# State v. Anderson

> Montana Supreme Court · July 16, 1984 · 211 Mont. 272

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9507819

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROGER L. ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** Montana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 16, 1984
- **Citations:** 211 Mont. 272; 686 P.2d 193; 1984 Mont. LEXIS 977
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sheehy
- **Judges:** Gulbrandson, Morrison, Sheehy, Haswell, Harrison, Weber, Shea
- **Cited by:** 74 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9507819

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that the offered evidence would not have been probative of veracity, the court noted that “[t]here was no competent evidence that the [witness’ previous allegations] were false. That the charges were dismissed does not by itself establish their falsity”
- holding that although victim can be Gross-examined about specific conduct if it goes to her untruthfulness, the fact that the prior accusation of sexual misconduct was dismissed does not mean that it was false
- recognizing that evidence of the defendant’s sexual mores and good character functioned to establish his reputation "for morality and personal truthfulness—conduct and beliefs inconsistent with the charges filed against him”
- holding that although victim can be cross-examined about specific conduct if it goes to her untruthfulness, the fact that the prior accusation of sexual misconduct was dismissed does not mean that it was false
- holding accusee's proposed testimony denying prior allega- tion of rape insufficient to show falsity absent proffer of testimony to corroborate simple denial

## Opinion text

MR. JUSTICE SHEEHY,
dissenting:
I dissent on at least two grounds.
First, I do not agree that the District Court properly excluded evidence of the changing theories of the crime committed, as shown by the amendments to the information. This conviction depended on the credibility of the State’s witnesses. The amendments tend to show the inconsistency of the facts being reported to the State by these witnesses. If the variance in the reports being given to the State by the witnesses are of such gravity that the State must withdraw some criminal charges and insert others in their place, the jury in its search for truth should be allowed to know that.
Second, I want to disagree with the majority handling of the Smith instruction, although I agree the instruction was not appropriate in this case. The majority, though, relies on State v. Liddell [ 211 Mont. 180 ,] 685 P.2d 918 . (83-276). Montana Supreme Court, decided July 10, 1984), for the proposition that the Smith instruction is improper. The Smith instruction was not raised as an issue by the defendant in Liddell ; this Court gratuitously undertook to wipe it out. Here the principle of Smith does not apply. There is *302 no victim malice involved and there is corroborative testimony.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9507819. Public record. Not legal advice.