State v. Rogers
297 Mont. 188, 992 P.2d 229, 1999 MT 305 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's prior crimes or bad acts is inadmissible to prove a common scheme or plan if the similarities between the acts are nothing more than a sequence of events common to that type of crime. To be admissible, the acts must possess distinctive qualities that distinguish them from other similar crimes and establish a unique modus operandi.
Facts:
- In September 1995, after Angela Tretteen went for a drive with Donald Rogers, he made advances toward her and, when she resisted, he pulled out a gun and threatened that they were going to have intercourse before she escaped.
- In May 1997, after Janice Lee Auwen's tire went flat, Rogers and a friend stopped to help. Rogers then drove Auwen to a wooded area, threatened her, and forced her to engage in oral and sexual intercourse.
- On May 29, 1997, Donald Rogers met Kristian Gale at the Blue Moon Saloon, where they talked and danced.
- After they left the bar in separate vehicles, Rogers followed Gale, pulled his pickup in front of her vehicle to stop her, and approached her.
- Rogers grabbed Gale's arm and keys, threatened her, and directed her to get into the back of her vehicle.
- Rogers then forced Gale to perform oral sex on him and subsequently engaged in sexual intercourse with her.
- Rogers later admitted to having sexual intercourse with Gale but claimed she was a willing participant.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Montana charged Donald Rogers with sexual intercourse without consent in the Eleventh Judicial District Court for Flathead County.
- Rogers' first trial ended in a mistrial.
- Before the second trial, the State gave notice of its intent to introduce evidence of other sexual assaults committed by Rogers.
- Rogers filed a motion in limine to exclude this evidence, which the District Court denied.
- At trial, the court admitted testimony from two women, Angela Tretteen and Janice Lee Auwen, about prior sexual assaults by Rogers.
- A jury found Rogers guilty of sexual intercourse without consent.
- The District Court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Rogers.
- Rogers (Appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, with the State of Montana as Respondent.
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 abuse its discretion by admitting testimony about prior sexual assaults by the defendant under the 'other acts' evidence exception of Rule 404(b), M.R.Evid., when the defendant admitted to the sexual act and the sole issue at trial was the victim's consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Karla M. Gray
Yes, the District Court abused its discretion by admitting the testimony. Evidence of prior acts is not admissible when it fails to meet the strict criteria of the Modified Just Rule, specifically the requirements of similarity and proof of a common scheme or plan. The court's reasoning focused on two key elements of the Modified Just Rule. First, under the 'similarity' prong, the prior assaults on Tretteen and Auwen were not sufficiently distinctive. Citing State v. Hansen, the court explained that numerous sexual assaults follow a common 'barroom pickup' pattern leading to a remote location and forced intercourse. This sequence of events lacks the 'distinctive qualities' necessary to distinguish the acts from other rapes and establish a unique modus operandi. Second, under the 'purpose' prong, the evidence was not admissible to prove intent, motive, or a common scheme. The dispositive issue was Gale's consent, not Rogers' intent, making his motive or intent irrelevant. The State's argument essentially sought to use the prior acts to prove Rogers' bad character, which is expressly forbidden by Rule 404(b). Furthermore, the prior acts did not demonstrate a systematic 'common scheme or plan' but rather spontaneous acts of aggression dictated by Rogers' character and the opportunities presented, which is not sufficient for admissibility.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for admitting prior bad acts evidence under Rule 404(b), particularly in sexual assault cases where consent is the central issue. It sharply distinguishes between acts that are merely similar because they are common to a type of crime and acts that are so uniquely similar they establish a 'signature' or modus operandi. By strictly applying the Modified Just Rule, the court prevents the prosecution from using a defendant's past to prove their propensity to commit the charged crime, thereby protecting the defendant's right to be tried on the evidence of the specific case, not on their character. The ruling cautions lower courts against equating general similarity with the much narrower legal concepts of a common scheme or plan.
