State of Montana v. Daniel Crosby

Missoula, Montana defendant, Daniel Crosby, was charged with raping his 10-year-old daughter.



Defendant's daughter, Shawnetta, testified that he had sexual intercouse when her when she was 10.



Defendant's ex-wife claimed that her daughter told her after visiting her father that he molested her.



Shawnetta's brother testified that on one occasion, he had seen his father and Shawnetta under the covers in bed.



The physician who examined Shawnette testified that there was not evidence of sexual activity.

Defendant was found guilty on January 20, 1996 and was sentenced to ten years in prison at the Montana State Prison.



In 2002, Shawnette met with William Boggs and signed a sworn affidavit saying that her testimony in 1996 was false.



In 2003, Shawnetta, in a sworn statement, recanted her 1996 trial testimony.



On February 26, 2003, Crosby filed a petition for post-conviction relief.



The District Court held the evidentiary hearing on June 23, 2004. Shawnetta, then age 21, testified that her mother had influenced her to accuse her father twelve years prior, and that the events she described when she testified at Crosby's trial did not occur.



The State opposed the relief sought by Crosby and called a psychiatrist who testified that testified that he believed that Shawnette was telling the truth in 1996 and lying in 2004



Judge Harkin held that Shawnette was telling the truth in 1996 and was lying in 2004.



Crosby appealed.



On July 11, 2006, the Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to apply the Clark test to determine whether Crosby was entitled to post-conviction relief. It held that when new trial is sought on the basis of recanting testimony of a prosecution witness, the weight to be given such testimony is for the trial judge passing on the motion for a new trial to determine. The trial judge is required to grant a new trial only when he is satisfied the recantation of the witness is true.



To prevail on a motion for a new trial in Montana grounded on newly discovered evidence, the defendant must satisfy a five-part test:



(1) The evidence must have been discovered since the defendant's trial;



(2) the failure to discover the evidence sooner must not be the result of a lack of diligence on the defendant's part;



(3) the evidence must be material to the issues at trial;



(4) the evidence must be neither cumulative nor merely impeaching; and



(5) the evidence must indicate that a new trial has a reasonable probability of resulting in a different outcome.



The Supreme Court reversed holding that Judge Harking had applied the wrong test in denying Crosby's motion. The District Court should have granted the motion is there was a "reasonable probability" that a jury would acquit Crosby.



In June 2008, the State dismissed the charges against Crosby.

Dr. Stratford