Opinion ID: 890211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Bollman's Motion for Mistrial

Text: ¶ 11 Prior to the trial, the State filed a motion in limine to prohibit Bollman and defense counsel from referring to the charge in this case as a felony, or referencing the possible penalty for felony DUI. Bollman did not oppose the State's motion. Bollman filed a motion in limine pursuant to M.R. Evid. 404(b) to exclude the mention or testimony regarding other offenses, wrongs or acts besides those charged. The State did not oppose Bollman's motion. Both motions were granted. ¶ 12 During the course of Officer McConnell's testimony, the following occurred: Q. [by prosecutor]: Okay. You also testified that you weren't sure if you had transported the Defendant to the Detention Center or if another officer had done that. A. [Officer McConnell]: Usually with felony DUIs [Defense Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor. [Defense Counsel]: May we approach, Your Honor? The Court: You may. ¶ 13 After a discussion at the bench, the prosecutor continued with a new line of questioning. Once Officer McConnell finished testifying, and outside the presence of the jury, the following exchange occurred: The Court: With regards to his comment, which I don't think was solicited by the State, it was something that the officer testified to, you can make whatever motions you wish, or you can request an instruction. I guess my feeling is is to stop and give them some type of a cautionary instruction on why not to consider this as a felony is like asking them not to think about pink elephants, it's the first thing that goes into the jury room. Sometimes I think whatever's left unsaid, if it's just glossed over, becomesbut it's up to you guys to do whatever. They were precluded from raising that issue, and they certainly did raise it. [Defense Counsel]: Right. And I think, you know, we would ask the Courtobviously I don't have access to anything right nowto do some kind of limiting instruction or The Court: Let me ask you a question, Ms. Nolan. What do you have for witnesses? [Defense Counsel]: We just have Mr. Bollman. The Court: And you anticipate him to be how long? [Defense Counsel]: Just for my direct exam? The Court: Uh-huh. [Defense Counsel]: Half an hour, if even. The Court: We will do it today and then we will rest for tonight and come back in the morning for cross-examination, and at that time if you have motions to file or whatever you think would be an adequate remedy I'll entertain it then. But I would suggest that the officer's testimony wouldwas not that this case washe said something that when we transport a felony, if memory serves me correct. Again, I don't know, it's up to you people what you wish. And then we will let the State respond. ¶ 14 After the exchange, the jury was brought back and the State rested its case. Bollman took the stand in his own defense. The defense rested its case after Bollman's testimony. Once the jury was excused for the evening, the District Court stated: The Court: With regards to the reference to the felony DUI, it would seem that this was not testimony that was elicited by the State, it was something that just was came out with Officer McConnell. And what I would be more interested in anything is if you feel an instruction to be given, which should be given such as although there might be speculation that there are prior or other offenses these are not to be considered, something along those lines. But we'll see you in the morning with whatever you have. [Defense Counsel]: Thank you, Your Honor. Shortly thereafter, court ended for the day. ¶ 15 The next day, after the jury instructions were settled, the District Court allowed either party to make any motions they wished to make. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, stating: I believe yesterday that Officer McConnell did mention the word felony, violating the State's own motion in limine that said that it wasn't supposed to mention the word felony. Even though it wasn't elicited by the State I think the prejudicial effect is still the same, and for those reasons we'd request we be granted a mistrial. ¶ 16 The State responded, arguing: The statement from Officer McConnell was not elicited on a direct question from Ms. Von Jentzen. I think as Your Honor could tell she was surprised by the answer. He did not get the full answer out, as soon as he said the word felony it was shut off and we went to side-bar. Ms. Von Jentzen then came over and moved to a totally different topic. We don't think that that mention is enough to cause a mistrial in this case, we think that if the Defense had wanted they could have given a limiting instruction, they decided not to, and that would have been the remedy, not a mistrial. ¶ 17 The District Court did not rule on Bollman's motion at that time. Once the case was submitted to the jury, the District Court denied Bollman's motion finding: [T]he Court's, I guess, feeling is that the comment was not solicited by the State, it was something that was done inadvertently, or without plan or design by the State. The mere mention of the word felony is not sufficiently prejudicial that I think that it would cause this Court to grant a mistrial. I think the Defense had an opportunity to do a curative instruction if they so desired. I agree with the Defense that that would just reinforce it, but I think that was the proper remedy if a remedy at all was proper, and the motion is denied. ¶ 18 Bollman was convicted and filed this timely appeal. Bollman raises two issues on appeal, restated as follows: ¶ 19 Issue One: Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it found Trooper Proctor was qualified to testify as an expert about the correlation between alcohol consumption and horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN)? ¶ 20 Issue Two: Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Bollman's motion for mistrial? ¶ 21 We address each in turn.