 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Coker4/5/2005
Submitted on Briefs: September 21, 2004
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.
Curtis Alan Coker (Coker) appeals from a decision of the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Custer County, permitting a witness to testify against him by telephone during his trial. We affirm.
We address the following issue on appeal:
Did the District Court err when it permitted a witness to testify against Coker by telephone?
On December 4, 2001, Coker was arrested in Miles City, Montana, for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Coker pleaded not guilty and trial was set for August 6, 2003. On July 21, 2003, the State moved to allow the telephonic testimony of Sandra Lee Carnline (Carnline) because it was a financial hardship for her to drive from Billings to Miles City for the trial. The motion stated that Coker had no objection. The District Court granted the motion on July 22, 2003.
The case proceeded to trial. The State called Carnline as its first witness. Before her telephonic testimony began, the District Court asked Coker's attorney if he had any objection to her testifying by telephone. With Coker seated next to him, counsel stated he had no objection.
Among other things, Carnline testified that she previously had a romantic relationship with Coker, that he had lived with her in her home in Miles City for approximately two years, and that she had moved to Billings in September 2001. She also stated that she still owned the home in Miles City and that she did not give Coker permission to reside there. Towards the end of her testimony, the State asked Carnline why she asked Coker to leave her home, to which she responded "because of his DUIs and stuff." Coker's attorney objected and the District Court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the statement regarding Coker's DUIs.
The jury found Coker guilty of driving under the influence . Coker now claims his constitutional right to confrontation was violated and appeals from the District Court's decision to allow Carnline to testify by telephone.
This Court reviews a district court's evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gustafson, 2000 MT 364, 14, 303 Mont. 386, 14, 15 P.3d 944, 14. If the plain error doctrine is invoked, this Court evaluates the nature of the constitutional rights implicated, and not the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Finley (1996), 276 Mont. 126, 136, 915 P.2d 208, 215, overruled on other grounds, State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, 304 Mont. 215, 19 P.3d 817.
Despite the failure of his attorney to object to the telephonic testimony of Carnline, Coker argues he never knowingly or voluntarily waived his constitutional right to confront Carnline face to face and urges this Court to review this case under the "plain error" doctrine. He also asserts that because the error was structural, his conviction must be overturned.
The State argues Coker waived his right to claim his constitutional right to confrontation was violated because he acquiesced to Carnline's testimony by telephone. The State disputes that any structural error occurred or that the "plain error" review doctrine applies. The State also asserts Carnline's testimony was not essential to Coker's conv
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|