Summary
The Montana Supreme Court reviewed Jeffrey Hausauer’s conviction for operating an unlawful clandestine laboratory. The court held that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported submission of the charge to the jury, but that the district court abused its discretion by denying a challenge for cause to a prospective juror whose voir dire responses raised a serious question about impartiality. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial and declined to reach the unanimity-instruction issue on the merits.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying Hausauer's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
- Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying Hausauer's motion to excuse prospective jurors B.M. and L.H. for cause.
- Whether the District Court failed to properly instruct the jury on unanimity.
Holdings
- The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hausauer's motion for a directed verdict because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The District Court abused its discretion by denying Hausauer's challenge for cause to B.M. because her voir dire responses raised a serious question about her ability to remain impartial and to apply the presumption of innocence.
- The Court did not decide whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying the challenge to L.H.
- The Court did not decide whether the District Court's unanimity instruction was legally sufficient.
Key quotations
“Structural error occurs and requires reversal when a District Court abuses its discretion in denying a defendant’s challenge for cause, the defendant uses a peremptory challenge to dismiss the biased juror, and the defendant ultimately exhausts all of the peremptory challenges available to him.” (¶ 20)
“The District Court’s failure to dismiss B.M. for cause was an abuse of discretion, and resulted in structural error which requires a new trial.” (¶ 29)
“Unanimity means more than an agreement that the defendant has violated the statute in question; it requires substantial agreement as to the principal factual elements underlying a specific offense.” (¶ 32)
Factual background
A fire engulfed a camping trailer occupied by Hausauer, who suffered severe burns while escaping. Investigators found methamphetamine residue and numerous items commonly associated with methamphetamine manufacture, including lye, suspected fuel or paint-thinner containers, a hydrochloric-acid label, and Heet. They also found drug-use paraphernalia in Hausauer's clothing and fanny pack, and the trailer lacked ordinary living facilities. During voir dire, prospective juror B.M. repeatedly indicated that the fact Hausauer had been charged suggested there was condemning evidence and that she had difficulty applying the presumption of innocence.
Procedural history
The State charged Hausauer by information with violating Montana's dangerous-drug-manufacturing statutes. A jury convicted him, the District Court designated him a persistent felony offender, and it imposed consecutive prison sentences. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the denial of the directed-verdict motion but reversed because the trial court improperly denied a challenge for cause to prospective juror B.M.; it remanded for a new trial and declined to reach the unanimity-instruction issue.
Remand instructions
Conduct a new trial. The jury on remand should receive instructions that fully and fairly explain the applicable law concerning unanimity.