Background
Douglas Jerome Pierre was convicted by a Lake County jury of partner or family member assault and felony witness tampering. The assault charge arose from an April 2023 domestic dispute in which Pierre’s then-girlfriend, Danielle Dalke, told police and hospital staff that Pierre repeatedly punched her ribs. Police body-camera footage showed Dalke crying, clutching her side, and saying she could not breathe. A doctor diagnosed a rib contusion, and Pierre’s eight-year-old daughter testified that she saw Pierre hit Dalke.
At trial, Dalke recanted. She said she had been intoxicated by alcohol and methamphetamine when she accused Pierre, was angry about their relationship, and had fabricated the allegation. Pierre’s defense relied on her later sober testimony and deposition. When Dalke later denied having mouthed “I love you” and “I’m sorry” to Pierre during her testimony, the State called Officer Cody Doyle in rebuttal to describe those gestures. Pierre appealed only the assault conviction and also sought credit for time spent in court-ordered residential treatment before sentencing.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Officer Doyle’s rebuttal testimony. Dalke’s gestures and statements toward Pierre were relevant to her credibility, bias, and possible motive to change her account to protect him. After Dalke denied making them, the State could introduce extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statements to impeach her.
The court distinguished cases involving rebuttal evidence of uncharged prior bad acts. This case concerned the credibility of competing versions of the alleged assault, not propensity evidence. The court affirmed Pierre’s assault conviction.
The court also held that Pierre is entitled to credit for time spent at Recovery Centers of Montana under a court order. Because the record did not establish the number of days he spent there, the court remanded for the District Court to determine that period and award the corresponding credit.
Key Takeaways
- Rebuttal evidence may be admitted to impeach a witness who denies relevant conduct or statements bearing on credibility.
- A recanting witness’s conduct toward the defendant may be relevant to bias and motive to change testimony.
- Time in a court-ordered residential treatment facility counts toward presentence credit, subject to determining the actual number of days.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that a prosecution may use rebuttal testimony to challenge a recanting domestic-violence complainant’s credibility when the evidence directly addresses bias or motive, rather than introducing unrelated misconduct.
It also underscores sentencing courts’ obligation to award credit for qualifying court-ordered residential treatment, even when the precise treatment period must be determined on remand.