Opinion ID: 889187
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the District Court abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of Brian Hughes' criminal charges and pretrial release conditions?

Text: ¶ 19 Prior to trial, the State moved in limine to exclude all testimony regarding the criminal histories of any of the witnesses based on M.R. Evid. 609, which prohibits the use of evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime to attack the witness's credibility. Kolb then filed a notice of intent to disclose evidence of a pending criminal charge against Hughes, relying on M.R. Evid. 404(b), which allows evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts for purposes including proof of motive. Kolb contended Hughes's admitted acts of entering bars and consuming alcohol on the night of January 14, 2006, violated the conditions of his pretrial release in a criminal case then pending against him and presented a motive for him to provide false testimony in this case. The District Court rejected that contention on the basis that Hughes had already admitted to violating his conditions of release in the pending criminal matter. The court also relied on the M.R. Evid. 609 prohibition on use of evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime. The court granted the State's motion in limine and struck Kolb's notice of intent to disclose. ¶ 20 On appeal, Kolb argues evidence of Hughes' criminal record should have been admitted for purposes of establishing another motive for fabricating the robberyto conceal a drug deal and his possession of marijuana in the motel room. Kolb also argues the other crimes evidence should have been admitted under this Court's modified Just rule. See State v. Matt, 249 Mont. 136, 142, 814 P.2d 52, 56 (1991). ¶ 21 As a longstanding rule, we will not consider an issue first raised on appeal or a change in legal theory on appeal. State v. Peterson, 2002 MT 65, ¶ 24, 309 Mont. 199, ¶ 24, 44 P.3d 499, ¶ 24. Aside from being raised for the first time on appeal, neither of the two new legal theories raised here has merit. Why would Hughes fabricate a robbery to conceal a drug deal and his possession of marijuana, when he simply could have not reported the robbery and achieved the same conceal result with much less risk of being exposed? As to the modified Just rule, that rule relates to other crimes, wrongs, or acts of a criminal defendant. Kolb has cited no authority to support the proposition that the modified Just rule applies to evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts of a non-defendant witness, except in limited circumstances where the defendant is attempting to inculpate another person for the crime. See e.g. State v. Clifford, 2005 MT 219, ¶ 44, 328 Mont. 300, ¶ 44, 121 P.3d 489, ¶ 44. Those circumstances are not presented here. ¶ 22 We hold Kolb has failed to establish that the District Court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of Hughes' criminal charges and pretrial release conditions.