State v. Homer

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed Paulette Homer's conviction for exploiting an older person under Montana Code Annotated § 52-3-825. The court held that the victim's testimony from a prior competency hearing was properly excluded under the prior-testimony hearsay exception because the parties lacked a similar motive to develop the testimony at that hearing. The court also rejected unpreserved arguments under the statement-against-interest exception and the constitutional right to present a defense.

Holdings

1. The transcript was properly excluded because the State did not have an opportunity and similar motive to develop the victim's testimony at the competency hearing as it would have had at the trial on the merits.
2. Exclusion of the testimony did not violate Homer's constitutional right to present a complete defense because the District Court applied a generally applicable hearsay rule rationally and exercised discretion rather than categorically excluding crucial defense evidence.
3. The argument was not preserved and, in any event, the victim's general statements about reverse mortgages and her intent to give money to her children were not statements against interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court erred by refusing to admit the victim's transcripted testimony from a prior competency hearing as substantive evidence at Homer's bench trial.
2. Whether the prior testimony qualified for the former-testimony hearsay exception under M. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
3. Whether exclusion of the prior testimony violated Homer's constitutional right to present a complete defense.
4. Whether the testimony qualified as a statement against interest under M. R. Evid. 804(b)(3), despite Homer not raising that argument in the District Court.

Disposition

affirmed