State v. Holland
| Decision Date | 04 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | DA 17-0430 |
| Citation | 443 P.3d 519,2019 MT 128,396 Mont. 94 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Kena Annette HOLLAND, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Alexander H. Pyle, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Madison L. Mattioli, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Leo J. Gallagher, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Stephanie Robles, Deputy County Attorney, Helena, Montana
¶1 Kena Annette Holland (Holland) appeals the Order on Defendant’s Appeal issued by the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, on May 17, 2017. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
¶2 We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Did the Justice Court err by permitting the State to introduce evidence of the Defendant’s prior DUI convictions in an Aggravated DUI trial?
¶3 On August 14, 2016, Kristen Blyseth (Blyseth), an employee at McDonald’s, called Helena police to report a possible drunk driver who had just gone through the McDonald’s drive-thru. Blyseth stated that the female driver, later identified as Holland, was drinking from a beer bottle. Blyseth informed police that the driver was driving a "green truck" and provided its license plate number. Dispatch alerted patrol units of this information. Lewis and Clark County Sheriff’s Deputy Bradley Bragg (Deputy Bragg) was on patrol when he received the call from dispatch and began to look for Holland’s vehicle. Deputy Bragg observed Holland’s vehicle traveling on North Montana Avenue and turned around to get behind it. Another car turned onto the road and got between Deputy Bragg and Holland’s vehicle. Deputy Bragg testified that he observed Holland cross the fog line once and the center line twice—though this is not visible on his in-car video—and activated his overhead lights to perform a traffic stop of Holland. Holland pulled over in the entrance to the Evergreen Trailer Court on North Montana Avenue.
¶4 Deputy Bragg made contact with Holland at her vehicle and informed her of the reason for the stop. Holland behaved strangely and had trouble getting Deputy Bragg her license and registration. Deputy Bragg did not smell alcohol on Holland at this time. Deputy Bragg asked Holland to step out of her truck to perform numerous field sobriety tests. Deputy Bragg had Holland perform the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN), lack of convergence, walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand, and modified Romberg tests
, as well as recite the alphabet. Holland showed no clues of impairment on some tests and several clues of impairment on others.1
Based on the totality of the circumstances, Deputy Bragg arrested Holland for DUI. Deputy Bragg read Holland the implied consent advisory and requested that Holland take a blood test. Holland agreed to take the blood test, and Deputy Bragg transported her to St. Peter’s Hospital for a blood draw. Holland’s blood alcohol level (BAC) was measured to be 0.079, and she also tested positive for an inactive, non-impairing THC metabolite.2
¶5 On August 15, 2016, Holland was charged with Aggravated DUI, 2nd Offense, in violation of § 61-8-465(1)(e), MCA, by Affidavit and Order re: Probable Cause in the Lewis and Clark County Justice Court (Justice Court).3 On the morning of jury trial in the Justice Court, Holland moved to bifurcate trial—suggesting that the Justice Court instruct the jury on the elements of standard DUI, and then, if the jury determined Holland was guilty of DUI, stipulating to or presenting evidence of Holland’s prior DUIs to meet the aggravating element. Holland argued that the evidence of her prior DUIs was too prejudicial under M. R. Evid. 403. The Justice Court denied Holland’s motion, and the State referenced Holland’s prior DUI convictions in its opening argument, had Deputy Bragg testify to Holland’s prior DUIs, and referenced them again during its closing argument.
¶6 The jury convicted Holland of Aggravated DUI. Holland was then sentenced by the Justice Court for the offense of Aggravated DUI, 3rd Offense.4 Holland appealed the Justice Court’s denial of her motion to exclude the prior DUI evidence to the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. After the parties briefed the matter, the District Court affirmed the Justice Court’s decision. Holland appeals.
¶7 Upon Holland’s appeal from Justice Court, the District Court functioned as an intermediate appellate court. See §§ 3-5-303 and 3-10-115, MCA. When district courts function as intermediate appellate courts for appeals from lower courts of record, we review the appeal de novo as though it were originally filed in this Court. State v. Akers , 2017 MT 311, ¶ 9, 389 Mont. 531, 408 P.3d 142. We examine the record independently of the district court’s decision, reviewing the trial court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, its discretionary rulings for abuse of discretion, and its legal conclusions for correctness. State v. Meyer , 2017 MT 124, ¶ 11, 387 Mont. 422, 396 P.3d 1265 (citing Stanley v. Lemire , 2006 MT 304, ¶ 26, 334 Mont. 489, 148 P.3d 643 ).
¶8 We review a district court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Zimmerman , 2018 MT 94, ¶ 13, 391 Mont. 210, 417 P.3d 289 (citing Meyer , ¶ 12 ). An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, resulting in substantial injustice. Zimmerman , ¶ 13 (citing State v. Price , 2006 MT 79, ¶ 17, 331 Mont. 502, 134 P.3d 45 ). "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." Zimmerman , ¶ 13 (citing Maier v. Wilson , 2017 MT 316, ¶ 17, 390 Mont. 43, 409 P.3d 878 ).
¶9 Did the Justice Court err by permitting the State to introduce evidence of the Defendant’s prior DUI convictions in an Aggravated DUI trial?
¶10 Holland appeals her Aggravated DUI conviction following a jury trial in the Justice Court. Section 61-8-465(1), MCA, defines the offense of aggravated driving under the influence in Montana:
Later subsections of the statute provide for separate punishments for first, second, and third convictions of Aggravated DUI. Holland was charged with, and convicted of, a violation of § 61-8-465(1)(e), MCA, for having two prior DUI convictions.
¶11 Generally, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible in Montana, and may not be admitted to prove a person’s character to show that he or she acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion. Zimmerman , ¶ 30 (citing State v. Franks , 2014 MT 273, ¶ 14, 376 Mont. 431, 335 P.3d 725 ); see also M. R. Evid. 403, 404(b), and 609. Evidence of prior crimes is inadmissible if offered "for a purpose that requires the inference from bad act to bad person to guilty person, but may be admissible if it proves a material issue without requiring any inference to the defendant’s criminal disposition." Franks , ¶ 14 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
¶12 Regardless of the purpose for which it is admitted, evidence of prior crimes may unduly prejudice the jury against the defendant. Zimmerman , ¶ 31 (citing Franks , ¶ 15 ). "Evidence offered for a valid purpose under M. R. Evid. 404(b) is still subject to the balancing test prescribed by M. R. Evid. 403, which allows the exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Zimmerman , ¶ 31 (citing Franks , ¶ 15 ). "Unfair prejudice may arise from evidence that arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side, confuses or misleads the trier of fact, or unduly distracts the jury from the main issues." Franks , ¶ 16 (citing State v. Bieber , 2007 MT 262, ¶ 59, 339 Mont. 309, 170 P.3d 444 ).
¶13 Before trial, Holland offered to either stipulate to her prior DUIs or bifurcate the proceeding and allow the State to present the prior DUI evidence only after the jury convicted her of "standard" DUI. On the facts of this case, the only "standard" DUI Holland could be convicted of is § 61-8-401, MCA, which states, in relevant part, that it is unlawful "for a person who is under the influence ... of alcohol to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public[.]" Section 61-8-401(1)(a), MCA. The Justice Court rejected both of Holland’s proposals. A large portion of voir dire then consisted of questions related to previous DUIs. The State mentioned Holland’s previous DUI convictions during its opening statement,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Kalispell v. Salsgiver
... ... We review de novo a lower court's conclusions of law and interpretations of the Constitution. Girard , 10 (citing State v. Trier , 2012 MT 99, 10, 365 Mont. 46, 277 P.3d 1230 ; 396 Mont. 64 City of Missoula v. Cox , 2008 MT 364, 5, 346 Mont. 422, 196 P.3d 452 ) ... ...
-
State v. Strizich
...when the district court acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, resulting in substantial injustice." State v. Holland, 2019 MT 128, ¶ 8, 396 Mont. 94, 443 P.3d 519 omitted). ¶18 We review a trial court's jury instructions for abuse of discretion. State v. Dobrowski, 2016 MT 261, ¶ 6, 385 Mont. 17......
-
State v. Keefe
...or unreasonably, resulting in substantial injustice. State v. Grimshaw , 2020 MT 201, ¶ 17, 401 Mont. 27, 469 P.3d 702 (citing State v. Holland , 2019 MT 128, ¶ 8, 396 Mont. 94, 443 P.3d 519 ). ¶10 This Court reviews criminal sentences for legality. State v. Yang , 2019 MT 266, ¶ 8, 397 Mon......
-
City of Missoula v. Zerbst
...the case as if the appeal had been filed directly with this Court, without deferring to the district court’s order on appeal. State v. Holland , 2019 MT 128, ¶ 7, 396 Mont. 94, 443 P.3d 519 ; See City of Missoula v. Williams , 2017 MT 282, ¶ 8, 389 Mont. 303, 406 P.3d 8. ¶9 Trial courts hav......