City of Bozeman v. Howard

• Citation: 495 P.3d 72,405 Mont. 321
• Decision Date: 14 September 2021
• Docket Number: DA 20-0165
• Parties: CITY OF BOZEMAN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jacob Andrew HOWARD, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Montana

405 Mont. 321

495 P.3d 72

CITY OF BOZEMAN, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.Jacob Andrew HOWARD, Defendant and Appellant.

DA 20-0165

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: July 28, 2021

Decided: September 14, 2021

For Appellant: Caitlin Boland Aarab, Boland Aarab PLLP, Great Falls, Montana

For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Tammy K Plubell, Appellate Services Bureau Chief, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Gregory S. Sullivan, Bozeman City Attorney, Ed Hirsch, Assistant City Attorney, Bozeman, Montana

Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Jacob Andrew Howard appeals the judgment of the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, affirming his conviction by a jury in Bozeman Municipal Court for misdemeanor resisting arrest. Howard also appeals the Municipal Court's denial of his motion for an in camera review of the arresting officer's personnel file for incidents of excessive use of force. We affirm.

¶2 Howard presents the following issues for review:

1. Whether the Municipal Court abused its discretion when it denied Howard's motion for an in camera review of the arresting officer's personnel file to determine whether it contained information of prior instances of excessive use of force.

2. Whether the District Court correctly determined that the City presented sufficient evidence to convict Howard of resisting arrest.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 In November 2018, Jasmine Sands dated Howard for four days before she ended the relationship. Sands testified that Howard was verbally aggressive and controlling during their short relationship. After ending their relationship, Sands met with Bozeman Police Department (BPD) Officer Jeremy Tankink to get help recovering her belongings from Howard. On November 20, 2018, while helping facilitate the return of Sands's belongings, Officer Tankink suggested to Howard that he stay away from Sands, and Howard agreed. On the evening of November 24, 2018, while Sands was walking along Rouse Avenue in Bozeman, Howard began following her in his car and imploring her to talk to him. Sands initially ignored Howard but eventually told him she was walking to the Warming Center. He offered her a ride to the Warming Center and told her to get in his car. She declined his offer and told him to leave her alone. Howard ignored Sands's requests and continued following Sands and telling her to get in his car. Howard's conduct made Sands uncomfortable, and she called 911. Sands described Howard and the vehicle he was driving to the dispatcher. As heard on the 911 call, Sands repeatedly told Howard to leave her alone. BPD Officers Thomas Lloyd and Ryan Jeppson responded to the call. Officer Lloyd was the first to encounter Howard near a bar on Rouse Avenue. Officer Lloyd was in uniform and driving a marked patrol car when he pulled behind Howard's vehicle with his overhead lights activated and shone a spotlight on Howard's vehicle.

¶4 Before Officer Lloyd said anything to him, Howard got out of his car and started to approach Officer Lloyd's vehicle. As Howard began stepping out of his vehicle, Officer Lloyd immediately instructed Howard to place his hands up. Howard questioned the officer's commands but eventually raised his hands after being told three times to place his hands up. Officer Lloyd next instructed Howard to turn around and walk backwards toward the sound of Officer Lloyd's voice. Howard did so but lowered his hands in the process. Howard's lack of compliance escalated Officer Lloyd's safety concerns, so he drew his handgun and again gave Howard verbal commands to "put [his] hands up." Howard raised his hands out to the side and asked Officer Lloyd an inaudible question, to which Officer Lloyd responded, "Because I told you to! Do it now!" Howard remained stationary with his hands outstretched from his sides and then moved them to his waist. He asked another inaudible question before Officer Lloyd shouted, "Put your hands up! What don't you understand?" Because Howard continued to question Officer Lloyd's commands and did not place his hands where Officer Lloyd could see them, Officer Lloyd told Howard to kneel on the ground. With his gun holstered, Officer Lloyd grabbed Howard's wrists and held them behind Howard's back. Officer Lloyd testified that he had to use a leg sweep to bring Howard to the ground after Howard did not comply with his command to kneel. He further testified that Howard continued to physically resist, flail about, and struggle with him while Howard was on the ground. Officer Lloyd was able to put one handcuff on after pushing Howard face-first onto the ground several times. Officer Jeppson arrived at the scene and the two officers were able to secure and handcuff Howard. Officer Jeppson transported Howard to the hospital after the incident to have him medically cleared for incarceration. Howard was cited with the following misdemeanors: partner family member assault, stalking, obstructing a peace officer, and resisting arrest. The State later dismissed the partner family member assault. At his March 20, 2019 omnibus hearing, Howard indicated his intent to assert the affirmative defense of justifiable use of force.

¶5 Howard filed a motion to compel the City to produce Officer Lloyd's personnel files for an in camera inspection based on Montana's "right to know" under Article II, Section 9, of the Montana Constitution. Howard alleged that he and another witness would testify that Officer Lloyd was unjustified in using excessive force on Howard and that the officer had lied about Howard acting aggressively toward him. Howard reasoned that if Officer Lloyd had a history of using excessive force, it would support the officer's motive to lie about the events during Howard's arrest. Howard claimed a substantial need existed for the Municipal Court to review the officer's personnel file in camera to determine if such evidence existed. Howard also asked the Municipal Court to review the files for evidence of the officer's untruthfulness.

¶6 The City did not object to an in camera review of Officer Lloyd's personnel file for instances of untruthfulness. However, it opposed Howard's motion as to alleged incidents of excessive use of force. The City argued that, regardless of whether the officer's use of force against Howard was "excessive," his request was not supported by the principles of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), or Montana's criminal discovery statute, as Howard failed to establish a substantial need for the alleged information because he offered only hypothetical claims. The City argued Howard's request was premised on the erroneous belief that it was relevant whether Officer Lloyd "was justified in using excessive force" against Howard because, pursuant to §§ 45-7-301(2), MCA, (resisting arrest), and -302(2), MCA, (obstructing a peace officer), an officer's decision to use any force may not be used as a defense to either resisting arrest or obstruction of justice. In his reply, Howard amended his request for relief to rely upon § 46-15-322(1)(e) and (5), MCA, and Brady . Howard asserted prior instances of excessive force had exculpatory value and that he had a substantial need to examine Officer Lloyd's personnel file to support his claim that he was "trying to protect and defend himself against an unlawful assault."

¶7 After hearing arguments, the Municipal Court ruled that it would conduct an in camera review of Officer Lloyd's personnel file solely for instances of untruthfulness. In denying Howard's motion as to instances of excessive force, the Municipal Court reasoned that Howard failed to provide sufficient basis to overcome Officer Lloyd's right to privacy, had not presented evidence that he was aware of any prior uses of excessive force by Officer Lloyd, and had not provided any compelling theory of admissibility. The Municipal Court's review found no instances of untrustworthiness. Howard was subsequently convicted by a jury of stalking, resisting arrest, and obstructing a peace officer. On appeal, the District Court affirmed Howard's convictions, concluding that the Municipal Court's orders were correctly entered, and that sufficient evidence existed to support Howard's conviction. Howard appeals.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶8 When a case originates in a municipal court, the district court functions as an intermediate appellate court. City of Bozeman v. Lehrer , 2020 MT 55, ¶ 6, 399 Mont. 166, 459 P.3d 850 (citing §§ 3-5-303, 3-6-110, MCA). "Upon subsequent appeal to [the Montana Supreme Court], this Court reviews the case ‘as if the appeal originally had been filed in this Court.’ " Lehrer , ¶ 6 (quoting City of Bozeman v. Cantu , 2013 MT 40, ¶ 10, 369 Mont. 81, 296 P.3d 461 ). We examine the record "independently of the district court's decision," and the ultimate determination remains whether the district court "reached the correct conclusions under the appropriate standards of review." State v. Davis , 2016 MT 102, ¶ 31, 383 Mont. 281, 371 P.3d 979 (quoting Stanley v. Lemire , 2006 MT 304, ¶ 26, 334 Mont. 489, 148 P.3d 643 ).

¶9 Evidentiary rulings and rulings on discovery motions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. City of Bozeman v. McCarthy , 2019 MT 209, ¶ 12, 397 Mont. 134, 447 P.3d 1048. A lower court abuses its discretion if it "exercises granted discretion based on a mistake of law, erroneous finding of material fact, or otherwise acts arbitrarily, without conscientious judgment or in excess of the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice." McCarthy , ¶ 12.

¶10 This Court reviews de novo a district court's conclusion as to whether sufficient evidence exists to support a jury's verdict. State v. Sutton , 2018 MT 143, ¶ 10, 391 Mont. 485, 419 P.3d 1201. In making this assessment, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact...