Opinion ID: 883571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: Did the District Court err when it admitted evidence that Eichenlaub assaulted and injured Sue Maxie several days prior to the date of the crimes charged? The defendants contend that the District Court erred when it allowed evidence of Eichenlaub's prior bad acts, because the State failed to give the defendants prior notice of its intent to offer the evidence. State v. Matt (1991), 249 Mont. 136, 814 P.2d 52; State v. Croteau (1991), 248 Mont. 403, 407, 812 P.2d 1251, 1253; State v. Just (1979), 184 Mont. 262, 602 P.2d 957. The four photographs at issue show that Sue was missing clumps of hair and had scratches on her face as a result of a physical altercation with Eichenlaub four days prior to the date of the acts for which the defendants were charged. Defendants objected to the photographs, stating they were irrelevant because it has already happened way before this incident even took place. Although they did not specifically mention Rule 404(b), M.R.Evid., we will construe their objection as based on that rule. The State responds that the photographs were admissible as part of the res gestae or corpus delicti, but that if the court erred when it admitted the photographs, the error was not prejudicial. We agree that any error was not prejudicial. Section 46-20-701, MCA, states, in relevant part, that [n]o cause shall be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the appellant unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial. When prejudice is alleged in a criminal case the prejudice will not be presumed, rather, it must be established from the record that a substantial right was denied. State v. Wells (1983), 202 Mont. 337, 349, 658 P.2d 381, 388. In Wells, we also stated that the test is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the inadmissible evidence might have contributed to a conviction. Wells, 658 P.2d at 388 (citing State v. LaVe (1977), 174 Mont. 401, 407, 571 P.2d 97, 101); State v. Bower (1992), 254 Mont. 1, 6, 833 P.2d 1106, 1109. In Bower, we added that when assessing the potentially prejudicial effect of an error, we examine the totality of the circumstances in which the error occurred. If the issue involves inadmissible evidence, we will not evaluate the evidence in isolation because that would risk magnifying the error beyond the impact it had on the verdict. Bower, 833 P.2d at 1109. With these principles in mind, and after a thorough review of the transcript, we conclude that admitting the photographs did not constitute prejudicial error. The photographs show injuries Sue received from fights she had with Eichenlaub on June 5, 6, or 7. She testified that the photographs were taken by the police on June 12 behind the police station in Deer Lodge after Sue and Sheila reported the events that occurred on June 9. At trial, during Sue's testimony, the State moved to admit the photographs. The defendants, who had declined the public defender's representation to represent themselves, objected. Before the photographs were admitted, and in the presence of the jury, Carter was allowed to voir dire Sue regarding the photographs. Carter asked Sue, [a]nd isn't it true that you said that on June 5th `Tony pulled hair out of the sides of my [Sue's] head.' Later he asked, [o]n another time, you said that `On June 7th Tony pulled hair out of the top of my [Sue's] head.' Is that true? He added, [a]nd scratched my [Sue's] face? Sue responded that what Carter stated in voir dire was true. After dismissing the jury and hearing arguments, the court admitted the photographs. Before the photographs were admitted, Carter's voir dire explained what the photographs illustrated. Additionally, and without objection, Sue had previously responded to one of the State's questions about the events of June 9 by stating that, by then Sheila was mad, she had seen what Tony had already done to me, the scratches on my face, the hair pulled out... . Therefore, before the photos were admitted, and without objection by the defendants, the jury was aware of the prior attacks, the dates on which they occurred, and the nature of the injuries sustained. The photographs did not inform the jury of anything they did not already know. Without reaching the merits of the State's res gestae argument, we conclude that even if the admission of evidence of Eichenlaub's earlier attacks was in violation of Rule 404(b), under the totality of the circumstances, it was not prejudicial error.