State v. Ely

69 P.3d 1189 (Mont. 2003) · Supreme Court of Montana · May 13, 2003 · No. No. 02-339

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed Steven William Ely’s conviction for felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs. The court held that Ely had changed his legal theory on appeal by asserting constitutional protections against using his refusal to consent to a urine search, because those grounds were not adequately raised in the trial court.

Court
Supreme Court of Montana
Writing for the Court
Chief Justice Karla M. Gray; Justice James C. Nelson; Justice Jim Regnier; Justice Jim Rice; Justice Patricia O. Cotter
Jurisdiction
Montana
Decision date
May 13, 2003
Docket number
No. 02-339
Procedural posture
Ely appealed his judgment and sentence following a jury conviction for felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs, challenging the admission of testimony that he had refused to voluntarily provide a urine sample.
Standard of review
The admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion; the trial court's determination of relevance and admissibility will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published Montana Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Steven William Ely v. State of Montana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidenceappellate procedurepreservation of errorstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureevidenceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by admitting testimony regarding Ely's refusal to provide a urine sample voluntarily.
  2. Whether Ely could raise on appeal constitutional theories concerning refusal to consent to a search and penalization for exercising that right when those theories were not presented to the trial court.

Holdings

  1. An appellant may not change legal theories on appeal or raise issues that were not raised in the trial court because the trial court must have an opportunity to address the issue.
  2. Ely failed to establish that the District Court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony because he abandoned on appeal the objection actually made at trial and relied on new legal theories.

Key quotations

It is well-established that an appellant may not change legal theories on appeal or raise issues which were not raised in the trial court. (69 P.3d at 1190)
The rationale for this rule is that it is unfair to fault the trial court on an issue it was never given the opportunity to address. (69 P.3d at 1190)

Factual background

During execution of a search warrant at Ely's trailer, officers discovered a metal cigar tube containing methamphetamine. After Ely was arrested, a detective asked him to voluntarily provide a urine sample; Ely refused, after which the detective obtained a warrant and collected the sample, which tested positive for methamphetamine. At trial, the State elicited testimony about Ely's refusal to provide the sample voluntarily, and the jury convicted him of felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs.

Procedural history

After a search warrant led to the discovery of methamphetamine and a later warrant authorized collection of Ely's urine, the State charged Ely with felony drug possession and misdemeanor drug paraphernalia possession. The misdemeanor charge was dismissed before trial. A jury convicted Ely of felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs, and the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, entered judgment and sentence. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…