Opinion ID: 884671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Preservation of Objection for Appeal

Text: ¶ 32 We first address the State's procedural argument that Ingraham waived any objection related to the introduction of the prescription drug bottles found in his car by failing to object to their admission during trial. ¶ 33 Highway Patrol Officer Roth testified during the second day of trial that he had examined Ingraham's vehicle at a Ronan auto body shop on the day of the accident. Officer Roth stated that, at roughly 1:30 p.m. that afternoon, he retrieved a prescription bottle of Buspar from the inside pocket of the door on the driver's side of Ingraham's vehicle. According to the prescription label on the bottle, the Family Health Pharmacy in Ronan had dispensed the 10 milligram Buspar tablets, which had been prescribed for Ingraham by a Dr. McDonald. Officer Roth also found a bottle of lithium carbonate capsules, which bore no prescription label, in the pocket of the car door. During the fourth day of trial, the State elicited testimony from Michael Freeman, a pharmacist from the Family Health Pharmacy which dispensed the Buspar tablets found in Ingraham's car. ¶ 34 Ingraham argues the court erred in admitting the prescription bottles into evidence, and in permitting jurors to examine those bottles. In response, the State focuses on Ingraham's motion in limine and argues that Ingraham moved only to prohibit the introduction of the bottles pending the State's ability to establish a proper foundation. The State points to that portion of the transcript which documents Officer Roth's testimony, and argues that because Ingraham offered no objection at trial to the foundation established by the State, or to the introduction of the prescription drug bottles, he cannot now appeal their admission into evidence. ¶ 35 Review of Ingraham's motion in limine confirms that he indeed moved to preclude the State from referring in opening statement or in testimony to the ... presence of other drugs in his ... car ... [only] until proper foundation is established. A close review of the remainder of his motion in limine, however, indicates Ingraham additionally moved to more generally preclude the State from mentioning that medications were found in the defendant's car, and did not condition that portion of his motion upon the State's ability to establish adequate foundation at trial. ¶ 36 We have repeatedly approved the use of a motion in limine to preserve an objection for appeal, provided the objecting party makes the basis for his objection clear to the district court. State v. Fuhrmann (1996), 278 Mont. 396, 403, 925 P.2d 1162, 1166 (citations omitted). A motion in limine has special advantages in situations such as this. A party may not wish to register an objection in the presence of the jury for tactical reasons, yet may wish to preserve the objection on appeal. This is precisely what Ingraham did. Having reviewed the entire text of Ingraham's motion in limine, we conclude Ingraham properly preserved his objection to the State's introduction of the Buspar and lithium bottles found in his car, and conclude the propriety of their admission by the District Court is an issue properly considered by us on appeal.