Opinion ID: 882840
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of state affidavit

Text: Section 46-11-201, MCA, governs the filing of an information and provides in pertinent part: (1) The prosecutor may apply directly to the district court for permission to file an information against a named defendant ... (2) An application must be by affidavit supported by evidence that the judge or chief justice may require. If it appears that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed by the defendant, the judge or chief justice shall grant leave to file the information, otherwise the application is denied. Montana case law defines the evidence sufficient to establish probable cause. An affidavit in support of a motion to file an information need not make out a prima facie case that a defendant committed an offense. A mere probability that he committed the offense is sufficient. Similarly, evidence to establish probable cause need not be as complete as the evidence necessary to establish guilt.... the determination whether a motion to file an information is supported by probable cause is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Thus, the scope of review is one of detecting abuse in the exercise of that discretion. State v. Bradford (1984), 210 Mont. 130, 139, 683 P.2d 924, 928-929. (Citation omitted.) See also State v. Buckingham (1989), 240 Mont. 252, 256, 783 P.2d 1331, 1334. In the present case, even absent use of the defendant's statements as evidence to support probable cause, there is sufficient evidence to empower a judge to grant leave to file an information. There was evidence that the defendant was driving his family's white Toyota Camry and this vehicle was found near the scene of the accident. The affidavit stated that he had been drinking before the accident. The defendant was found walking several miles east of the accident scene in an unsteady and disheveled condition. When he arrived at the police station, he was dressed in blue jeans, a white t-shirt and cowboy boots, which was similar to the description given by one of the witnesses who arrived shortly after the accident and observed a man loitering near the accident scene. This evidence is more than enough to warrant the granting of leave to file an information and this evidence is only bolstered by the defendant's statements to various people concerning the accident. A man matching his description was seen at the accident and he stated that I didn't see him, I didn't see him, I just hit him. A bystander smelled alcohol on his person and asked him, you hit him sir? and he said, yes, but I didn't see him. When the defendant's father found him, he told his father that there had been an accident and that he could not remember about it. He further commented that he had a couple drinks with a friend early in the afternoon prior to the accident. He further explained that `he knew that he had hit something and that he had seen a man by the motorcycle' and that `from that point on he just lost it.' He related to his father that he did not know why he did not remain at the scene but when he saw the victim, he became sick and disoriented. When the defendant's father took him to the Bozeman police station, he made the following statements to a police officer: [T]o the best of my knowledge I was coming up out on approach, I pulled out, I was signalling to come out on the interstate and there was you know, a lot of traffic, not really heavy, and I started down the interstate I wasn't going you know excessively fast, I think it was around 55, maybe 58 and cars were coming behind me and I was driving my daughter's car, which I'm not familiar with, and so I reached over to shut the air-conditioning off, and he was there, I mean, I just never seen [sic] the guy, I didn't, I was looking at the lights coming up behind me and looked at the air-conditioner or something, I just never seen [sic] him ... The defendant continued: I didn't even know what I'd hit, I knew I'd hit something, so I pulled over, and parked but I couldn't even seen [sic] anything back there that I'd hit so I got out and ran back and a lady yelled, they were yelling for 911 up on the hill, and a lady got out and she said she was bringing a first aid kit and I got to the guy and there was [sic] other people there and I just, I just went berserk I started throwing up and the next thing I knew I was out in the middle of a field I was, I didn't know what the hell was going on anymore. I just, I lost everything, I just, I have no recollection why I left, I was there, and I just don't know, I have no explanation for it. The sum total of all the evidence in the affidavit provides at least the mere probability that the defendant committed the offense. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the State's affidavit sufficient and denying the motion to dismiss.