# State v. Liddell

> Montana Supreme Court · July 10, 1984 · 211 Mont. 180

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9507827

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES P. LIDDELL, JR., Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** Montana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 10, 1984
- **Citations:** 211 Mont. 180; 685 P.2d 918; 42 A.L.R. 4th 865; 1984 Mont. LEXIS 973
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Sheehy
- **Judges:** Haswell, Sheehy, Morrison, Shea, Harrison, Weber, Gulbrandson
- **Cited by:** 53 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/9507827

## Opinion text

MR. JUSTICE SHEEHY,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the result in this case, and with what Justice Morrison says in his special concurrence, but dissent from what the majority holds on two issues:
*193 1. The Smith Instruction.
The majority overreaches the issues in summarily setting aside our approval of the instruction in State v. Smith (1980), 609 P.2d 696 . The state is not appealing the instruction, and the overruling of Smith disregards possible cases of prosecutrix malice, to which Smith applied.
2. Cross-examination of the psychiatrist and the nurse.
I think the District Court unfairly limited the cross-examination of the state’s psychiatric witness and of Marjene Tower, the nurse. Post-rape trauma syndrome is far from scientific exactitude. The majority permits such evidence on the basis that “skilled direct and cross-examination” will limit the possibilities for error. Under Rule 705, Montana Rules of Evidence, an expert may be cross-examined on the basis of his opinion, including admissible and non-admissible grounds. The District Court did not permit the kind of full cross-examination that the post-rape trauma syndrome demanded in this case.
I concur in the result here because the Smith instruction ruling does not affect Liddell’s case on appeal, and because I find the jury decided the issue on a test of credibility between him and the prosecutrix which was not substantially aided by the testimony of the psychiatrist and the nurse.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9507827. Public record. Not legal advice.