State v. Hayden

• Decision Date: 05 August 2008
• Docket Number: No. DA 06-0565.,DA 06-0565.
• Citation: 190 P.3d 1091,2008 MT 274,345 Mont. 252
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Clyde William HAYDEN, Sr., Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

190 P.3d 1091

2008 MT 274

345 Mont. 252

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Clyde William HAYDEN, Sr., Defendant and Appellant.

No. DA 06-0565.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs September 12, 2007.

Decided August 5, 2008.

For Appellant: Jim Wheelis, Chief Appellate Defender; Shannon McDonald, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana.

For Appellee: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; C. Mark Fowler, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Marvin McCann, Beaverhead County Attorney, Dillon, Montana.

Justice JOHN WARNER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Clyde Hayden was convicted in the Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County, of felony possession of methamphetamine; misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia; and misdemeanor partner/family member assault. He appeals his conviction.

¶ 2 Hayden raises numerous issues. However, as we reverse and remand for a retrial we discuss only two issues, as follows:

¶ 3 Issue 1: Did the District Court err by not striking DPHHS social worker Elizabeth Foster's testimony that Hayden had a positive urinalysis test for methamphetamine and by not giving an instruction that such testimony must be disregarded?

¶ 4 Issue 2: Was it plain error to admit testimony that witnesses were telling the truth in their initial statements; and did the prosecutor commit plain error in his statements concerning witness credibility and his opinion of the quality of police work?

BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Hayden's teenage son, Clyde "Sonny" Hayden, Jr. (Sonny), alleged that Hayden assaulted him on March 20, 2005. Sonny claimed that he and Hayden were arguing at home about Hayden's methamphetamine use and about Sonny's drinking alcohol. He reported that Hayden pinned him down on the couch and slammed him into the wall. He also stated that Hayden punched him in the face while they were later driving to the home of Hayden's brother, Albert Hayden (Albert). Sonny went on to report that at Albert's home, Hayden slammed him into the front of a truck, dragged him into the truck, and then grabbed him and tried to pull him back out through the window of the truck.

¶ 6 The alleged abuse was reported by Sonny to a DPHHS social worker, Elizabeth Foster (Foster). He was also interviewed by Detective Jay Hansen (Hansen) and made the same allegations. Hansen took several pictures of Sonny that showed numerous bruises and abrasions on his face and arms. Sonny told Hansen that his father had methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in their house, and he described where it might be found. Hansen also interviewed Albert, one of several witnesses to the incident, and Albert's statement corroborated Sonny's version of events.

¶ 7 Hayden was arrested for the assault on Sonny. The police obtained a search warrant and conducted a search of Hayden's residence. The search revealed various items of drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine. On April 5, 2005, the State charged Hayden with felony drug possession, in violation of § 45-9-102, MCA, misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of § 45-10-103, MCA, and misdemeanor partner/family member assault in violation of § 45-5-206, MCA.

¶ 8 Hayden pled not guilty to all charges. A jury trial was held in January 2006. During his opening statement, County Attorney, Marvin McCann (McCann) stated that the State anticipated Hayden's defense would be that Sonny had planted the drugs in the house. Hayden's counsel began his opening statement by confirming that there was a conflict between Sonny and Hayden concerning drug use. He confirmed that the defense would be that Sonny had planted the drugs in order to get Hayden in trouble, and that it was Sonny, not Hayden, who possessed drug paraphernalia.

¶ 9 The State called several witnesses, including Foster, Hansen, Albert, and Sonny. Albert and Sonny both recanted the version of events they had given at the time of the incident. Albert testified that his view was blocked and he did not see everything that happened. He also testified at trial that he saw nothing to indicate that Hayden was abusive to Sonny. Likewise, Sonny stated that Hayden had not assaulted him, but that he, Sonny, was out of line and his father was merely trying to discipline him and get him under control. He stated that he had lied in his earlier report of the incident just to get his father in trouble.

¶ 10 The social worker, Foster, testified about the report of Hayden's assault on Sonny and the injuries to Sonny she observed near the time of the incident. She also stated that Sonny had told her the reason for the altercation was Hayden's drug use. On cross-examination, Hayden's counsel questioned Foster about her former and current involvement with the family and about a former instance when Sonny had been removed from the home by DPHHS. Defense counsel also raised the fact that Hayden had undertaken a drug treatment program in 2004. He asked Foster whether Hayden had completed the program, and she stated that she thought he had completed the program but did not know if he had graduated.

¶ 11 On re-direct examination of Foster, she testified that the treatment plan for the family required Hayden to undergo chemical dependency treatment and testing under her supervision. Then, the following exchange occurred:

Mr. McCann: And what type of success did [Hayden] have on the chemical dependency treatment?

Ms. Foster: Mr. Hayden made an appointment and began his evaluation with chemical dependency. But he didn't complete it. He was UA'd while he was there, and when he went for it, and it came up positive for methamphetamine.

Mr. Anderson: Object, move to strike.

The Court: It's already in the record, unfortunately. We have to proceed.

Mr. McCann: Thank you, your honor. Do you know how many UAs he failed?

Mr. Anderson: Object.

The Court: What is the objection, please?

Mr. Anderson: I think it's prejudicial for the jury to hear this kind of testimony because—

The Court: Excuse me, may counsel come to the bench?

(Bench conference without the Court Reporter)

The Court: The objection is sustained.

The trial then proceeded.

¶ 12 Detective Hansen testified during the State's case-in-chief and as a rebuttal witness. McCann impeached Albert and Sonny's trial testimony with questions regarding their earlier statements. McCann then asked Hansen about his training in assessing the believability of witnesses and how to determine if they are telling the truth. Hansen testified that he thought both Sonny and Albert had given honest statements at the time they were first interviewed. McCann directly asked Hansen if he "believe[d] Sonny was telling the truth at the time," and Hansen vouched for the veracity of the earlier statements. McCann also asked Hansen whether the earlier statements or the in-court testimony was more believable, and Hansen asserted that he thought the earlier statements were more truthful. Hayden's counsel did not object to this line of questioning by McCann.

¶ 13 The defense put on several witnesses who asserted that Sonny had a history of lying for the purpose of getting his father in trouble and that he may have planted the drug evidence in the house. Hayden himself testified, admitting that he had a history of using methamphetamine, but claimed he had been sober since 2004. He testified that he and Sonny had an argument, but that he was just trying to discipline Sonny for drinking the night before and for being disrespectful. He denied shoving him or being abusive.

¶ 14 In his closing statement, McCann referred once to Hayden's urinalysis test, stating he "gave a hot UA." McCann also told the jury in his closing argument that both Foster and Hansen were "believable" and that the jury could "rely on" Hansen's testimony. McCann stated that he knew the search of Hayden's house had been conducted properly and that the officers do "good work." He also stated that he was sure all the items found in the search were related to drugs, including a scale that Hayden claimed was a carburetor float scale used on vehicles.

¶ 15 The jury convicted Hayden on all three counts. The District Court subsequently sentenced him to a three year deferred sentence on the drug possession count and a six month deferred sentence on each of the other two counts, to run consecutively. Hayden filed a timely appeal of his conviction.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 16 We review a district court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. State v. Weldy, 273 Mont. 68, 72, 902 P.2d 1, 3 (1995).

¶ 17 We generally do not review on appeal issues that were not raised before the district court. However, we may undertake review of such an issue under the plain error doctrine in situations that implicate a defendant's fundamental constitutional rights when failing to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process. State v. Daniels, 2003 MT 247, ¶ 20, 317 Mont. 331, ¶ 20, 77 P.3d 224, ¶ 20. The decision to invoke plain error review is a discretionary one that is to be used sparingly on a case-by-case basis. State v. Rosling, 2008 MT 62, ¶ 77, 342 Mont. 1, ¶ 77, 180 P.3d 1102, ¶ 77.

DISCUSSION

¶ 18 Issue 1: Did the District Court err by not striking Foster's testimony that Hayden had a positive urinalysis test for methamphetamine and by not giving an instruction that such testimony must be disregarded?

¶ 19 Hayden argues the District Court erred when it did not grant the motion by his counsel to strike Foster's testimony that he had tested positive for methamphetamine after the alleged assault, as noted in ¶ 11 above. We discuss this issue as it may again present itself on any re-trial.

¶ 20 Hayden argues whether he used methamphetamine after the charges were filed in this case was evidence of another crime, wrong or act which related to his...