Opinion ID: 1298155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: marijuana

Text: Karen asserts that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of her possession of marijuana and related paraphernalia on the night of the accident. She asserts that this evidence was not relevant and, even if relevant, its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial impact. Relevancy is defined in NDREv 401: Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Evidence is relevant if it would reasonably and actually tend to prove or disprove any matter of fact in issue. Shark v. Thompson, 373 N.W.2d 859, 865 (N.D.1985). The initial determination of relevancy of proffered evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Haugen, 448 N.W.2d 191, 195 (N.D.1989). These standards guide our analysis of this argument. Our review of the trial court's determination of relevancy would ordinarily be governed by the abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Haugen, 448 N.W.2d at 195. Yet, Karen argues that this challenged evidence was irrelevant as a matter of law. She asserts that the evidence of her possession of marijuana and related paraphernalia was not relevant to any disputed fact and served only to prejudice and inflame the jury. We disagree. Her possession of marijuana and paraphernalia was circumstantial evidence from which the jury could infer that Karen ingested marijuana, as well as alcohol, on the night of the accident. See State v. Loyland, 149 N.W.2d 713, 728-730 (N.D.1967) (presence of open beer cans in vehicle was relevant circumstantial evidence from which jury could infer driver had operated vehicle without due caution); State v. St. Croix, 79 N.D. 269, 271-272, 55 N.W.2d 635, 636-637 (N.D.1952) (presence of half-empty whiskey bottle in vehicle was relevant circumstantial evidence of driver's intoxication). Although Karen was not the driver, the extent of Karen's intoxication was relevant to at least two issues. First, Karen's use of marijuana that night might have affected her judgment, particularly her ability to assess the level of Wilmer's intoxication and his ability to drive. Second, Karen's use of marijuana could be considered in evaluating her testimony about the events preceding the accident, because it may have adversely affected her ability to perceive and recall those events. The evidence had some relevancy. Karen argues that NDREv 609 would prohibit use of a conviction for possession of marijuana to impeach her credibility, so evidence short of a conviction should not be allowed to impeach. Rule 609 is wholly inapplicable to this situation. That Rule governs impeachment of a witness's general credibility through evidence of conviction of a prior unrelated crime. The evidence in this case was not offered to attack Karen's credibility in general, but rather to demonstrate that her perception of, and her ability to recall, the events preceding the accident may have been impaired by her use of marijuana. Rule 609 does not prohibit use of directly related evidence that bears upon a witness's testimonial ability. Karen also argues that the trial court acted unfairly when, in pretrial motions in limine, it ruled that evidence of marijuana found in Wilmer's pants pocket would not be admissible, but that evidence of marijuana and paraphernalia found in Karen's purse would be admissible. Wilmer, however, had been tested for drug usage after the accident, and it was conclusively established that Wilmer had not ingested marijuana in the 24-hour period preceding the accident. Accordingly, evidence of Wilmer's possession of marijuana could not properly be used to show that he had used marijuana that night. No similar drug tests were performed on Karen, and thus it was a fact question for the jury whether she had ingested marijuana that night. We conclude that the evidence of Karen's possession of marijuana and paraphernalia was not irrelevant as a matter of law. Rather, admission of this evidence was a matter within the trial court's discretion. Since we are remanding for retrial, it will again be for the trial court to exercise its discretion in determining the relevancy and admissibility of this evidence. Karen also argues that the trial court erred in admitting this evidence because, even if relevant, its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. NDREv 403 says: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. The delicate balancing required by the Rule, taking into account the state of the evidence and pleadings at the time the evidence is offered, makes this a determination especially suited to the discretion of the trial court. See State v. Haugen, 448 N.W.2d at 195. It will be for the trial court upon retrial to assess the dynamics of the trial, weigh the competing factors, and exercise its discretion in admitting or excluding this evidence. Karen argues that her drug possession was greatly overemphasized by the defendants during trial, resulting in a trial of her character rather than a trial of the merits. We agree. Although the trial court stated that it would allow only limited use of this evidence and would not permit it to confuse the issues, counsel for Karen has documented over 130 references to drug use or possession during trial. Thus, Karen's possession of the marijuana and paraphernalia, which had limited circumstantial relevance, became a dominant theme of the trial. Although the trial court has broad discretion over the presentation of the evidence and the conduct of the trial, it must exercise this discretion in a manner that best comports with substantial justice. Ward v. Shipp, 340 N.W.2d 14, 18 (N.D.1983). We caution that if this evidence is admitted on retrial, the trial court must recognize its responsibility to control its use to prevent it from predominating the trial.