 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Golder8/31/2000
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula, Honorable Ed McLean, Judge Presiding
Submitted on Briefs: August 3, 2000
1 Montana's Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, denied John M. Golder's motion in limine seeking to suppress the testimony of two witnesses and to dismiss this matter. Golder claimed the State's failure to timely provide notice of proposed witnesses constituted unfair surprise and denied him a fair trial and that under § 46-15-329, MCA, sanctions were warranted. We affirm the District Court's ruling.
2 Golder states the issue on appeal as follows: Did the District Court err when it denied his motion to exclude testimony of witnesses who were not disclosed pursuant to the court's order?
3 John Golder was charged on April 25, 1999, with driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to carry proof of insurance, and driving while his license was suspended. A jury trial in Missoula County Justice Court on October 13, 1999, resulted in convictions on all three counts, notwithstanding the Justice Court's exclusion of the testimony of the two State's witnesses in question. The exclusion of the two witnesses was based on the State's failure to comply with the Justice Court's discovery deadlines.
4 Golder appealed, and a trial de novo was held in District Court on January 10, 2000. The court denied Golder's motion in limine to suppress the testimony of the two State's witnesses, and Golder subsequently pled guilty to all three counts, preserving the suppression issue for appeal. The judgment against Golder has been stayed pending appeal. Golder's motion in limine also requested that testimony regarding his blood alcohol content be suppressed, but he does not raise that issue before this Court.
DISCUSSION
5 The only issue in this case is whether the District Court erred in ruling that Golder had sufficient prior notice of the existence of the two State's witnesses and the nature of their testimony. Golder argued in his motion in limine and in briefs that the timing of the State's formal disclosure of the two witnesses and the nature of their testimony constituted unfair surprise and jeopardized his right to a fair trial as assured under the Montana Constitution. Golder's motion in limine was silent as to what statutory basis the defendant relied upon to support his request to suppress evidentiary material. The record is equally silent as to the legal basis for the District Court's denial of the motion.
6 Section 46-15-322, MCA, sets forth the discovery procedures with which the State must comply, stating in subsection (5) that, "The prosecutor may not be required to prepare or disclose summaries of witnesses' testimony." The purpose of Montana's discovery scheme is to enhance the search for truth. State v. Waters (1987), 228 Mont. 490, 495, 743 P.2d 617, 620.
7 Section 46-15-329, MCA, provides the mechanism for enforcement of discovery orders and possible sanctions, providing that "the court may impose any sanction that it finds just under the circumstances . . . " (emphasis added). Sanctions available to the court under this statute include the following:
(1) Ordering disclosure of the information not previously disclosed;
(2) Granting a continuance;
(3) Holding a witness, party, or counsel in contempt for an intentional violation;
(4) Precluding a party from calling a witness, offering evidence, or raising a defense not disclosed; or
(5) Declaring a mistrial when necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Section 46-15-329, MCA.
T
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|