State, City of Bozeman v. Heth, 87-382

Decision Date09 February 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-382,87-382
Citation45 St.Rep. 194,750 P.2d 103,230 Mont. 268
PartiesSTATE of Montana, CITY OF BOZEMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clifton Duane HETH, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

Jerry Bechhold, Bozeman, for defendant and appellant.

Mike Greely, Atty. Gen., John Paulson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Bruce Becker, City Atty., Bozeman, for plaintiff and respondent.

GULBRANDSON, Justice.

This is an appeal from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. Defendant/appellant, Clifton Duane Heth (Heth) was found guilty by the District Court of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUI) as outlined in the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law on May 29, 1987. From this ruling Heth appeals.

We affirm.

The only issue is as follows:

Did the District Court err in not granting Heth's motion to dismiss based upon his argument that police officers have a responsibility to obtain and preserve exculpatory evidence if they have an opportunity to do so?

This appeal arose out of the conviction of Heth by the District Court sitting without a jury. On October 30, 1986, Heth was arrested for driving under the influence pursuant to Sec. 61-8-401, MCA, after being removed from the 4Bs Restaurant (4Bs) in Bozeman, Montana. Appellant Heth incorporated the findings of facts of the District Court on this appeal and therefore we will accept that rendition of facts.

Three 4Bs waitresses saw Heth at the restaurant on the night of October 30, 1986. They were subpoenaed to testify at the District Court hearing but no transcript was submitted on this appeal. According to one of the waitresses Heth was "[y]elling in a loud manner and attracted attention to himself." One of the waitresses knew Heth was not to be in the restaurant due to previous misconduct and she telephoned the police. This same waitress also believed Heth was intoxicated because he slurred his words and had difficulty maintaining his balance. All three waitresses believed Heth was intoxicated according to the findings of fact of the District Court.

Officers Kerry Bickle and David Krogstad requested that Heth leave the 4Bs. At that point, Bickle began recording Heth's conversation. After an argument with the police officers, Heth left the 4Bs indicating he would walk home, leaving his vehicle.

Officer Bickle returned to the 4Bs parking lot shortly thereafter and noticed Heth's vehicle traveling north on 5th Street. The officer noted that Heth's vehicle crossed the center line of the street a number of times and at one intersection, Heth failed to yield to an oncoming vehicle as he made a left turn. The officer stopped Heth and requested him to perform a number of field sobriety tests which Heth completed in an unsatisfactory manner. Conversations during this testing were again taped by Bickle.

Heth was arrested for DUI, read his Miranda rights, and taken to the Gallatin County Detention Center for processing. Heth, after reading the implied consent form, refused to take a blood test to determine his blood alcohol content. Thereafter, one of the officers activated a videotape machine to film Heth's activities but failed to turn on the volume and therefore no sound was recorded.

Heth claims he was denied due process because the tape may have contained exculpatory evidence showing that he did not have slurred speech. The District Court concluded that Heth was guilty of DUI based on the testimony of the waitresses and officers and because Heth was seen driving his vehicle after leaving the 4Bs.

The State offered the audio cassette recorded by Bickle which was admitted by the court over defense counsel's objection. The State also offered the video but it was refused by the District Court after objections by defense counsel.

Heth's counsel relies on the case of State v. Swanson (Mont.1986), 722 P.2d 1155, 43 St.Rep. 1329, for the proposition that "[p]olice have a responsibility to properly administer exculpatory evidence when they have an opportunity to do so." Heth's counsel argues that Heth was denied use of evidence which is generally available to both sides because of the Bozeman Police Department's policy of using video tapes. Heth claims:

But for the Police's failure to properly administer the video, the Appellant would have had sound to said video and thus allowed him to present a valid defense to the charge of drunk driving. With the sound to the video, the Appellant could have shown that he did not have slurred speech. Further, the sound would have tended to establish the Appellant's sobriety and his anger with respect to the way the Police were handling him. The sound would have established the rudeness in which the Police treated the Appellant. Though Police rudeness is not a defense in this case, the video would show reasons for Appellant's response.

On the audio tape recording of the sobriety tests, Heth could not count from 90 to 100 and back to 87 correctly. He also had difficulty reciting the alphabet. The findings show when requested to stand with his left foot in front of his right, Heth stood with his right foot in front of his left. Heth also had difficulty with the Rhomberg test (feet together, head back, eyes closed, used to judge equilibrium) and did not complete a one-legged stand test.

It is clear that Swanson, supra, does not support the proposition which Heth's counsel asserts. Swanson involved the negligent handling by the police officers of a defendant's blood sample that was left unrefrigerated for two days. Under Montana law, defendants have a statutory right to request separate blood testing to obtain exculpatory evidence.

The person tested may, at his own expense, have a physician or registered nurse of his own choosing administer a test, in addition to any administered at the direction of a peace officer, for the purpose of determining...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Cooksey
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • October 9, 2012
    ...exculpatory evidence and are not required to assist the defendant with procuring evidence on his own behalf. See State v. Heth, 230 Mont. 268, 271–72, 750 P.2d 103, 105 (1988); State v. Clark, 234 Mont. 222, 225, 762 P.2d 853, 855–56 (1988); State v. Sadowski, 247 Mont. 63, 79, 805 P.2d 537......
  • State v. Ware
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1994
    ...that the State does not have a duty to gather and present all physical evidence conceivably germane to its case); State v. Heth, 230 Mont. 268, 750 P.2d 103, 105 (1988) (holding that police officers have no affirmative duty to "search out favorable evidence for the defendant"); Judge, 675 P......
  • State v. Giddings
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • March 3, 2009
    ...of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution constitutes a per se due process violation in Montana. State, City of Bozeman v. Heth, 230 Mont. 268, 272, 750 P.2d 103, 105 (1988). Where the lost evidence is only potentially exculpatory, rather than apparently exculpatory, the defendant must sho......
  • State v. Wagner
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • February 27, 2013
    ...Evidence is exculpatory if it “ ‘would have tended to clear the accused of guilt.’ ” Giddings, ¶ 52 (quoting State v. Heth, 230 Mont. 268, 272, 750 P.2d 103, 105 (1988)). Where destroyed or lost evidence is only potentially exculpatory, the defendant must show bad faith by the State in orde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT