Opinion ID: 888274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court err in denying Farmer's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence?

Text: ¶ 8 Farmer was charged with violating § 61-6-301, MCA, for failing to carry valid liability insurance on his vehicle. Section 61-6-301(1)(a), MCA, provides, in pertinent part, that an owner of a motor vehicle that is registered and operated in Montana by the owner or with the owner's permission shall continuously provide insurance against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death or damage to property suffered by any person caused by maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.... Here, it is undisputed that Farmer is the owner of the vehicle in question, the vehicle was registered in Montana and that Horn was operating the vehicle with Farmer's permission at the time of the traffic stop. Farmer contends, however, that the State failed to present evidence establishing that he did not provide liability insurance for the vehicle and, thus, failed to prove an element essential to establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that he violated § 61-6-301, MCA. ¶ 9 At the bench trial in the District Court, Abbott testified that he requested the driver, Horn, to provide proof of insurance and she failed to do so. He further testified that Farmer was seated in the passenger seat next to Horn, observed the interaction between Horn and Abbott, and at no time made an effort to provide proof of insurance for the vehicle. Abbott did not state that he directly requested Farmer to provide such proof, but rather testified that he made a request to the driver and he [Farmer] was sitting right there, so I don't know if I made a direct request to him, but he was sitting right there when I asked for it. The State presented no other evidenceeither direct or circumstantialthat Farmer did not have liability insurance for the vehicle at the time of the traffic stop. ¶ 10 The State contends that Abbott's testimony that Farmer did not produce proof of insurance at the time of the traffic stop is sufficient to establish his failure to insure the vehicle. The State cites § 61-6-302, MCA, and asserts that the statute imposed upon Farmer a duty to prove, upon demand, that his vehicle was insured. In that regard, § 61-6-302(2), MCA, provides that [e]ach person shall carry in a motor vehicle being operated by the person an insurance card approved by the department but issued by the insurance carrier to the motor vehicle owner as proof of compliance with 61-6-301. A motor vehicle operator shall exhibit the insurance card upon demand of a justice of the peace, a city or municipal judge, a peace officer, a highway patrol officer, or a field deputy or inspector of the department. A person commits an offense under this subsection if the person fails to carry the insurance card in a motor vehicle or fails to exhibit the insurance card upon demand of a person specified in this subsection. However, a person charged with violating this subsection may not be convicted if the person produces in court or the office of the arresting officer proof of insurance valid at the time of arrest. ¶ 11 This statute places an obligation on the operator of a vehicle to present proof, upon request, that the vehicle is insured. The term operator is defined, for purposes of Title 61 of the Montana Code Annotated, as a person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. Section 61-1-101(45), MCA. It is undisputed here that Farmer was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the traffic stop. Consequently, Farmer had no obligation pursuant to § 61-6-302, MCA, to provide proof of insurance. Nor does Farmer's failure to present proof of insurance support a finding that such insurance did not exist at the time of the traffic stop. ¶ 12 The State argues, however, that § 61-6-302, MCA, must be viewed as an enforcement mechanism for § 61-6-301, MCA, because the only effective way to ascertain compliance with § -301 is to place a duty upon the vehicle owner to provide proof of insurance. The State asserts that the two statutes must be construed together in this manner in light of this Court's duty to interpret individual sections of an act in such a manner as to ensure coordination with the other sections of the act. Thus, the State asserts that, although Farmer did not technically violate § 61-6-302, MCA, because he was not operating the vehicle, the statute still created an obligation on his part to provide proof of compliance with § 61-6-301, MCA. ¶ 13 We previously have stated our obligation to interpret individual statutes within a legislative act so as to ensure that those sections coordinate with each other. See e.g. Zuazua v. Tibbles, 2006 MT 342, ¶ 25, 335 Mont. 181, ¶ 25, 150 P.3d 361, ¶ 25. In doing so, however, we also must fulfill our obligation in interpreting statutes simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted. Section 1-2-101, MCA. Sections 61-6-301 and -302, MCA, work together in attempting to ensure that motor vehicles operated on Montana's highways have valid liability insurance by requiring vehicle owners to provide liability insurance for the vehicle under § -301, and requiring vehicle operators to produce proof of such insurance upon request under § -302. Interpreting the statutes in the manner advocated by the State would require us to either insert the term owner into § -302 or insert language requiring an owner to provide proof of insurance upon request into § -301. We may not do so. ¶ 14 While the State correctly observes that § 61-6-301, MCA, contains no express enforcement mechanism and points out the difficulties inherent in otherwise proving a vehicle owner's failure to provide liability insurance on a vehicle, it is within the Legislature's province, and in its discretion, to provide a method by which to enforce the statute, not this Court's. Under the plain language of the statutes, Farmer had no obligation as a passenger in the vehicle to produce proof that the vehicle was properly insured. Furthermore, as stated above, Farmer's failure to present proof of insurance simply does not support a finding that such insurance did not exist at the time of the traffic stop. ¶ 15 We conclude the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Farmer did not have valid liability insurance for his vehicle at the time of the traffic stop. Consequently, we further conclude the State failed to prove Farmer violated § 61-6-301, MCA. We hold, therefore, that the District Court erred in denying Farmer's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. ¶ 16 Reversed and remanded to the District Court with instructions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the charge. We concur: JAMES C. NELSON, PATRICIA COTTER, W. WILLIAM LEAPHART and JIM RICE, JJ.