Opinion ID: 4201270
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State’s Disclosure of Poat’s Bank Records.

Text: ¶37 The State’s Information alleged that Strang exploited Poat “between August 1, 2012 and September 27, 2013” in order to obtain his “money, assets, or property.” The Affidavit and Motion for Leave to File Information stated that “between July 10, 2013 and September 19, 2014, STRANG wrote at least six checks to himself totaling $13,800” and that Strang “wrote a significant number of other checks on [Poat’s] account.” During the initial discovery, the State provided Strang with all of Poat’s bank records that it had received during the guardianship and conservatorship proceedings. These records included six checks made out to Strang from Poat’s account. The prosecutor had received the records from the conservator and informed the court during discussions on Strang’s motion in limine that she believed at the time that this set of documents constituted a complete record of Poat’s bank account during the period of Strang’s alleged financial exploitation. The State learned later that it had not gotten all of the bank records, and it subpoenaed Wells Fargo to obtain the remainder. The additional Wells Fargo records that the State received and transmitted to the defense on January 9 included dozens of additional checks made out to Strang. ¶38 After Strang filed his motion in limine, the court questioned him about his prior knowledge of the bank records that the State disclosed on January 9. Strang informed the court that the bank had issued online statements for Poat’s account and that Strang had been the recipient of those statements. The court determined that Strang had been aware of the existence of the canceled checks well before January 9 and that the prosecution had complied with its duty to promptly disclose all the evidence in its possession or control. 17 ¶39 The record supports the District Court’s conclusion that Strang was aware of other checks and had access to the bank records in question well before the State disclosed them three days before trial. The checks were made out to Strang. Strang did not present evidence to counter the District Court’s conclusion that he had access to Poat’s bank statements during the time that the checks in question were issued. The bank statements that the State provided Strang during initial discovery—even though they included copies of only six checks—encompassed the same time period in which the dozens of additional checks were issued to Strang from Poat’s account. The State’s production of six checks from Poat’s account during initial discovery put Strang on notice that it intended to introduce checks that were issued to Strang from Poat’s account. ¶40 The State initially provided Strang with all of Poat’s bank records that it had within its “possession or control.” Section 46-15-322(1), MCA. The State did not withhold any bank records. Once it “discover[ed] additional information or material that would be subject to disclosure had it been known at the time of disclosure,” it “promptly” notified Strang “of the existence of the additional information or material and ma[d]e an appropriate disclosure.” Section 46-15-327, MCA. In Pierce, the State disclosed six days before trial a police officer’s report that mistakenly had not been included in the County law enforcement department’s investigative file. Pierce, ¶ 11. As soon as the State discovered the report, it provided a copy of it to the defense. Pierce, ¶ 21. Here, as in Pierce, the State’s immediate disclosure of the bank records once it “became aware of them” did not violate the State’s discovery obligations. Pierce, ¶ 21. 18 ¶41 Further, Strang’s defense was that his care helped Poat stay in his home and that Poat chose freely to make Strang the recipient of his property and the beneficiary of his will. Strang did not argue that he did not receive money from Poat’s account. Instead, he argued that Poat gave money to Strang out of gratitude for Strang’s assistance and that Strang did not deceive or manipulate Poat into giving him this money. The introduction of additional checks made out to Strang did not compel Strang to alter his defense at trial. ¶42 Strang has failed to show that any “prejudice resulted” from the State’s late disclosure of the additional bank records. Golder, ¶ 11. Given that the late disclosure “was not willful and no prejudice resulted,” we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Strang’s motion in limine or his motion for a new trial on the basis of the State’s late disclosures. Golder, ¶ 11. ¶43 3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it determined that juror misconduct did not warrant a new trial. ¶44 Strang alleged in his motion for a new trial that he had been denied a fair trial due to juror misconduct. He claimed first that a juror and her husband were discussing the case at a restaurant near the courthouse, and that the husband was heard telling others that they were at “a trial for a guy who stole an old guy’s money and property.” Strang alleged that, in a separate incident, another juror was heard telling the Bailiff during the course of trial, “Next stop . . . the gallows”—an apparent reference to Strang. Strang claimed that the Bailiff expressed his agreement with the juror’s statement. Strang relied 19 on eyewitness affidavits to support these claims of juror misconduct.3 He argued in his motion for a new trial that these incidents exposed the jurors to “extraneous information” concerning his guilt and that the jurors involved violated the court’s directive to not discuss the case with others. ¶45 Strang argues on appeal that these jurors’ acts of misconduct entitle him to a new trial. Strang explains that the alleged juror misconduct, “[w]hile perhaps not sufficient in its own right to support a new trial,” was sufficient to warrant a new trial “when combined with the other bases raised” in the motion. ¶46 A District Court may grant the defendant a new trial “if required in the interest of justice” and “if justified by law and the weight of the evidence.” Section 46-16-702, MCA. A defendant may assert juror misconduct as a basis for a new trial. See, e.g., State v. Cooksey, 2012 MT 226, ¶¶ 8-11, 366 Mont. 346, 286 P.3d 1174; State v. Dunfee, 2005 MT 147, ¶¶ 13-18, 327 Mont. 335, 114 P.3d 217; § 25-11-102(2), MCA (stating that, in the context of civil procedure, “misconduct of the jury” constitutes a ground for a new trial). “Juror misconduct based on extraneous communications must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and in the context of the entire record. The trial court is uniquely qualified to appraise whether extraneous information resulted in prejudice, and we accord substantial weight to that determination.” MacGregor, ¶ 19. Although a juror’s exposure to extraneous information creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, this 3 Strang also alleged in his motion that the juror’s husband who commented on the trial at the restaurant was seen conversing with the judge and other jurors throughout the trial. Strang presented no evidence in support of this allegation. 20 “presumption is not absolute, and arises only when the information shows a natural tendency to prejudice.” MacGregor, ¶ 20. ¶47 As the District Court noted in denying Strang’s motion for a new trial, the juror whose husband made the remarks in the restaurant was an alternate juror who did not participate in the jury’s deliberations. She did not comment at the restaurant on the trial or respond to her husband’s remarks. Even if the alternate juror was exposed to extraneous information, the District Court was “uniquely qualified to appraise whether [that] extraneous information resulted in prejudice.” MacGregor, ¶ 19. ¶48 As to the other juror’s alleged statement to the Bailiff, Strang presented no evidence that the Bailiff expressed his agreement with the comment. The witness affidavit describing the incident said nothing of the Bailiff’s reaction. The Bailiff submitted an affidavit disavowing any knowledge of the juror’s alleged comment. The court reasonably determined that the juror was not exposed to extraneous information and that the juror’s lone comment did not have “a natural tendency to prejudice.” MacGregor, ¶ 20. We therefore conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Strang’s motion for a new trial as it pertained to the alleged juror misconduct. See MacGregor, ¶ 15.