Opinion ID: 4529595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: ¶13 Clausen argues the District Court erred in allowing Muri to testify that Clausen had at least four DUI convictions. She asserts the State did not use the evidence of her past DUI convictions for any permissible purpose, but rather to attack her character, in violation of M. R. Evid. 403 and 404(b). She urges that the court’s cautionary instruction could not cure the prejudice caused by telling the jury she had at least four DUI convictions. ¶14 As a preliminary matter, Clausen and the State disagree about the standard of review this Court should apply in reviewing her challenge under Rule 403. Clausen argues the District Court’s reasons for rejecting her Rule 403 challenge to the DUI evidence are not 7 apparent from the record and, therefore, this Court must examine the record and balance the factors de novo, citing State v. Clifford, 2005 MT 219, ¶ 52, 328 Mont. 300, 121 P.3d 489. The State counters this Court should review the evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion because the District Court impliedly balanced any prejudice under Rule 403 by dismissing the jury before taking argument from the parties about admission of the testimony and formulating and giving a cautionary instruction to the jury. ¶15 We agree with the State that the record shows the District Court engaged in some balancing of the probative value of the testimony against its risk of unfair prejudice to Clausen. The court explained the jury “could misinterpret” the testimony and “want[ed] them to have a cautionary instruction that gives them some perspective of what they can and cannot use this information for.” Thus, we will review the District Court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. ¶16 Generally, relevant evidence is admissible. M. R. Evid. 402. Even if relevant, “evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” M. R. Evid. 403. “[U]nfair prejudice refers to the degree the jury might impermissibly rely on the intermediate inference of propensity. Even if evidence is potentially unfairly prejudicial, the Rule 403 balancing test favors admission—the risk of unfair prejudice must substantially outweigh the evidence’s probative value.” State v. Reopelle, 2017 MT 196, ¶ 24, 388 Mont. 271, 399 P.3d 903 (internal quotations omitted). ¶17 Upon review of the record, we conclude the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The State gave two reasons why Clausen’s prior DUI convictions were relevant and probative to the issue whether 8 Clausen possessed the drugs and paraphernalia in the vehicle. First, she misled Muri about the number of prior arrests she had, which added to his particularized suspicion that Clausen was engaged in criminal activity and justified the running of a K9 unit around the vehicle. Second, the evidence attacked Clausen’s credibility, because it was evidence that Clausen lies. Neither one of these uses provided the State with much, if any, probative value to any material issues in the case. ¶18 Particularized suspicion was not at issue at the time of trial. In its pretrial order denying Clausen’s motion to dismiss, the District Court had already determined that Muri had particularized suspicion to run the K9 unit. As such, particularized suspicion was not a trial issue. Further, the State elicited the highly prejudicial DUI evidence during its case-in-chief. Clausen’s credibility was not at issue before she took the stand. Contrary to the State’s argument, Clausen did not open the door to her credibility in her opening argument. In Clausen’s opening argument, her counsel asserted Clausen did not know Tufton brought drugs into her car and the State would not put on enough evidence to prove all the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Her counsel did not assert Clausen would testify on her own behalf in the opening argument. The court abused its discretion in allowing Muri to testify about whether Clausen was credible in the State’s case-in-chief. The court’s cautionary instruction—rather than cautioning the jury against misuse of the testimony—tended to suggest there was a problem with Clausen’s credibility before she had ever taken the stand. ¶19 On the other side of the scale, the danger of unfair prejudice from the evidence weighs heavily. It is likely the jury would use evidence of Clausen’s prior DUI convictions 9 to infer the drugs in the vehicle belonged to Clausen. The evidence implied Clausen was a habitual criminal offender with substance use issues that made her “more likely than people generally to have committed the charged offense[s].” State v. Rogers, 2013 MT 221, ¶ 32, 371 Mont. 239, 306 P.3d 348 (quoting Derbyshire, ¶ 22). The District Court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence because its probative value was substantially outweighed by its risk of unfair prejudice and was, thus, inadmissible under Rule 403. ¶20 Because we determine the probative value of the evidence, if any, was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, we do not consider Clausen’s further arguments under Rule 404(b). ¶21 2. Whether this Court should exercise plain error review on Clausen’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.