Hubert Two Leggins v. Gatrell

• Docket Number: DA 22-0701
• Decision Date: 22 August 2023
• Citation: Hubert Two Leggins v. Gatrell, 413 Mont. 172, 534 P.3d 668 (Mont. 2023)
• Parties: Hubert TWO LEGGINS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Mark GATRELL, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

413 Mont. 172

534 P.3d 668

Hubert TWO LEGGINS, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Mark GATRELL, Defendant and Appellee.

DA 22-0701

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: July 26, 2023

Decided: August 22, 2023

For Appellant: John Meyer, Attorney at Law, Bozeman, Montana

For Appellee: Martha Sheehy, Sheehy Law Firm, Billings, Montana, Randall G. Nelson, Nelson Law Firm, P.C., Billings, Montana

Justice Beth Bakerdelivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Hubert Two Leggins (Two Leggins) appeals the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court Judgment following a Big Horn County jury's verdict that awarded him $1,000 in actual damages and $2,000 in punitive damages against DefendantMark Gatrell.Two Leggins does not contest the compensatory damage award but challenges the District Court's exclusion of certain evidence from the punitive damage phase of the trial relating to Gatrell's potentially racial motivations.We reverse and remand for further proceedings on punitive damages.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Two Leggins sued Mark Gatrell, claiming assault and battery and the negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.Two Leggins is Native American and a neighbor of Gatrell, who is white.Two Leggins alleged that, while he was standing in line at a grocery store, Gatrell rammed a loaded shopping cart into him from behind, causing injuries that required him to be taken to the emergency room.Two Leggins also alleged that Gatrell had shot Two Leggins's dog and dragged it away with a four-wheeler in front of Two Leggins's family, leading to an altercation between the two men.The Complaint did not reference or allege racial motivations for these incidents.

¶3 Prior to trial, Gatrell filed a motion in limine to "preclud[e] any and all argument, comment, testimony, or evidence" pertaining to a prior restraining order Two Leggins had obtained against Gatrell from the Crow Tribal Court, documents related to criminal charges against Gatrell in Crow Tribal Court, Two Leggins's prepared victim statement in that proceeding, a Big Horn County News article[the Article] that attributed comments to Gatrell, and to the issue of race generally.The restraining order referenced a Crow process server's statement that Gatrell said he was "a white man and tribal laws do not apply to him."The Article related to the dog-shooting incident and quoted Gatrell as stating, "[i]t's white against red[.]"It also reported Gatrell as saying that his dealings with the Two Leggins family led him to carry a weapon.Gatrell later affirmed the same in deposition testimony when he agreed that he"carr[ied] a rifle in [his] truck because of the Two Leggins family."

¶4 Two Leggins opposed Gatrell's motion, arguing that the evidence was relevant to his claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and to his claim for punitive damages.

¶5The District Court granted Gatrell's motion and excluded the Article for all purposes.¹Noting that the Complaint had not referenced race, the court excluded evidence relating to "racial sentiments" as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under M. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403.The District Court reasoned that the risk of unfair prejudice was "unacceptably high" because "Big Horn County is a racially diverse jurisdiction" and evidence of Gatrell's racial motivations would "likely [ ] arouse substantial emotion in a Big Horn County juror, risking them finding against Gatrell based on a desire to punish a bigot rather than because Two Leggins's claims have merit."Regarding documents from Gatrell's criminal proceedings, particularly his plea agreement, the District Court excluded them under M. R. Evid. 410 and 609.²The District Court excluded admission of Two Leggins's witness statement because it was an unsworn out-of-court statement that constituted inadmissible hearsay.The District Court excluded the Article because the relevant statements it attributed to Gatrell were hearsay, and Two Leggins had offered no argument that any hearsay exception applied.The District Court also deemed the Article to be excessively prejudicial to Gatrell under M. R. Evid. 403.

¶6 Two Leggins then filed a pleading that he denominated a motion in limine, asking the District Court to admitthe Article into evidence.The supporting brief addressed the court's characterization of the Article as hearsay, pointing out that Gatrell admitted in his deposition that he told the Big Horn County Newspaper that he carries a rifle in his truck for the Two Leggins family.Two Leggins argued that Gatrell's deposition testimony and the newspaper article were relevant to his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.The District Court denied the motion, reasoning that Two Leggins "ignores the Court's other basis for excluding the newspaper article: the risk of prejudice outweighing any probative value of the newspaper article, pursuant to M. R. Evid. 403."

¶7The case proceeded to trial, and the jury awarded Two Leggins $1,000 in compensatory damages.It also found that Gatrell had acted maliciously or with conscious disregard for the high likelihood of injury and therefore was subject to punitive damages.

¶8 After the jury reached its verdict on Gatrell's liability, the court recessed to discuss with counsel what they envisioned for the punitive damages phase of trial.At the conclusion of that discussion, the court agreed with Gatrell that the "sole purpose" of a trial's punitive damages phase is to consider evidence of "the defendant's net worth" and arguments from the parties based on the trial evidence already presented.

¶9 Gatrell was the only witness during the punitive damages phase.Two Leggins submitted evidence of Gatrell's net worth through him, and both parties made closing arguments.The jury returned a verdict awarding Two Leggins $2,000 in punitive damages.The District Court did not, as required by § 27-1-221(7), MCA, "review [the] jury award of punitive damages, giving consideration to each of the matters listed" in the statute, nor did it enter written findings or rationale.Two Leggins did not request the District Court to increase the award or otherwise object but filed a timely notice of appeal from the resulting judgment.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶10"Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant and admissible, and this Court reviews those evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion."State v. Quinlan , 2021 MT 15, ¶ 16, 403 Mont. 91, 479 P.3d 982.This authority extends to motions in limine as part of "the inherent power of the court to admit or exclude evidence and to take such precautions as are necessary to afford a fair trial for all parties."State v. Favel , 2015 MT 336, ¶ 17, 381 Mont. 472, 362 P.3d 1126(quotingWallin v. Kinyon's Estate , 164 Mont. 160, 164-65, 519 P.2d 1236, 1238(1974), overruled on other grounds byJohnson v. Costco Wholesale , 2007 MT 43, ¶ 21, 336 Mont. 105, 152 P.3d 727 ).A district court"abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, and a substantial injustice results."State v. Garding , 2013 MT 355, ¶ 18, 373 Mont. 16, 315 P.3d 912(quotingState v. Bonamarte , 2009 MT 243, ¶ 13, 351 Mont. 419, 213 P.3d 457 ).

¶11We review de novoa district court's application of a statute or evidentiary rule to a particular circumstance to determine whether the district court was correct as a matter of law.State v. Osborn , 2015 MT 48, ¶ 9, 378 Mont. 244, 343 P.3d 1188;State v. Pelletier,2020 MT 249, ¶ 12, 401 Mont. 454, 473 P.3d 991."[W]ith rare exception, we will not consider an issue or claim that was not properly preserved for appeal."State v. Norman , 2010 MT 253, ¶ 16, 358 Mont. 252, 244 P.3d 737(citingState v. West , 2008 MT 338, ¶¶ 16, 19-20, 346 Mont. 244, 194 P.3d 683 ).To properly preserve an issue or claim for appeal, a party must timely raise the issue or claim in the first instance in the trial court.Norman , ¶ 16(citingWest , ¶ 16 ).

DISCUSSION

¶12 Two Leggins argues that the District Court erroneously granted Gatrell's motion in limine to exclude his race-based evidence because of its prejudicial nature.As noted, Two Leggins limits his claim to the exclusion of evidence from the punitive damages phase of trial.Gatrell responds that Two Leggins did not preserve his objection for appeal.

¶13 Gatrell's motion in limine argued that racial motivation had no relevance to the asserted claims for assault and battery, arguing that "[t]here is no justifiable legal reason for attempting to stir racial strife into this case" and that "nothing could be more prejudicial in Hardin[.]"In response, Two Leggins pointed out that his Amended Complaint also included standalone claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, arguing that Gatrell's statements were probative of these claims.Two Leggins also referenced his claim for punitive damages, stating, "The jury can consider Gatrell's race-based hate speech and hateful actions when determining the appropriate amount of punitive damages."He emphasized the purpose of punitive damage awards and cited cases from this Court discussing a defendant's culpability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress when considering punitive damages.SeeSacco v. High Country Indep. Press , 896 P.2d 411, 429, 271 Mont. 209, 239(1995)(concluding that "when a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is pled, the plaintiff may request relief in the form of punitive damages, per § 27-1-220, MCA, to address the culpability of the defendant's conduct").

¶14The District Court granted Gatrell's motion in limine, in part because Two Leggins's objection was generalized.The District Court noted, "Two Leggins appears to object to the entirety of Gatrell's Motion but responds mostly to Gatrell's arguments regarding the issue of race as well as the newspaper story," and reasoned that Two Leggins did not "respond" or "offer[ed] no...