State v. Montana Ninth Judicial District Court

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for a writ of supervisory control concerning whether a criminal defendant could introduce his own unsworn, out-of-court statement to support a claim of justifiable use of force. The Court held that the statement, offered to establish what the defendant knew about the victim’s alleged violent conduct, was hearsay and was not admissible for the proposed purpose. The Court vacated the district court’s order permitting the defendant to use the statement in that manner.

Holdings

1. Supervisory control was appropriate because the State lacked an adequate ordinary appellate remedy, the evidentiary issue presented a purely legal question, and the district court was proceeding under a mistake of law causing a gross injustice.
2. Lau could not introduce his own statement to investigators, insofar as he offered it to prove that Pfeifer told him about Kline's violent acts, because the statement was hearsay and no recognized hearsay exception applied.
3. When justifiable use of force is placed at issue, evidence of specific instances of the victim's conduct may be offered under the Montana Rules of Evidence, but the defendant must establish through admissible evidence that he knew of the conduct and that the knowledge led to the use of force.
4. Sections 46-16-131 and 45-3-112, MCA, did not displace the Montana Rules of Evidence, require disclosure of investigative materials to the jury, or permit admission of otherwise inadmissible hearsay.
5. Requiring Lau to comply with established rules governing hearsay and character evidence did not violate his right to present a defense or his right to remain silent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Montana Supreme Court should exercise supervisory control over the district court's pretrial evidentiary ruling.
2. Whether Lau's unsworn out-of-court statement recounting what Pfeifer told him about Kline's alleged violence was admissible to establish Lau's knowledge in support of his self-defense claim.
3. Whether Montana's 2009 justifiable-use-of-force statutes displaced or altered the Montana Rules of Evidence.
4. Whether requiring Lau to present admissible evidence of his knowledge violated the statutory burden of proof or his constitutional right to present a defense and remain silent.

Disposition

writ_granted