State v. Vandersloot

• Decision Date: 10 July 2003
• Docket Number: No. 00-756.,00-756.
• Citation: 2003 MT 179,316 Mont. 405,73 P.3d 174
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jonathan Wayne VANDERSLOOT, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

73 P.3d 174

2003 MT 179

316 Mont. 405

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jonathan Wayne VANDERSLOOT, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 00-756.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs October 11, 2001.

Decided July 10, 2003.

James L. Vogel, Hardin, Montana, For Appellant.

Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, Carol E. Schmidt, Assistant Montana Attorney General, Helena, Montana; Christine A. Cooke, Big Horn County Attorney, Curtis Bevolden, Deputy Big Horn County Attorney, Hardin, Montana, For Respondent.

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

¶ 1 Jonathan Wayne Vandersloot challenges his jury conviction on the charge of criminal sale of dangerous drugs to a fellow jail inmate and appeals two evidentiary rulings of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Big Horn County. We affirm.

¶ 2 Vandersloot raises the following issues:

¶ 3 1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by allowing the testimony of Trent Burke?

¶ 4 2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by allowing Vandersloot's medication sign-out sheet into evidence?

¶ 5 3. Did sufficient evidence support the jury's verdict?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 6 On August 15, 1999, Trent Burke, an inmate trustee at the Big Horn County Jail in Hardin, Montana, reported witnessing Vandersloot and Samuel Big Hair, Jr., snorting lines of pinkish-white powder in the jail's dayroom. Although the jailors on duty observed nothing suspicious on the surveillance monitors, the section of the dayroom in which Vandersloot and Big Hair allegedly sat was a surveillance "dead zone" that was not covered by the dayroom's video camera. When Big Hair's probation officer questioned him regarding his reported drug use, Big Hair admitted that he had stolen two "black and orange capsules" from the jail's medication box, swallowed one and snorted the other. An investigation of Burke's allegations by Deputy Sheriff Carey Hert revealed that Dexedrine was the only inmate medication at the time of the alleged snorting that closely matched Big Hair's capsule description. Nineteen-year-old Vandersloot was the only inmate with a prescription for Dexedrine, which had been prescribed to treat his attention deficit disorder. Big Hair denied that Vandersloot sold, bartered or otherwise provided him with Dexedrine or any other drug.

¶ 7 The Big Horn County prosecutor charged Vandersloot with criminal sale of dangerous drugs in violation of § 45-9-101, MCA, on September 10, 1999. Vandersloot pled not guilty and was represented by court-appointed counsel. The District Court denied his motion in limine to exclude the testimony of jail trustee Burke and a two-day trial ensued in February 2000. The jury returned a guilty verdict. The court sentenced Vandersloot to a 25-year term in Montana State Prison to run consecutively to his 20-year term on two prior counts of burglary.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8 This Court reviews a district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hamilton, 2002 MT 263, ¶ 10, 312 Mont. 249, ¶ 10, 59 P.3d 387, ¶ 10 (citing State v. Enright, 2000 MT 372, ¶ 21, 303 Mont. 457, ¶ 21, 16 P.3d 366, ¶ 21). The authority to grant or deny a motion in limine "rests in the inherent power of the court to admit or exclude evidence and to take such precautions as are necessary to afford a fair trial for all parties." State v. Krause, 2002 MT 63, ¶ 32, 309 Mont. 174, ¶ 32, 44 P.3d 493, ¶ 32 (quoting Hulse v. State, Dept. of Justice, 1998 MT 108, ¶ 15, 289 Mont. 1, ¶ 15, 961 P.2d 75, ¶ 15). A district court has broad discretion to determine whether evidence is relevant and admissible, and absent an abuse of discretion, this Court will not overturn that court's ruling. Hamilton, ¶ 10. We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict in a criminal trial to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Martin, 2001 MT 83, ¶ 17, 305 Mont. 123, ¶ 17, 23 P.3d 216, ¶ 17 (citing State v. Merrick, 2000 MT 124, ¶ 7, 299 Mont. 472, ¶ 7, 2 P.3d 242, ¶ 7).

Issue 1

¶ 9 Did the District Court abuse its discretion by allowing the testimony of Trent Burke? ¶ 10 Vandersloot contends that Burke concocted his testimony about inmate drug use in order to gain personal advantage and early release from jail. He does not assert that Burke was not competent to testify, but argues that as a "convicted liar" Burke was unfit to present his story to the jury. Vandersloot claims that the District Court erred by denying his motion in limine to exclude Burke's testimony at trial on the grounds that its probative value was outweighed by its tendency to mislead the jury.

¶ 11 Burke had been arrested in Big Horn County in October 1997, and charged with second offense DUI; possession of alcohol in a commercial vehicle; and falsification of commercial records. He pled not guilty but failed to appear at trial. The court sentenced Burke in absentia to six-months in the county jail and a $1560 fine. Over one year after Burke's conviction, the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. He was apprehended in Mineral County and returned to Big Horn County to serve his sentence in August 1999.

¶ 12 At the Big Horn County Jail, Burke became an inmate trustee, which entailed completing certain housekeeping tasks, assisting with food and medication delivery and performing other services for the jailors. As a trustee, Burke was free to move around the facility and he was given a private cell. On August 15, 1999, which was Burke's first day as a trustee, he reported witnessing Vandersloot and Big Hair snorting a powdery substance in the jail's dayroom. On September 27, 1999, the Big Horn County prosecutor deposed Burke to preserve his testimony. Later that day, Burke appeared before the court and entered guilty pleas on the charges for which he had been convicted in absentia 15 months earlier. The court resentenced Burke, which resulted in his fine being forgiven, over four months being cut from his term and his release from jail that same day.

¶ 13 On appeal, Vandersloot cites no authority to support his contention that evidence should be excluded from the jury when it appears that the prosecution wrested testimony from a witness in exchange for a "get out of jail free" card. Instead, he relies upon Havens v. State (1997), 285 Mont. 195, 945 P.2d 941, to illustrate an instance when this Court excluded probative evidence because it was likely to mislead and confuse the jury.

¶ 14 In Havens, an accident victim sought to prove that a city negligently failed to erect a stop sign at a dangerous intersection. As a defense, the city attempted to enter evidence of the driver's alcohol consumption prior to the accident. This Court held that, in the absence of testimony linking the driver's intoxication as a contributing cause of the accident, evidence of alcohol intoxication was irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial and likely to confuse the jury. Havens, 285 Mont. at 200, 945 P.2d at 944.

¶ 15 Vandersloot's reliance on Havens as support for excluding Burke's testimony is misplaced. In Havens, this Court excluded evidence of the plaintiff's alcohol consumption on the basis of lack of relevancy, likely prejudicial effect on jurors and tendency to divert or confuse jurors regarding the negligence of the city, which was the only issue presented for jury determination at trial. Nothing in our Havens decision indicates that a jury should be shielded from relevant evidence presented by a witness who may be motivated to provide false testimony.

¶ 16 Our rules of evidence define relevant evidence as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Rule 401, M.R.Evid. Relevant evidence is generally admissible. Rule 402, M.R.Evid. However, Rule 403, M.R.Evid., creates an exception to the general admissibility standard of Rule 402 by allowing relevant evidence to be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury...."

¶ 17 Unlike evidence of the plaintiff's alcohol consumption in Havens, Burke's eyewitness testimony was clearly relevant to the State's case against Vandersloot. The exception created by Rule 403, M.R.Evid., for the exclusion of relevant evidence due to its prejudicial or potentially misleading impact on the jury, does not embrace competent eyewitness testimony describing the commission of the offense for which the defendant is on trial. In denying the motion in limine, the District Court invited Vandersloot to question Burke thoroughly on cross-examination regarding his criminal history and whether a link existed between his sentence reduction and his testimony against Vandersloot. Vandersloot took advantage of this opportunity and fully explored Burke's motives for testifying against him.

¶ 18 As we have stated on many occasions, the trier of fact is in the best position to observe the witnesses, including their demeanor and credibility. Matter of Seizure of $23,691.00 in U.S. Currency (1995), 273 Mont. 474, 485, 905 P.2d 148, 155 (citing State v. Black (1995), 270 Mont. 329, 337, 891 P.2d 1162, 1167). See also State v. Flack (1993), 260 Mont. 181, 189, 860 P.2d 89, 94. A witness's appreciation of his duty to tell the truth is not necessarily diminished by prior violations of the law. State v. Haskins (1994), 269 Mont. 202, 208, 887 P.2d 1189, 1193. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are exclusively the province of the trier of fact and, in the event of conflicting evidence, it is within the province of the trier of fact to determine which will prevail. Flack, 260 Mont. at 189, 860 P.2d at 94. Therefore...