Summary
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed Robert Riggs's convictions and sentence for four counts of sexual abuse. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting expert testimony, permitting the State's expert to testify, denying severance, or addressing juror matters outside Riggs's presence. The court also concluded that Riggs's constitutional rights were not violated.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by limiting the testimony of Riggs's expert witness and excluding the expert from the courtroom during the victims' testimony.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the State's expert to testify and limiting the defense's cross-examination of her.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Riggs's motion to sever the charges.
- Whether the district court violated Riggs's constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of trial by addressing two jurors outside his presence.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the defense expert to testify about investigative interview techniques while excluding testimony concerning the complaining witnesses' credibility and excluding the expert from the courtroom during those witnesses' testimony.
- The district court did not err by qualifying the State's expert to testify about investigative interviewing techniques despite her prior therapeutic relationship with one of the complainants.
- The district court did not violate Riggs's constitutional rights by limiting cross-examination of the State's expert concerning confidential treatment details, because defense counsel had a full and fair opportunity to expose the potential source of bias.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Riggs's motion to sever the four charges.
- The district court did not violate Riggs's rights under the Sixth Amendment or Montana Constitution by briefly addressing two jurors outside Riggs's presence, where defense counsel was consulted, consented to the procedure, and Riggs demonstrated no persuasive prejudice.
Key quotations
“The mere occurrence of an ex parte conversation between a trial judge and a juror does not constitute a deprivation of any constitutional right. The defense has no constitutional right to be present at every interaction between a judge and a juror[.]” (¶ 52)
“We therefore conclude that the defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24 of the Montana Constitution, were not infringed.” (¶ 54)
Factual background
Riggs was charged with sexually abusing four young girls, including his step-daughter, through alleged sexual touching and digital penetration occurring between 1999 and 2001. At trial, the defense sought to present expert testimony criticizing investigative interview techniques and to question the State's expert about her therapeutic relationship with one complainant. During trial, the judge briefly addressed two jurors outside Riggs's presence, with defense counsel consulted and consenting to the approach.
Procedural history
The State charged Riggs by Information with four counts of sexual abuse-related offenses. The district court denied his motion to dismiss and sever, granted the State's motion in limine limiting defense expert testimony, and conducted a jury trial resulting in convictions on all four counts. The court sentenced Riggs to twenty-four years in prison followed by a suspended twenty-five-year term. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed.