State v. Snell

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court considered whether prior DUI convictions could be used to enhance Kenneth Snell’s punishment, whether preliminary alcohol screening test results were admissible, and whether a law enforcement officer could provide lay opinion testimony regarding intoxication. The court held that the prior convictions were constitutionally valid and that the officer’s lay testimony was admissible. It held that the PAST results were improperly admitted and prejudicial, reversed in part, and remanded for retrial.

Holdings

1. The district court correctly denied Snell's motion to dismiss because Snell failed to produce direct evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that his 1988 and 1990 DUI convictions were regular and constitutionally valid.
2. The district court abused its discretion by admitting the first Alco-Sensor III PAST result as evidence of Snell's guilt. The error was prejudicial because the State did not establish the test's reliability and the PAST result was not cumulative of other evidence proving intoxication.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Officer Harrison to testify that Snell was under the influence of alcohol, even though Harrison was not disclosed as an expert witness.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in denying Snell's motion to dismiss based on his claim that two prior DUI convictions were constitutionally infirm because he was not provided counsel.
2. Whether the district court properly admitted the first preliminary alcohol screening test result as evidence of guilt at trial.
3. Whether the district court properly allowed a law enforcement officer who was not disclosed as an expert witness to testify, based on personal observations, that Snell was under the influence of alcohol.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded