State v. Brady

• Decision Date: 14 November 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-388.,99-388.
• Citation: 302 Mont. 174,13 P.3d 941,2000 MT 282
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Archie Galen BRADY, Defendant/Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

13 P.3d 941

2000 MT 282

302 Mont. 174

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff/Respondent, v.Archie Galen BRADY, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 99-388.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs June 22, 2000.

Decided November 14, 2000.

William Boggs, Missoula, MT, For Appellant.

Joseph P. Mazurek, Montana Attorney General, Jim Wheelis, Assistant Montana Attorney General; Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney, Kirsten LaCroix, DeputyMissoula County Attorney, For Respondent.

Justice WILLIAM E. HUNT, Sr.delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 On February 10, 1999, in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, a jury found Archie Galen Brady(Brady) guilty of driving while under the influence.We affirm.

¶ 2 Brady raises the following issues:

1.Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Brady's motion for a mistrial?

2.Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it did not dismiss the case on its own motion for insufficiency of the evidence?

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On October 15, 1998, Brady was charged by information with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, a fourth or subsequent offense, in violation of §§ 61-8-401,714, MCA.The case arose from the circumstances surrounding a wreck in which Brady, driving alone between Seeley Lake and Missoula, swerved off Montana Highway 200, struck a rock wall, and rolled over.The information also charged Brady with three misdemeanors: driving while license suspended or revoked, in violation of § 61-5-212, MCA; failure to provide proof of insurance, in violation of § 61-6-302, MCA; and failure to give notice of an accident by the quickest means, in violation of § 61-7-108, MCA.

¶ 4 On February 9, 1999, shortly before voir dire, Brady's trial counsel stated that Brady would plead guilty to the three misdemeanors.He moved the District Court to "instruct the State to instruct their witnesses not to mention any of those offenses for which he was charged and which he will plead guilty to."Brady's counsel also said, "I don't object to the fact of them mentioning that he left his wallet at the scene or that his driver's license was left, but I believe it would be unduly prejudicial for the jury to learn that it was suspended."He only objected to references to the effect that Brady was driving while his license was suspended or without insurance.The State did not object to this motion.

¶ 5 During trial, the State's third witness, Chris Schultz, a Missoula County Sheriff's Deputy, testified on direct examination that at the scene of the wreck, "about four or five feet from the driver's door, there was a wallet laying on the ground.And I picked that wallet up, went through it, and found an expired driver's license to—."At this point, Brady objected and the District Court sustained the objection.Shortly thereafter, the judge, counsels, and Brady met in chambers.Brady's counsel moved for a mistrial, arguing that the judge had ordered the State not to mention an expired license.The State countered that the stipulation was that the State would not mention that his license was suspended, but that its expired status was not covered.The State argued that the remark was inadvertent and the license was part of the transaction.The State affirmed that they had instructed the three officers who would testify not to mention the suspension of Brady's driver's license.The District Court agreed with the State.

¶ 6The District Court found that there was a difference between the jury knowing that Brady's license had expired and hearing that it was suspended, which would suggest prior criminal behavior.The District Court said, "[a]nd I think that's what's prejudicial to your client-is prior criminal behavior suggested by a suspended license."The District Court gave the following admonition to the jury:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the officer just mentioned that the Defendant had an expired license.I would request that you please disregard this testimony.This fact has nothing to do with the case.An expired license is no indication of guilt of any offense by the Defendant.

The State did not again mention the license except to note that the information in Brady's wallet, coupled with the vehicle registration, allowed the officers to track down Brady at his home.

¶ 7The State also called several other witnesses.The State called a truck driver who had witnessed Brady speeding and exhibiting poor control over his vehicle shortly before the crash.The State called Brady's sister.She testified that she only saw Brady drink one beer after the wreck.The State called two officers, including Officer Schultz, who testified about the scene of the wreck and Brady's condition at his home.They concluded that the wreck was not caused by a tire coming off and that Brady was very intoxicated.They also testified about Brady attempting to lie about being involved in the wreck.The State's final witness was an officer who did not see the scene of the wreck, but testified as to Brady's intoxication.He testified that although Brady was injured, his drunken state was not from a head trauma.

¶ 8 After the State closed its case in chief, Brady moved for a directed verdict of acquittal.The District Court denied Brady's motion.Brady called his sister as his first witness.Brady also called two witnesses in an attempt to establish that a malfunctioning tire caused the wreck.Brady then rested, and the State recalled one of the officers to rebut that a tire caused the wreck.At the close of evidence, Brady did not renew his motion for dismissal or for a directed verdict.

¶ 9 The jury found Brady guilty of driving while under the influence.On March 22, 1999, Brady was sentenced to thirteen months at the Montana State Prison, followed by a four-year suspended sentence.He now appeals to this Court.

DISCUSSION

¶ 10 Brady first argues that the denial of his motion for a mistrial was reversible error because the State's witness deliberately violated an order in limine, to which the State had previously stipulated, and because the evidence against him was far from overwhelming.Second, Brady argues that the District Court should have taken the case from the jury at the close of all the evidence, since the totality of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, established reasonable doubt of guilt as a matter of law.

¶ 11The State concedes that after the State and Brady stipulated that the evidence of Brady's driving while his license was suspended and driving without insurance would not be brought before the jury, an officer testified that he found Brady's wallet near the wrecked car.The wallet contained Brady's expired driver's license.The State argues, however, that reading the record strictly, the expired status of the license was not excluded by the stipulation.Further, the prosecution said that its mention was inadvertent, and there is nothing on the record to refute that assertion.

¶ 12The State also points out that the District Court sustained an objection to the testimony that Brady's license was expired and gave a corrective admonition to the jury.According to the State, even if the evidence was presented contrary to the stipulation, it could not have contributed to Brady's conviction because having an expired license is not commonly thought of as a serious or even a criminal matter, and there was ample evidence to convict Brady.Lastly, the State argues that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brady's motions for a mistrial and acquittal at the close of the State's case, or when it did not dismiss the case on its own motion as permitted by § 46-16-403, MCA.

ISSUE 1

¶ 13 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Brady's motion for a mistrial?

¶ 14We review a denial of a motion for a mistrial for an abuse of discretion.A mistrial is appropriate when a reasonable possibility exists that inadmissible evidence might have contributed to the conviction.State v. Partin(1997), 287 Mont. 12, 18, 951 P.2d 1002, 1005(officer's improper reference in forgery prosecution to sample of a defendant's handwriting from a prior arrest denied defendant a fair and impartial trial).The strength of the evidence against the defendant together with the prejudicial influence of the inadmissible evidence and whether a cautionary, jury instruction could cure any prejudice must be considered in determining whether a prohibited statement contributed to the conviction.Partin,287 Mont. at 18, 951 P.2d at 1005.A mistrial should be denied, however, for technical errors or defects that do not affect the substantial rights of the defendant and the record is sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt.State v. Berosik,1999 MT 238, ¶ 20, 296 Mont. 165, ¶ 20, 988 P.2d 775, ¶ 20."Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded."Section 46-20-701(2), MCA.

¶ 15 Brady argues that not only was it inherently prejudicial for the State's witness to mention that Brady's driver's license was expired, but the officer deliberately violated the stipulation excluding evidence of Brady driving with a suspended license and without insurance.We disagree.

¶ 16 Brady's motion in limine did not apply to the officer's testimony that Brady's license was expired.Brady only objected to references to the effect that he was driving while his license was suspended or without insurance.As the District Court noted, there is a difference between an expired license and a suspended license.A driver's license is suspended because its bearer did something wrong, but anyone can allow a license to expire.Having an expired license is not in itself criminal.It is a common mistake that does not imply bad character.

¶ 17 This is distinct from the Partin case.In Partin, it was undisputed that the officer's testimony violated the...