Opinion ID: 883122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Did the District Court's allegedly improper and prejudicial remarks provide a sufficient basis for Buhr's motion for a new trial?

Text: Buhr asserts that the District Court erred by making several comments on the length of the trial to the jury and, on one occasion, by questioning Wilder in a manner favorable to Wilder's defense. The primary assertion of error relates to a comment by the court after counsel for Kalispell Regional thanked the jury for its attention during this lost summer of 1991. The judge stated as follows: Somebody noted the wasted summer of '91. I hope it hasn't been entirely wasted for you. I hope you find it an interesting and challenge [sic] task. As you are citizens of this state and nation, I think you recognize the importance of what you're doing, and there's still, after all, a good part of August left. Buhr also refers to eight instances over the course of trial where the judge made comments such as I'll remind you once again, we'll reconvene Monday ... and we'll try and get this case tried and I've been at this way too long, this trial. Regarding the District Court's questioning of Wilder, the judge simply asked if Michele had provided information that Joshua was allergic to Valium and if Wilder knew whether or not Joshua was allergic to Valium. We have examined the record regarding each of the statements Buhr asserts to be improper and prejudicial. With the single exception of the wasted summer comment, Buhr did not object to the court's comments or questions. Failure to object to alleged error at trial precludes an appellant from raising that issue on appeal. Barrett v. ASARCO, Inc. (1990), 245 Mont. 196, 205, 799 P.2d 1078, 1083 (citation omitted). Therefore, we decline to address Buhr's assertions of error involving these comments and questions. Regarding the wasted summer comment, Buhr contends that it implied that the jury had wasted its time with this case and suggested that the jury was expected to return a defense verdict, thereby violating his right to a fair trial. We disagree. We previously have cautioned that trial judges must take care to ensure that they do not abandon their role as impartial judges in favor of that of advocates. State v. Stafford (1984), 208 Mont. 324, 331, 678 P.2d 644, 648. Here, the District Court's comment contains no implication that the court was directing a defense verdict or in any way abandoning its proper role. Indeed, this comment was a salutary one which merely urged the jury to recognize the importance of its role and its decision. We conclude, therefore, that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Buhr's motion for a new trial on the basis of this comment.