State v. Hauer

Decision Date01 June 2012
Docket NumberNo. DA 11–0030.,DA 11–0030.
PartiesSTATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Cale Eugene HAUER, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

For Appellant: Wade M. Zolynski, Chief Appellate Defender, Matthew M. Wilcox, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana.

For Appellee: Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General, Matthew T. Cochenour, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Fred R. Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney, Kirsten Pabst LaCroix, Deputy County Attorney, Missoula, Montana.

Justice JAMES C. NELSON delivered the Opinion of the Court.

[365 Mont. 185]¶ 1 Cale Hauer appeals the Judgment of the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, finding him guilty of the charges of unlawful restraint, assault with a weapon, partner or family member assault, and aggravated assault. We affirm.

¶ 2 Hauer raises the following issues on appeal:

¶ 3 1. Did the District Court err when it prohibited Hauer from testifying that the January altercation was caused by Hauer walking in on the victim purposely cutting herself?

¶ 4 2. Was Hauer prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel agreed not to introduce evidence of the victim's intentional cutting?

Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 5 Hauer was charged by Information with two misdemeanor counts of Partner or Family Member Assault (PFMA) in violation of § 45–5–206, MCA; one misdemeanor count of Unlawful Restraint in violation of § 45–5–301, MCA; one felony count of Aggravated Assault in violation of § 45–5–202, MCA; one felony count of Assault with a Weapon in violation of § 45–5–213, MCA; one felony count of Tampering with a Witness in violation of § 45–7–206, MCA; and two felony counts of PFMA in violation of § 45–5–206, MCA. The charges stemmed from three separate arrests occurring in Missoula.

¶ 6 On January 13, 2009, Hauer was arrested after his girlfriend, Ulla Couture, reported that he assaulted her. Couture alleged that Hauer had strangled her, punched her and pushed her down. Hauer was charged in City Court with one count of misdemeanor PFMA as a result.

¶ 7 Hauer was arrested for a second time on May 28, 2009, after Couture again reported that he assaulted her. This time Couture alleged that Hauer had pushed her over a couch resulting in a cut to Couture's arm. Hauer was charged in City Court with a second count of misdemeanor PFMA as a result.

¶ 8 Hauer was arrested for a third time on July 28, 2009, for three separate incidents that occurred in July. The first incident took place during the first week of July. Couture reported that, during an argument, Hauer had head-butted her in the face causing her nose to bleed and to bruise. Hauer was charged in the District Court with one count of felony PFMA as a result.

¶ 9 The second incident took place on July 9 when Couture went out for drinks with a girlfriend. Couture reported that Hauer showed up at the bar where she was drinking with her friend. Couture stated that Hauer was very angry and that he insisted Couture leave with him. On the walk back to Couture's house, Hauer threatened to kill her and forced her to walk down by the river. When they neared the river, Hauer pushed Couture down into some bushes and pulled out a knife. Hauer told Couture that she had a choice to have either her lips cut off or her asshole cut out. When Couture rolled over onto her stomach, Hauer called her a coward.

¶ 10 Couture further reported that Hauer then made Couture get up and they continued to walk along the river. At one point Hauer accidentally stepped on Couture's foot, but when he realized what he had done, he stomped on her foot again and told her that he hoped her foot was broken. When the two arrived at Couture's home, Hauer forced Couture to drink several alcoholic drinks. Couture stated that Hauer repeatedly told her that she should either kill herself or stab him in the neck and kill him. Before leaving, Hauer had sex with Couture and told her that he owned her. Hauer was charged in the District Court with unlawful restraint, assault with a weapon, and an additional count of felony PFMA.

¶ 11 The third incident took place on July 27, 2009. Couture reported that, during an argument, Hauer had knocked her to the ground, gotten on top of her, and put his hands on her throat. She stated that Hauer pressed down on her neck for between 10 and 30 seconds and that she had difficulty breathing. Hauer was charged in the District Court with aggravated assault as a result of this incident.

¶ 12 In addition, Hauer was charged in the District Court with tampering with a witness. This charge stemmed from Couture's report that Hauer had been pressuring her to sign an affidavit recanting the earlier PFMA allegations. Hauer wanted her to state that she had gone off of her meds and that the prior PFMA reports were false.

¶ 13 At some point prior to trial, the January 13 and May 28 misdemeanor PFMA charges were transferred from City Court to the District Court and consolidated with the other six counts against Hauer. At the Omnibus Hearing on October 14, 2009, Hauer gave notice that he intended to rely on the defense of justifiable use of force. He later clarified that this defense pertained to the January 13 and May 28 misdemeanor PFMA charges as well as the aggravated assault charge stemming from the July 27 incident. He maintained his innocence on the remaining charges. Hauer proceeded to trial before a jury on all eight counts.

¶ 14 At the final pre-trial conference, the prosecutor proposed an oral motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of Couture being a “cutter” maintaining that such evidence was irrelevant and inappropriate character evidence. Hauer's trial counsel, Christopher Daly, did not oppose the State's motion stating that he did not intend to raise the issue. The court granted the State's motion.

¶ 15 After the jury trial began and the State had presented its case-in-chief, Daly asked the court for a discussion outside the presence of the jury. Daly informed the judge that Hauer intended to testify that the January incident occurred when Hauer caught Couture purposely cutting herself. Hauer claimed that Couture, angered by Hauer's intrusion, turned the knife on him and that he was acting in self-defense. The District Court refused to revisit the earlier motion in limine and prohibited Hauer from introducing evidence that Couture was a “cutter.”

¶ 16 Hauer testified in his defense at trial claiming that he was the victim in the relationship, not Couture. Hauer testified that all of the injuries Couture sustained were the result of Hauer defending himself from her attacks. Regarding the January 13, 2009 incident, Hauer testified that Couture had run at him with a knife and tried to stab him. According to Hauer, he acted in self-defense by punching her three times in the arm and throwing her to the ground. He also claimed that many of the other incidents that Couture described never happened.

¶ 17 At the conclusion of the trial, Hauer was convicted on six of the eight counts. The jury entered a not guilty verdict on the charge of Tampering with a Witness. In addition, one of the July 2009 felony PFMA charges resulted in a hung jury, and the District Court declared a mistrial with respect to that count.

¶ 18 The District Court sentenced Hauer to six months in the Missoula County Detention Facility on the charge of Unlawful Restraint and six months each on the two charges of misdemeanor PFMA. The court also sentenced Hauer to five years in the Montana State Prison (MSP) on the charge of felony PFMA and twenty years each on the charges of felony Assault with a Weapon and felony Aggravated Assault.

¶ 19 Hauer now appeals his convictions and sentences.

Issue 1.

¶ 20 Did the District Court err when it prohibited Hauer from testifying that the January altercation was caused by Hauer walking in on the victim purposely cutting herself?

¶ 21 Hauer points out that a criminal defendant has a constitutionally protected due process right to present a defense. He contends that he was denied that right in this case when the District Court barred him from testifying “as to the full course of events” occurring on January 13, 2009. Hauer claims that he intended to testify that the January altercation was sparked by Hauer walking in on Couture intentionally cutting herself with a knife. He maintains that the District Court unlawfully prohibited him from offering that testimony.

¶ 22 The State argues that the District Court's ruling to prohibit testimony regarding Couture cutting herself did not violate Hauer's constitutional right to present a defense. The State maintains that contrary to Hauer's contentions, he was permitted to introduce extensive testimony, including expert testimony, in support of his justifiable-use-of-force defense.

¶ 23 “Whether a defendant's right to due process has been violated is a question of constitutional law over which this Court exercises plenary review.” State v. Schaff, 2011 MT 19, ¶ 7, 359 Mont. 185, 247 P.3d 727 (citing State v. Lally, 2008 MT 452, ¶ 13, 348 Mont. 59, 199 P.3d 818).

[365 Mont. 189]¶ 24 Defendants have a constitutional right to present a defense. Whether that right is “rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324, 126 S.Ct. 1727, 1731, 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, this right is not absolute. The United States Supreme Court has established that state rules excluding evidence from criminal trials do not abridge a defendant's right to present a defense so long as the rule is not arbitrary or disproportionate to the purpose it is designed to serve....

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Christensen
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • September 16, 2020
    ...right to present a defense so long as the rule is not arbitrary or disproportionate to the purpose it is designed to serve. State v. Hauer , 2012 MT 120, ¶ 24, 365 Mont. 184, 279 P.3d 149 ; United States v. Scheffer , 523 U.S. 303, 308, 118 S. Ct. 1261, 1264, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998). A distr......
  • Ditton v. Dep't of Justice Motor Vehicle Div.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • March 4, 2014
    ...2002 MT 36, ¶ 10, 308 Mont. 325, 42 P.3d 801. ¶ 15 This Court exercises plenary review over questions of constitutional law. State v. Hauer, 2012 MT 120, ¶ 23, 365 Mont. 184, 279 P.3d 149. We review de novo a district court's construction of a statute to determine whether the district court......
  • State v. Payne
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • October 5, 2021
    ...to pursue a meritless strategy or one with an unlikely chance of success based upon the exercise of reasonable judgment. State v. Hauer , 2012 MT 120, ¶ 47, 365 Mont. 184, 279 P.3d 149 ; Rose v. State , 2013 MT 161, ¶ 27, 370 Mont. 398, 304 P.3d 387. As the District Court's findings made cl......
  • State v. Walston
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • August 11, 2020
    ...a defendant's right to due process has been violated is a constitutional question over which this Court exercises plenary review. State v. Hauer , 2012 MT 120, ¶ 23, 365 Mont. 184, 279 P.3d 149.DISCUSSION¶12 The District Court provided three grounds for its denial of Walston's motion to com......
  • 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