## Facts

- Richard Lance Gowan was charged with two felony counts of criminal sale of dangerous drugs in Flathead County, Montana.
- At an omnibus hearing, the State indicated it would not rely on Gowan’s prior acts or convictions; Gowan indicated he would rely on entrapment.
- During trial, the court ruled the State could not introduce direct evidence of Gowan’s prior perjury conviction and could only ask (if Gowan testified) whether he had lied under oath, without mentioning any conviction.
- Gowan called his girlfriend, Kris McPherson, who was not designated as a character witness and gave no character testimony on direct examination.
- On cross-examination, in response to the prosecutor’s questioning about a car-title dispute, McPherson added that Gowan was “a very honest and trusting person.”
- The trial court treated the remark as defense-introduced character evidence and ruled it “opened the door” to rebuttal character evidence.
- Over objection, the State introduced rebuttal evidence aimed at showing a propensity for dishonesty, including Gowan’s perjury conviction and evidence he had been sued over a failure to deliver a car title.
- The jury convicted Gowan on both drug-sale counts.

## Issues

1. Whether a defense witness’s unsolicited, brief statement about the defendant’s honesty, made in response to cross-examination, “opens the door” to prosecution rebuttal character evidence.
2. Whether admitting rebuttal evidence of a perjury conviction and other alleged dishonest conduct, contrary to prior limitations, was prejudicial error requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the district court erred by finding that McPherson’s gratuitous statement on cross-examination opened the door to rebuttal character evidence.
- The court concluded the resulting admission of the perjury conviction and other alleged bad acts to prove dishonesty was prejudicial and not harmless.

## Legal Principles

- The prosecution may not introduce rebuttal character evidence unless the defense affirmatively places a pertinent character trait in issue.
- A non-character witness’s unsolicited, brief character comment elicited during cross-examination does not, by itself, constitute an affirmative defense introduction of character evidence that permits broad rebuttal.
- Trial courts should not allow the “opening the door” doctrine to be used to circumvent pretrial restrictions on prior convictions or other-acts evidence.
- Erroneous admission of a prior perjury conviction as character evidence of dishonesty is highly prejudicial where credibility is central and may require reversal.

## Conclusion

Because the defense did not affirmatively introduce character evidence through a designated character witness, McPherson’s spontaneous remark during cross-examination did not justify admitting rebuttal evidence of Gowan’s alleged dishonesty, including his perjury conviction; the error was prejudicial, so the convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.


State v. Gowan, 13 P.3d 376 (Mont. 2000)