State v. McLaughlin

• Decision Date: 23 June 2009
• Docket Number: No. DA 06-0623.,DA 06-0623.
• Citation: 351 Mont. 282,2009 MT 211,210 P.3d 694
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Franklin Matthew McLAUGHLIN, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

210 P.3d 694

2009 MT 211

351 Mont. 282

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v.Franklin Matthew McLAUGHLIN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. DA 06-0623.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs July 16, 2008.

Decided June 23, 2009.

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

For Appellee: Hon. Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Micheal S. Wellenstein; Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Montana, Marty Lambert, Gallatin County Attorney; Bozeman, Montana.

Justice JIM RICEdelivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1Frank McLaughlin appeals his conviction in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court of one count of felony Attempted Assault With a Weapon and one count of misdemeanor Assault, arising out of an incident in which he fought with three police officers trying to detain him.We affirm.

¶ 2 McLaughlin raises the following issues:

1.Did the District Court abuse its discretion by admitting results of a urine test indicating the presence of methamphetamine and marijuana in McLaughlin's body at the time of his arrest?

2.Did the District Court abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on intoxication?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On June 25, 2004, at 2:50 a.m., Belgrade Police Officer Lensing stopped the truck McLaughlin was driving because its taillights were not functioning.In response to Lensing's request, McLaughlin did not provide a driver's license; but instead gave Lensing a State of Washington birth certificate for a Jesse Snyder as his identification.Lensing ran a driver's license check on Snyder and received a physical description of a male over six feet tall and 200 pounds.McLaughlin is five feet eight inches tall and weighs 145 pounds.When further questioned, McLaughlin gave illogical and inconsistent answers.Lensing called for backup and Gallatin County Deputies Lewis and Quillen responded.

¶ 4 Video footage from a patrol vehicle shows that the officers asked McLaughlin to step out of his car and patiently attempted to ascertain his true identity.McLaughlin acted fidgety, nervous, and shaky, which the officers would later testify caused them to suspect he was under the influence of methamphetamine.In response to McLaughlin's behavior and continued refusal to reveal his true identity, the officers asked him to turn around so they could handcuff him.McLaughlin began to turn around, but then bolted past the officers and ran across the road.The officers pursued and caught him, leading to an extended struggle.The patrol car's video camera did not record the struggle itself because it transpired out of view, but a microphone worn by one of the officers picked up sounds of the struggle.The video recording and accompanying audio recording were introduced as evidence and played for the jury, in addition to the officers' testimony.

¶ 5 The officers forced McLaughlin to the ground, attempting to place him on his stomach to handcuff him, but McLaughlin fought the officers by kicking and punching.The officers tried submission holds to control McLaughlin, but he showed no pain and squirmed out of them.Lensing testified that he had never encountered that level of strength and resistance from someone of McLaughlin's size.During the struggle, McLaughlin grabbed Lensing's gun and pulled on it with enough force to twist Lensing's gun belt and pants.The gun was not removed because of the holster's safety strap and Lensing's pushing on McLaughlin's hand to keep the gun in the holster.Struggling in the darkness, Lensing shouted that McLaughlin had his gun.The officers testified about the fear this caused, as their training indicates that ninety percent of officers who lose their gun during a struggle are shot.Lewis and Quillen could not see whether McLaughlin had actually taken Lensing's gun.Lewis sprayed McLaughlin's face with pepper spray, but this had no apparent effect on McLaughlin.Lensing was able to push McLaughlin's hand off his gun and then pull away from him.The other officers, fearful for their safety, asked Lensing if McLaughlin had gotten his gun.Lensing replied that he still had his gun, so the officers continued the effort to subdue McLaughlin.Then McLaughlin grabbed Quillen's holstered gun and jerked it, but it was likewise retained by the holster's safety strap.Quillen told the other officers that McLaughlin now had his gun.Quillen tried to push McLaughlin away from his gun, but did not initially succeed.He testified he began to tire and did not know how much longer he could struggle with McLaughlin.The other officers could not see whether McLaughlin had obtained Quillen's gun and were fearful about the use of this weapon against them.Quillen shouted for the other officers to shoot McLaughlin, but Lewis and Lensing began hitting McLaughlin with their batons.When their hits to McLaughlin's thighs had no apparent effect, Lewis began hitting McLaughlin's knees.The officers testified that this tactic brought the first noticeable impact upon McLaughlin, as he finally stopped struggling and said "ow."Quillen got control of his gun, and the officers were able to handcuff McLaughlin.

¶ 6 The officers took McLaughlin to the hospital for a physical examination and requested that a blood test be drawn.Dr. Gipe examined McLaughlin and independently requested a urine drug screen.The screening showed the presence of methamphetamine and marijuana, but did not indicate the levels of these substances.

¶ 7The State charged McLaughlin with two counts of Attempted Assault With a Weapon.McLaughlin moved to suppress the results of the blood test and moved in limine to prohibit any evidence of drug use during the trial.The District Court dismissed the motion to suppress as moot because the State did not intend to introduce the results of the blood test.The District Court denied the motion in limine.

¶ 8 At trial, the District Court instructed the jury, over McLaughlin's objection, that intoxication is not a defense to a crime and cannot be considered in determining the existence of a mental state.The jury found McLaughlin guilty of one count of Attempted Assault With a Weapon, not guilty of the second count of Attempted Assault With a Weapon, and guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor Assault.McLaughlin appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 9We review a district court's evidentiary rulings to determine whether the district court abused its discretion.State v. McCaslin,2004 MT 212, ¶ 15, 322 Mont. 350, 96 P.3d 722(overruled on other grounds).A district court has broad discretion to determine whether evidence is relevant and admissible and, absent a showing of abuse of discretion, we will not overturn a court's evidentiary determinations.McCaslin,¶ 15.An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court acts arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason.McCaslin,¶ 15.

¶ 10 A district court has broad discretion to instruct the jury and we review instructions in criminal cases to determine whether the instructions, as a whole, fully and fairly instruct on the law applicable to the case.McCaslin,¶ 14.

DISCUSSION

¶ 111.Did the District Court abuse its discretion by admitting results of a urine test indicating the presence of methamphetamine and marijuana in McLaughlin's body at the time of his arrest?

¶ 12 McLaughlin argues the District Court erred by admitting the urine drug test because it constituted improper character evidence under M.R. Evid. 404(b), was unduly prejudicial, and did not come within the transaction rule.McLaughlin argues that the transaction rule does not apply because the presence of drugs is not an element of the assault charges, the State has no need to explain the reasons for McLaughlin's behavior, and there was an insufficient probative linkage between the crime and the use of drugs.Additionally, McLaughlin asserts that the court erred by not conducting a Daubert¹ hearing and that the evidence should have been excluded for improper foundation and a failure to comply with the requirements for expert testimony.

¶ 13The State responds that the evidence was within the transaction rule because it explains the circumstances and aids in establishing the officer's reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury.The State also replies that a Daubert hearing was unnecessary and that McLaughlin waived the issues of foundation and expert testimony by raising them for the first time on appeal.

¶ 14 The statutory transaction rule states that "[w]here the declaration, act, or omission forms part of a transaction which is itself the fact in dispute or evidence of that fact, such declaration, act, or omission is evidence as part of the transaction."Section 26-1-103, MCA."Pursuant to the transaction rule, prior acts that are inextricably linked to, and explanatory of, the charged offense are admissible notwithstanding the rules relating to `other crimes' evidence."State v. Gittens,2008 MT 55, ¶ 37, 341 Mont. 450, 178 P.3d 91(quotations omitted)."[T]here is a distinction between Rule 404(b)`other crimes' evidence and evidence of a defendant's misconduct which is inseparably related to the alleged criminal act."State v. Mackrill,2008 MT 297, ¶ 40, 345 Mont. 469, 191 P.3d 451."[A]dmissibility under the transaction rule is based upon the jury's right to hear what occurred immediately prior and subsequent to the commission of the offense charged, so that they may evaluate the evidence in the context in which the criminal act occurred."McCaslin,¶ 33(quotation omitted).

¶ 15 In McCaslin,the defendant encountered three men upon leaving a bar and exchanged verbal insults.McCaslin stabbed several of the men and was charged with several assault offenses.McCaslin moved in limine to exclude evidence of his intoxication during the altercation, including a videotape recording of his behavior that was taken at the police station after he was arrested, arguing...