Summary
This Montana Supreme Court opinion reviews a criminal conviction for sexual assault and sexual intercourse without consent, focusing on whether the trial court improperly allowed the jury unsupervised access to child victims' drawings during deliberations. The court holds that the forensic interview drawings were non-testimonial and properly admissible for jury review, while conceding that the trial drawings were testimonial but their inclusion constituted harmless error given the strength of other evidence. The defendant's conviction is affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Did the District Court abuse its discretion by allowing the jury unrestricted and unsupervised access to the complaining witnesses’ drawings during the jury’s deliberations?
Holdings
- The District Court did not abuse its discretion; the forensic interview drawings are not testimonial evidence and may be taken into the jury room.
- The error was harmless because the State presented other cumulative evidence proving the same facts; the conviction is affirmed.
Key quotations
“We review a district court’s decision allowing exhibits to be taken into jury deliberations for an abuse of discretion.” (¶14)
“The District Court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the jury unsupervised access to the Forensic Interview Drawings during deliberations. Any error in allowing the jury unsupervised access to the Trial Drawings was harmless. Walks’ judgment of conviction is affirmed.” (¶29)
Factual background
The State charged Walks with two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and two counts of sexual assault based on disclosures by his six‑year‑old step‑granddaughters, K. and K.P. The children gave forensic interview drawings depicting alleged incidents, and the State introduced those drawings, along with other evidence, at trial. The district court allowed the jury to take the drawings into the jury room for deliberation.
Procedural history
The district court entered a judgment of conviction for felony sexual assault and two counts of felony sexual intercourse without consent. The defendant appealed, challenging the trial court's discretion in allowing the jury unsupervised access to witness drawings during deliberations.