Opinion ID: 888927
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Issue 2: Did the District Court err in admitting evidence of probation sanctions imposed upon Campa?

Text: ¶ 21 If the State wishes to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior crimes, wrongs or acts, it must comply with the requirements of § 46-13-109, MCA. Section 46-13-109, MCA, provides: (1) Except for good cause shown, if the prosecutor intends to use evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts pursuant to Rule 404(b), Montana Rules of Evidence, notice must be given at or before the omnibus hearing held pursuant to XX-XX-XXX. (2) The notice must specify the other crimes, wrongs, or acts and must include a statement as to the purpose for which the evidence is to be offered. (3) The notice must be filed and sealed until the time of trial or until a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is entered by the defendant. ¶ 22 On October 4, 2005, the State filed a notice of its intention to introduce evidence of Campa's 1997 and 2002 Montana convictions for felony possession of dangerous drugs and his 2002 Nevada conviction for drug trafficking. The notice stated that pursuant to State v. Just, 184 Mont. 262, 602 P.2d 957 (1979), State v. Matt, 249 Mont. 136, 814 P.2d 52 (1991), and M.R. Evid. 404(b), such evidence was relevant and competent to establish intent, plan, knowledge and absence of mistake or accident. ¶ 23 After substantial delay, the trial commenced on May 21, 2007. Immediately before voir dire commenced, at a hearing in chambers, the State advised that it did not intend to introduce evidence of Campa's prior convictions. The State then moved the District Court to introduce evidence that before Campa was arrested on August 9, 2005, he had tested positive for dangerous drug use on March 5, March 8, March 17, 2005, admitted he used drugs on June 24, 2005, and also on June 28, 2005, probation sanctions were imposed on him for drug use and not reporting to his probation officer as required. ¶ 24 Campa objected to the introduction of these prior probation violations arguing they were only marginally relevant to the charge and constituted character evidence, the sole purpose of which was to make him look bad. He did not argue he was surprised, or that the evidence must be excluded based on the lack of notice required by § 46-13-109, MCA. Campa's counsel stated he made no objection to the introduction of evidence that Campa was on probation when he was arrested, that he was stopped and searched as a probationer, or that he tested positive for methamphetamine the evening of his arrest. ¶ 25 The prosecutor responded that evidence of Campa's use of dangerous drugs in the months immediately prior to the charged offense, as well as the fact that a probation sanction was imposed, was highly relevant to whether Campa was in possession of the methamphetamine found in his vehicle. ¶ 26 The District Court ruled that because Campa was on probation and his probationary status was a part of the reason that the probation officers stopped and searched him, the State could introduce evidence of the intervention hearing and imposed sanctions. However, the District Court prohibited the State from introducing evidence of what caused the intervention hearing. ¶ 27 At trial, the following exchange occurred during the State's direct examination of probation officer Welling: STATE: Okay. On August 9th of 2005 was [Campa] on your caseload? WELLING: Yes. STATE: Had there been an intervention hearing with the Defendant approximately six weeks before August 5th? WELLING: Yes. STATE: What is the purpose of an intervention hearing? WELLING: It's more of an informal hearing where we can apply sanctions if a person is not doing as well as we think they should be. STATE: And when the intervention occurred with the Defendant in this case was histhe level of supervision increased? WELLING: Um, there were some sanctions applied, yes. ¶ 28 When probation officer Baxter testified, he said that part of the reason they stopped Campa was because of Mr. Campa's history. The State, in accordance with the District Court's order, introduced no evidence of the tests which indicated Campa used drugs prior to his arrest. ¶ 29 The District Court did not give the jury an instruction concerning the purpose of the testimony contemporaneously with Welling and Baxter's testimony that Campa was the subject of an intervention hearing. However, when the District Court instructed the jury after the close of the evidence, it gave an instruction that evidence of prior crimes, wrongs or acts was to be considered only for the purpose of showing the absence of mistake or accident. ¶ 30 Campa chose to testify in his own defense. During his testimony, he described to the jury his prior methamphetamine and marijuana use, his probation status, and the fact that he was sanctioned for probation violations. ¶ 31 In closing argument, the prosecutor commented that Welling and Baxter testified Campa was not doing well on probation. ¶ 32 On appeal, Campa argues that the District Court erred and the judgment must be reversed because the evidence that he was the subject of an intervention hearing and, as a result, sanctions were imposed, was inadmissible character evidence under M.R. Evid. 404(a) and could not be admitted under M.R. Evid. 404(b), as the State did not give notice that it intended to introduce such evidence as required by § 46-13-109(2), MCA, Just, and Matt. ¶ 33 The evidence that Campa required an intervention hearing and sanctions imposed upon him as a result of that hearing constitutes evidence of a wrong at a time other than the offense charged. Generally, evidence of other wrongs is inadmissible unless its purpose is to show something other than a defendant's character, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. M.R. Evid. 404(b). If the State intends to introduce evidence of other wrongs under M.R. Evid. 404(b), it must comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of § 46-13-109(2), MCA, Just and Matt. The State failed to comply with the requirements of § 46-13-109(2), MCA, and the District Court erred in admitting this evidence. ¶ 34 The State makes no argument that the District Court did not err because Campa failed to object on the ground that no notice was given as required by § 46-13-109, MCA. The State argues on appeal that evidence of the intervention hearing and sanctions is a part of the transaction of the charged offense, and thus admissible under § 26-1-103, MCA. According to the State, the evidence of the intervention and sanctions was part of the possession of dangerous drug transaction because Campa was arrested by probation officers and his probationary status was the reason the officers stopped and searched him. ¶ 35 Section 26-1-103, MCA, provides that prior acts of an accused may be admissible as a part of an alleged criminal transaction when those acts form part of the transaction which is itself the fact in dispute or if they are evidence of that fact. Admissibility under the transaction rule is predicated on the jury's right to hear what happened prior to the alleged offense, so that it may evaluate the evidence in the context in which the alleged criminal act occurred. See State v. Derbyshire, 2009 MT 27, ¶ 29, 349 Mont. 114, 201 P.3d 811. Evidence of acts which is admitted under § 26-1-103, MCA, is not character evidence excluded by M.R. Evid. 404(b) and likewise is not subject to the notice and other requirements of § 46-13-109, MCA, because such acts are considered to be part of the transaction and not wholly independent of the offense the defendant is alleged to have committed. If evidence of prior acts is to be admitted, such other acts of the accused are to be linked to, and explanatory of, the charged offense. Crosley, ¶ 48 (citing State v. Lozon, 2004 MT 34, ¶ 12, 320 Mont. 26, 85 P.3d 753). ¶ 36 The fact at issue at trial was whether Campa possessed dangerous drugs. Even though he did not object to evidence he was on probation, this fact is of highly questionable relevance. Still, the lawfulness of the search is not an element of the crime charged. The source of Welling and Baxter's authority to stop and search Campa is not inextricably linked to his alleged possession of methamphetamine. Derbyshire, ¶ 34. The transaction rule is not a basis for admitting evidence of the intervention hearing and sanctions. ¶ 37 Because the State did not give timely written notice of its intent to introduce evidence of other wrongs, which typically specifies such wrongs and includes a statement as to the purpose for which the evidence is to be offered, we conclude the District Court erred when it admitted evidence of the intervention hearing and resulting sanctions. The State makes no argument this error was harmless.