State v. Dist. Court of The Eighteenth Judicial Dist. of Mont.

Citation246 P.3d 415,358 Mont. 325,2010 MT 263
Decision Date14 December 2010
Docket NumberNo. OP 10–0288.,OP 10–0288.
PartiesSTATE of Montana, Petitioner,v.DISTRICT COURT OF the EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONTANA, Gallatin County, The Honorable Mike Salvagni, Presiding Judge, Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Montana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREWest CodenotesValidity Called into DoubtMCA 46–13–109

OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES C. NELSON, Judge.

[358 Mont. 328] ¶ 1 Before this Court is a Petition for a Writ of Supervisory Control (Petition) filed by the State of Montana in State v. Anderson, Cause No. DC–09–33AX, which is pending in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. The Petition challenges a pretrial ruling by the District Court suppressing certain evidence which the State intended to introduce at trial in the prosecution of defendant Shanara Anderson for deliberate homicide. The State contends that the District Court's decision was based on a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, and the State therefore asks this Court to exercise supervisory control and to reverse the District Court's ruling.

¶ 2 In its Petition, the State relied primarily on the transaction rule (§ 26–1–103, MCA) in arguing the admissibility of the evidence at issue. However, because we perceived that the issue of admissibility also inevitably raised the questions of the scope and applicability of Rule 404(b) of the Montana Rules of Evidence, we ordered more extensive briefing on these questions. See M.R.App. P. 14(7)(b). The State has now filed its supplemental brief, and Anderson has filed a response.

¶ 3 Having considered the parties' arguments, we grant the Petition, reverse the District Court's April 2, 2010 order suppressing the evidence in question, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order. Furthermore, in light of the parties' respective arguments and the circumstances which necessitated the State's filing of the Petition, we have reevaluated the rule first articulated in State v. Just, 184 Mont. 262, 268–69, 274, 602 P.2d 957, 961, 963–64 (1979), and subsequently modified in State v. Matt, 249 Mont. 136, 142–43, 814 P.2d 52, 56 (1991), known as the Modified Just Rule. After detailed review and analysis, we conclude that the rationale underlying Just and Matt rested on a misunderstanding of Rule 404(b). This, in turn, has led to increasing uncertainty in the application of the “other acts” rules, as well as numerous appeals to this Court. In similar situations, we have clarified or revised our approach with respect to the given legal issue.1 We do the same here and, accordingly, overrule Just and Matt and set forth a new approach in their place.

ISSUES

¶ 4 The questions presented are:

1. Are the issues raised by the Petition appropriate for resolution by this Court through a writ of supervisory control?

2. Was the State's evidence correctly deemed inadmissible?

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

¶ 5 At approximately 10:00 a.m. on January 10, 2008, Anderson called 911 and informed dispatch that her three-month-old daughter Vanyel was “white as a sheet” and not breathing. Medical personnel responded to the Bozeman apartment where Anderson and Vanyel were staying but were unable to save Vanyel's life.

¶ 6 Detectives with the Bozeman Police Department commenced an investigation into Vanyel's death and ultimately concluded that Anderson was responsible. Accordingly, on February 4, 2009, the State filed an Affidavit of Probable Cause and Motion for Leave to File Information charging her with deliberate homicide. In its affidavit, the State asserted various facts (obtained through witness interviews and the postmortem examination) in support of the charge. In summary, those factual allegations are as follows.

¶ 7 Vanyel was born in Glendive, Montana, in September 2007. According to a nurse who cared for Anderson and Vanyel following Vanyel's birth, Anderson would not look at Vanyel, would not hold her, and did not want to spend any time with her. When the nurse asked Anderson how she was doing, Anderson stated that she was “pissed off” because [i]t's a girl, and I really wanted a boy and so does my significant other.”

¶ 8 Anderson stayed with her friend Amanda once or twice a week. Amanda told investigators that she had observed Anderson, on several occasions, rolling Vanyel in a blanket so tightly that Vanyel would have difficulty breathing and would gasp for air. Amanda also described an incident one night when Anderson screamed at Vanyel to “shut the fuck up.” In addition, Amanda reported that on the morning of January 9, 2008 (the day before Vanyel died), Anderson appeared tired and acted aggressively due to Vanyel's persistent crying. Amanda noted that Vanyel's father, Matt, had left Anderson about a month after Vanyel was born.

¶ 9 Another friend, Jessica, described Anderson as caring a lot for Matt. She stated that when Anderson and Matt had problems, or when he would call and upset her, Anderson had “a small tendency to take it out on the children.” Jessica recalled an incident in which she saw Anderson get angry in response to Matt. Anderson was changing Vanyel's diaper and set Vanyel down “with enough force that her head actually bounced off the floor.” Jessica also described incidents when Anderson would wrap Vanyel in a blanket so tightly that Vanyel would have trouble breathing. When Jessica unwrapped Vanyel, she could see the imprint of Vanyel's hands on her chest and knee prints on her stomach.

¶ 10 Investigators also spoke with Jeff, one of Anderson's old high school friends, who lived in Bozeman. Jeff told detectives that he had proposed to Anderson over the phone on January 5, 2008, and then drove to Glendive on January 8 to pick up Anderson, Vanyel, and Vanyel's two-year-old sister (Sister). The four departed for Bozeman the following day (January 9), arriving at around 6:30 p.m. According to Jeff, they went to bed at around 11:00 p.m. Then, at around 1:00 a.m., Vanyel woke up crying. Anderson appeared a little agitated and went to check on Vanyel. She was gone for approximately five minutes, and the crying stopped abruptly. When Anderson returned to bed, she told Jeff that she had thrown a leather jacket over Vanyel's bassinette. Jeff did not hear any crying the rest of the night. He got dressed at around 6:30 a.m. and left for work at around 7:00. He told investigators that he could hear Vanyel breathing and observed the leather jacket still covering the bassinette when he left.

¶ 11 As noted, Anderson called 911 at approximately 10:00 a.m. and reported that Vanyel was not breathing. A portion of the transcript of this call is set out in the State's affidavit of probable cause. Notably, Anderson implied that Sister was responsible for Vanyel's death. Anderson told the dispatcher: “I just got up cause I heard my oldest and she'd climbed out of her playpen. And I saw that my leather jacket (INAUDIBLE) was on um, the end of the bassinette cause I have the top part of the bassinette on the floor.” A bit later, Anderson added: “I didn't even know that my two year old could even climb out of the playpen. And that's what I'm afraid of happened.”

¶ 12 Emergency medical responders transported Vanyel to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead. In the meantime, Anderson spoke with Detective Andy Knight while waiting for a ride to the hospital. She told Knight about the trip from Glendive to Bozeman the previous day and also recounted the events of that night, though her timeline differed from Jeff's in some important respects. Anderson stated that she went to bed at around 1:00 a.m. and that Vanyel started crying at around 6:30 a.m. According to Anderson, Jeff was still in bed at this time. Anderson picked up Vanyel, changed her diaper, held her for awhile, and then went back to sleep. Anderson said that when she awoke, she saw Sister sitting on the end of the bed. She placed Sister back in her playpen and then looked down at Vanyel. Anderson stated that at this point, she saw the leather jacket on the end of the bassinette, which she insisted “was not laying on the bassinette when I went to bed” and “was not there this morning when I checked on her.” Anderson removed the jacket and noticed that Vanyel was white and not breathing. She started CPR and then called her mother, who told Anderson to call 911. When Detective Knight inquired further about Anderson's concerns relating to the leather jacket, she responded: “I'm afraid that [Sister] may have accidentally put the coat on [Vanyel] and then pulled it off because she does take her blanket away.”

¶ 13 Dr. Walter L. Kemp, Deputy State Medical Examiner, conducted a postmortem examination of Vanyel's body on January 11. The exam revealed a cerebral edema, which was “consistent [with] a delayed death following a lethal event.” However, the absence of definitive neuronal necrosis suggested that “ the time between the event and the final time of death was relatively brief.” The exam also revealed multiple paraspinal rib fractures of varying ages, one of which appeared “acute” and “most likely occurred within hours of death.” However, there was “no definitive evidence of a traumatic cause of death, such as the combination of subdural hemorrhage or hemorrhage within a body cavity.” Dr. Kemp noted that rib fractures like those observed here “are indicative of non-accidental trauma, most likely due to compression of the chest, or ... direct blows to the trunk.” Thus, in Vanyel, the finding of multiple paraspinal rib fractures of differing ages “is, given the absence of other explanations, consistent with abuse.” But Dr. Kemp cautioned that Vanyel's death “cannot be definitively attributed to inflicted injuries based upon the autopsy findings alone.” Ultimately, since “the infant has physical signs most consistent with abuse (based upon the findings and known history), but no evidence of lethal acute injuries (i.e., occurring just prior to the time of death),” Dr. Kemp concluded that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • State v. Christensen
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • September 16, 2020
    ...or unfairly prejudicial and provide argument and authority as to why such evidence should be excluded. State v. Dist. Court of the Eighteenth Jud. Dist. , 2010 MT 263, ¶ 49, 358 Mont. 325, 246 P.3d 415. The court also "should conduct a hearing and issue a written decision with appropriate f......
  • State v. Stryker
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • April 11, 2023
    ...and therefore, a guilty person." Madplume, ¶ 22 (citing State v. Dist. Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Dist., 2010 MT 263, ¶ 47, 358 Mont. 325, 246 P.3d 415 (Salvagni)). "Under 404(b), the distinction between admissible and inadmissible other acts evidence thus depends on the particular pu......
  • State v. Strizich
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • November 30, 2021
    ...925 F.2d at 1232, n. 2. [3] While these cases relied on the modified Just rule, a Rule 404(b) analytical framework which we overruled in Salvagni, decision rested on the conclusion that the existing framework imposed "technical requirements that serve no practical purpose and should not hav......
  • State v. Lake
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • February 8, 2022
    ...McGhee, ¶ 14 (internal citations omitted).[11]Accord State v. Mont. Eighteenth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Salvagni), 2010 MT 263, ¶ 47, 358 Mont. 325, 246 P.3d 415 (Rule 404(b) precludes of other acts evidence for a purpose that allows an "inference from bad act to bad person to guilty person"); Aakre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • Chapter 130, HB 250 – Repeal 46-13-109 to conform with Montana Supreme Court opinion
    • United States
    • Montana Session Laws
    • January 1, 2011
    ...and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2010, the Montana Supreme Court issued its opinion in State v. District Court of the 18th Judicial District, 2010 MT 263, 358 Mont. 325 (2010), holding that State v. Just was wrongly decided and overruling its previous opinion in that case; and WHEREAS, in its o......

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