STATE v GLIDDEN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12758 I N T E SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A H F F OTN STATE O M N A A F OTN, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, WILLIAM ROBERT GLIDDEN , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Daley and Sherlock, K a l i s p e l l , Montana . P a t r i c k D Sherlock argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Carlan J. K r a f t , A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Richard P. Heinz, County Attorney, argued, Polson, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed : WC3 0 - November 19, 1974 WC8 0 ll g4 J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court Mr. . Defendant W i l l i a m R o b e r t G l i d d e n w a s c o n v i c t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lake County, o f t h e crime of f o r c i b l e r a p e and he a p p e a l s from t h a t c o n v i c t i o n . The i s s u e s a r e : (1) Whether t h e v e r d i c t w a s c o n t r a r y t o t h e e v i d e n c e and s e c t i o n 94-4101, R.C.M. 1947? ( 2 ) Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s a t t h e c l o s e of t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e i n c h i e f ? The s t a t e a l l e g e d a p p e l l a n t p i c k e d up t h e g i r l i n quest i o n i n t h e c i t y o f P o l s o n on t h e a f t e r n o o n o f August 1, 1973, when s h e was t r y i n g t o h i t c h h i k e from town t o a nearby r a n c h where s h e w a s l i v i n g . The g i r l worked i n town and on t h i s p a r - t i c u l a r d a y s h e had done some shopping a f t e r work and t h e n t r i e d t o p i c k up a r i d e t o t h e r a n c h some 1 2 m i l e s w e s t of P o l s o n . The g i r l t e s t i f i e d s h e a c c e p t e d t h e r i d e when a p p e l l a n t t o l d h e r h e was g o i n g p a s t t h e a r e a where s h e l i v e d . A s soon a s a p p e l l a n t g o t t h e g i r l i n t o h i s t r u c k h e speeded up t o 60 m i l e s p e r hour down t h e highway and w i t h i n a few m i n u t e s grabbed t h e g i r l on t h e b r e a s t and p r o p o s i t i o n e d h e r . She t e s t i f i e d s h e w a s t e r r i f i e d and a s k e d t o be l e t o u t of t h e t r u c k , b u t t h a t he cont i n u e d down t h e r o a d a t a h i g h r a t e of s p e e d . Several m i l e s o u t of P o l s o n he p u l l e d o f f t h e r o a d and s t o p p e d i n a s e c l u d e d a r e a . During t h i s p e r i o d t h e g i r l a t t e m p t e d t o g e t o u t o f t h e t r u c k b u t w a s p h y s i c a l l y r e s t r a i n e d by a p p e l l a n t u n t i l t h e t r u c k came t o a stop. He t h e n proceeded t o d r a g t h e s t r u g g l i n g g i r l a c r o s s t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t from t h e p a s s e n g e r ' s s i d e and o u t t h e d o o r of the driver's side. said: H e t h e n informed h e r o f h i s i n t e n t i o n s and " I f you s t r u g g l e it w i l l be h a r d e r f o r you b e c a u s e I w o n ' t l e t you go u n t i l I have f i n i s h e d . " A p p e l l a n t makes no d e n i a l t h a t h e consummated a s e x u a l a c t with the g i r l . H e a l l e g e s t h a t she freely-acquiesced. She d e n i e d s u c h a c q u i e s c e n c e and t e s t i f i e d a s t o h e r f e a r s : "Q. Were you i n f e a r o f him t h r o u g h t h e c o u r s e o f t h e s e a c t i o n s you have d e s c r i b e d ? A . Y e s , He w a s much b i g g e r t h a n I am and even though I am a t a l l woman, I am n o t a s s t r o n g a s a man and I c o u l d n o t f i g h t him any more t h a n I o r i g i n a l l y s t a r t e d t o . Every t i m e I c o n t i n u e d t o f i g h t him, he would o n l y h u r t me more and I was v e r y a f r a i d f o r my l i f e . " Immediately a f t e r t h e r a p e t h e g i r l e s c a p e d from d e f e n d a n t and h i d i n some g r a s s and bushes u n t i l he l e f t t h e a r e a . She t h e n g o t back t o t h e r a n c h w i t h t h e h e l p of some p e o p l e who came a l o n g and t o o k h e r home. Immediately upon h e r a r r i v a l a t t h e r a n c h t h e g i r l r e p o r t e d what happened and t h e s h e r i f f was s e n t t o i n vestigate. She gave a f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e man t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p u t i e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e f a c t a p p e l l a n t had a b e a r d . In addition, s h e d e s c r i b e d t h e t r u c k a s b e i n g r e d and d e s c r i b e d t h e i n t e r i o r . The day a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t s h e went t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e where s h e p i c k e d o u t , from t e n p h o t o g r a p h s , a p i c t u r e of a p p e l l a n t , even though it was a p i c t u r e o f him w i t h o u t a b e a r d . Several weeks l a t e r s h e i d e n t i f i e d a p p e l l a n t a t a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g , even though he had shaved o f f h i s b e a r d . After picking o u t a p p e l l a n t ' s p i c t u r e a t t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e , s h e was t a k e n t o h i s r e s i d e n c e t o s e e whether s h e c o u l d i d e n t i f y him i n p e r s o n , b u t no one answered t h e d o o r when t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p u t y knocked. A p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d i n h i s own d e f e n s e a t t r i a l . He ad- m i t t e d t h e f a c t of i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h t h e g i r l , b u t d e n i e d t h a t he raped h e r . He a d m i t t e d b e i n g a t home when t h e s h e r i f f ' s c a r came t o h i s house t h e day a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t and that he saw t h e g i r l i n the car. He a d m i t t e d b e i n g s c a r e d t h e n and a t t h a t t i m e he shaved o f f h i s b e a r d and had some f r i e n d s t a k e h i m t o Coeur d ' Alene, I d a h o , t o s e e k h i s b r o t h e r ' s a d v i c e . He was n o t i f i e d by h i s w i f e t h a t a w a r r a n t was o u t f o r h i s a r r e s t and he r e t u r n e d t o Montana v o l u n t a r i l y . During t h e t r i a l a w i t n e s s a p p e a r e d f o r a p p e l l a n t and t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had had i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h t h e g i r l . When corss-examined t h e w i t n e s s ' f a b r i c a t e d s t o r y blew up, l e a d i n g t o a p e r j u r y charge a g a i n s t t h a t witness following t h e t r i a l . Obviously t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f such t e s t i m o n y was n o t b e n e f i c i a l t o a p p e l l a n t ' s cause. I n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n t h e w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e and c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e witness i s a matter e x c l u s i v e l y within t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e j u r y and s h o u l d n o t be d i s t u r b e d by a c o u r t of a p p e a l . S t a t e v . Doe, 1 4 6 Mont. 501, 409 P.2d 439; S t a t e v . Lagge, 143 Mont. 289, 388 P.2d 792; S t a t e v. Pankow, 134 Mont. 519, 333 P.2d 1017. I n one of t h i s C o u r t ' s e a r l y c a s e s , S t a t e v . G l e i m , 17 Mont. 1 7 , 2 9 , 4 1 P. 998, t h i s C o u r t h e l d : " ' * * * The j u r y b e i n g t h e s o l e j u d g e s of t h e w e i g h t t o be g i v e n t o t h e t e s t i m o n y , t h e c o u r t s h o u l d n o t t e l l them what p a r t i c u l a r w e i g h t t o g i v e t o any p o r t i o n of t h e t e s t i m o n y . ' " I n a r e c e n t o p i n i o n , S t a t e v . S t o d d a r d , 147 Mont. 402, 408, 412 P.2d 827, t h i s C o u r t commented: " F i r s t , we should note t h a t t h i s c o u r t i s n o t a I n view of t h e presumpt r i e r of f a c t * * *. t i o n of i n n o c e n c e a t t h e t r i a l , t h e j u r y must have been i n s t r u c t e d t o t h a t e f f e c t , b u t on a p p e a l a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n t h e r u l e c h a n g e s . Then, i f t h e r e c o r d shows any s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment, t h e presumption i s i n f a v o r o f s u c h judgment." The i n s t a n t c a s e b e i n g a r a p e c a s e t h e r e a r i s e s a p e c u l i a r problem a s t o t h e burden of proof and t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i dence. The t y p i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n such c a s e s i s t h a t t h e o n l y witnesses t o t h e event are t h e p a r t i e s . While i t i s t r u e t h a t a c o n v i c t i o n of r a p e depends upon t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e p r i m a r y w i t n e s s e s , t h e a c c u s e r and t h e a c c u s e d , it h a s been a l o n g s e t t l e d r u l e i n r a p e c a s e s , a s s t a t e d i n S t a t e v . Moe, 68 Mont. " * * * a c o n v i c t i o n f o r r a p e may be s u s t a i n e d by t h e uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix [Citing cases], unless her testimony is so inherently improbable or is so nullified by material self-contradictions as to be unworthy of belief." See also: State v. Bouldin, 153 Mont. 276, 456 P.2d 830. Here, the evidence was sufficient for conviction. Appel- lant's argument that the girl did not fight or that she gave consent is without merit. There is no clear rule as to how much resistance is required of a woman in order to prove her lack of consent to sexual intercourse with a man who intends to rape her, apparently at all costs. The law does not put her life into even greater jeopardy than it is already in. When a woman is dealing with a man bent on rape, how can she know how much resistance she can give without provoking him into killing her? Continuous resistance to an attempted rape is not required. This Court in State v. Metcalf, 153 Mont. 369, 376, 457 P.2d 453 (1969), held : "The defendant does not, however, have the right to an instruction which, to the exclusion of some elements of a crime, would mislead the jury to believe that constant physical resistance which required force to overcome was an essential element. " Here, there are no disputed legal issues involved, only questions of fact. A prima facie case was presented to the court. Appellant admitted having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and the jury chose to believe her testimony. The conviction is affirmed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.