Opinion ID: 883934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court as trier of fact.

Text: The same district court judge who presided over Ahmed's bench trial also had presided over his earlier bail hearing. During the bail hearing, the District Court heard extensive evidence regarding Ahmed's alleged flight from justice. The prosecutor presented this evidence in support of his argument that a high bail was necessary because of the chance that Ahmed would try to flee the jurisdiction again. The District Court agreed that Ahmed was a flight risk and set the bail in the amount requested by the prosecutor. On appeal, Ahmed points out that whether he had in fact fled the jurisdiction was a seriously disputed question at trial. He contends the District Court improperly decided that issue at the bail hearing. Having allegedly decided this crucial issue previously, Ahmed contends that the District Court was not a truly impartial trier of fact at the trial. Despite the bias he now alleges, however, at no time prior to this appeal did Ahmed object to having the same judge sit for both the bail hearing and the trial. Section 46-20-104, MCA, provides in part: Upon appeal from a judgment, the court may review the verdict or decision and any alleged error objected to which involves the merits or necessarily affects the judgment. Failure to make a timely objection during trial constitutes a waiver of the objection except as provided in XX-XX-XXX(2). Section 46-20-104(2), MCA. Section 46-20-701(2), MCA, referenced above, provides: No claim alleging an error affecting jurisdictional or constitutional rights may be noticed on appeal, if the error was not objected to as provided in XX-XX-XXX, unless the defendant [convicted person] establishes that the error was prejudicial to his guilt or punishment and that: (a) the right asserted in the claim did not exist at the time of the trial and has been determined to be retroactive in its application; (b) the prosecutor, the judge, or a law enforcement agency suppressed evidence from the defendant [convicted person] or his attorney that prevented the claim from being raised and disposed of; or (c) material and controlling facts upon which the claim is predicated were not known to the defendant [convicted person] or his attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Section 46-20-701(2), MCA. None of the subsections of § 46-20-701(2), MCA, apply in this case. Yet despite the fact that Ahmed is foreclosed from raising this alleged error under the applicable plain error statute, he nevertheless argues that this Court should still notice it under the common law plain error doctrine. The common law plain error doctrine is an exception to § 46-20-104, MCA, which allows this Court to remedy instances of manifest injustice which otherwise would not be addressed. State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 152, 875 P.2d 307, 322. However, this Court will invoke the common law plain error doctrine sparingly, and only in exceptional cases where the failure to review the claimed error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process. State v. Finley (1996), ___ Mont. 126 ___, 915 P.2d 208, 215. Ahmed argues that the District Court improperly decided the issue of flight based on evidence previously presented at the bail hearing. He further argues that this pre-judging of a crucial issue indicated bias, which in turn indicated that Ahmed did not receive a fair and impartial trial. These circumstances, he argues, justify the invocation of the common law plain error doctrine in this case. We disagree. Ahmed frames this issue as if the evidence of flight were only presented at the bail hearing. In fact, the prosecutor presented the same evidence regarding flight at trial as he had at the bail hearing, without objection. The District Court properly considered all the evidence presented at trial in reaching its verdict. There is nothing in the record to indicate that it relied upon flight evidence presented at the bail hearing, as opposed to flight evidence presented at trial. Since the District Court's findings were based on evidence properly admitted at trial, we decline to invoke the common law plain error doctrine.