to rebut it. This case is distinguishable from State v. Austad, where the defendant himself made self-serving statements, because Gowan had no control over what his witness stated during cross-examination by the State. The prosecution cannot convert a non-character witness into a character witness on cross-examination to introduce prejudicial evidence; the proper remedy for a non-responsive answer is a motion to strike.
Dissenting - Justice Nelson
No, the District Court did not err. The majority's new rule, which prevents the State from rebutting misleading character testimony blurted out by a defense witness on cross-examination, has no basis in law and is patently unfair. The plain language of Rule 404(a)(1) allows the State to rebut character evidence 'offered by an accused,' which includes evidence offered through the accused's witness at any stage of testimony. When Gowan's witness untruthfully testified that he was 'honest,' she placed his character at issue and misled the jury. Preventing the prosecution from correcting this falsehood hinders the judicial system's search for truth and effectively protects perjurious testimony. The majority's rule creates an untenable situation where a defendant can strategically benefit from a witness's 'spontaneous' character vouching, knowing the State is powerless to challenge it.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule that fortifies the defendant's control over the introduction of character evidence. It clarifies that the waiver of protection against character evidence must be a deliberate act by the defendant, not an accidental slip by a witness under questioning by the State. The ruling places a procedural burden on prosecutors to use motions to strike to handle non-responsive answers, rather than seizing on them as an opportunity to introduce otherwise inadmissible bad character evidence. This prioritizes the prevention of unfair prejudice to the defendant over the State's ability to immediately rebut potentially misleading testimony, impacting trial strategies for both prosecution and defense.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: State of Montana v. Richard Lance Gowan (2000)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"