 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Larson12/7/2004
mine "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." Krause , 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. Richardson , 24.
We conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the State's motion in limine to exclude evidence of highway signs erected at the scene following the accident. The District Court's order stated evidence of highway signs would only be admitted if offered to rebut or refute testimony or evidence from the State it did not consider the site of the accident to be dangerous. In this case, the State did not dispute, either by direct presentation of evidence or in argument, the highway at the location of the crash presented a risk to an inattentive driver. Although Larson elicited on cross-examination an admission from Officer Durham he thought the road was not dangerous, the District Court indicated to Larson its reluctance to allow further testimony into Durham's opinion on a topic which the court had prohibited. Further, Larson was permitted to fully present his theory the frontage road in question was a dangerous highway, chronicling a litany of other motor vehicle accidents, including injuries and fatalities that occurred near the accident site. Evidence of any changes in the signage subsequent to the accident would have substantiated proof already offered at trial. Accordingly, we hold the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the State's motion to exclude evidence of signs erected on the highway after the accident.
ISSUE FOUR
Whether the District Court properly instructed the jury on the definition of criminal negligence.
Larson argues the District Court erred when it lowered the standard of proof required under the statutory scheme defining criminal negligence. Larson maintains the instruction for criminal negligence given to the jury should have included the word "consciously" as it related to the individual's disregard for a known risk. Larson contends by omitting the modifying adverb "consciously" before the word "disregards," the District Court lowered the standard of proof as required under the Criminal Code.
The State counters the District Court properly instructed the jury on the definition of criminal negligence. The State asserts the existing statutory definition given to the jury provided an adequate means of distinguishing criminal negligence from ordinary negligence. The State contends the instruction given to the jury made clear the standard on which to judge Larson's disregard of the risk involved as well as his gross deviation from a reasonable standard of conduct.
A person commits negligent homicide if the person negligently causes the death of another human being. Section 45-5-104, MCA. A person acts negligently with respect to a result or circumstance, "when the person consciously disregards a risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists or when the person disregards a risk of which the person should be aware that the result will occur or the circumstance exists." Section 45-2101(42), MCA. Further, the risk "must be of a nature and degree that to disregard it involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation." The term "gross deviation" is defined by the statute as meaning "a deviation that is considerably greater than lack
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.
|
|