Summary
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed Charles Edward Lundberg’s convictions for driving under the influence, operating a vehicle without proof of liability insurance, and driving while suspended. The court upheld the denial of his suppression motion under the community caretaker doctrine, the admission of testimony concerning the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, and the jury instruction addressing actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The court issued the decision as a noncitable memorandum opinion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the officer exceeded the scope of a stop authorized by the community caretaker doctrine.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the officer to testify about the HGN test and the relationship between HGN results, alcohol consumption, and intoxication.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by instructing the jury on actual physical control of a motor vehicle when Lundberg claimed the evidence did not support the instruction.
Holdings
- The district court's denial of Lundberg's motion to suppress was affirmed; the record and settled Montana law supported the district court's ruling concerning the officer's community-caretaker assistance.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Officer Starks's testimony concerning administration of the HGN test and its relationship to intoxication.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by giving the State's proposed instruction concerning actual physical control of a motor vehicle.
Key quotations
“the following memorandum decision shall not be cited as precedent.” (¶ 1)
“It is manifest on the face of the briefs and record before us that substantial evidence supports the District Court’s factual findings and that settled Montana law clearly controls the legal issues and that the District Court correctly interpreted the law.” (¶ 11)
Factual background
A Montana Highway Patrol officer found Lundberg on foot near the concrete median beside a stranded van on Interstate 90. While assisting Lundberg in obtaining information to call a tow truck, the officer suspected Lundberg was intoxicated; Lundberg admitted drinking, failed the HGN test, and declined the one-leg-stand test. Lundberg denied driving and claimed that a friend had been driving, but the district court denied suppression, admitted the officer's HGN-related testimony, and gave an actual-physical-control jury instruction.
Procedural history
The Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Yellowstone County denied Lundberg's motion to suppress, admitted Officer Starks's testimony regarding the HGN test, and gave the State's proposed instruction on actual physical control of a motor vehicle. Lundberg was convicted and appealed. The Montana Supreme Court decided the appeal by memorandum opinion and affirmed.