State v. Buckles, DA 17-0018
| Docket Nº | DA 17-0018 |
| Citation | 391 Mont. 511, 420 P.3d 511, 2018 MT 150 |
| Case Date | June 15, 2018 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
391 Mont. 511
420 P.3d 511
2018 MT 150
STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Morris D. BUCKLES, Defendant and Appellant.
DA 17-0018
Supreme Court of Montana.
Submitted on Briefs: May 2, 2018
Decided: June 15, 2018
For Appellant: Penelope S. Strong, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana.
For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Ryan Aikin, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Wyatt A. Glade, Custer County Attorney, Miles City, Montana.
Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Morris Buckles (Buckles) appeals from a jury verdict of the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Custer County, finding him guilty of felony use or possession of property subject to criminal forfeiture, felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs, misdemeanor criminal possession of dangerous drugs, and misdemeanor criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
¶2 We restate the dispositive issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Buckles's Utah drug charges.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶3 On May 10, 2015, Montana Highway Patrol Trooper Troy Muri (Trooper Muri) stopped Buckles for speeding. As Trooper Muri approached the vehicle he noticed an odor of marijuana coming from inside the vehicle. Trooper Muri asked Buckles for identification, registration, and insurance. Buckles acknowledged he did not have his driver's license at that time, but handed over registration and insurance. Trooper Muri questioned Buckles regarding the odor. Trooper Muri asked Buckles to step out of the vehicle and patted him down. The pat down did not reveal a weapon. Trooper Muri then asked Buckles to stand in front of his patrol car while he identified Buckles. As Trooper Muri and Buckles approached the patrol car, Trooper Muri saw Buckles throw something to the side of the road. Trooper Muri put Buckles in handcuffs and retrieved
the item that was thrown. The item recovered was a small glass jar containing marijuana. Trooper Muri then searched Buckles and discovered a methamphetamine pipe and $740 in cash bound with a rubber band.
¶4 Once Trooper Muri identified Buckles, he asked where Buckles was headed. Buckles stated he was headed to Billings. Buckles was then given his Miranda rights. Buckles admitted to Officer Muri he is an addict and uses drugs on a regular basis. Buckles refused to allow Trooper Muri to search his vehicle. Trooper Muri proceeded to impound the car to obtain a search warrant. Two days later a search of the car revealed a second methamphetamine pipe, two cell phones, a GPS, and a bank bag containing an additional $20,400 in cash, bound with rubber bands.
¶5 On October 8, 2015, Buckles was charged by Information with four counts: use or possession of property subject to criminal forfeiture, a
felony; criminal possession of dangerous drugs, a felony; possession of dangerous drugs, a misdemeanor; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. Prior to trial, the State indicated it intended to introduce Buckles's subsequent drug charges filed in Utah (Utah drug charges). These charges occurred in February 2016, nine months after Buckles was stopped for speeding by Officer Muri.
¶6 The District Court held a jury trial on September 27-28, 2016. At the conclusion of the first day of trial, the State brought forth the issue of having Drug Task Force Agent Jeffrey Faycosh (Agent Faycosh) testify regarding Buckles's Utah drug charges. The State prepared a trial brief on the matter.1 Defense counsel objected to the admittance of such evidence, arguing relevance and prejudice. The District Court took the matter under advisement and stated it would make a ruling the following morning. The following morning, the District Court ruled from the bench, allowing Agent Faycosh to testify as to Buckles's Utah drug charges to prove intent. The District Court found that the Utah drug charges were relevant to the State's theory that Buckles intended to use the cash on his person and in his vehicle to commit an illegal drug transaction. However, the District Court ordered such testimony be elicited on rebuttal, not in the State's case-in-chief, and that if elicited, a limiting instruction be provided to the jury.
¶7 During the State's case-in-chief, the State presented evidence regarding its theory that Buckles was traveling west to engage in a drug transaction with the $21,220.2 Officer Muri testified Buckles stated he was traveling from Poplar to Billings. Officer Muri also testified regarding Scott Cole's, Buckles's son-in-law, statement that Buckles was traveling to Miles City then continuing on to Billings. Officer Muri testified he did not believe Buckles when he related he was traveling to Billings to get his heater in his truck fixed. Officer Muri based his belief on the fact it was May and he assumed Buckles would not need his heater and also on Buckles relating he was a mechanic such that Officer Muri assumed Buckles could fix his own
heater. Both Officer Muri and Agent Faycosh testified regarding the items seized during the search of Buckles's vehicle. Officer Muri and Agent Faycosh testified to the manner in which the cash was packaged. Specifically, Officer Muri and Agent Faycosh stated, in their experience, carrying a large amount of cash banded together by rubber bands is usually indicative of a drug transaction. Agent Faycosh further testified Buckles appeared to have created a "cockpit" by having a GPS and two cellphones in his front seat indicative of long drives. However, Buckles presented two witnesses who testified in contradiction to Officer Muri and Agent Faycosh's testimony offering a legitimate basis for possessing the money and a
legitimate purpose for which it was intended to be used.
¶8 The State then recalled Agent Faycosh as a rebuttal witness to testify regarding Buckles's Utah drug charges. Agent Faycosh testified that in February 2016, nine months after the charges herein, Buckles was arrested in Utah with a co-defendant. Agent Faycosh testified Buckles was charged in Utah with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and possession of paraphernalia. Agent Faycosh further testified where Buckles was arrested in Utah was southwest of Custer County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all four counts. Buckles timely appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶9 District courts have broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence. State v. Blaz , 2017 MT 164, ¶ 10, 388 Mont. 105, 398 P.3d 247. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when a district court acts arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice. Blaz , ¶ 10 (citations omitted). Although a district court possesses broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence, judicial discretion must be guided by the Rules of Evidence, applicable statutes, and principles of law. Maier v. Wilson , 2017 MT 316, ¶ 17, 390 Mont. 43, 409 P.3d 878 (citing State v. Price , 2006 MT 79, ¶ 17, 331 Mont. 502, 134 P.3d 45 ). To the extent an evidentiary ruling is based on a district court's interpretation of the Montana Rules of Evidence, our review is de novo. Blaz , ¶ 10 (citations omitted). An erroneous evidentiary ruling constitutes reversible error when a substantial right of the party is affected. M. R. Evid. 103.
DISCUSSION
¶10 Whether the District Court abused its discretion in admitting
evidence of Buckles's Utah drug charges.
¶11 On appeal, Buckles argues the District Court erred in admitting the Utah drug charges under M. R. Evid. 404(b) and M. R. Evid. 403. Buckles maintains his Utah drug charges were impermissibly admitted proving his propensity as a career drug dealer. Furthermore, Buckles contends admitting the Utah drug charges was highly prejudicial and outweighed any probative value. Accordingly, Buckles argues admitting his Utah drug charges impaired his right to a fair trial.
¶12 The State contends the District Court did not err in admitting the Utah drug charges. The State asserts the District Court properly admitted the Utah drug charges under M. R. Evid. 404(b) and M. R. Evid. 403. Further, the State maintains the District Court carefully limited the scope of the evidence and provided a limiting instruction to mitigate any undue prejudice.
¶13 Even where Rule 404(b) evidence is relevant to an issue other than character or the defendant's propensity to commit the charged offense, the evidence is still subject to balancing under Rule 403. State v. Stewart , 2012 MT 317, ¶ 67, 367 Mont. 503, 291 P.3d 1187. Here, the District Court determined Buckles's Utah drug charges were relevant to intent under Rule 404(b). Even though the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Christensen
...on motions in limine, was barred as irrelevant under M. R. Evid. 404(b), and was prejudicial under M. R. Evid. 403 and State v. Buckles , 2018 MT 150, 391 Mont. 511, 420 P.3d 511. Christensen further argues that the State did not provide him with sufficient notice as to the use of this evid......
-
State v. Dineen
...should have carefully balanced the probative value of the evidence with the danger of unfair prejudice to Dineen. See State v. Buckles , 2018 MT 150, ¶ 13, 391 Mont. 511, 420 P.3d 511. The prior bad act 404(b) evidence here, which lacked reliability having never been criminally charged, pro......
-
State v. Butler
...ruling is based on a district court's interpretation of the Montana Rules of Evidence, our review is de novo. State v. Buckles , 2018 MT 150, ¶ 9, 391 Mont. 511, 420 P.3d 511. ¶12 We review de novo a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. See State v. Elle......
-
State v. Kindt
...the tainted evidence was such that no reasonable possibility existed that it might have contributed to the conviction. State v. Buckles, 2018 MT 150, ¶ 18, 391 Mont. 511, 420P.3d511. ¶12 No reasonable possibility exists that the video recording of Johnson's interview contributed to Kindt's ......