 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Larson12/7/2004
necessary to afford a fair trial." State v. Krause , 2002 MT 63, 32, 309 Mont. 174, 32, 44 P.3d 493, 32 (citations omitted). Therefore, we will not overturn a district court's grant or denial of a motion in limine absent an abuse of discretion. Krause , 32. The test for abuse of discretion is whether the district court acted arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason. State v. Richardson , 2000 MT 72, 24, 299 Mont. 102, 24, 997 P.2d 786, 24.
Rule 401, M.R.Evid., defines 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 402, M.R.Evid., provides that relevant evidence is generally admissible. However, Rule 403, M.R.Evid., creates an exception to Rule 402's general admissibility standard, providing, "[e]vidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury . . . ."
We conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the State's motion in limine to exclude evidence of Clare's blood alcohol concentration. Although the District Court's order granting the State's motion did not set forth its reasons for excluding evidence of Clare's blood alcohol level, it presumably agreed with the State the blood alcohol concentration results and evidence of Clare's alcohol consumption were irrelevant. Indeed, although Clare's autopsy results indicated his blood alcohol was less than 0.10%, it would not have changed following the collision, as he died instantaneously. Further, there is no evidence to suggest the two men consumed alcohol in exactly the same amounts and at the same times. As such, even if the evidence had probative value, the probative value would be outweighed by the unfair prejudice resulting from its admission. Clare's actions and activities were not on trial. Finally, this Court has determined the State's expert did not engage in retrograde extrapolation, thus, evidence of Clare's blood alcohol concentration is not necessary to counter Kurtz's testimony regarding Larson's impairment. Accordingly, we hold the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the State's motion to exclude Clare's blood alcohol concentration results.
ISSUE THREE
Whether the District Court erred by granting the State's motion in limine to exclude evidence of the erection of new highway signs at the accident scene.
Larson argues the District Court erred when it prohibited him from producing evidence at trial indicating new road signs had been erected at the accident scene following the crash. Larson maintains the absence of adequate warning signs ahead of the curve where the accident took place established the roadway's danger and partially vitiated his negligence. Further, the evidence of new signage was not offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct of the State, but rather to show the roadway was more dangerous because of the absence of proper signage.
The State counters the District Court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of highway signs erected at the scene following the accident. The State maintains the District Court's order prohibited evidence of new highway signs unless offered to rebut or refute evidence from the State that it did not consider the site of the accident to be dangerous. The State argues it conceded the roadway presented a risk to an inattentive driver and thus evidence of signage was properly prohibited.
As stated above, the authority to grant or deny a motion in li
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|